8. Other accusations and misunderstandings that I would like to adress
In connection with me leaving the Energy Agency, I have been accused of various things in various ways. A lot of it is vague accusations, which is difficult to comment on. I had to write all of this down, which overall made me feel like the involuntary lead in a soap opera.
Loyalty
Disloyalty is mentioned in a diffuse way in various contexts in the documentation from the Energy Agency, without me receiving any further explanation as to what it would mean in my case.
After speaking with my lawyer at ST, I understood that these are extremely serious allegations. It is linked to the Security Protection Act (2018:585) and basically means that I would be disloyal to my country.
Loyalty in this case concerns an assessment of whether ‘due to ties with a foreign power or a terrorist organization there is a risk that I would commit criminal acts’.[1]
There is no evidence whatsoever for this. Wennblad goes off on a different note in one of the articles where he attacks me, calling the following a conflict of loyalty:
‘The obvious conflict of loyalty between the woman’s job duties and her political commitment to ending the use of fossil fuels was open for anyone to see on social media.’
In any case, it is something that I can respond to, for which I am of course grateful. And since decisions made seem to be based a lot on what was said in social media (where, for example, Wennblad and Boethius are very active), I address this as well. If this paragraph refers to the Security Protection Act, it is a misinterpretation from Wennblad’s part.
This is not what we normally call a conflict of loyalty. But yes, there is somewhere a conflict in understanding that 1) fossil fuels are one of the driving forces behind global warming, and 2) at the Energy Agency we have a management responsibility regarding fossil fuels.
I am well versed in my responsibilities. A very large part of the Energy Agency’s employees have understood the problem with fossil fuels. Many people live with this conflict. You don’t have to be Rebel Mom to understand the connection between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming. If you understand the climate crisis, you will see that it is full of conflicting goals.
I raised this several times during my six months at the agency, and my head of department and several of my other colleagues have also pointed out that it is good that I did. For example, I organized a workshop with an external actor, which raised this issue and showed the synergies between preparedness and sustainability.
This conflict of goals is something many people at the authority are thinking about, and I said that it is better to talk about it, because solutions come up in the conversations. There are many solutions, but you need to think outside the box sometimes to see them. As far as the gas sector is concerned, the solutions are quite simple (in my opinion), but when it comes to e.g. liquid fuels, it is more complex.
One solution that I personally think we need to talk about a lot more is things like energy efficiency and consumption reduction, but there are other things as well. This is what The Union ST writes on its website about disloyalty and security classification as a result of the webinar they held on the matter[2]:
‘Questions and Replies
Please note that I clearly separate my leisure activities from my work. In some contexts it is implied with the term loyalty problem, that I would have a problem with handling natural gas and that I would therefore not be able to cope with my duties, which is also a very serious accusation. It is true that I have started from the hypothesis that Swedish-produced methane in a supply-secure system is preferable to importing methane in a sensitive system.
This is the same goal that basically the entire Swedish gas sector is working towards – greatly increased production of Swedish biogas, which can then be converted into methane. I have no interest whatsoever in helping to destroy the conditions for this by damaging the Swedish gas infrastructure. (Which reasonably, for that matter, must apply to everyone with genuine climate commitment.)
Reliability
The reliability assessment according to the Security Protection Act (2018:585) must include not only an assessment of whether there is a risk that the person in question may be guilty of espionage or the like, but also of the risk that the person may be exposed to various pressures or risks to the individual through carelessness or in another unintentional way discloses confidential information.
I can only swear that I never thought of getting involved in espionage or anything like that. I have never, not before this story started or after, ever felt a hint of anyone pressuring me or asking me about anything confidential. I’m not careless either.
Vulnerabilities
I clearly stated at the second security review interview that I do not have any vulnerabilities that affect my work (or that fit the definition of the Security Protection Act). I have gone through the vulnerabilities that I was accused of having in chapter 7, and this applies, among other things, to the fact that I do not understand that my leisure activities affect my professional practice (sic), that I have been divorced for a few years and am therefore in a vulnerable life situation (sic) and that with the termination of the Energy Agency I ended up in a vulnerable financial situation (I lost my income on 1,5 weeks notice)(sic). Etc.
‘Want to contribute to the sabotage of our gas infrastructure’
I have also been accused of wanting to contribute to the sabotage of our gas infrastructure. First; it is extremely far-fetched and ignorant to turn democratic engagement and participation in demonstrations into an accusation that it would be a driver to commit such a crime as sabotage of our gas infrastructure. Drawing that connection is part of a larger trend in which engaged citizens in the climate issue are cast as suspects in a completely disproportionate way. Then you don’t need to be a gas expert to understand that what is transported in the gas pipelines is methane. Methane is an extremely aggressive greenhouse gas. A possible breach of a gas pipeline would, in addition to the disaster for Sweden’s vital industry, further damage our climate and with it our ecosystems which are necessary for our own survival. I do not wish for increased emissions of greenhouse gases!
Charges of peaceful civil disobedience
Extract from the Union ST’s site:
‘Questions and answers:
2. What about civil disobedience, is that a reason for not passing a security clearance?
– It is not possible to answer that question in general. But the basis is that you, as a government employee, may be involved in social issues in your private life, but that this shall not affect the performance of your duties.’
Note that I have never performed any type of civil disobedience. Nor have I ever persuaded anyone else to commit civil disobedience. The authority has even made an extra extract from the criminal record to double check, I have no criminal record.
I have only said that I have an understanding that people use this democratic tool, given the climate situation and our failed climate policies. Since I am a person who enjoys the right to vote thanks to the struggle of previous people using civil disobedience (I am a woman), I think it would be strange if I condemned this method. (I do enjoy voting in democratic elections.)
The three parts of the Swedish energy policy
The accusation that I don’t stand on the three parts of the Swedish energy policy is a clear post-construction, because people have tried to explain themselves and find excuses afterwards, but I think it is based on a lack of interest in gas and a lack of interest in wanting to understand.
Increased Swedish production and use of Swedish energy gas, in addition to increased energy security, degree of self-sufficiency and supply control, would be better for all three Swedish energy policy parts which are to combine security of supply, Swedish competitiveness and ecological sustainability.
I know of no area other than gas where these three goals could be more easily combined.
Side job
Then I have also been accused of not having reported my climate commitment as a side job, but here we agree, me and my former head of unit, that it is not a side job. You do not need to report to your employer if you are, for example, taking part in a demonstration of any kind, or what you plan to post on social media.
Russian infiltrators?
When my head of department came to my house with five minutes’ notice and took my work computer and phone, he spoke very angrily about there being ‘Russian infiltrators’ in the Rebel moms, alt XR. I’ve really looked to try and find some background as to where that claim would come from.
But can’t find anything. Having said that, I fully understand that ‘infiltrators’ can be found anywhere in society, which is why, of course, you should never talk about security-sensitive information except in security-classified rooms and contexts. Personally, I don’t do it if I’m talking to my old uncle, with friends or if I were to join a demonstration for something I think is important. Several people I have spoken to say that this idea of Russian infiltrators is a pure conspiracy theory.
Researchers in the field I have spoken to refer to the paper below [3] which shows that it is specifically people within the organized climate denial movement who have connections to Russia. I can’t resist also adding link below showing how our Minister of Civil Defense himself shared post from far right site which 1) turned out to be a troll account created to spread misinformation 2) is funded by Russia[4].
I can understand that there sometimes is difficult to judge information. The researchers have not found any examples of the climate or environmental movement having connections to Russia or Russian infiltrators.
‘My posts in social media’
Then I would also like to respond briefly to what has been written about my posts on social media. The employer may (normally speaking) not take any action against an employee based on the opinions expressed by the employee in social media. What I have written on my social media is, in my opinion, definitely included in what is considered ‘normal’. It is possible that people who live in different social algorithms than me, and who lack climate knowledge, may find them troublesome and shocking, as I have tried to increase understanding of the climate issue, which in itself is shocking.
This is what The Union ST writes in response to one of the common questions they received based on my case:
‘Questions and Replies:
4. Can my employer search on what I write on various social media?
– There are very few government employers who are tasked with reviewing employees’ social media. As the employer normally cannot take any action against you because of what you have written on social media platforms, there is therefore no reason for the employer to spend time on such researches.’
I usually post about subjects that I master, which is why it is a lot about energy and climate. Sweden’s failing climate policy is officially and internationally known[5] in that we ourselves have reported to the EU that we are increasing our emissions despite the fact that we have committed by law to greatly reduce them[6].
The fact that Sweden as a country misses all the climate goals[7] means that our country has made decisions that violate the laws and regulations that we ourselves helped to design and which we therefore demand that others follow. The overall assessment is that Sweden, based on its actions in the climate issue, will have to pay very high fines [8].
What I wrote there is also completely in line with the reporting from e.g. the Climate Policy Council’s reports [9], the Environmental Protection Agency’s basis for the government’s climate report [10] and also the Energy Agency’s own basis for an updated integrated national energy and climate plan [11].
That I would like to ‘disrupt’ sensitive infrastructure
I have only heard about this accusation verbally from my lawyer, and it concerns that the agency brought up in a meeting with the union that I should have talked about ‘disturbing’ infrastructure. I have never seen it in written form, but since this has been circulated internally and because rumors also seem to have been important in the ‘collective assessment’ made regarding my exit, I want to address that as well. The accusation came to light after my lawyer had a meeting with the agency’s Human Resource manager (who has therefore only received second-hand information on the matter). I have only spoken to one person at a management level after the accusation of me being a ‘climate activist’ came out, and that is my unit manager. I understand that it comes from a conversation when he asked questions about the Rebel Moms, and I tried to explain that their methods of raising the climate policies are based on research on the issue.
I tried to inform him about the basics of climate communication, which has turned out to be different from other types of communication.
The only thing I tried to do was to explain why the Rebel mothers act the way they do in their manifistations. If you are not familiar with climate communication, perhaps the approach may seem strange, so I tried to explain. Research shows that if you want people to take in and understand something as uncomfortable as the climate issue, you need to ‘disrupt’ it in some way. Talking about the climate issue by saying what people want to hear, e.g. ‘there’s probably no danger’, it’s someone else’s fault’, ‘technical solutions will solve the problem’ etc. leads to passivity.
The climate issue is heavy and difficult to take in, but in order for people to succeed in understanding it, you need to be ‘touched’ in some way. Business as usual is otherwise the most comfortable for all of us. Even though we have lots of scientific analyzes that show the seriousness of the situation, the topic climate is very difficult to communicate.
Charts and facts (which I like, because I have an engineer brain), usually don’t work, you need to touch on an emotional level for people to take in the information. The rebel mothers have chosen to act without civil disobedience, but then you need to disturb/touch in some other way. And people can also be affected by, culture or emotional actions.
At the meeting with my head of unit, I spoke based on experiences from my previous work as a climate expert, but I can also recommend Maria Wolrath Söderberg who is good at explaining this sort of thing, e.g. in the research paper below [13].
A clarification; I never ever talked about ‘disrupting infrastructure’!
General about all accusations
The basis of these accusations seems to have a lot to do with what is called ‘guilt by association’ – that you associate the Rebel mothers or climate commitment to something it is not, and judge based on a feeling, or something that spread on eg X. The climate movement is something that has been slandered in certain media for a long time, which have made people suspicious, and that many did not really understand what it was about. In the climate movement, people are very much working towards the same goals as the Swedish Energy Agency in its mission to lead the transition to sustainable energy.[14]
Of course, a person active in the climate movement can pose a security threat, like many other people in society, but this is not automatically the case. You can also be climate-active and safety-conscious, which is most probably the most common. As far as the climate issue is concerned, failure to combat climate change is the major security threat.
Foot notes
[1] Prop. 2017/18:89 s. 50
[3] https://research.chalmers.se/en/publication/541039 kapitlet https://research.chalmers.se/publication/542476, https://www.dn.se/sverige/bannlyst-konspiratorisk-tv-kanal-sander-i-oppna-kanalen-kremls-narrativ/ SwebbTV themselves explains here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un0ZZ3BgeAA
[5] https://www.svd.se/a/mQK98q/regeringen-ser-ut-att-missa-klimatmalen-sa-mycket-kan-det-kosta
[7] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ny-analys-sverige-bommar-alla-klimatmal
[8] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SV/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32018L2001
[9] t ex https://www.klimatpolitiskaradet.se/rapport-2024/
[12] https://klimatgranskaren.se/stor-oro-bland-anstallda-pa-sr-och-svt-klimatfragan-prioriteras-ner/
[13] tankestrukturer-som-hindrar-omstallning-och-hur-vi-kan-overkomma-dem.pdf
[14] www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/forordning-2014520-med-instruktion-for-statens_sfs-2014-520/