Climate policy and the Sustainable Development Goals
The Paris Agreement stipulates that global warming needs to be kept well below 2°C, preferably to 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels [1]. Its fulfillment rests upon the ambitions expressed in so-called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), where countries detail their expected mitigation efforts. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2], the pledges made so far are insufficient to keep global warming from exceeding 1.5°C during the 21st century. National mitigation pathways in compliance with the Paris Agreement need to ensure that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will reach net zero by 2050. A great challenge to the global community, no doubt, and even more so when acknowledging the broader context of sustainable development. The climate transition needs to be just, inclusive and take socio-economic, cultural and environmental perspectives into account. Thus, finding coherence between the Paris Agreement and the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [3] is central to governments and policymakers at all levels of society [4].
Launched in 2015, the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development puts forward 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be reached by 2030, agreed upon by all UN member states. As expressed by the UN, the SDGs are integrated and indivisible [3] meaning that, together, they form a holistic whole. While conceptually not new – sustainable development has since its inception linked social and economic development to the limitations of nature – the holistic nature of the 2030 Agenda and the SDG framework stands out compared to previous UN treaties. The notion that the SDGs interconnect, relate and depend on each other was further emphasized by Nilsson et al [5], showing that successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda needs to consider interactions between the SDGs, thereby challenging current modus operandi characterized by silo structures and intra-disciplinarity. Embracing the holistic view, the SDG framework offers a furtherance of ‘sustainable development’ as a concept, expanded from three pillars of environmental, social and economic sustainability into 17 perspectives or dimensions. As such, the SDGs merit further use, not only as political goals but as a framework to which holistic qualities of e.g., climate mitigation and adaptation efforts might be tested.
Although the topics of climate change and sustainable development were initially addressed by separate circles in research and policy [6], linking these has gained increased attention. Not the least throughout the IPCC process, where climate mitigation and sustainable development is described as a two-way relationship that is cross-cutting, complex and not always mutually beneficial [7, 8]. Similarly, the 2030 Agenda calls for urgent action to combat climate change by putting forward SDG 13 (climate action) and emphasizing its intrinsically linked nature to the other 16 goals. Mitigation of GHGs could bring synergies to other sustainability perspectives but, if not carefully considered, also induce trade-offs. Hence, as nations across the world introduce climate policies and actors across sectors move into climate action, there is a growing need to build new knowledge and practices of how to identify and avoid unintended consequences to the broader scope of sustainability.
In 2017, the Swedish parliament agreed upon a climate policy framework in line with the Paris Agreement. The framework stipulates that by 2045 Sweden should have zero net emissions of GHGs [9]. Even though Sweden has low levels of territorial GHG emissions relative other countries, reaching the climate target will bring considerable challenges and needs for transformations in the national energy, industry and transport sectors. The climate policy framework was adopted subsequently to the 2030 Agenda but does not explicitly mention the SDGs. However, The Swedish Climate Policy Council, a part of the climate policy framework, has expressed a need to align climate policy with other societal goals and vice versa to enforce synergies and avoid trade-offs [10].
Numerous studies have been carried out to explore potential impacts of climate and energy policy on the SDGs deploying various methodologies. For instance, McCollum et al. [11] linked energy policy to the SDGs by mapping interactions between SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy) and the other SDGs according to a seven-point scale indicating the degree of synergy or trade-off. The work identified numerous interactions in which synergies clearly outweighed trade-offs. Von Stechow et al. [12] analyzed synergies and trade-offs based on a set of predefined energy related indicators derived from an energy-economy-climate model. The results showed that climate policies with relatively low flexibility of mitigation options tend to induce less synergies and more trade-offs on the SDGs, and that keeping energy demand low achieved best overall performance. On a national level, Thapa et al. [13] demonstrated how SDG 13 (climate action) strongly interlinks with SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 12 (sustainable consumption and production) and SDG 15 (life on land) in the case of Nepal, through a combined network and advanced sustainability analysis. Stevenson et al. [14] carried out a study with the similar aim of identifying and assessing interactions between policies relating to SDG 13 (climate action) and other SDGs in the UK. The study combined automated keyword searches with an expert survey. They found potential synergies that linked investigated climate policies with SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land) as well as a set of potential trade-offs. In its latest assessment reports, the IPCC carried out qualitative assessments between sectoral mitigation options and the SDGs in terms of synergies and trade-offs [7]. Based on literature reviews, a large set of synergies were found in all studied sectors, but also significant trade-offs deemed as important to address including for SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), and in some cases SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land). Furthermore, the assessments identified several cases where mitigation options showed both synergies and trade-offs for the same SDG, in particular those relevant to land use changes. In summary, it is clear from the peer-reviewed literature that, even though there are similarities among the studies, and some draw inspiration from Nilsson’s [5] score-based SDG interactions, there is no established methodology to conduct climate and energy policy related SDG impact assessments.
The aim of this study is to identify and qualitatively describe potential synergies and trade-offs to reach the Swedish climate target of zero net GHG emissions by 2045, expressed as positive or negative impacts on the SDGs. The study focuses on key components of the technological transformations needed in the transport sector, the iron and steel and concrete industries, and the electricity sector. Seven key components were analyzed: wind power, solar photovoltaics (solar PV), biomass, green hydrogen, climate neutral cement, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and electric vehicle batteries (EVBs), based on their production, use and end-of-life options.
The underlying rationale is to tackle the holistic quality and complexity inherent in the SDG framework to deliver usable knowledge as input to policy and strategic decision-making. This was done by eliciting expert opinions derived from thematic workshops through use of the SDG Impact Assessment Tool [15]. The tool was used to structure and guide open-ended discussions and qualitative reasonings in search of potential SDG impacts from a large-scale implementation of the selected key components. Initial expert assessments were justified by constructing causal relationships and further tested against peer-reviewed literature to gain empirical support, or else excluded.
Technological change in the Swedish climate transition
By 2045 at the latest, Sweden is to have zero net GHG emissions, to thereafter pursue negative emissions. According to the Swedish climate policy framework, zero net emissions of GHGs translates into at least 85% emission reductions compared to 1990 levels. The remaining emission reductions can be achieved through supplementary measures, including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), increased carbon sequestration in forest and land, and verified emission reductions carried out outside the Swedish borders [9].
To achieve the net-zero target by 2045, application of transformative technologies that curb GHG emissions are required across several sectors in Sweden. The two single largest contributing sectors to Swedish territorial GHG emissions are industry and transport. The industry sector emits around 35% of the Swedish territorial GHG emissions, which in 2022 corresponded to 15,3 Mt carbon dioxide-equivalents. The transport sector emits around 30%, corresponding to 13,6 Mt carbon dioxide-equivalents in 2022 [16]. Within both these sectors, direct and indirect (via green hydrogen) electrification represents central strategies for climate mitigation. This in turn requires transformations in the electricity sector, in order to meet the significantly increased demand for electricity from renewable sources. Besides electrification, increased use of biomass as replacement of fossil fuels as well as application of CCS are important mitigation strategies for the Swedish industry and transport sectors.
Swedish territorial GHG emissions from the transport sector are dominated by road transport, with passenger vehicles being responsible for around 60% of total emissions [16]. A substantial reduction of these emissions is required for Sweden to meet the climate target by 2045. Large-scale adoption of new technologies will be crucial, in particular battery electric vehicles (BEVs), as well as replacement of fossil fuels with biofuels in existing internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). BEVs have high energy-efficiency and zero tailpipe emissions, and lower life cycle GHG emissions than ICEVs when charged with low-carbon electricity [2], which is the case for the almost carbon free Swedish electricity system [17]. The BEVs market in Sweden has already shown a rapid growth – between 2020 and 2022, the BEVs market almost tripled, with 33% of all newly registered passenger vehicles being BEVs in 2022 [18].
Regarding the industry sector, production of steel and concrete together contribute about 45% of industrial GHG emissions in Sweden [16]. Both these industries require application of transformative technologies in order to achieve deep emission reductions by 2045 [19, 20]. The iron and steel industry is currently the largest emitting industrial sector in Sweden, contributing to a third of the total industrial GHG emissions, or around 10-12% of total territorial emissions [16]. Currently, two thirds of the total Swedish steel is produced through a blast furnace process, where carbon and coke are used for reduction of the iron ore. The last third is produced through a scrap-based process using electric arc furnaces. Reduction of iron ore in blast furnaces is the dominating source of GHG emissions from Swedish steel production. For the Swedish steel industry to achieve deep GHG emission reductions, the main mitigation strategy is to replace the blast furnace process with hydrogen direct reduction (H-DR), with a potential to reduce GHG emissions from ironmaking with 90% [19, 21]. Since 2016, the main Swedish steel producer SSAB, which is accountable for more than 90% of the GHG emissions from Swedish steel production [19], together with the mining company LKAB and the energy company Vattenfall, are supported by the government to run the Hydrogen Breakthrough Iron-Making Technology (HYBRIT) project [19, 21]. The project aims to produce fossil free steel through H-DR and largely eliminate GHG emissions from steel production by 2030 [22, 23].
The concrete industry is responsible for around 15% of total industrial GHG emissions in Sweden, equivalent to around 4% of total territorial GHG emissions [16]. The majority of GHG emissions from the concrete industry, around 65%, can be attributed to the production of cement, specifically the calcination process where limestone is converted to cement clinker at high temperatures. Current main mitigation options to reduce GHG emissions from the Swedish concrete industry include replacing fossil fuels with waste-based fuels or biofuels, using alternative binders, and using less cement through optimizing concrete recipes, as well as increased reuse of concrete [20]. However, in order to achieve emission reductions in line with the climate target, application of CCS is necessary, even when available abatement options are used to full potential [20, 24]. The Swedish cement industry has set the target of producing climate neutral cement by 2030 [20, 25].
Electrification of the transport sector and, particularly, electrification of the Swedish steel industry, will substantially increase demand for electricity. Today, the Swedish electricity system is almost carbon neutral with low GHG emissions compared to other countries [17]. In 2022, Sweden produced a total of 170 TWh, out of which 41% was generated from hydropower, 29% from nuclear power, 19% from wind power, 10% from thermal power, and 1% from solar PV [26]. The Swedish iron and steel industry estimates that the technological shift from blast furnaces to H-DR will increase electricity consumption annually from 7 to 22 TWh at current production volumes [21], which agrees with a scenario produced by Toktarova et al. [19]. However, assuming that Swedish steel production volumes would increase, both through increased production volumes in current plants and through new establishments following new demand for green steel, electricity consumption by 2045 could increase with 20 to 100 TWh, according to the Swedish Energy Agency [27]. Electrification of road-based transports, following large-scale introduction of BEVs, is expected to increase demand for electricity with an additional 30 TWh by 2045 [27]. Adding to this, there is an ongoing establishment of production facilities for EVBs in Sweden that is likely to further increase electricity demand. In the short to medium term, new electricity demand is expected to mainly be supplied by wind power and solar PV, due to their relatively low costs and quick expansion possibilities [28, 29]. During the last ten years, expansion of wind power has been rapid in Sweden, with installed capacity almost quadrupling from around 3 600 MW in 2012 to 14 300 MW in 2022 [30].