2026/02/28 by Jens Ergon · 1 voice
Environmental Science · Social Sciences · #Climate Change Communication and Perception #Climate Change and Geoengineering #Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
paper · pdf · doi:10.1080/15487733.2026.2630456
openalex publication_date 2026/02/28 · openalex created_date 2026/03/02 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
Illustrating current trends, climate pioneer Sweden has experienced a significant backlash and Polanyi (Citation2001 [1944]) of climate policies. The climate crisis interacts with multiple social, economic, and political crises, raising fundamental questions about how to pursue sustainability transformations. This article refines Polanyian concepts to understand the Swedish backlash. Polanyi’s double movement is divided into socio-economic and environmental dimensions, and historical data are used to analyze the evolution of Sweden’s welfare, financial, and environmental regimes. The analysis shows that the backlash can be understood through countermovements and the dynamics of the double movement. Neoliberalized financial and welfare regimes and limited inclusion of civil society are identified as likely factors behind the backlash, impeding attempts to pursue climate transformations and contributing to the rise of climate-denying, right-wing populist countermovements. Interestingly, the backlash has also resulted in potential alternatives by linking civil society’s interests in just transformations with industrial interests in decarbonization. Elaborated as a green Swedish model, demands include a more interventionist state, investment in climate transformations, and renewed welfare arrangements, supported by financial reform. Currently, geopolitical tensions have added rearmament to the burdens of the Swedish state, prompting a shift in the financial regime. This could imply change in different directions, from authoritarian, which combines rearmament with welfare austerity and climate policy rollback, to progressive, involving investments in infrastructure, public welfare, and climate transformations. While Sweden is a specific case, concepts and conclusions are of wider interest, including the importance of decommodifying welfare regimes, financial reform, and broad alliances for just climate transformations.