Our dependence on fossil fuels should unite us—so how did energy become a battleground in domestic politics?

The war in the Gulf shows that Europe and Sweden need to break free from their dependence on imported fossil fuels—for the sake of competitiveness, security, and total defense capability.

Sweden is in a stronger position than most other countries, with an essentially fossil-free electricity system and a district heating system that relies primarily on biofuels and waste rather than imported natural gas. However, many critical societal functions remain dependent on fossil fuels. When oil prices skyrocket or supply is disrupted, industry and transportation are immediately affected. Food supply is also vulnerable, as the production of nitrogen fertilizer relies heavily on natural gas.

The energy transition is thus a matter of both climate and security. Rapid electrification is key. Our neighboring countries, Norway and Denmark, demonstrate that electric vehicles can dominate new car sales with the right policy measures. For aviation and shipping, where direct electrification is more challenging, e-fuels will need to play an important role. With greater government involvement, this development can also be accelerated.

The fact that the defense industry is now getting involved is telling. German company Rheinmetall, one of Europe’s largest defense conglomerates, is driving the development of e-fuels together with industry partners. In Sweden, the conditions for such initiatives are nearly optimal.

In Sweden, we can also expand electricity production without the need for large subsidies or fuel imports. Onshore wind power is among the cheapest and fastest-to-deploy solutions. It is strange—and harmful—that the Swedish energy debate so often revolves around criticism of wind power and alleged green bubbles, while the risks of continued fossil fuel lock-in are pushed into the background.

Investments in the energy transition should be seen for what they are: investments critical to society. The choices we make should be guided by total cost, deployment pace, system benefits, and resilience against hostile attacks.

When actors with interests in the fossil fuel value chain push narratives that slow down the energy transition, their arguments should be scrutinized based on their underlying motives. Sweden needs a new energy policy narrative, one in which reduced dependence on imported fossil fuels is linked to security, industrial competitiveness, prosperity, and climate benefits.

The energy issue should unite—not divide.

Olle Schubert

Founding Partner, New Republic