It is amusing that right-wing parties are known for attacking political opponents with claims that they are ‘too emotional and ‘not driven by facts.’ Far too often, this claim attacks individuals who have an understandably strong emotional reaction to facts in an attempt at avoiding facts.

There is much to leave desired from Sweden’s new blue-brown coalition. Most disappointingly, is the amount of support for the Sweden Democrats, and the cooperation with the Sweden Democrats from otherwise respectable parties. Despite the lack of ministerial positions, the Sweden Democrats’ power and influence should not be underestimated. The Tidöavtal, an agreement between the ruling parties, clearly demonstrates a right-wing shift in policies ranging from immigration, schooling, the environment and other critical areas of government. Political decisions based upon a common framework of reality may be debated but is nothing which cannot be settled in a civil manner. More worryingly is the rejection of basic facts.

Sweden should not be surprised. The rejection of truth has been witnessed all around the world, often resulting in politics of identity, nationalism and blind faith. High educational attainment and Sweden’s history of liberal social democracy have failed to prevent polarisation and the rise of new, harmful politics.

Elsa Widding’s, a Sweden Democrat member of parliament, recent speech on the climate crisis highlights this issue. Her speech is problematic in more ways than one. She argued that Sweden needn’t take climate action seriously due to its low overall impact on carbon emissions (which is due to its low population - Sweden has very high per capita CO2e emissions), that climate action was virtue signalling, that climate change shouldn’t be considered a crisis and that a warming atmosphere is actually positive. This was underpinned by her statement that the “climate crisis lacks scientific support.”

This statement is fundamentally different to political suggestions to accelerate climate change through fossil-fuelled economic growth in pursuit of poverty alleviation or to favour adaptation rather than mitigation. It also differs from philosophical statements which suggest that Sweden might not have a moral duty to take mitigative climate action or to help developing countries take a more sustainable developmental path. Instead, this statement is a dangerous rejection of the truth on which a good democracy cannot function. The Sweden Democrats have also failed to reject Widding’s false claims.

The science is clear. Climate change exists and is being accelerated by human activities. The UN describes climate change as “global in scope and unprecedented in scale.” Sustainable Development Goal 13 states that urgent climate action is needed and is already negatively affecting droughts, extreme rainfall, large-scale disasters, food security, biodiversity on land and in our oceans, rising sea levels, poverty and displacement, hotter weather and other socio-environmental risks. To deny this is to create and enable a system where politics creates reality rather than a system where politics is guided by reality.

A lack of care towards the biosphere upon which all socio-economic systems inherently rely is already shaping policy. The new government wants to scrap the expansion of high-speed rail despite existing capacity limitations, overemphasises electrification of cars rather than addressing the root cause of unsustainable transportation and urbanism, reduce petrol taxes and environmental standards, shut down Sweden’s Environmental Agency and keep Stockholm’s secondary airport. These are just a few of the examples which demonstrate this government’s lack of environmental concern and understanding. The rhetoric accepted by the new Swedish coalition is not only factually incorrect but is especially harmful given the time-sensitive nature of biosphere degradation and the difficulty to rectify damage beyond nearing planetary boundaries.

In some ways, the rejection of the truth shows that the Sweden Democrats understand the severity of climate change. After all, if one reckons with the impact of global climate change and the almost impossible task of adaptation, it is obvious that significant action must be taken immediately. To deny climate change and its effects may be a more politically favourable tool than to recognise climate change but pretend that our current trajectory can be modified through small actions without impacting our ways of living. In this regard, it appeals to many individuals in society who may not have grasped the extent and effects of climate change who are thus unwilling to consider progressive politics. Likewise, progressive political parties have failed to appeal to these voters and to offer meaningful climate mitigation within practical policies for those not already onboard with green politics.

People across the globe are already being impacted by climate change and actors including individuals, communities, cities, countries and international organisations must recognise the threat and mitigate a rapidly worsening climate. The next four years of Swedish politics will set back the environmental movement. The next four years must harness the anger caused by a government unwilling to grapple with facts. The next four years must be scrutinised and used to highlight the collective and individual losses that we all suffer when we fail to envision a better society. It is now up to the Swedish electorate to campaign for leaders that will promote a more sustainable, equitable, just and free society