Tal
Washington 15 maj 2007
Fredrik Reinfeldt, Statsminister

Tal av Fredrik Reinfeldt inför the Select Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence

Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee,

It is an honour to appear before you here today.

I am not here to write history.

But I hope to make a few important points.

There is a tendency to react on new information by saying "the end is near", again.

Perhaps others might find that a constructive contribution to the debate. But those kinds of doomsday prophecies don't appeal to me.

I am - however - convinced about a few things.

I am convinced that we should listen to people's worries about what is happening to our world.

I am convinced that we should listen to the analyses and conclusions written by leading scientists.

I am convinced that; when people worry about climate change - and leading scientists tell us: That this thing is for real.

Then we must not just listen.

We must take action.

Today we can say we know a few things for sure.

Our climate is going through a change. It is a global change that affects all of us. It means that, step by step, our world is getting warmer. It is happening fast. And it is a change for the worse.

Mankind - is one major reason for this development.

The exact consequences we don't fully know. But we can be sure it will affect the conditions for life on our planet for the worse.

In some parts of our world global warming will result in water shortages, drought and growing deserts. In other parts it will lead to increased rain, storms and flooding. This is what science tells us.

Science also tells us the good news. It tells us that we can do something to slow down and stop this development. We have most of the knowledge and technology we need. Also, the costs can be handled if we go about it the right way.

Those of you who have been around for a while remember the old style of policy-making on environmental issues:

· Regulation
· Intervention in peoples' lives
· Singling out economic growth as the main problem.

That's not how to do it any more.

There's been a big shift in thinking.

Today science is pointing to private ownership, free enterprise, market mechanisms, research and technology as important tools to tackle global warming. All governments in the IPCC agreed that we can have economic growth and tackle climate change at the same time.

There's just one thing we must accept, if we really want to make a difference and tackle global warming:

We must act together.

Global questions of this kind cannot be handled by single nations. Especially not a small country like my own. They demand global solutions and global action.

This need for global action becomes obvious if we take a look at the world around us.

Today - emerging economies - are trying to bring their people out of poverty and are taking great leaps towards development and prosperity.

More and more people in our world get to live the life of modern technology and consumption.

This is something we should embrace. But with development and prosperity come increased emissions. To obtain a sufficient energy supply, these countries see no other option today than to burn coal, oil and gas.

Just take China and India.

China became a net oil importer in 1993. Only thirteen years later, in 2006, China was the world's largest oil consumer after the United States. China was the third largest oil importer, after the US and Japan.

According to research by the Asia Pacific Energy Research Centre, (APERC), China's oil import dependency will rise from the current level of forty per cent to approximately seventy per cent by 2020.

But we have to remember one thing. China's growth is partially due to western demand for China to produce goods cheaply. Therefore the emissions actually occur in China instead of in our countries.

China is trying to tackle its energy and climate challenge. I think it is only fair to say that China is at a crucial phase where it wants to decouple economic growth from CO2 emissions.

We all need to recognise - that it is in our national interests for China to develop in a lower carbon fashion. We should be developing smart solutions and approaches to make that happen.

Such an approach is the key as China will soon surpass the US as the world's largest emitter. And India is following along the same path, although somewhat more slowly.

India already imports seventy per cent of its oil needs. Last year, it consumed a little over two million barrels a day. A government paper has forecast that by 2025, India's consumption will have more than tripled to seven point four million barrels a day.

This means that we are at a critical point in the energy and climate security debate. Is this only the beginning of a trend of increasing greenhouse gas emissions?

Or do we manage now, through smart approaches and determination, to turn the curve and begin truly decarbonising our economic growth?

We know that if current emissions trends continue - we will alter the global climate. It will be to an extent that will significantly change the living conditions of people all over the world. This will have serious implications for a vast number of people and ecosystems.

It is also possible that rising sea levels will reshape the continents within just a few centuries. I read with interest the five star generals and admirals representing all the military services on the security implications of climate change for the US.

Doing national intelligence estimates on climate change, as proposed by Senators Durbin and Hagel seems a wise move.

To avoid these unacceptable consequences, we have strong indications that global emissions need to be reduced by at least fifty per cent by 2050.

To take responsibility for the current situation, developed countries need to reduce their emissions by much more than fifty per cent. Only then are developing countries allowed to obtain access to the energy they need.

The future can sometimes be portrayed as difficult and grim, but it is also full of promise. I would argue that there is plenty of hope, if we only choose to take ambitious without delay.

The frequently cited Stern report has shown that the cost of taking action now is relatively small. I would even go as far as to say that we could make enormous progress even now, just by using existing low or no carbon technologies.

Properly built houses with double or triple glass windows and good insulation, for example, could constitute a significant part of the solution.

This provides a good example of something that can be achieved through existing technologies and that is above all very cost-efficient.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. But a recent study by McKinsey shows that a quarter of possible emission reductions would result from measures - such as better building insulation - that carry no net life cycle cost.

Reducing emissions would actually bring down your energy bill at the same time.

And that is exactly what is starting to happen right now. Countries are reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and becoming much more energy efficient while still maintaining strong economic growth.

Some would still insist that substantial emission reductions and phasing-out of oil cannot be achieved without threatening to economic and social development.

I argue that they are wrong.

And this is shown by science and experience.

In Sweden, emissions decreased by more than seven per cent between 1990 and 2005 - while our economy grew by thirty-six per cent.

This achievement was made without any quick fixes. It can be attributed to a number of policies and measures.

Sweden has a long tradition of an energy policy aimed at reducing emissions. This is done both through developing and promoting alternative technology.

But also perhaps more importantly - if we count actual reduced tons of emissions so far - we use market-based instruments such as green certificates and energy and carbon taxes to steer market actors' behaviour towards more sustainable patterns.

I am not a fan of taxes.

But I am convinced that they can make an important difference if you want to promote one type of behaviour over another.

I am also convinced that we should put a price on emissions. Emissions cost society as a whole. Taxes are one way to make the emitter reconsider his actions.

In Sweden, electricity and fuels have been subject to energy taxes for several decades. Sweden was one of the first countries in the world to introduce a carbon tax, in 1991.

The tax has had an effect particularly in the heating sector, where the use of fossil fuels has decreased dramatically - mainly due to incineration of biomass and increased efficiency in the use of energy.

The power sector is traditionally almost carbon-free: most of our electricity is produced by hydropower and nuclear energy.

Oil is used only for peak load purposes, while an increasing share of the electricity is produced by biofuel combined heat and power and wind power.

In Sweden, the use of oil has decreased by forty-seven per cent since 1970. Over the same time period, the supply of bioenergy has increased by sixty per cent.

As a consequence, Sweden's energy supply mix is now much more differentiated than it was thirty-five years ago, and our security of supply is much more robust.

The transport sector still remains a challenge. But in the past few years hopeful signs have begun to show even in this sector.

Sweden has taken important steps to tackle global warming, but we can do more. But as I said initially, our country can only make a small difference. That's why international action is necessary.

In Europe, the recent decisions by the leaders of the EU Member States will be driving developments in this field in the future.

In March this year, we clearly linked energy and climate policy through a milestone decision on ambitious targets in both the climate and energy field.

The EU objective consists of a twenty per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 compared to 1990, for the period beyond 2012. And it would be increased to thirty per cent if other developed countries also commit themselves to comparable reductions.

By 2020, the EU is to make energy consumption savings of twenty per cent compared to projections and the share of renewable energy in overall EU energy consumption is to be twenty per cent.

At the same time, at least ten per cent of transport petrol and diesel consumption is to be made up of biofuels

Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee,

It will be difficult to persuade large developing countries to reduce their emissions if we cannot show that this is doable in practice without compromising economic growth.

We must show leadership in order to make countries like China and India consider actions of their own. And when I say "we" I mean the US and the EU.

From our experience of a rather successful phase-out of fossil fuels, we conclude that we cannot accomplish this solely by relying on the technology push.

We need to combine it with the demand pull, which is best achieved through responsible legislation.

Setting an appropriate carbon price is essential for the transition to sustainable energy use, and is something that is applied both at the EU-level, through the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme, and nationally through our own carbon tax.

Undoubtedly, the leverage for the climate would be vastly higher if similar cost-efficient schemes could be introduced more widely at the international level.

Policies can hardly remain constant when circumstances change drastically. If we are afraid of change and deny the need for it, we might be forced into a new situation under less favourable circumstances.

But, if we look ahead and decide to act by our own choice, we will find tremendous potential for new activities based on bringing new efficient energy technology and renewable energy to the world market.

We highly appreciate the close cooperation we are experiencing in the energy technology field between Sweden and the US, as well as between your country and the EU.

But we feel that the time has come to take our international dialogue to the next level. We need not only to work together on the technology of fighting climate change, but also to agree on the overriding goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We should be able to find common ground on how to engage all nations in concerted action to shape a more sustainable future by addressing the global warming issue in a way that is compatible with economic growth.

Sweden hopes to contribute to this as we hold the presidency of the European Union in autumn 2009, when the post-2012 agreement will hopefully be finalised.

We are eager to get results. But we are flexible about how to get them.

We know there is no one-size-fits-all solution here.

And we certainly count on your country to contribute constructively to finding solutions that facilitate international negotiations. The EU and the US are the key players there - let's show leadership and let's do it together.

Mr Chairman, Members of the Committee,

Together we have the power to shape the civilization that we want.

As I said in the beginning, the end is not near.

But today we have the opportunity to make tomorrow's world a better place. It is in our generation's hands to take the decisions that could change the current trend in climate change.

Let's seize this opportunity. What are we waiting for?