Opinion: Time for Accurate Climate Calculations

Opinion: Broad political consensus, ambitious climate targets, and engaged households are not enough on their own. In this opinion piece, Theo Carlström and Mattias Goldmann warn that today’s climate calculations risk leading us astray—and point out what is required for the transition to be built on the right numbers.

Original article: https://miljo-utveckling.se/debatt-dags-for-korrekta-klimatberakningar/

All eight parties in the Swedish parliament now stand behind Sweden’s climate targets. There is broad agreement that Sweden must meet the EU’s climate requirements and thereby free up large sums of money that would otherwise be spent on purchasing emission allowances or paying hefty fines. The majority of the country’s municipalities and regions have even more ambitious climate targets than Sweden as a nation. Hundreds of Swedish companies have adopted Science Based Targets, which require climate-impacting emissions to be halved every decade. A clear majority of Swedish households make active climate choices in their daily lives and want to see an accelerated transition.

To succeed, we need climate insight. How large are the emissions from our own operations, and what impact do the choices we face have—as a country, municipality, region, company, household, or individual? At first glance, this may seem straightforward, but our review of climate calculators and emissions calculations shows that they leave much to be desired. This applies both to standalone initiatives and to tools linked to credit cards, flight purchases, or similar services. We therefore urge users of climate calculations to demand five things:

1. Actual purchases—not averages.When visiting a fuel station, a person may rent an electric car, charge their vehicle, refuel with biogas or HVO100—or continue to choose fossil-fuelled cars and fuels. The climate impact differs significantly: compared to fossil diesel, climate impact is reduced by around 80 percent when refuelling with HVO, while charging or biogas offers even greater benefits.

Most climate calculation tools fail to capture this. Instead, they rely on coarse averages, where a receipt from a fuel station is assumed to represent fossil petrol or diesel—regardless of what was actually purchased. As a result, active consumer choices have no impact at all on the climate accounts, sending the signal that there is no value in switching from unsustainable fossil fuels to sustainable fossil-free alternatives.

What is needed instead are tools that accurately capture what has actually been purchased, using AI-enhanced analysis of every real transaction. This is possible, such solutions exist on the market, and anyone seeking calculation support should demand it.

2. Up-to-date—not outdated.Most tools for calculating climate impact rely on emission factors that are updated once a year. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s official figures for 2024 were published in November 2025; sustainability reports released in spring 2026 therefore use emission values from 2024. This may have some value as historical documentation, but it is less effective for assessing current climate impact or identifying efficient measures to reduce emissions.

Anyone who wants to reduce their climate impact accurately and cost-effectively needs data that shows climate impact in real time, so that emission-reduction measures are designed based on today’s reality—not that of the year before last.

3. Strategic planning support—not just reporting tools.Most calculation tools indicate the climate impact of a specific activity, and nothing more. If the figures are actually correct—which is far from guaranteed—they may serve as support for annual sustainability reporting. However, they contribute little to actual emission reductions.

What is needed are systems that can compare, for example, different investment alternatives, raw material suppliers, or transport solutions. With transparency around the underlying values, we gain the data needed to accelerate the transition.

4. Understandable and nationally adapted.Most calculation tools are in English, and many are based on default values for markets entirely different from Sweden’s. Without national values for factors such as electricity mix or the share of renewable content in fossil fuels, the results will be inaccurate. If tools are available only in a foreign language, we also cannot rely on the entire Swedish organization being able to fully understand and apply them.

Tools used in Sweden should be developed for Swedish conditions and clearly explain—in plain Swedish—the resulting climate impact and how it can be reduced.

5. Voice opinions and influence policy. It is often said that climate calculators were originally developed by the oil industry to shift focus from the need for policy changes to individual responsibility, and many calculators are offered by actors who are not necessarily leaders in the transition. This does not have to be the case. A good calculation tool provides better data to accelerate the transition, and all searches generate information about the challenges we face. Yet so far, few have translated this information into concrete policy proposals for faster change.

Those who provide calculation tools should also communicate the insights derived from aggregated searches. Only then can these tools truly help ensure that national climate targets, EU climate requirements, and our shared Paris Agreement commitments are met.

Theo Carlström CEO, CO2Check

Mattias Goldmann CEO, The Swedish 2030 Secretariat