Fossil Free or Not - That is the Question

Abstract: This is an evaluation of Jämtland County’s ability to achieve its climate targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with 10% annually, and to become fossil fuel free 2030. There is a risk that the target to become fossil fuel-free, relying primarily on outtake of forest biomass, contradicts with the target in the UN Paris Agreement to keep the global temperature increase below 1.5°C. Neither the GHG emissions reduction target, nor the target to become fossil fuel free, takes forest carbon content into account. To reach the target to become fossil fuel free, forest harvest volumes may need to be increased. This can result in lower short-term net climate benefits than if fossil fuels are substituted to a less extent, and harvest volumes are kept at lower levels. Lower harvest volumes contribute to higher net climate benefits, and in the short term this effect is greater the lower the harvest level. In any case, forest production should be optimized towards products that give high substitution effects from the replacement of other materials. To be able to reach the short-term reductions of GHG emissions, efforts should be made to decrease regional energy demand and general consumption. The transition to new technologies is slow, and is unlikely to contribute to short-term reductions. By the end of 2023, according to the county strategy, the GHG emissions should be max 73% of the emissions by the end of 2019. This is a historically huge reduction. The potential to increase uptake of carbon dioxide in forests should be considered as a complement to the other climate targets.  Assessments of social/welfare risks have to be weighed against the risks of increased temperatures, which is challenging, but needs to be done. The complexity of differences in short-term and long-term carbon balance effects makes risk assessments of climate mitigation strategies difficult. Compromises will be required between risks with different time horizons. To rely on techno-optimistic visions increase the risks that the emission reduction target will not be reached. From some perspectives, it is positive to spread techno-optimistic future visions, but there is a risk that we will keep on increasing consumption if we believe that problems with increased atmospheric concentrations of GHG can be solved by continuous consumption of ‘sustainable’ products. A simple 2% rule of thumb is that 2 kg of CO2eq is emitted for each 100 SEK consumed.