ANALYSIS: Companies and the government need each other to solve the climate issue

For decades, it has been seen as a controversial technology, a technical fantasy so that the industry can buy itself free from its emissions. But suddenly it has turned. It is no longer a matter of either reducing emissions or storing carbon dioxide. Now both and. The technology proves to work and carbon dioxide storage is thus a necessary partial solution to the climate crisis.

Separating carbon dioxide from the 27 industrial plants with the largest emissions could at one time halve Sweden's carbon dioxide emissions, according to calculations from Chalmers University, made by Professor Filip Johnsson. Both the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Minister Isabella Lövin (MP) note that the Swedish climate goals will not be achieved without capturing and storing carbon dioxide.

By 2045, 85 percent of all emissions should be zero. Critics fear that it may be a pretext for the industry to avoid having to restructure their manufacturing processes and continue with oil and coal. It does not solve the basic problem, that fossil fuels must stay on the slopes and not burn up.

But now things are starting to get in a hurry and the emission curves continue to rise. It is not enough to replace oil and coal with renewable energy, the atmosphere must also be vacuum cleaned on emissions.

Today, there are three Swedish companies with such plans, Cementa on Gotland, the oil refinery Preem in Lysekil and Stockholm Excergi. They have large point emissions that are difficult to remove. They have signed a cooperation agreement with the Norwegian Northern Light, which is in the starting pits to hold the world's largest carbon dioxide store deep beneath the seabed in the North Sea.

Norway intends to become the best in the world with the technology of carbon storage, also called CCS, carbon capture storage. Ironically, Norway is at the forefront just because they are an oil nation. They have great knowledge of how to scrub off the carbon dioxide, convert it into liquid and pump it down three kilometers below the seabed. After getting rich in pumping up oil, their next big business idea is to become Europe's carbon dioxide hotel.

In recent weeks, two notable investigations have opened for CCS. The National Economic Council's annual report analyzes whether the Swedish climate policy is effective. They concluded that CCS would be a more cost-effective investment for Sweden, compared to distributing discounts to electric cars, electric bicycles and building charging posts.

The technology of carbon dioxide storage is expensive, a figure which is mentioned is SEK 23 billion, to remove the carbon dioxide from the 27 largest industrial plants, this is significantly more than it currently costs to release carbon dioxide in Europe's emission allowance trading system.

The National Institute of Economic Research proposes that companies receive SEK 1000 per ton of carbon dioxide captured. The cost for each Swede would be SEK 2,300. Also the state climate study on so-called supplementary measures, which was presented in the week leading up to the conclusion that CCS technology is an important part of creating negative emissions. This means that CCS technology would need to be installed on many of the chimneys that contain carbon dioxide from biofuels.

What was considered a clean energy source just a few years ago must now also probably reduce if we are to meet the emission reductions. It is literally about pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, otherwise the UN Climate Panel warns that warming will exceed two degrees.

But will this technology optimism contribute to the sustainable society? Environmental organizations such as the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation are skeptical. They can think of more research but warn that this will be the solution for Swedish climate policy. They want to see natural climate measures instead. They see a chance to raise their heart issue, fight for biodiversity and combine it with climate benefit.

Natural climate measures would be to restore and renovate extinct wetlands, allow the Swedish forest to grow longer than today's 80 years before it can be harvested and make agriculture invest in plow-free cultivation methods. All this would naturally store carbon in nature. At the same time, it would favor plant and animal life stressed by a warmer and wetter climate.

Now it is ready for tense negotiations between the business community and the industries that want to invest in technology. In the end, it is about who will pay. Cementa's owner The Hedielberg Group has a requirements list. They want the Swedish state to pay part of the investment to capture the carbon dioxide at the factory in Slite, they want a thicker electricity cable to Gotland because the CCS technology requires a lot of electricity, and they want new state procurement rules that recommend "green" cement, which is twice as expensive in price.

But the question is why do Swedish taxpayers have to pay for Cement to stop destroying the climate? One of the cornerstones of Swedish environmental legislation is the PPP, "Polluter Pay Principle", which means that the polluter must pay. But the Swedish government desperately needs to reduce the Swedish emission figures in order to make Swedish climate policy more credible.

The Heidelberg Group knows that "green" cement is a survival issue for the Group, but believes it is reasonable for the public to take part of the cost. In climate policy, companies and the government really need each other.