We like to view reduced emissions as a sign of progress in the fight against climate change. In the year 2015 Icelandic emissions per citizen amounted to 6.22 tons - in the year 2021 the emissions dropped to 4.23 tons. That’s a difference of two tons or one-third of the total, which is an enormous achievement no matter how one looks at it. Still, it’s a long way from reaching the goal established by the Paris Agreement - in order to prevent climate disasters it is estimated that each citizen should not go above 2.3 tons per year. That means we’re still over 40% short, but it looks promising, doesn’t it? With this in mind, Iceland could be considered an ideal country at the forefront of the fight against global warming, a society which thrives and prospers within the limits of Earth’s endurance. A shining beacon of hope which guides other countries to the right path. Or is it?

Although the measurements are accurate, the method itself is flawed. Very flawed. Emissions per citizen takes into account emissions in Iceland and, as such, is limited to certain activities within a certain space. This does not take consumption into account, nor its resulting emissions.

This number does not include our laptops, televisions, phones, car engines, most of our clothes, or even our food. Emissions are measured where the product is produced without necessarily taking into account packaging or transport, as the world’s production chains have become very complex and stretch across countries, from the raw materials’ country of origin, on to production and the final destination where the products are consumed. Icelanders’ carbon footprint is much bigger than simply the carbon dioxide we emit ourselves. Most of us are aware of this to some extent, but how much of a discrepancy is there?

Our neighboring country, Sweden, may provide some insight into the matter. Sweden has made a lot of effort regarding industrial emission, investment in green energy and more sustainable urban communities, not unlike Iceland. Anna Hult and Ståle Holgersen have written about this bias, and Hult has been researching this phenomenon for a decade and has better data regarding Sweden than currently exists on Icelandic emissions.

Sweden’s Real Carbon Footprint:

When production and consumption are taken into account, carbon emission measurements increase significantly.

This chart includes Sweden’s total greenhouse gas emissions and sheds light on the inconsistency in numbers, depending on the measurement. Estimated foreign emissions are much higher than domestic emissions, as the chart takes into account emissions when Swedes themselves are abroad as well as the carbon footprint of their consumption regardless of origin. In 2019, production-based emissions were 53.000 million tons according to production-based measurements, but about 89.000 million tons when consumption was considered as well. If we divide this figure by the number of inhabitants in Sweden, 10.267.000 people, this is approximately 5.1 tons considering production only, but a whopping 8.6 tons when consumption is taken into account.

This results in a distorted picture of the problem and frees Sweden from responsibility (the same goes for Iceland and other countries). It suggests that the current rate of consumption is good and fine, that consumption is not the problem, we just need to replace fossil fuel run cars with electric ones. Then we are good! It overlooks the fact that cars, along with all other consumption, are closer to the root of the problem. This dishonest representation, whether conscious or not, falls under a fallacy often called spatial myopia.

Many countries have reduced polluting industries within their borders but are still dependent on production in other countries. It is dishonest to point to other countries that pollute more than Iceland when we are the ones who benefit from the emissions in those countries, not the residents themselves. The pollution is simply shifted from the West to other and often less wealthy countries. China emits the most of any country in the world regarding total emissions, and of course, there is much need for change within that country. However, a large part of this production goes towards the consumption of Westerners and Icelanders and we are complicit - more than we want to admit. And that does not include raw materials, territories, ecosystems, and resources from these countries which benefit us, but not their inhabitants.

Hult and Holgersen would argue that this spatial myopia is an example of politicians´ and institutions’ selective view when marketing the way of life in Nordic countries as a sustainable and green possibility for themselves and other nations. While the Nordic region consumes more than what is considered standard on a global scale, it can hardly be considered sustainable. This vision of the future promises a life where we do not need to change our consumption habits in order to be seen as “green” by ourselves and others.

We must remember that we Icelanders consume more than is sustainable. Spatial myopia is therefore an important tool for understanding policies and whether they will make an actual difference in the fight against climate change. The current government’s energy transition is necessary, and definitely a step in the right direction. However, it’s only one thread in a larger and more complex tapestry, and Iceland can do even more by changing and reducing consumer habits. I can’t promise that these changes will be comfortable, easy, or achievable without hard work. But we can’t afford anything else, our carbon emission capacity and resources are limited. We must facilitate change and be aware of our position, our duty towards all mankind and the biosphere of which we are a part of and which is an integral part of us.

The Green Nordic Countries: Narrow-Mindedness in Environmental Ideals