Fossil-Free Vehicle Fleet by 2030 – Yet Another Political Fantasy

DEBATE • When politicians set goals that are so far removed from reality that they’re impossible to achieve, sooner or later someone will be forced to back down. Ironically, it recently fell to Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari, who admitted that Sweden’s transport sector would not become fossil-free by 2030. We didn’t even come close.

Once again, we in the Sweden Democrats were proven right because we understood from the start that this was just political theater – a “utopia” that was never going to be fulfilled. I should know, as I worked as an expert (for the Sweden Democrats) in the relevant committee between 2014 and 2018. Before that, I had 15 years of experience as a development engineer and biofuel researcher.

Many of these somewhat fluffy goals ultimately prove rather harmless. They first mutate into a “vision,” only to then be quietly buried. However, the ambition for a fossil-free vehicle fleet has resulted in many billions in losses for Sweden Inc., and has also left a deep mark on domestic politics. One problem was that too many believed it could be achieved, cheered on by a rather sizable group of experts, professors, activists, and, at best, half-witted publishers. Often strikingly similar to each other. It was the emperor’s new clothes.

A Climate Goal Without a Basis in Reality

The very idea actually originated as early as 2009 – during Reinfeldt’s first government. A government bill stated that “by 2030, Sweden should have a vehicle fleet independent of fossil fuels.” After a couple of thick but poor investigations, the Swedish parliament decided in June 2017 to introduce “binding” climate targets, which included reducing greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport by at least 70% by 2030 compared to 2010.

Let me summarize. We reduced emissions by about one-fifth over fifteen years, largely thanks to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Now, three years remain and Pourmokhtari, for understandable reasons, does not want to appear too disconnected from reality during the election campaign. The red-green parties, of course, have protested; there’s a bit more room for maneuver in opposition. But anyone reading their shadow budgets for 2026 will find no credible plan for how the target was supposed to be reached. Not even close.

I do not rule out that we could reduce emissions considerably over 15–20 years if we wanted to, primarily through electrification. But experience now shows that forcing this kind of technological shift can become extremely expensive. And, all in all, it’s somewhat overrated from an environmental perspective.

The Billion-Dollar Bill for a Political Utopia

It became too expensive. The hysterically ramped-up reduction obligation and the large-scale import of animal-based diesel gave us Europe’s highest diesel prices and additional costs of many billions per year—at least when the reduction requirement was at its peak. The journey towards electric vehicles could have begun without subsidies, but Swedish politicians unnecessarily threw billions at it. For those who want to double-check, Sweden budgeted SEK 7.4 billion for this in just a single year, 2022. Only the Sweden Democrats opposed it.

Then we have Northvolt’s bankruptcy, a waste of billions where Swedish taxpayers and pension funds were among those left holding the bag. The project is closely associated with the governing parties’ fantasy of a fossil-free society by 2030. Add to that some other projects that the Swedish Energy Agency has watered in vain with tax billions. Money we could have spent on improved railways, more Gripen jets, higher pensions, or shorter healthcare queues. Or lower taxes.

When Analysis Is Replaced by Activism

The problem is that we suffer from a systemic error. The experts do not act as experts, but as lapdogs to politicians. They do exactly as they’re told, out of fear of losing grants and new assignments. Then, our elected representatives, remarkably, cannot distinguish between sober analysis and activism.

Currently, geopolitics gives us volatile oil prices, which can be used as an argument for alternative fuels. I worked on this for a very long time and my conclusion is that large-scale production of biofuels will never be cheaper than fossil fuels. Rising energy prices also drive up prices for biofuels. HVO100 (pure biodiesel) currently costs several kronor more per liter compared to “regular” diesel. I won’t give a specific figure because it varies day to day, but it’s always more expensive, even though biodiesel is tax-exempt.

And no. Sweden filling up with HVO does not affect the world market price for oil, and thus does not impact Russia’s crisis economy, so that misconception is also debunked.

Electric power may well have greater potential going forward, especially if we can straighten out our electricity production again. But imagine if we had another million electric vehicles connected to the grid now during the recent electricity crisis. We are still a long way off with this.

So. Rest in peace, fossil-free vehicle fleet by 2030.

And more burials will come. I promise.

Tomas Brandberg (SD)
Doctor of Technology and Political Expert