There are several indications that this project could be taken very seriously, for example, “Linking Carbon Neutral 2025” by the end of 2019, Linking Municipality 2019. An assessment was carried out. Report “Add any net carbon dioxide into the atmosphere if carbon neutral is not linking”.
Following this, I read Tekneska Vergan’s Climate Accounts 2020 (published 21/4 on Tegniska Vergan’s website). There, the climate impact of the Swedish technology system is said to be equivalent to minus 696,600 tons of carbon dioxide per year.
This financial statement is not easy to explain to an ordinary person, but here I will try to give some examples of how to calculate.
When it comes to district heating, you have the following logic. District warming is mainly caused by renewable waste (such as wood) that does not lead to climate change (which is highly questionable in light of this spring’s heated debate on biofuels).
District heating converts the alternative heat of the city properties, thus causing carbon dioxide emissions without district heating. As alternative heating methods, common heat pumps, direct and other methods are used in Sweden.
These are aimed at using electricity from the Northern European power system (i.e. not Swedish fossil fuels), which can calculate the avoidable emissions of 200,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
In the same way, Tekniska Vergen is treated from electricity generation, hydropower and wind power. It aims to convert electricity from the Northern European power system, except for the emission of about 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.
In district heat production, waste, including waste imported from the United Kingdom, is often used as fuel. If these wastes are deposited in the UK instead, it will lead to methane gas emissions.
These imaginary methane emissions will then avoid emissions that would be avoided by the waste combustion of technical tasks. Now only a part of the garbage came from Great Britain, but if the technical works do not burn the rest of the garbage, someone else will do it, then he can not burn the garbage from Great Britain.
Therefore, Techniska Vergen considers all waste combustion to reduce methane emissions associated with landfill in the UK (not entirely simple logic, but how do I understand that statement). In this way, 420,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions are avoided.
So it continues. Do we save the climate with acrobatic arithmetic exercises like this? The technical tasks at Linkoping are excellent at running their business climate-smart in many respects, but why exaggerate their efforts with creative accounting?
It would be more honest and climate-wise to report in general how large the total emissions of technical work are from combustion, which generally emit all levels of carbon dioxide emissions, regardless of whether it burns garbage, plastic or chips. Instead of posting imaginary avoided emissions, one should think about how to heat our city without burning it.