A climate activist has been convicted of disobeying law enforcement after a climate action, but avoids punishment for the crime. The district court justified the decision on the grounds that the activist acted to avert an “acute emergency”.
In August this year, the male climate activist participated in a car blockade in Stockholm, according to TV4. The 40-year-old was then convicted of disobeying law enforcement after he “disturbed public order” and disobeyed police orders to move.
However, a divided district court decided not to punish the activist. The reason is that they believe he acted “because an important interest protected by the legal system is in danger and he committed his act in order to avert this danger”.
“It is a matter of acute emergency, and therefore it is obviously inappropriate to impose a penalty”, writes the Stockholm District Court.
However, Judge Axel Petersson and even a third lay judge wanted to impose daily fines on the activist.
“We did not think that there were any conditions for remission”, Petersson told the tax-funded state broadcaster P4.
Judge Petersson could not give the exact reason why no fines were imposed, but he suggests that it might be related to the general commitment to environmental issues.
We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.
Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…
Despite promises of groundbreaking climate solutions, Swiss carbon dioxide giant Climeworks’ facility in Iceland has not only captured far less than promised – it has also emitted more carbon dioxide than it has absorbed.
Critics say the whole operation is deeply deceptive and one of many examples of scam projects created to profit from the alleged climate crisis.
Climeworks, a Swiss company that markets itself as a pioneer in direct carbon capture (DAC), has failed to achieve its targets in Iceland despite significant investment and media attention.
According to data from the verification company Puro.Earth and the company’s own annual reports, Climeworks has only captured around 2,400 tons of CO₂ in Iceland since 2021 – far below the promised capacity ceiling of 12,000 tons. In addition, the company’s own emissions from its operations have exceeded its capture: in 2023 alone, Climeworks emitted 1,700 tons of CO₂, significantly more than its total capture.
Climeworks’ first facility, Orca, was unveiled in 2021 with a capacity of 4,000 tons of CO₂ per year. In reality, it has never even reached half that target. The larger Mammoth facility, which could capture 36,000 tons annually, has only managed to collect 105 tons after ten months of operation.
According to CEO Jan Wurzbacher, Mammoth requires 5,000–6,000 kWh per ton of CO₂ captured – a process described as extremely inefficient. To offset Iceland’s total emissions (12.4 million tons in 2024), 72 terawatt hours of energy would be needed – four times the country’s annual electricity production.
Professor: “A scam”
Climeworks’ Icelandic subsidiary has negative equity of ISK 3.6 billion (€25 million) and is entirely dependent on funding from its parent company. The value of the Orca machine has also been written down by €1.25 million due to underperformance.
Despite this, the company has sold future carbon credits equivalent to one-third of Mammoth’s planned capacity for the next 25 years – even though over 21,000 private subscribers who have paid in advance risk having to wait decades for their certificates.
Mark Z. Jacobson, professor of environmental science at Stanford University, calls the entire DAC industry a big scam and fraud.
– Direct capture is a scam, carbon capture is a scam, blue hydrogen is a scam, and electrofuel is a scam. These are all scam technologies that do nothing for the climate or air pollution.
“Semi-magical technology”
Michael de Podesta, a British pensioner who paid ISK 135,000 (€940) for 2.2 tons of CO₂ capture, expresses similar concerns in his blog, and after looking into the company more closely, he believes he has probably been scammed.
“This has all the hallmarks of a scam. There are undoubtedly a lot of highly paid people traveling the world to sell their services to large corporations to remove carbon credits in the future. They are using a semi-magical technology that doesn’t work as well as expected (better known as Orca) but will work perfectly in a larger version (Mammoth)”.
“I am urged to convince my friends to join the project. The answers are scarce and full of PR chatter. Climeworks’ operations look like a scam and talk like one. But is it a scam? I don’t know. I think it could work, but the company’s answers are so opaque that it’s hard to say”, he continues.
He will not know for sure until 2027 whether Climeworks has actually captured the 2.2 tons of carbon dioxide he has paid for.
Millions from the US
It is also worth noting that the company has received or been promised around $800 million in public subsidies, including $625 million from the US Department of Energy and $5 million from Switzerland. Despite this, the cost per ton of CO₂ captured remains at $1,000 – ten times higher than the original target.
Due to the failures of DAC, Climeworks has now instead begun to focus on “enhanced weathering”, a highly controversial method in which crushed rock is bound with CO₂. However, researchers believe that this is a sign of desperation to fulfill credits that have already been sold.
In summary, critics point out that Climeworks’ operations have been characterized by exaggerated promises, technical shortcomings, and financial irresponsibility since its inception. Despite being ranked as one of the world’s leading green tech companies by Time Magazine, its contribution to climate action is described as marginal at best – and at worst as directly counterproductive and harmful.
Montage. Photo: Horkins/iStock, Elima Mwinyipembe/Government Offices of Sweden
According to Romina Pourmokhtari, Minister for Climate and Environment, municipalities will not be able to charge land and property owners "any amount".
A new report suggests that Swedish property owners may be required to finance municipalities’ “climate adaptation measures”, with costs potentially reaching tens of thousands of EUR.
The proposal, which has been submitted to Climate and Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari (L), gives municipalities the right to, for example, build flood defenses to protect “matters of public interest” – and then charge property owners who are considered to benefit from the measure.
The investigator Johan Hjalmarsson himself points out that the term “public interest” is deliberately broad and vaguely worded.
– It could be buildings such as municipal buildings and schools, but it doesn’t have to be. There will need to be a municipal connection, but it doesn’t have to be a municipal facility, he told state television.
However, for the fee to apply, there must be a “significant risk” of damage from a specific natural event, and this risk must be eliminated by the measure. A property owner’s total fee may not exceed 10 percent of the market value of the property.
“Cannot charge whatever fees they want”
Liberal Climate and Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari claims that the proposal is about dealing with the direct consequences of the alleged climate crisis:
– In the same way that we have great respect and a strong desire to defend property rights in Sweden, with property rights come not only freedoms but also obligations. This is an example of the real consequences of climate change. Not in the future, but today, and that must be taken into account, she asserts.
She further promises that municipalities “cannot charge whatever fees they want”.
– Whether the government will implement this or not is something we cannot say today, she continues, describing the proposals as “interesting”.
Not all coastlines can be protected
The report also proposes that the state take responsibility for protecting certain coastlines from flooding through physical barriers, and Hjalmarsson admits that this will require prioritizing and choosing what to protect and which communities to leave exposed to the elements.
– But this is not something that will change overnight; the costs can be spread out over many years.
He argues that the need is urgent and that he has “met many municipalities that see the need for a decision from the state now”.
Maximum temperatures in nursing homes
The report also highlights the need to introduce maximum temperatures in premises for particularly vulnerable groups, such as the elderly.
– Heat waves are already a major problem for the elderly in our society. So I think it’s very important that these issues are brought to light and that we discuss what we can do, says Pourmokhtari.
For municipalities, this could mean a requirement to install air conditioning in nursing homes.
– If requirements are the way forward, this is something the government will need to look at. But action will be needed, and too little is being done today, adds the minister.
The investigator’s report will now be prepared by the Government Offices and sent out for consultation in accordance with standard procedures.
The Swedish Green Party wants to see higher prices for petrol and diesel if it wins next year’s election and is counting on support from other red-green parties. The party is proposing a significantly higher reduction target and a new emissions trading system.
According to spokesperson Amanda Lind, Sweden risks missing several climate targets with its current policy and believes that a faster transition requires fossil fuels to become more expensive.
Amanda Lind emphasized in the tax-funded SVT program “30 minuter” that the party wants to raise the reduction obligation so that the price of gasoline and diesel initially rises by two to three kronor per liter, and then gradually more until 2030.
– It will be more expensive for us to manage the climate transition, Lind said.
Vad har vi här? MP:s Amanda Lind säger rakt ut att MP har med sig Socialdemokraterna på att höja reduktionsplikten rejält och göra det runt 5 kr dyrare att tanka bilen. Jag tror att svenska väljare vill veta detta, när Magdalena Andersson påstår sig värna svenskarnas plånböcker. pic.twitter.com/8nbE4nQUWi
— Susanna Silfverskiöld (@susannasilfver) May 8, 2025
Broad consensus
The Green Party wants to phase out the reduction obligation in the long term and instead introduce a national emissions trading system, where companies must purchase emission allowances from the state. Until this system is in place, the party wants the reduction obligation to be increased, which will directly affect the price at the pump.
Amanda Lind believes that the entire opposition supports this approach and that there is broad agreement that traditional fuels must cost more.
The Kristersson government has previously lowered the reduction obligation and thus fuel prices, which the Green Party believes has slowed down electrification and climate work. To mitigate the impact on households with long distances to travel, the party wants to introduce targeted support and at the same time invest in public transport and electric cars.
Overall, the Green Party’s proposal means that fuel prices will increase gradually over the coming years if the red-green coalition wins the 2026 election.
Unlike most other Swedish establishment politicians, Sweden Democrats leader Jimmie Åkesson is highly skeptical of the climate alarmist rhetoric that dominates – and wants the EU to slow down its climate initiatives.
Åkesson does not believe that the “climate threat” is in reality as serious as it is often portrayed by politicians and the media, nor does he buy the argument that we must hurry up and do everything we can before it is too late.
– I don’t share the view that there is such a hurry, he tells the tabloid Aftonbladet. Instead, he wants to put more resources into military rearmament.
– I am absolutely no expert, but everyone I talk to who has really familiarized themselves with what the IPCC’s various reports and scenarios say, there is no reason whatsoever to panic or climate anxiety, or anything like that at all.
Instead of quick and ill-considered measures that can have very negative consequences for society at large, the leader of the Sweden Democrats argues that we should invest in a long-term transition and electrification.
As expected, Åkesson’s departure from the established narrative on the climate issue has not gone down well with everyone.
Climate professor: “Very urgent”
Markku Rummukainen is a professor of climatology at Lund University and until 2023 represented Sweden on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – a body tasked with compiling and presenting research on alleged climate change, global warming and its consequences.
The climate professor raged against Åkesson’s move, firmly stating that his views contradict the IPCC reports – and unlike the SD leader, Rummukainen emphasized that it is “very urgent” to stop climate change.
– Yes, it is. There are, of course, different options for the way forward depending on what we do. There are opportunities to limit climate change between 1.5 and 2 degrees. If we don’t take the climate issue seriously, we will end up with higher numbers.
– According to the IPCC, all emissions matter. We are already seeing, and being affected by, the impacts of climate change. These include rising temperatures, rising sea levels and more extreme events such as more intense heatwaves and heavier rainfall. The effects are increasing rapidly with emissions, he continues.
“Following Putin’s lead”
Green Party spokesperson Daniel Helldén is also outraged by Jimmie Åkesson’s comments and says he has “got the whole climate issue backwards“.
Helldén also makes repeated attempts to link the SD leader with Russia and Vladimir Putin – because Russian gas and oil exports are said to benefit if the EU does not invest heavily in “green” energy.
– It would strengthen the states that we are now trying to arm ourselves against. The policy he is pursuing is really following Putin’s lead. He must be cheering what he is saying.
– Russia’s huge exports of gas and oil are higher than the aid Europe gives to Ukraine. If the EU were to put the brakes on climate action, Russia could continue exporting. It will be Putin who wins from it, he repeats.
