As you may or may not know, Sweden recently underwent a change of government, leaving a right-wing coalition in power. This is sort of a big deal since the left-wing Social Democrats, our biggest political party, have been in power for roughly 65 out of the last 74 years. Adding insult to injury, this is the first time ever that the Social Democrats have lost an election during an economic boom. It’s quite clear that Sweden has taken a turn to the right. Still, I have yet to meet a single soul in this oblong country who would vote for Bush (should they get the chance to). This is partly a reflection on the president himself of course, but it also shows that our major political blocks are situated to the left of the American ones. Our right-wing Alliance has much more in common with the American Democrats than they do with the Republicans. This political difference is often noticeable in how we deal with our environmental issues.

Although our personal every-day efforts usually don't extend past recycling or buying ecological foods and veggies, we Swedes often pride ourselves for being among the leading countries when it comes to environmentalism. We quickly catch on to the environmental issues, and often with a burning conviction. This conviction undeniably comes with both pros and cons. The greenhouse effect for example, has basically been treated as an unquestionable fact in Sweden for quite some time. I remember learning about global warming in middle school, more than ten years ago. We were taught that the Gulf Stream would change direction (and literally leave us in the cold) should the release of greenhouse gases not be seriously curbed, a theory that up until today actually hasn't been proven. With the Kyoto Treaty left unsigned, America or more specifically George W. Bush became the powerful and ignorant villain in our pursuit of a sustainable environmental policy. At this point it felt like it wasn't about the facts anymore; it got personal. 'Oh, so you believe climate changes are a result of mainly natural causes? Well, why don't you just vote Republican, burn down an abortion clinic and do some gay-bashing while you're at it.'

Over on your side of the pond it almost seemed like the situation was the opposite, that the greenhouse effect was mostly for apocalypse nuts. Now, with the success of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," global warming is getting the recognition that it deserves in the States. As a result, the issue which had almost lain dormant in Sweden, now once again raises public interest. And with a decade of new data behind it, it's no longer as untouchable to scientific critique as it formerly was. This also comes with both pros and cons. On one hand, global warming is too important to not have every single fact double-, triple- and quadruple-checked, and the public should never have it reduced to a mere magazine scare sensation. On the other hand, scaring people straight is just so darn time efficient!

---------------------
Nanna Brickman is a Swedish student who loves happy endings and hopes to become filthy rich while saving the world at the same time.