Ambiguous messages appear to have paved the way for rapid climate policy change

The political landscape changed rapidly after the 2022 parliamentary election, when several policy measures in the climate and sustainability area were abolished. The electric car subsidy was removed, the reduction obligation was lowered, and the Ministry of the Environment was merged with the Ministry of Enterprise and Industry.

Based on the rapid development, a question was raised within a research group: How could several policy changes take place in such a short time, when such processes usually proceed much slower?

– We were amazed by the rapid changes. Despite protests from the still large opposition, there was not as much resistance or debate as one might have expected, given that the changes were drastic and raised questions about whether Sweden would achieve its climate goals, says Anke Fischer, Professor of Environmental communication at SLU.

In a new study, researchers show how politicians presented and legitimized the rapid policy changes. By analyzing the arguments and word choices that politicians used in debates and news media between October 2022 and February 2023, the researchers were able to identify a recurring pattern: Political speakers used contradictory messages that appealed to several different ideological groups – simultaneously.

– For example, politicians could emphasize that climate and energy policy is important and that Sweden should continue to lead the way in climate change. But in the next sentence, the same speaker argued that climate policy must be changed so that individual residents are not negatively affected.

The researchers conclude that the swinging of arguments in different directions meant that several social groups, with different ideologies, could identify with the same statement. This made it more difficult to formulate criticism of the policy changes, the researchers point out in the study.

– Speaking to multiple groups at the same time in this way leads to confusion. As an audience, you can start to question your own understanding of the situation and doubt your beliefs. There was also not much to build a counter-argument on – in connection with the abolition of policies, improved climate policy was promised, but the promises were often general and lacked detail.

The researchers believe that this ambiguity may be one reason why there was no broad debate either in parliament or in society – and that no collective resistance was directed against the rapid policy changes.

“There was a critical period after the election with room to criticize or challenge the policy changes. But the arguments used to legitimize the changes were, according to our analysis, so ambiguous that they left potential opponents speechless,” notes Anke Fischer.

Dismantling climate policies is nothing new, but in other countries it has been directly linked to climate denial or clear intentions to abolish climate policy measures altogether.

– The double messages that characterized the debate after the 2022 election, which speak to different groups at the same time, seem to be a new phenomenon for legitimizing political decisions. We think it is important as citizens to understand how political debates work, in order to be able to evaluate different arguments and claims. It is a prerequisite for being able to actively participate in a democratic society.

Contacts

Anke Fischer, Professor of Environmental communication
Department of Urban and Rural Development; Division of Environmental Communication, SLU
+4618673556, anke.fischer@slu.se

Nora Förell, Doctoral Student in Environmental communication
+46720832937, nora.forell@slu.se

The scientific paper

Nora Förell and Anke Fischer, 2025. Climate Backlash and Policy Dismantling: How Discursive Mechanisms Legitimised Radical Shifts in Swedish Climate Policy. Environmental Policy and Governance, 2025; 0:1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2160