Subscribe
Europe needs energy. Not only to maintain its current level of prosperity and development, but to meet the challenges of the near future. While this has been obvious to just about everybody, the method by which energy shall be produced remains a contentious topic in most EU countries.
The impending decline of the wind farm industry in Sweden fortunately coincides with a strengthened commitment to reinvesting in nuclear energy. This is a political battle that has been hard won, and which cannot be taken for granted in other European countries. The most egregious example is probably that of Spain, where overreliance on renewable and non-plannable energy sources led to a nationwide power failure in April, which also affected Portugal. The Iberian blackout serves as a warning to those countries that choose to pursue green ideals as opposed to building a tried and truly dependable energy base.
While the nuclear revival in Sweden is most welcome, the political battle has devolved into increasingly granular points of contention. The conversation has advanced from abolishing the ban on uranium extraction that was implemented in 2018, to adjusting the right of local interests to stop exploitation. The latest development is that the Swedish government is going to abolish the municipal right to veto the establishment of uranium mines in their jurisdiction – despite promises to not do so.
The right to freedom from mining
This right to veto legally concerns the building of nuclear reactors and other infrastructure that is related to nuclear technology, and uranium mines are included in this definition. However, a governmental dossier recently argued in favour of removing mines from this formulation.
A round-about way to abolish the right to veto uranium mines, some argue. But from the government’s side, this redefinition is meant to remove unnecessary obstacles to mining in general, since according to the current rules, any mine that extracts uranium for commercial or enrichment purposes is therefore subject to veto – unless the uranium is discarded as waste. This has been a problem when it comes to development in regions of Sweden where uranium is more common than elsewhere, since it lowers both the profitability of the mining enterprises, and is a lost opportunity to increase the self-reliance of Swedish nuclear power. As such, the government admits no reneging on the uranium mine-free promise.
But Sweden is a potential gold mine for uranium. The bedrock of the country holds some of the most significant deposits in Europe, and it is comparatively underdeveloped, viewed in the light of many other countries in Europe with historical uranium extraction. Some of them are situated in somewhat densely populated areas, while some are located in remote parts of Norrland, northern Sweden. A cursory look at the distribution of uranium deposits in Sweden may give an indication that it could be easy to mine the resources in the north, due to the sparse population. However, this is perhaps where the most intense local interest conflicts occur.
The Sami, a historically distinct non-Germanic group of cultures living in northern Scandinavia, are frequently concerned with environmental issues in northern Sweden, and have legally impeached many infrastructure projects in the north that run counter to their interests. The legal privileges granted to these groups in Norrland allow them to appeal the establishment of mines in the region, and legal battles instigated by Sami groups remain a constant headache for both private and public development in northern Sweden.
We need to understand both the risks and the opportunities
The issue of uranium mining is a divisive one, for legitimate reasons. Mining in general, but uranium mining in particular, is associated with severe contamination of waterways and groundwater, problems which are magnified in the riverine landscape of Norrland. Metals and minerals that belong locked into the shales and bedrock hundreds of metres below the surface of the ground do not always interact well with organic life, or for that matter, air. The fear of ecological catastrophes are not unfounded, and should be taken seriously.
Sweden is relatively spared from large-scale environmental destruction resulting from mining, despite the country’s history as a leading producer of copper and iron.
The incident that comes closest to mind is probably the subsidence, the geological deformation of the ground, beneath the iron-mining city of Kiruna in the far north. This prompted a massive project to relocate the entire town and its 17 000 inhabitants, which started in 2014 and is projected to continue over the long term, depending on the settling of the ground beneath the town.
While very different from a water pollution incident, the Kiruna situation may still serve as an example of the dangers of over-exploitative mining. But although unprecedented, the Kiruna relocation is in itself a project undertaken with an impressive sense of risk-aversion, and professional planning. The success of that operation so far still leaves Swedes unfamiliar with the type of mining disasters that occur in other countries with a large mining sector, such as Russia, China, and Chile.
This may have caused Swedish politicians to internalise an underestimation of the risks associated with mining, which is amplified by the relative remoteness of much of the planned uranium mining. Indeed, much of the recent anti-mining rhetoric has focused on the anti-democratic aspects of politicians without lived experience near the mining regions overruling the locals’ decisions.
If Swedish politicians are committed to starting a new age of opportunities and development in their country, they need to make sure that this does not collide with genuine interests to preserve and nurture the environment. The Industrial Revolution came at a great cost for the continent, and the state of European rivers, lakes, and forests continued to decline throughout most of the 20th century – the dynamic period that so many politicians are today evoking in their energy ambitions.
While the easing of the environmental regulations that were put in place by the left-wing government between 2014 and 2022 have inspired prospects of a new mining boom in some capital politicians, the issue of mines of course remains controversial in the targeted areas of the country. In one municipality in Västergötland, central-south Sweden, the local wing of the government party the Moderates, which rules the municipality, has objected to the re-opening of any mines on its territory, in particular its now-defunct uranium mine. This shows the disparity between local and national interests, and how it divides even the Prime Minister’s own party on the issue of mining.
Tricky question of national interest
The NIMBY, “not in my backyard”, approach to mining, including uranium mining, is a headache for the government that is harder to defeat than the usual primary antagonist. What stands between Sweden and a true nuclear renaissance is not a poorly thought-out, ideologically motivated and counter-productive green policy instituted by their political opponents; it is a genuine tear between what people in the country might be willing to put up with, and the perceived goals of the state.
A newly energised mining sector will not only provide the foundations for a future-proofed energy production (which in and of itself comes with an infinite amount of advantages), it will also contribute to revitalising the economy of Sweden, and battle-ready the country for the market of both rare earth metals and conventional metals alike.
The conflict between these two important aspects of society, both preservation of nature and economic development, has but one fallback; if the mining sector is allowed to flourish again, it may bring about technological innovation and new solutions to handle or to prevent water pollution.