Sweden accounts for roughly 0.1 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Yet the state continues to allocate 20.7 billion SEK annually toward environmentally motivated subsidies, representing 0.3 percent of GDP, according to Statistics Sweden. The category is broad and includes more than pure climate measures.

The question is not whether the funding is well-intentioned. The question is where the capital yields the highest marginal return.

Data from the Global Carbon Project and Our World in Data shows that China is responsible for approximately 30–32 percent of fossil CO₂ emissions, the United States for roughly 11–13 percent, and India for around 8 percent. Sweden is a mathematical rounding error. Continuing to allocate intensive public capital here, in a jurisdiction that has already harvested the low-hanging domestic efficiency gains, buys international ranking points rather than physical metric tonnes.

The largest carbon reduction per krona is not found in further Swedish domestic subsidies. It is found in high-growth, high-share infrastructure transitions in India, Indonesia, or their equivalents.

Statistics Sweden’s data confirms that 0.3 percent of domestic GDP currently buys negligible global reduction. That is arithmetic, not ideology. This systemic misallocation of public capital is a core reason why our 70/30 framework aggressively limits exposure to jurisdictions that prioritize narrative over fiscal math. We position our growth equity layers where capital is deployed for industrial productivity, not political optics.