Dear Readers of The New York Times,

allow me to begin by saying that from the outside looking in, the Nordics often seem quite idyllic. This misconception is repeated in a recent article in The New York Times, presenting Finland’s Prime Minister Petteri Orpo as a true champion for bold climate action.

Many Finns, myself included, nearly spilled our morning coffee over this. The New York Times portrayed Orpo as a leader implementing successful climate policy: “Despite the challenges, Orpo wants to show that radical action is possible.”

Quite the opposite is true.

According to my estimate, around 100 percent of all credible Finnish researchers and environmental organizations agree that the Orpo government is pursuing policies that are destructive to both climate and nature.

Let’s take a few examples.

Under Orpo’s leadership, the logging of our forests is further accelerating. Finland’s forest industry, wasteful of raw materials by default, has sought new supply after the collapse of timber trade with Russia. 

Thus the government has decided that the state-owned forestry company is to increase revenues by cutting down even more of our forests. Because the state is the largest forest owner, the impact is significant to both the climate crisis and biodiversity.

The decision is simply a failure. The increase in logging accelerates biodiversity losses, and the number of endangered species grows at an unprecedented rate. Finland’s climate goals are also largely tied to the forests as a carbon sink. But because of all the logging, the forests have instead become a source of emissions.

Our other climate policies are equally inadequate.

Finland is unlikely to meet its ambitious goal of carbon neutrality by 2035 – at least without drastic new measures. Finnish academics, environmental organizations, the Parliament’s Committee on Environment and ETLA Economic Research, a research institute for Finnish Businesses, all agree on this.

The Orpo government has taken no significant additional measures. In fact, environmental and human rights organizations have just sued the government over its inadequate climate action.

It is also worth remembering that Finland, together with other European countries, is outsourcing its emissions to the Global South. Even if an electric car is emission-free in Finland, its production pollutes on the other side of the world.

To his credit, Orpo is quite the skilled politician. He recently sent a letter to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in which he managed to both endorse and undermine EU climate targets. Orpo and his Swedish counterpart demanded that Finland and Sweden should be granted concessions on the previous EU climate target.

In Orpo’s view, while other member states should meet their obligations, Finland and Sweden should be exempted.  

And what about nature conservation? Finland is formally committed to protecting 30 percent of its land and sea areas, both as part of the European Union and under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Vital to many species, primary and old-growth forests in particular should be conserved. This is also required by the European Union from its member states.

Member states were given common guidelines to create national science based definitions for forest conservation. Yet when the Orpo government presented its plan, researchers and conservationists fell off their chairs in shock. The definitions for primary and old growth forests were so narrow that in most areas there were no forests eligible for protection.

Finland will not meet the EU’s biodiversity goals, stated Janne Kotiaho, professor of ecology and chair of the independent Finnish Nature Panel.

Another important goal in the European Union is the Nature Restoration Regulation. Finland is committed to restoring the environment to its natural state as far as possible. This means reversing the damage caused to ecosystems and reviving them. One such example is our peatlands drained for the forestry business.

Restorarion is essential in order to reach the EU climate and environmental goals. Nevertheless, Petteri Orpo’s government opposed the EU Nature Restoration Regulation until the very end.

Dear readers in the US, don’t get me wrong.   

Finland is a wonderful country and the place nearest and dearest to my heart. However, Americans may often idealize the Nordics, which can surely provide comfort and escapism in the difficult present. But Finland is no climate idyll, no matter how it looks from the outside.

It could be. However, under Prime Minister Orpo’s leadership, our decision-makers have no interest in sustainable policies.

Nature is suffering and it is due to domestic politics, as probably also is the case in your corner of the world. Orpo’s coalition spans from moderate conservatives to the far right, and its austerity measures have pushed tens of thousands of Finnish people into poverty. Domestic political deals have demolished climate action.

Dear readers of The New York Times, let’s have one last look at the interview in your wonderful newspaper. On climate action, Prime Minister Orpo stated this: “We can change our behavior without cutting our welfare.” 

Do not believe him. Finland has not changed its behaviour and welfare has been cut from those in need.

But what he said next revealed his true meaning: “We just have to believe that it’s possible and continue our work.”

Let me rephrase that: just pretend all is well and carry on as before. But make believe is not going to make the climate emergency go away.

I hope things are going better for you there in the US.

Sincerely yours,
Kukka-Maria Ahokas
Editor, Voima’s Forest Journalism Desk

Voima is the largest magazine on culture and society in Finland. 

Voima Forest Journalism Desk is supported by Kone Foundation’s For the Woods grant.

Translation: Emilia Miettinen