This was reported at EnergyBulletin on December 17th 2005, I mentioned it somewhere here about 2 weeks ago:
http://energybulletin.net/11759.html

The last few percent of becoming fossil fuel independant will be difficult, but I am pretty confident that Sweden could become virtually so for all energy use by 2020 if they really put their minds to it. Some other products may be harder to substitute (plastics, chemicals etc) since they are used in many fabricated goods that Sweden probably imports but these consume relatively little fossil hydrocarbons in comparison with energy uses.

Bravo Sweden, say I; it will be interesting to see their more detailed analysis and proposals later this year.

I am very curious on how this plays out in this years swedish election.

The current government is our socialist party supported by greens and former communists. The socialist party have in peak oil found an issue very well suited for their old traditions of statemanship. I think they are able to successfully accelerate this process. But I do not find them able to make our authorities more efficient and our business climate better. We need those improvements for thousands of small changes and new business needed to cope with peak oil and our lack of workplaces.

The opposition is a coalition of four parties M, Fp, C, Kd that are more liberal in the free market and free choise way and we are not afraid of doing changes since it is not our realtives who has jobs in the inefficient authorities.  M has allways been pro nuclear, Fp and Kd are now pro nuclear power. C has for 30 years been strongly anti nuclear. C is the traditional farmer party and very green but in reality their members would benefit enourmously from a focus on biomass power. (And our environmnet would benefit).  C are trying to change their nuclear policy but it is a delicate process. This might give a very strong pro biomass power policy for the oposition.

Peak oil might become an important election issue, this depends a lot on the oil world market during this spring and summer. We might get a situation where the current government and the opposition overbid each other with different kind of policies.

Both sides have a strong tendency to listen to well argued scientific reasoning.

Myself I am more or less jumping up and down in internal electronic forums shouting "peak oil" while trying to be a one man think-tank on what would be a better more focused peak oil policy then the emerging social democratic policy. I am part of the fringe of the opositions internal debate.

I think it is a question about focusing on a limited number of key technological  and market bottlenecks and policy issues and leave most of the work to the free market.  Our socialists dearly like to have expensive non focused programs of micromanaged incentives that give lots and lots of work for party members and byrocrates wich is logical since a fair number of them also think this is the best way to do things.

I am sure it is a dumb goal to become totally fossil fuel independent. The good one is to maximise the use of the biomass resources and other things we are better at then most of the world and then trade. This makes us nearly independant, it makes us more efficient in minimizing the global fossil fuel use and it is wise to have good things to export to be able to import whatever we need. That is, not having to buy much and being able to outbid anybody.

Thanks for that analysis of Swedish politics on this issue, Magnus. I hope you will keep us informed as the Swedish elections near and perhaps post some useful news sites (in english if possible) - there isn't much decent news on Swedish politics and events in the ones I use.

Biomass ought to be a good route for Sweden. It could add industry and employment in country areas and there is a fair bit of marginal agricultural land that could be more profitable if used for biomass crops.

Though I am more socialist at heart than many in UK seem to be, I would probably be close to centre in the swedish population, I don't like government micromanaging nearly everything. I totally agree with your final paragraph.

I liked your comment: "Both sides have a strong tendency to listen to well argued scientific reasoning." Perhaps you don't appreciate how lucky you are! When you look around this planet can you honestly say that of any other government or political system?

I should add that listening to well argued scietific reasoning only works well if it is about non ideological matters. Making something into a symbolic and politically important issue can make it harder to resolve in a logical way.

But sometimes problems get big enough to overcome that. Our pension system were destined to go bankrupt in about 20 years. All parties did almost quietly reform it into one that wont go bankrupt with a bang but rather scale down and slowly make most retirees poorer when the growth no longer can cover the old promises. This will now be done automatically withouth any further political decisions. Half our population got screwed with a fairly quiet "we realy have to do this".  On the other hand, the system will not crash as for instance the current German pension system.

The fringe parties do from my point of view listen less to logical reasoning and that is probably one of the forces moving voters from the socialist party to the opposition.  The logical voters have a lot of patience for stupid arguments tailored to attract the most mobile voters, the last 5-10% that decide the outcome of the election. But too much stupidity for too long to attract the fringe and keep fringe parties happy and the logical part of the core voters will start to move.