Keynote speech at the Energiforsk conference 21.1.2025 in Stockholm.
God kväll, vänner, damer och herrar! Det är alltid ett nöje att besöka Stockholm,
Good evening, dear audience! It’s wonderful to be here tonight.
I’d like to extend my gratitude to Energiforsk for inviting me and for assigning me this particular time slot. It’s a relief that you’ve already had your first course. Far too often, I’ve found myself speaking between hungry people and their meals— not the nicest position!
The asked title of my speech is, “Why Would a Green Politician Endorse Nuclear Power?” But before diving into that, let me remind you of an often-overlooked fact: politicians are people too.
I am also an engineer, a former climate change researcher, a nature enthusiast, a captain in the Finnish Armed Forces reserves, and the father of a young daughter. And besides from the perspective of a green politician, also from each of these perspectives, I firmly believe that more nuclear energy is needed.
In brief, I support nuclear energy for three key reasons: it’s an essential tool in combating climate change, it helps protect biodiversity, and it enhances our security.
Let’s start with the climate. The outlook appears grim. Last year was yet another record-breaking hot year globally, and 2024 marked the first time the planet crossed the 1.5°C warming threshold compared to pre-industrial levels. While the 1.5°C limit set by the Paris Agreement isn’t officially deemed unreachable yet, the reality is sobering.
Climate is a statistical phenomenon, and the IPCC defines the 1.5°C threshold as the average temperature rise over a 20-year period. This means we’ll only confirm that we’ve crossed it a decade after it actually happens.
In practical terms, however, the 1.5°C limit is effectively dead. Based on current emissions and the state of the climate, it’s likely we’re already living through the decisive 20-year window. The IPCC’s 2018 special report—published seven years ago—warned that limiting warming to 1.5°C without overshoot was only possible with immediate and drastic global emissions reductions. Sadly, those reductions haven’t materialized.
Exceeding 1.5°C is devastating, but every fraction of a degree matters even more beyond that limit.
Not yet, at least. But they still must happen. Exceeding 1.5°C is devastating, but every fraction of a degree matters even more beyond that limit. We must do everything in our power to limit climate change to a level that remains as tolerable as possible.
Energy is at the heart of this challenge. Thirty years ago, fossil fuels—coal, oil, and gas—supplied 80% of the world’s energy needs. Today, despite tremendous growth in demand—nearly 70% more energy is consumed now—the share of fossil fuels remains virtually unchanged.
To address this, we must continue improving energy efficiency to curb the growth in demand. But even then, we still face the daunting task of replacing the massive scale of existing fossil energy use. The demand for clean, decarbonized energy is enormous.
The cornerstone of decarbonizing our energy systems is the principle of “electrify everything.” Electricity can be produced without carbon emissions through solar, wind, and nuclear power. This makes electric vehicles, electrified manufacturing, and electric heating essential components of a sustainable future.
For areas that are difficult to electrify, such as long-haul aviation and marine transport, hydrogen-based fuels are needed. Producing these fuels, however, requires clean electricity. Similarly, the high temperatures needed for certain industrial processes can be achieved with clean hydrogen, though nuclear energy offers an alternative by directly supplying decarbonized heat. This idea is also driving plans for nuclear district heating in several Finnish cities. Interestingly, you in Sweden pioneered this approach in the 1960s and 1970s with the Ågesta nuclear reactor. In Finland, we are now exploring small modular reactors (SMRs) as a way forward in decarbonizing our district heating systems without massive amounts of biomass.
Transitioning to an energy economy free from fossil fuels and emissions is the primary challenge—but it’s not the entire story. In scenarios where global warming is limited to under 2°C, reducing emissions to zero is insufficient. We also need to capture and sequester carbon from the atmosphere on an industrial scale. By the latter half of this century, we must remove as much carbon annually as we emitted in the 1950s. The exact methods for achieving this remain uncertain, but options like direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and utilization (BECCU) are promising. One thing is clear: this will also affect our need for clean energy.
Even that might not suffice. The climate is already very disrupted, and we face the risk of crossing dangerous tipping points. Time is not on our side. Geoengineering, while no substitute for emissions cuts, might become necessary to buy us time. More research and international regulations on geoengineering are urgently needed. Should such interventions be implemented they, too, will require energy.
In summary, we must decarbonize our current energy systems while preparing for the energy needs of the future and the additional efforts required to keep the climate tolerable.
In summary, we must decarbonize our current energy systems while preparing for the energy needs of the future and the additional efforts required to keep the climate tolerable.
If you’re optimistic, you might think this can be achieved with renewables alone. That would be fantastic if it turns out to be true. However, all IPCC model scenarios that limit warming to anywhere near 1.5 °C include new nuclear energy. Addressing climate change demands a robust, multi-faceted strategy and it shouldn’t be built on slim margins, best hopes and too optimistic technical assumptions.
Some argue that we can’t afford to wait for nuclear energy because it takes too long to build. While it’s true that nuclear projects require time, they aren’t as slow as many think when compared to the energy they ultimately produce. Moreover, there are ways to speed up the construction process. Even if we concede to the argument about timelines, it doesn’t change the overarching reality: yes, we’re in a hurry, but we’re also dealing with a challenge that will take decades to fully address, even under the best-case scenarios.
I think of it this way: if your goal is to reach space, you need to build a rocket. You could build an airplane quicker and take off faster, but it won’t get you to space. We must cut emissions rapidly while charting a path that leads to a fully decarbonized global economy.
Of course, climate change isn’t the only crisis we face. The natural world — so central to us as Greens — is in a dire state. The planet’s biodiversity is declining at an alarming rate, with many species and ecosystems on the brink of extinction. Climate change is one of the driving factors, alongside unsustainable land and resource use.
Thanks to its extraordinary energy density, nuclear power is highly efficient in terms of land and resource use. This efficiency allows us to minimize our ecological footprint while addressing our energy needs—a critical factor in preserving biodiversity and combating climate change simultaneously.
Thus far, both in practice and in future modeling, we have relied too heavily on biomass as a substitute for fossil energy. However, biomass can only replace a small fraction of fossil energy and material use sustainably, without jeopardizing ecosystems and carbon sinks. A growing awareness of this trade-off has been one reason for the increasing support for nuclear power within my party.
Security is another key reason to invest in nuclear energy. The expansion of new nuclear power in the early 2000s wasn’t halted by the rise of renewables but by the rise of cheap natural gas. In Europe, much of that gas came tethered to a leash held by Mr. Putin. To ensure energy production and sourcing that is independent of authoritarian regimes, we need solutions that bolster Europe’s resilience and self-sufficiency in critical infrastructure. Achieving this without a significant role for nuclear power is hard to imagine.
Climate, biodiversity, and security are all compelling reasons to build and sustain nuclear energy. There is yet another: global solidarity. The immense demand for clean energy is amplified by two critical factors—poverty and population growth.
For those of us in Sweden and Finland, additional energy isn’t necessary to improve our quality of life. But the situation is very different in many parts of the world. Over 600 million people still lack access to electricity, and 2 billion people rely on unsafe cooking methods. Absolute poverty is largely a symptom of energy poverty.
Meanwhile, global population growth continues. While the global trend of declining fertility will eventually slow this growth, we are likely to peak at around 10 billion people by the 2080s.
A carbon-negative, prosperous world of 10 billion people, where half the planet is devoted to wild nature—this is the vision we should strive for.
A carbon-negative, prosperous world of 10 billion people, where half the planet is devoted to wild nature—this is the vision we should strive for. It’s the guiding principle that informs my decision-making, from the local level to national, European, and global policymaking.
Achieving this vision requires a vast amount of clean, sustainable energy. A tremendous amount.
Nuclear power is not a silver bullet in this challenge. But it is one of the critical tools we have, alongside sustainable renewables. Framing nuclear and renewables as opponents is a false dichotomy—we need both, each with its strengths and challenges.
In fact, we should stop generalizing about ”renewables.” Not all renewables are sustainable, and not all sustainable energy sources are renewable. Terms like decarbonized energy, non-combustion-based production, or sustainable energy better reflect the solutions we need.
The Greens in Finland have become known for revising their stance on nuclear energy, shifting from skepticism to neutrality, and even support. Our current party program recognizes nuclear energy as a component of a sustainable energy portfolio. It also advocates for streamlined regulations to facilitate the development and deployment of small modular reactors.
The reasoning behind this shift in perspective is largely what I’ve described. We have also explicitly committed to science-based policymaking, positioning ourselves as the leading ”science party.” Such a claim requires not only adherence to evidence but also the willingness to critically evaluate and, when necessary, update our views.
It’s equally important to prioritize ends over means. The ultimate goal is clear: to enable and build a sustainable, prosperous future. Identifying the best means to achieve that goal demands an open mind.
Pragmatism, too, is a virtue. One common argument against nuclear power concerns waste. Some label it unsolvable. Yet Finland is about to open the world’s first geological repository for final nuclear waste disposal soon. Incidentally, the technology was originally Swedish—thank you for that! Compared to other industrial waste streams, such as CO₂, I’d argue that the way nuclear waste is handled in Finland is exemplary.
It’s worth noting that the decision to begin constructing Finland’s waste repository, Onkalo, was made at the turn of the millennium. At that time, the Greens—then staunchly anti-nuclear—were part of the government and voted in favor.
The logic was sound: nuclear waste already existed and was still being generated, so it made sense to manage the issue responsibly. The challenges we face today demand the same kind of pragmatism.
So, dear audience, when asked why a Green politician would endorse nuclear power, my response is:
For the very same reasons I am a green politician. As a decision-maker, I’m deeply concerned about the state of our planet, biosphere, democracy, peace, and equality. With all the facts on the table, I view nuclear energy as a necessary tool in building a sustainable future.
With the enormous challenges we face, being picky on technology is simply too risky. To build a sustainable future, we need all the tools available in the toolbox.
Finally, I’d like to emphasize the importance of a gathering like this. Looking at the world today it is critical that we co-operate across borders, and that we build and maintain knowhow, expertise and industrial capacity in a critical technology such as nuclear power here in the Nordics and in Europe.
Thank you very much, and I wish you a productive and inspiring conference!
