Nordic Energy Transitions: A Case for U.S. Policy Innovation

Apr 2025

Abstract

This case study examines the successes of the Nordic countries in policy making, national plans, and renewable technology that have transformed the clean energy transitions. It further investigates how the United States can draw on the successes of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark in its energy transformation. Norway has a large focus on hydropower, is a leader in carbon neutrality, and has championed electric vehicles. Denmark responded to the 1970s oil crisis by creating effective legislation like feed-in tariffs, green subsidies, and decentralization. Sweden plans to utilize carbon capture to reach negative emissions and is a leader in nuclear energy. Finland has implemented a carbon tax, has competitive neutrality goals, and uses multi-ministry approaches. This case study expands on each of these areas and demonstrates their viability in the United States. The United States was a leader in environmental policy in the 1970s, legislating productive bipartisan policy. In the 1980s, with the rise of neoliberalism, think tanks, partisan media, and polarization in the country, the environmental movement took a major hit, and the United States have had trouble passing aggressive climate legislation since. This case study explores the current state of America and analyzes whether Nordic policies would be effectively implemented in the country. The paper further looks into political and economic barriers to the Nordic approaches and how they should be handled. The case study ultimately finds that the Nordic countries' innovation and policies in the global energy transition can influence the direction the United States takes in further policy making.

Introduction

Clean energy is a key part of building a healthier, more sustainable future — one that is increasingly within reach for many countries around the world. As concerns over climate change, fossil fuel dependency, and environmental degradation continue to grow, bringing with them rising global temperatures, extreme weather events, and economic instability, clean and renewable energy sources have become essential components in building sustainable and resilient societies. When it comes to the global transition toward sustainable energy, the Nordic countries stand out as pioneers. Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Finland have each embraced innovative strategies to reduce carbon emissions, invest in renewable technologies, and promote energy efficiency. Despite differences in geography, population, and natural resources, these countries not only serve as models for effective energy transitions, but also demonstrate that economic growth and environmental responsibility can go hand in hand. While their approaches vary — ranging from hydropower to cutting-edge technologies and governmental incentives — these nations share a common commitment to environmental stewardship and long-term energy resilience. 

By exploring the policies, technologies, and natural resources that drive the Nordic clean energy movement, it becomes clear how their success can serve as a blueprint for others. Despite its larger size and more complex political landscape, the United States has the capacity to adopt and adapt many of these strategies. By learning from the Nordic model and tailoring it to fit its own infrastructure, economy, and policy environment, the United States can not only make meaningful progress, but also has the potential to become a global leader in clean energy. 

Norway As a Leader in Clean Energy

Introduction

         Norway, a leader in clean energy among the Nordic countries, has set a global example by successfully transitioning to sustainable energy sources. Through ambitious policies and innovative strategies, Norway has significantly reduced its carbon footprint while becoming a model for other nations. Despite its resources and potential, the United States faces substantial challenges in implementing clean energy, including political instability and a vast geographical landscape. This paper argues that the United States can overcome these challenges by adopting strategies that have made Norway successful – specifically, carbon neutrality goals, renewable energy infrastructure development, and the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. By leveraging these strategies, the United States can transition to a cleaner, more resilient energy future.

Neutrality Goals

Norway has set a challenging but attainable goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, and has already implemented stringent policies that have significantly reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The country’s leadership in this area is rooted in a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach that integrates carbon pricing, renewable energy incentives, and a legal commitment to reduce emissions. These policies are part of Norway’s broader strategy to shift its economy away from fossil fuels, ultimately reducing its carbon footprint. In contrast, while the United States has shown an ability to adopt similar climate goals, it has yet to take the necessary steps to fully implement them. This lack of consistency in climate policy has created a significant gap between the two nations in terms of concrete results.

The carbon neutrality goal in Norway was formalized by the Norwegian Climate Change Act in 2017, legally binding the country to a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2023 and committing to a low-emission economy by 2050. This law introduced carbon taxation and positioned Norway as a leader in addressing emissions from deforestation (Voigt, 2021). This legal framework is a critical factor in Norway’s leadership in clean energy, as it not only establishes clear goals but also ensures that the government is accountable for meeting them. This approach has led to concrete results, such as the widespread adoption of renewable energy and electric vehicles, positioning the country as a global example in sustainable practices.

In contrast, while the United States originally signed the Paris Agreement in 2015, promising to limit global warming to well below two degrees Celsius (Larch & Wanner, 2024), it withdrew from the accord under the Trump administration in 2017, rejoined under President Biden in 2021, and withdrew once again in 2025. This pattern of inconsistent international cooperation has made it difficult for the United States to maintain steady progress on climate goals. Despite efforts at the state and local levels, such as Virginia’s Clean Economy Act, national-level consistency has been hindered by frequent shifts in political leadership, further complicating the transition to clean energy. In contrast, Norway’s unwavering commitment to its climate targets, reinforced by national legislation, demonstrates the impact of consistent policy in driving sustainable change. Norway’s success offers a model that the United States could emulate to make real progress toward a low-carbon future.

Relying on Renewable Energy: Hydropower

Norway produces almost all of its electricity from renewable sources, contributing to its carbon reduction goals by harnessing its natural resources to create sustainable energy infrastructure. Although achieving this in the United States would present challenges, it is an attainable objective. Due to the high costs of producing energy with other technologies, almost all renewable energy in Norway comes from hydropower, bioenergy, and wind power (Saha & Idso, 2016). According to the international agency, about 90% of this energy comes from hydropower. As of 2020, about 21% of the United States energy is renewable, with 2.6% of it being hydropower (Desilver, 2020). These statistics are crucial for Norway as a leader in clean energy as no other country has been able to produce nearly as much energy through the use of hydropower (or any renewable energy source in general) as they have.

One reason for this leadership is the fact that Norway has a geographical advantage, making it more cost-effective to build hydropower plants compared to countries like the United States. Due to its favorable topography with abundant rivers, steep mountains, and ample rainfall, Norway has better access to areas that would benefit from hydropower. While Norway’s hydropower capacity is largely tied to its unique geographic landscape, the U.S must deal with 3 energy grids, each presenting diverse sets of geographical constraints (Moch & Lee, 2022). One way that the United States can go about grappling with these various topographies and moving toward renewable energy is by using the best type of renewable energy for that specific grid. For example, the Eastern Interconnection may benefit best from hydropower due to its significant river systems, the Western Interconnection may benefit best from solar power due to its consistent dry spells, and the Texas Interconnection may benefit best from wind power due to its arid and windy weather. That is not to say that these regions should be limited to only this type of renewable energy, but that it is easier to access it, potentially making it more affordable and useful.

In developing countries, the development of renewable energy alone could negatively impact economic growth in the short term, as they would require a great amount of financial and technological assistance to achieve low-carbon development (Saleh & Hassan, 2023). Hydropower in itself requires investment in dams, turbines, and energy transmission systems, portraying the difficulty it might pertain for developing countries to afford a large source of clean energy. According to Johnathon McGinnis during an interview conducted at the 2025 UNC Clean Tech Summit, Norway has adopted a “stick” approach, which includes using disincentives to encourage the adoption of clean energy technologies. Implementing this type of approach in the United States may help them overcome the economic challenge of renewable energy, as they can impose taxes on carbon emissions to make fossil fuels more expensive, therefore, encouraging them to shift to cleaner alternatives. In addition to disincentives, the United States can also place policies like tax incentives for renewable energy, federal funding for research, and state-level mandates that can drive technological advancements, reduce costs, and enable a broader shift toward sustainable energy.

Electric Vehicles as a Strategy to Clean Energy

Electric vehicles have become a primary source of transportation in Norway and should be considered for widespread adoption in the United States. In the European Economic Area (EEA), the transportation system is one of the largest contributors to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, with approximately 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union nations arising from the transport system, within which private cars contribute the most (Okesanya et.al, 2024). Due to this, they have introduced battery electric vehicles (BEVs), which rely on rechargeable batteries, reducing tailpipe emissions, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, Norway has significantly decreased its carbon footprint from transportation, and can be seen as a model for other nations to do the same.

In 2024, electric vehicles accounted for nearly 89% of new car sales, meaning that about 9 in 10 cars were powered by battery only (Adomaitis, 2025). Norway’s success in the use of these electric vehicles in limiting greenhouse gas emissions is largely due to their convenient access to charging systems. Because of the country’s compact size, it is easier to deploy a nationwide charging network, and fast charging stations are established on every major road within 50km of each other. (Okensanya et. al, 2024). This makes it much more suitable for citizens to stop during their travels, allowing more to own an electric vehicle of their own. In contrast, only about 0.86% of vehicles are electric in the United States (Howarth, 2023). Since the United States is much more compact and encompasses a larger area than that of Norway, it is much more inconvenient for citizens to travel using an electric vehicle. To overcome this barrier, the United States can look into focusing its charging networks in highly populated areas such as New York City, developing charging stations along major highways, and using government subsidies to help encourage charging stations in less populated, rural areas.

Although electric vehicles have the benefit of lowering greenhouse gas emissions, they also present several challenges that make it difficult for countries like the United States to fully transition to them as a primary mode of transportation. These vehicles can be extremely expensive in the United States, with the average price of gas cars being much cheaper compared to the average price of electric vehicles. Norway has been able to overcome these obstacles through the use of many strategies, such as having a reduction in tax for plug-in hybrids (Okesanya et. al, 2024), free parking, road toll discounts, and access to bus lanes (Finnerty, 2025). Despite this large con, the United States should still consider adopting electric vehicles, as it will open up many new job opportunities in areas such as the design and development of electric vehicle models, the production of batteries that power them, and the installation and maintenance of charging infrastructure, which could ultimately benefit the economy (Colato & Ice, 2021). The United States, which also faces this issue of expenses, may be able to overcome it by using the same strategies as Norway to make electric vehicles cheaper for individual citizens.

Conclusion

         In conclusion, Norway’s commitment to clean energy offers valuable insights for other nations, including the United States, which faces significant obstacles in maintaining consistent and national climate policies. By prioritizing carbon neutrality, harnessing renewable energy sources like hydropower, and promoting widespread electric vehicle adoption, Norway has proven that ambitious environmental goals can be achieved through strong, consistent policies. While the United States faces unique obstacles, such as its expansive geography and economic/political challenges, it can draw inspiration from Norway’s successes. By adopting similar strategies, the United States can make significant strides toward a more sustainable, low-carbon future. Norway’s approach demonstrates that a well-coordinated and committed clean energy strategy can lead to meaningful global transformation.

Denmark As a Leader in Clean Energy

Introduction

In 1973, Denmark relied heavily on foreign oil for electricity and heating. The 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the Arab oil embargo caused oil prices to increase significantly during the mid-70s. The conflict hit Denmark hard, and it was clear to the country that it needed to increase the domestic energy supply. They created the first of many Danish Energy Plans. (McBryan, 2009). The Danish energy plans started as a way to increase domestic energy but transformed into an intention to lead the green transition. These plans sprouted aggressive policies fighting climate change like the feed-in tariffs, green taxes, and a decentralized energy sector (Wang et al, 2021). The United States, on the other hand, is the second-largest annual polluter of carbon dioxide in the world. The United States has shown that it has lessons to learn from Denmark, whose carbon production per capita is almost three times less than that of the United States (Figure 1). Policies used in Denmark, like the feed-in tariffs, green taxes, and decentralization of energy, can influence the direction of the United States to transition to clean energy.

Feed-in-tariffs

Feed-in tariffs were a policy originally implemented by Germany in 1990. The German model had a fixed-price guarantee per kWh for any renewable energy producers, ensuring a stable income. They had long-term contracts and priority grid access ensuring a good, reliable source of money for any renewable energy producer, and decreasing fossil fuel priority. In Germany, this created jobs and led to a massive increase in energy production (Wang et al, 2021). Denmark followed by beginning their feed-in-tariff program in 1993. Their system was largely based on Germany’s system, however, it focused primarily on wind energy instead of Germany’s well-rounded approach. Denmark later changed to having their tariffs produce a bonus payment on top of the market price, more heavily incentivizing the transition to wind energy (McBryan, 2009). Denmark in the 2000s shifted to a resource obligation system replacing the feed-in tariffs, however, they realized the feed-in tariffs were more effective so they shifted back in 2009 (Wang et al, 2021). In Denmark, the feed-in tariffs were significantly successful in increasing renewable energy wind production.

The United States on a national level has never considered a feed-in tariff policy. However, on a state level, many have used feed-in tariff policies based on European models. The California Assembly Bill of 2006 was one of the first attempts at this. It was fixed-price with models based on time-of-delivery rates and capped at 1.5MW per system. California’s feed-in-tariff program was supported by the increase of renewables used, however the effectiveness was questionable (Rickerson, 2008). Other states like Michigan proposed feed-in-tariff legislation. Michigan’s model was very similar to Denmark and Germany’s original legislation. Producers would be eligible for a fixed-rate 20-year plan with many renewables, but an emphasis on solar. The bill ended up dying after it was opposed because of concerns about energy prices. A similar process occurred in states like Illinois and Minnesota (Rickerson, 2008). 

The effectiveness of feed-in tariffs in the U.S. has yet to be put to a real test because of a lack of implementation. Feed-in tariffs on a national level would be an aggressive piece of legislation that would largely motivate a transition towards renewables and away from fossil fuels. A policy piece of this level would be necessary to meet goals put forth by the Paris Accord as the United States is such a large contributor of carbon. There has also been a precedent of countries with feed-in-tariff policies drastically increasing their share of renewables (Figure 2). However, the concern about rising energy prices is a real concern that should be considered. Feed-in-tariffs in Germany and Denmark along with other aggressive policies have caused energy prices to rise (Wang et al, 2021). However, because a larger portion of the U.S. population lives in poverty, the impact of energy inflation is even more severe. Nevertheless, the economic implications of the climate crisis, if not effectively fought, appear much greater than the smaller economic impact on the price of energy. 

Green Taxes and Subsidies

Denmark has a long history of taxing energy. In 1917 they implemented their first taxation on gasoline. As their energy plans progressed, they taxed carbon dioxide, sulfur, natural gas, and gasoline. The money was used for subsidies for corporations using clean energy and labor tax cuts. Denmark employed simple and direct subsidy policies to help produce renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, and encourage research and development (McBryan, 2009). Green taxes have effectively decreased energy consumption; the higher taxes on energy are a good reflection of why Denmark uses less energy per capita (Figure 1). The increased taxes on energy had inflationary effects on energy prices but disincentivized wasting energy. Additionally, the subsidies will encourage the private sector to produce renewable energies. 

Green taxes would be difficult to implement in the United States because of the strong stigmatization of taxation. The U.S. attempted to get the cap and trade policy passed, but conservatives rebranded the policy to “cap and tax” and the bill died. Inflation on energy in the United States would also be highly unpopular and likely drive implementers of these policies out of office due to it impeding America's short-term needs. However, subsidies similar to Denmark's model can be considered. Right now, in the United States, fossil fuels are heavily subsidized to make energy cheap. However, if those subsidies were moved to renewables, the transition to renewable energy would be a lot faster. The U.S. has provided intermittent subsidies for renewable energy over the years, making it difficult for businesses to rely on consistent funding.

In 2025, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was passed by the Biden administration. The IRA was supposed to incentivize clean energy and carbon management and influence electrification and efficiency methods. The program offered tax cuts and subsidies to clean energy projects by corporations, universities, and individuals. Models show a 28% increase in renewables in the next 10 years compared to a 14% increase without the IRA (Bistline et al, 2023). The IRA was a great example of the United States successfully using policies to subsidize clean energy projects. However, the bill is complicated to understand for most entities. The complexity of the bill slowed down the process and didn’t allow for much use of the IRA until the funding was frozen by Trump. The IRA was a great piece of legislation but we can look to Denmark’s models for more simplicity and longevity (Plumer et al, 2025).

Decentralization

Denmark is decentralized in meeting their national goals. This means it is the responsibility of cities and local governments to allocate resources and budgets to reach their personal renewable goals. They have financial and political independence but are still implemented in the government’s national plan and have financial support from the government. This decentralization allows local communities to have space to determine what kind of system works for them. Decentralization in Denmark allowed for 80% of all wind turbines to be privately owned by households (Wang et al, 2021). 

The United States already has a decentralized model where states have significant control over policy. However, there aren’t ambitious climate goals to back it up. Denmark’s decentralized approach relies on the cities being committed to the national plan and financial support from the national government. If the United States implemented an ambitious climate plan and financially supported local governments to approach the issue as best they could, Denmark's method could be effective in the United States. Additionally, in the United States, monopolies often have too much power in regulating the grid. For example, Duke Energy controls almost the entire grid in North Carolina. Implementing more regional transmission organizations that coordinate and monitor large, multi-state electricity transmission grids would reduce the power from natural monopolies and increase grid reliability. This grid decentralization would bring the United States closer to Denmark and enhance the United States’ green transition.

Methane Tax

Denmark had the world's first belch and manure tax introduced in 2024 and will be in effect in 2030. They are taxing methane emissions from cows' production of belches and manure. About ⅔ of Denmark's land is taken up by agriculture, with many more cows than people. The goal of the tax is to decrease the country's agricultural pollution and transform some agricultural sites to their natural form (Sengupta, 2024). Denmark’s belch tax will likely drive up the prices of meat and dairy and push consumers to a more plant-based diet. This will allow Danish citizens to have fewer emissions per capita as the high carbon emissions from meat production will be less extreme. 

A policy like this would barely be considered in the United States. The meat-loving culture there is too strong even with alternative proteins. A stronger plant-based diet is better for the environment, has positive ethical implications, and has health benefits. However, even with all this, in the U.S., the cultural push-back against veganism is stronger than ever due to love for traditional meat, lack of open-mindedness, and cultural precedent. Additionally, in farmer-based states, senators who voted for this kind of bill would be voted out swiftly. While if implemented a methane tax could have positive impacts in the U.S., it is not compatible with the current culture. 

Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk is a healthcare company based in Denmark. They have been successful in having zero impact by utilizing the circular economy. They use other companies’ wastewater to generate energy in manufacturing their products and offload their waste to other companies. Novo Nordisk is an example of a company reducing its environmental impact in the private sector and is now bringing that to North Carolina. The company now has three manufacturing facilities in North Carolina and is beginning to implement sustainable practices there (Nicole Niwa, Clean Tech Summit, 2025). Novo Nordisk exemplifies how change can occur without the support of the central government and gives hope for the United States to learn from Denmark’s practices.

Conclusion

The United States can produce impactful improvements in the energy transition by adapting Denmark's renewable energy policies and practices. Through policies like green subsidies and feed-in tariffs, the United States would see significant increases in renewable and clean energy through private sector investments. Although political and economic barriers may make certain policies–green taxes and methane taxes–difficult to implement, others, such as national energy plans and subsidies, are more feasible. If the United States prioritizes sustainability, it can become a leader in the fight against climate change again, fostering a better future for generations.

Sweden as a Leader in Clean Energy

Introduction

Sweden’s transition to clean energy and commitment to its net-zero goal can provide other countries with an exemplary framework for how to move forward and help protect our planet and our future. Due to the 2017 Climate Policy Framework, the most comprehensive climate reform seen in the country, Sweden has made large strides in the clean energy transition, which has affected the environment as well as job opportunities in the country. When compared to the U.S.,  where a framework like this does not exist, it’s no surprise that the US is not leading the clean energy transition. If the U.S. were to adopt a framework similar to that of Sweden, it could possibly have the same positive effect in America.

Climate Policy Framework

In 2017, the Climate Policy Framework and Climate Policy Act was proposed in Sweden in order to comply with the Paris Agreement. It was supported by multiple parties and passed unanimously, as all of them realized how important it is to take care of the climate. The Climate Policy Framework included ambitious goals that would take societal transformations in order to reach which is exactly what Sweden had done. The major goal set in the Climate Policy Framework includes zero net emissions of greenhouse gases by Sweden by the year 2045 (Karlsson, 2021). After 2045, the goal is to have negative emissions which they propose they can do through carbon capture and storage if other options are not available. To reach their 2045 goal, major changes had to occur in Sweden.

The Climate Act laid out how the government would plan and monitor the work they were doing. This included the need for the government to present a climate report every year as well as planning out how targets will be reached every four years. The Climate Policy Framework also included the creation of the Climate Policy Council which independently reviews how well the policies put forward by the government meet the outlined climate targets. These targets include interim targets before the 2045 goal of zero net emissions. According to the paper by Romson the targets are that “By 2030, emissions from domestic transport, excluding domestic aviation, shall be reduced by at least 70 per cent compared to 2010 [and] emissions in Sweden in the sectors covered by the EU Effort Sharing Regulation…shall be at least 63 per cent lower than in 1990.” There is also the goal that “By 2040, emissions in Sweden in the sectors that will be covered by the EU Effort Sharing Regulation shall be at least 75 per cent lower than in 1990” (2020). These interim goals go beyond what is expected of Sweden from the EU. The EU Effort Sharing Regulation which sets annual greenhouse gas emission targets for member states only called for a 40% reduction in emissions from 1990 for 2030. The ambition of the goals that Sweden set for itself show that the country is truly committed to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

In order to reach these goals, supplementary measures such as investment in climate projects and the intake of carbon dioxide by forests can be used. The Climate Policy Framework caps the amount that this can contribute towards the goals at 8% for 2030 and 2% for 2040, showing that while these are worthwhile efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, the country wants to focus on actual reforms to ensure that their emissions are not harming our planet (Romson, 2020).

In contrast to the ambitious climate goals of Sweden, there is the United States. While Sweden is going above and beyond in setting goals that exceed what the Paris Agreement calls for, the Trump administration has taken steps for the United States to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Climate change and support for clean energy have become a partisan issue in the United States, which has made it hard for meaningful progress to be made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The political makeup differs between Sweden and the United States as there is a multi-party system in Sweden. The Climate Policy Framework was put together by almost all parties and had unanimous support, as climate change is not seen as a partisan issue in Sweden. If the United States were to get to the point where both parties could agree that climate change is an issue and they must work to reduce their role in it, then a framework like that of Sweden could be the first step. By deciding long-term as well as interim goals, there is something to always be working towards, and if something similar to the Climate Policy Council was put into place, the government would be held accountable for its actions towards these goals. The United States is such a large country that emits so much greenhouse gas, so any step towards lower emissions would be beneficial, but a long-term goal to reach net-zero and the accountability that comes with legislation like the Climate Policy Framework could prove very beneficial to the climate.

Clean Energy Sources

To meet its net-zero goal, Sweden has transitioned to using more clean energy, including hydropower and nuclear power. As Sweden has lots of rivers, hydropower as a main source of energy makes sense, even before the Climate Policy Framework was put into place. In fact, according to Renöfält in 2010, it “[accounted] for almost half of total annual electricity production”. Utilizing abundant resources to provide clean energy is a positive step towards Sweden’s goals of lowering emissions, but it is not without its faults. As hydropower is generated from dams in lakes, aquatic life can be impacted in the process.

Freshwater ecosystems are one of the most threatened ecosystems. With the building of more dams to generate more hydropower, human and ecosystem needs have to be balanced. To serve the ecosystem, many efforts call for flow modification but this lowers the amount of power that can be produced. It is a rule of thumb that hydropower plants in Sweden set aside a minimum flow of 5% but this isn’t necessarily enough to sustain the freshwater ecosystem. In the case of two Swedish streams, Mörrumsån and Gullspångsälven, government funding to make up for lost energy production caused hydropower plants to set aside more minimum flow to benefit the salmon in the ecosystem (Renöfält, 2010). This compensation helps protect ecosystems and allows for lots of clean energy to still be produced.

Another major source of clean energy in Sweden is nuclear energy. In an interview at the 2025 UNC Clean Tech Summit, Linda Andrén, the executive director of the Green Transition Initiative, talked about how Sweden is currently expanding its nuclear energy and reducing its dependency on external energy sources as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war. The country already relies heavily on nuclear energy as this is where 29% of their energy comes from but the goal is to expand the scope of this type of clean energy. In fact, in 2023, in the Climate Action Plan required by the Climate Act, the government said “in Sweden nuclear power is the single most important measure to reduce our emission nationally” (Lindvall, 2025). To reduce these emissions, when the conservative government was elected to power in 2022, they shared that they intended to restart a decommissioned reactor and planned to grant subsidies to private companies who would build new power plants. While the transition to more nuclear energy would reduce emissions in Sweden and help the country reach its net zero goal, it does not have the full support of environmentally conscious citizens as nuclear energy holds the potential for ecological and human risk (Lindvall, 2025).

Sweden is making the most use of the renewable resources that are plentiful in the country. The United States could do this too by focusing on clean energy production that makes the most sense for the landscape of each region, as outlined in the section on Norway. As the United States is very large, leaving the type of clean energy generation up to each state makes the most sense but the government can step in, like Sweden has, with subsidies to promote more clean energy generation or better treatment of the environment. Again, this hinges on the political landscape of the United States as currently fossil fuel production is being supported over clean energy.

The Effect of The Clean Energy Transition

The clean energy transition has had many positive effects in Sweden. Along with reducing emissions to meet the goals of the country, it has created many jobs and improved air quality, both of which, in turn, improve the quality of life for Swedes. As emissions are further reduced and clean energy is further utilized, this quality of life should remain or improve.

On the whole, for the European Union, a focus on renewable energy has resulted in a positive net domestic employment as well as a positive effect on GDP. Many jobs from non-renewable energy are generated in Asian countries but the labor intensiveness of renewable energy technology caused many jobs to be created in the European Union (Bali Swain, 2022). Along with increased jobs from clean energy, there have been decreased emissions. In a study focusing on 3 large Swedish cities, Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö, NO2 and NOx concentrations have been seen to be decreasing. Though NO2 is not a greenhouse gas, it is produced from burning fossil fuels and is a main component of smog. A decrease in NO2 and NOx in the atmosphere is also linked to increased life expectancy. In fact a study by Olstrup in 2018 concluded that “policies aiming at reducing local emissions from road traffic have been the most important for the increased life expectancy associated with urban air pollution in [Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö].” Currently, 55% of Sweden’s vehicles are electric or hybrid and the next step is the electrification of public transport, according to Linda Andrén. This would continue to reduce NO2 and NOx emissions and, in turn, improve quality of life and life expectancy in Sweden.

These public health benefits can be mirrored in the United States. In a simulation run on New York City, if the city is able to reach its 80% reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 goal, it could prevent hundreds of premature deaths and hospitalizations related to respiratory and cardiovascular disease each year (Johnson, 2020). This prevention of unnecessary deaths can also be replicated in other large cities if they set and stick to similar emission goals. Switching to clean energy has many benefits including environmental, social, and economic ones. If the United States were to follow Sweden’s lead and transition to clean energy as fast and as effectively as Sweden has, it would benefit American citizens as well as the entire world considering how much emissions come from the United States every year.

Conclusion

Sweden has realized that they must do their part in reducing emissions in the atmosphere. To do so, they have passed demanding legislation to meet a net-zero goal by 2045. The government has been held accountable to meet these goals and is doing so partly through subsidies. The overall impact of Sweden’s transition to clean energy has gone beyond simple emissions data and has positively impacted citizens’ lives. While it would be on a much larger scale, the United States could implement these same strategies to reduce emissions and benefit its society. Currently, climate change and clean energy are a partisan issue in the United States but if both parties can see that this is an issue that affects everyone, they could work together to bring about much-needed change to the United States’ energy sector.

Finland as A Leader in Clean Energy:

Introduction

Finland stands out as a country with impressive environmental goals and achievements in sustainability to support them. Finland’s unique and effective approach through policymaking, balancing economic interests, and inspiring new sources of clean energy make it one of the top countries for sustainability in the world. Historically and currently, Finland has set ambitious goals in environmental policy which have given way to the country making tremendous strides in moving towards a promisingly sustainable future. With the 1990 carbon tax effectively lowering carbon emissions by large margins and the country’s current goal of carbon neutrality by 2035, Finland has been impressive in not only enacting environmental initiatives but making significant headway in reducing carbon emissions. Government initiatives and collaboration with the EU have catalyzed Finland’s sustainability repertoire, especially with Finland’s holistic approach of considering all sectors of society and recruiting various government ministries to tackle their respective issues. Finland has also managed to effectively balance economic interests with sustainable practices as well as developing clean energy alternatives, such as geothermal, renewable transport fuels, and hydrogen and electrofuels. This Nordic country stands out as an example from which other countries and their citizens can derive sustainability inspiration and adopt similar strategies. 

Over the past three decades, Finland has emerged as one of the most sustainable countries in the world. Although there is still work to be done to reach carbon neutrality, Finland’s environmental approach stands out. Not only is the case of Finland’s advancements in clean energy important to note in the context of Scandinavia and the EU, but in comparison to other wealthy nations, particularly the United States. Currently, under the Trump administration, any environmental infrastructure that the United States previously relied upon is being rapidly dismantled. Despite case studies of historically effective environmental policies in the United States, they are now few and far between. Finland demonstrates that the most critical tool in promoting sustainability is government support and legislation and the United States is arguably undergoing its worst administration for environmental policymaking to date. Although introducing similar environmental policies from Finland into the U.S. would likely leave Congress as soon as it entered, Americans can learn from Finland. Americans can apply knowledge of Finland’s unique interdisciplinary approach to advocate for sustainability in order to slowly implement these practices into U.S. society until they have the potential to reach national political support. 

Finland’s Collaborative Environmental Policymaking

Prime Minister Harri Holkeri led Finland’s 1990 carbon tax which resulted in 30 percent lower emissions by 2004. These reductions align with the decrease in Finnish gasoline, diesel, and number of vehicles. Starting off at a US value of $1.75 in 1990, the task has only increased to now roughly $100, furthering its efficacy (Mideksa, 2024). More recently, under the Programme of Prime Minister Sanna Marin, Finland has vowed to reach carbon neutrality by 2035 and be carbon negative thereafter. This precedes the European Climate Law of climate neutrality by 2050 as Finland has set far more ambitious targets than corresponding EU members. Finland has also stood out in its target for The Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) in 2018 in which it stated a target of 51 percent renewable energy compared to the EU’s target of 32 percent (Mideksa, 2024). While in other cases Finland matches EU targets, Finland stands out as one of the most ambitious countries in sustainability goals. Not only does Finland work beyond measures enacted by the EU, but Finland has focused on the collaboration of ministries. Eight ministries compose the Adaptation Plan adopted in December of 2022 and this multi-ministry approach has made Finland’s sustainability initiatives successful (Honkatukia, 2023).

Finland's Clean Energy Initiatives 

Finland's government has established an impressive reputation that is integral to examine before comparison to United States strategies and lack thereof. Of the plethora of policies, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has developed investment aid for agriculture and rural business funding to support energy-production and structural support for agriculture to improve energy efficiency. Since 2020, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment has focused on promoting the production and use of biogas, targeting it to replace the reliance on fossil fuels for cars. In January of 2025, reform of the Land Use and Building Act has targeted how buildings account for one third of Finland’s greenhouse gas emissions, thus seeking to improve the energy efficiency of heating and cooling systems and spur low-carbon construction through wood construction systems (Martinnen et. al, 2024). All of these ministry-focused initiatives represent how Finland tackles the issue of sustainability from all angles with experts for each sector. Furthermore, 32 green transition projects, representing a diverse array of sectors, have received priority status (Martinnen et. al, 2024). From biomethane, to seasonal storage of heat, Finland has demonstrated how a cross-sectional collection of initiatives yield great environmental benefits.

Notably, Finland has focused on forestry practices, such as through the METSO program in southern Finland in which forest owners can safeguard biodiversity by paying the Finnish government compensation (Komissar et. al, 2024). This is just one example of Finland’s prowess in designing policies that benefit multiple interests, such as biodiversity and government appeal. In the forest products industry, captured carbon is converted into new materials that offer economic opportunity for businesses. Biofuel is also on the rise, now standing as the largest renewable energy source in the country. Finland has been harnessing biogenic carbon dioxide from sectors such as biorefineries, the forest industry and waste-to-energy plants which has enabled innovation in carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies (CCUS). Companies can also participate in Finland’s sustainability goals through power purchase agreements (PPAs). Furthermore, Finland has developed as a leader in the emergence of clean hydrogen production and electrofuels, participating in the EU and international partnerships within the framework of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Clean Energy Ministry and Mission Innovation. The Sustainable Growth Program in Finland has allocated 150 million EU dollars to hydrogen projects and carbon capture projects, which is necessary due to hydrogen still being more expensive than gas. In all of these cases, as well as many more, Finland has demonstrated the efficacy of considering the interests of multiple sectors, not just the environment, but economic, business, government, and international, which has allowed funding and projects to start making effective changes for sustainability. This is just a snapshot of Finland’s initiatives, but the country’s holistic approach cannot be overlooked. 

Challenges 

Despite collaboration with the EU, Finland remains quite an isolated country and has a framework that feels nearly impossible for a country like the United States to mirror. Finland itself isn’t perfect though, for example, the country still imports fossil fuels that account for roughly one-third of its total energy. However, conflict between Russia and Ukraine has spurred members of the EU to end their reliance on Russian fossil energy. Furthermore, energy prices are volatile and unpredictable as well as regulatory challenges in Europe. Finland has even faced scrutiny from other countries, such as for their practice of wood combustion despite how it’s considered carbon neutral (ResourceWise, 2024). It also can’t be said for certain that Finland will reach complete carbon neutrality by the year 2035. It might all be overly ambitious. However, Finland is a prime example of how government-led ambition and collaboration of sectors fuels success, which is evident in their current achievements in clean energy and sustainability. 

What Can the United States Learn? 

The United States government exhibits vast differences compared to that of Finland and the government sectors upon which the U.S. has relied for environmental concerns continue to be fractured under the current administration. However, the evidence of Finland’s undeniable success cannot be overlooked and rather is something the U.S. can benefit from studying. At the individual level, many Americans aren’t exposed to environmental strategies that aren’t effective and with the information of Finland’s success, individuals can discover that we don’t have to accept the perilous environmental policies in the U.S. currently. Individuals can join groups and invest their knowledge, money, and time to work towards a larger effort to promote sustainability in the U.S. with the awareness of models like that of Finland that work and can inspire the world. Groups can promote environmental justice as well as mirror Finnish environmental strategies in their own initiatives, such as working with businesses and nonprofits to negotiate their own local goals. Although the U.S. is far behind Finland in sustainability and faces extremely different political, social, and economic challenges, Finland is a remarkable example of instilling a carbon handprint and Americans and those from around the world can learn from and adopt elements of strategies from this Nordic country’s multifaceted approach. 

Comparisons

All four of these Nordic countries are leaders in the global energy transition and have ambitious climate goals with national goals of going net-zero. However, their methods of producing renewable and clean technology differ based on their regional resources and policy making. Norway is unique in that it is almost completely fueled by hydropower, utilizing its vast natural water sources. Denmark has a large reliance on on and offshore wind because they are the technological leader in wind. Finland relies heavily on bioenergy due to their large forest industry. Sweden is more diversified in their renewable mix, being an intersection of the other countries. The policy model these countries use to promote their renewables also varies. Denmark and Finland similarly used subsidies and government incentives to increase renewable energy technology through the private sector. Sweden utilizes a net-zero approach that lets the market choose the most effective solutions and Norway is more centralized with a state-owned utility structure. All four countries have unique methods to be a leader in the global energy transition, which goes to show there is not one right answer.

Conclusion

Examining these four Nordic countries, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, elucidates successful sustainability strategies from which countries like the United States can learn. Despite dire times for environmental policy in current U.S. politics, Americans can benefit from the knowledge of Nordic countries in order to advocate for more sustainable U.S. practices. While passing environmental legislation in the United States would be too lofty an ambition, focusing on private sectors such as innovative sustainability company strategies could pave the way for a cleaner American future. Furthermore, focusing on sustainability practices that foster a symbiosis with the economy will be the most viable option for the economically-focused United States. Through mirroring Nordic company initiatives in United States companies and perhaps through partnerships with these companies, whether in regards to new heating and cooling technologies, biomethanes, or electrofuels, the United States can slowly become greener. These companies can work to implement cleaner technologies and energy solutions and work to appeal to American consumers. Although the U.S. environmental cause doesn’t have government backing like these Nordic countries, American companies and citizens have the numbers and the ability to invest their money, time, and efforts towards sustainability. Individual U.S. states can also fight against federal government policies that strip away environmental protections for their own states. Local governments can champion the environmental movement and build it in magnitude. Communities can join together to recognize how sustainable strategies work in Nordic countries and this can fuel them to lead greener lives. From company investment and innovation as well as support from state, local, and community levels, the United States can find ways to fortify a greener future in spite of dismal political times.