Nuclear power resistance in Sweden

Nuclear power was originally a by-product of nuclear weapons production and had during the fifties and sixties inherited its status as a technological spearhead, as a kind of compromise between the peace movement and state leaders. In 1973, most industrial states and also Sweden had large nuclear power programs underway, and with OPEC's oil price increases this year, these programs were given high priority. The nuclear investments involved the establishment of dubious industrial complexes in new locations with well-organized local communities. Thanks to the then powerful municipal planning monopoly, a new facility could be stopped in Brodalen in Bohuslän in 1974.

The growing resistance took the authorities a bit on the bed. In 1973, the Riksdag decided that the nuclear power program would be postponed pending a better basis for decision-making. This decision became decisive not only in Sweden but throughout the world: for the first time, it could be said to be legitimate to be critical of not only individual nuclear power plants but of the entire industrial policy nuclear power project.

Various actors now began to produce decision material. The nuclear industry emerged from the bushes and propagated for its views and various popular movements for theirs, while parties and authorities lay low. This made it possible to see who was responsible for what. On the other hand, there was long a lack of a common organization among the critics of nuclear power – the Swedish environmental movement was at this time busy with internal quarrels and the local opponents of nuclear power were fully occupied with being local. The most gathering thing was annual demonstrations against the plant in Barsebäck, a tradition that would live on for a long time.

In 1978, the environmental movement had overcome its internal quarrels and formed the Swedish Environmental Federation, which took the initiative for a joint campaign for a referendum on nuclear power, something that could possibly gather the whole opposition in one campaign. It also went well, a year later the Riksdag decided on one – but then it was again the parties who could take the initiative. They quickly decided that there would be three lines so that maximum party political profit could be guaranteed by the vote.

However, at this stage, a win had already been won. No party dared to stand for the previously very ambitious nuclear program. All lines became ”dismantling”, but at different timescale.

Due to the fact that the parties provided funding and due to the strong welfare state tradition in Sweden, no one dared to challenge the parties for the leadership in the voting campaign. Nor did the environmental movement, which allowed the Center Party and the Left Party to dominate the most pro-dismantling campaign organization, the People’s Campaign or Line 3. They focused on a traditional election movement where they would bask in the glory, and completely ignored organizing resistance among other parties’ sympathizers which would have been necessary to win. This therefore did not start until far too late.

We remember the election result - 19-39-39 - with line two – dismantling in 25 years – a fraction of a percent larger than line three – dismanting in 10 years. In municipalities with strong environmental groups, such as Lindesberg and Göteborgrg, line three was much larger than line two.

Then the question died.

During the eighties, it was kept alive with local resistance to final disposal of nuclear waste, most notably in Krokstad in Bohuslän, where the test drilling area was occupied for fifteen years until nuclear interests gave up. There was also a certain inflammatory interest when Chernobyl crashed in 1986. But in general, the environmental movement’s failure to tame the parties meant that it was too ashamed of the issue to raise it. And nuclear power is still not dismantled.

Reading
Björn Eriksson et al: Det förlorade försprånget, Miljöförbundet 1981.