In recent times, the nordic countries have received very good publicity on their quality of living, happiness indexes & living mentality. Scandinavian leaders are outspoken about issues in the ‘social’ sphere, from feminism to environmentalism. As a result, many Singaporeans have very idealistic frames of the north European sphere.

Sweden was the prime choice for exploration because they have put their money where their mouth is – with an impressive track record. They were amongst the first to recognise the importance of environmental conservation. Today, they remain at the forefront of the global environmental movement. Yet, there is still much to be done. Critics, interesting, come from the Swedes themselves! 

As I live in Singapore, comparisons will be made to Sweden because both share similar traits. Sweden serves as a relatively good case study. 

Since both are high income countries (based on the model set forth by Hans Rosling), it is useful to use each other as a gauge. With regard to this aspect, Sweden may be a useful model for us to draw inspiration from. In the past decade, both countries have fairly similar GDP per capita growth despite fairly dissimilar trends. For the majority of the past decade, growth has been positive. According to sociologist Ronald Inglehart in his 1995 paper, public approval for environmentalism increases when incomes increase and people face the threat of environmental problems (skin in the game). 

Sweden and Singapore both face environmental challenges. Based on this line of thought, both Sweden and Singapore should have high degrees of environmentalism (at least in attitudes)! However, there could be a mismatch between the attitudes and behaviours of people. 

Sweden (in blue), has half the carbon dioxide emissions compared to Singapore (in black), metric tons per capita. 

Why are things so different?