Course correction

Finland towards 1.5-degree compatible climate measures


Mariko Landström, Alexander Kohl, Samuli Puroila, Rasmus Sihvonen and Saara Tamminen



Solving the climate crisis is essential for the economy and wellbeing of people in Finland and of all humanity. The climate crisis is also closely connected to biodiversity loss.  They share many root causes, and global heating is accelerating the rate of biodiversity loss.

In the Paris Agreement, nearly 200 countries committed themselves to limiting global warming to 1,5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, which would help avoid the most devastating consequences of the climate crisis. The emission targets are not yet sufficient, but they are on the right track. Over a hundred countries, including all G7 countries, and many cities and companies have set themselves carbon neutrality targets. The most ambitious targets can be found among Finland’s peers: Denmark is seeking to reduce its emissions (excluding land use) by 70 per cent and United Kingdom by 68 per cent by 2030.

Finland is aiming for carbon neutrality and – according to the draft of the reformed Climate Change Act, which is being consulted on until September 2021 – a 70 per cent cut in emissions by 2035. According to the most recent Annual Climate Report, additional climate measures are required to address 11 million tons (Mt) of emissions to reach the target, while Finland’s emissions in 2019 were 53 Mt.

Finland’s climate and energy strategy and medium-term climate plan are currently being updated to address this situation. The first ever climate plan for the land use sector is currently being prepared, and several different Finnish industries have drafted industry-specific low carbon roadmaps.

EU level climate policy is also being revamped to reach the EU’s medium-term emission target of 55 per cent reduction by 2030. This will mean tighter obligations also for Finland, but will help it achieve its national targets.

In Finland, compatibility with the 1,5-degree target requires a significant degree of carbon negativity after 2035. However, no carbon budget or any quantifiable carbon negativity target has been set. There has so far been very limited discussion about reaching long-term climate goals.

Attaining carbon neutrality will require significant additional measures. Carbon negativity should also be taken into account in the climate policy decisions taken now, as carbon neutrality is ultimately only an interim target. Understanding of the long-term solutions needed will contribute to a cost-efficient, predictable, and just transition.

In this report, we have attempted to clarify the bigger picture: what do carbon neutrality and subsequent carbon negativity require, and where and how can the necessary emission reductions best be achieved. We have also identified barriers that stand in the way of the required solutions, and proposed ways to overcome them – that is, how to make a course correction towards a climate policy compatible with the 1.5-degree target.

This report is based on an extensive literature review and more than 100 expert interviews. We would like to thank all the experts who contributed to this report and provided comments.

This report is focused on climate issues, but we have attempted to acknowledge the constraints of loss of biodiversity. We have emphasised solutions that tackle both crises simultaneously, or at least do not further degrade nature. But biodiversity loss deserves its own study. In addition to the climate crisis, biodiversity loss must also be put at the centre of political decision making.

Helsinki 19.8.2021

Mari Pantsar
Director, Sustainability solutions

Mariko Landström
Specialist, Climate and nature solutions

Executive summary

What we did

The aim of this report is to provide a clear picture of the solutions for achieving carbon neutrality in Finland by 2035 and carbon negativity shortly thereafter, and of the main barriers to these solutions. We also propose possible measures to overcome such barriers – that is, what kind of course correction can be taken to put Finland on an emission course for the 1.5-degree target.

We hope that this report will contribute to the debate on the long-term transition needed and how to take it into account in future climate policy decisions. Far-sighted decisions will improve the cost-efficiency, predictability, and equitability of the transition ahead.

This report is based on more than a hundred expert interviews and an extensive literature review. The views and conclusions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the interviewees or their institutions.

We have only roughly estimated the emission reduction potential of the proposed climate solutions based on existing literature. The work did not include any new modelling nor have we attempted to forecast future development. The report also cannot cover all necessary remedial measures, but we have attempted to include the most important ones.

An emissions pathway in line with the 1,5-degree target
The Finnish Climate Change Panel has estimated that Finland’s fair share of the remaining global carbon budget is 79 Mt for 2020—2050. By comparison, Finland’s net emissions in 2019 were 38 Mt, which means that current emission levels will use up the remaining carbon budget for the next three decades in just over two years.

It is possible, however, to stay within the budget, if emissions are reduced in line with the carbon neutrality target, and the accumulating emission deficit is later covered by negative emissions. From 2045 onwards Finland should reach a yearly net emissions level of about –17 Mt.

Solutions needed to achieve climate targets

In 2019 agriculture produced close to a quarter of emissions, electricity and district heating generation and industry a fifth each, and domestic transport a sixth of Finland’s greenhouse gas emissions. The direct emissions from buildings, waste management and other fossil fuel use amounted to 10 per cent. Forest and wetland use, namely forestry and peat production, produced an eighth of emissions. Nevertheless, forests also produced a carbon sink which sequesters nearly half of Finland’s total emissions.

The different sectors also influence each other. For example, industry and buildings use electricity and heat, the built environment provides the setting for mobility and industrial product design greatly influences the amount of waste that is being generated. In total, energy use accounted for 55 per cent, land use to 28 per cent and industrial processes to 8 per cent of all emissions. Ninety per cent of all land use emissions resulted from peatland use for agriculture, forestry and peat production.

Achieving climate targets requires broadly three types of solutions: increasing efficiency and productivity, replacing high emissions activities with low-carbon alternatives, and strengthening carbon sinks.

Efficiency and productivity are key to cost-efficient emissions reductions in all sectors. The circular economy will improve efficiency in materials use, reducing emissions from production and waste management processes. Improving energy efficiency in industry, buildings and transport will reduce emissions from energy production, facilitating clean energy solutions and reducing energy system costs. Shifting towards more plant and fish-based diet and improving crop yields will free up agricultural land from food production for emission reduction activities, such as afforestation. In addition to emission reductions, efficiency and productivity will save natural resources, which will also reduce pressure on nature.

Following upgrading, the fuels, industrial processes and raw materials that cause emissions must be replaced with low-emission alternatives. Electrification is the main solution in decarbonising heating, transport and industry. The electricity needed can be generated with carbon-free sources, primarily wind power. Flexibility of consumption and energy storage will allow for the increase of weather-dependent generation and improve the system’s cost-efficiency. The supply of sustainably produced biomass is limited, but it can be used to replace fossil fuel based raw materials and to provide flexible energy production and fuels for hard-to-electrify applications. Indirect electrification, where electricity is converted to hydrogen and in some cases synthetic fuels, is often an alternative to biomass use.

Peatlands must be converted to lower-emission forms of land use. Low-yield drained peatland fields and forests can be restored to wetlands. Simply stopping agricultural activities on drained peatland will also help reduce emissions. In areas remaining in forestry and agriculture, water levels can be raised and emissions reduced through continuous-cover forestry and paludiculture as well as perennial crops and controlled drainage.

In addition to emission reductions, carbon sinks must be increased. It is therefore important to promote forest growth and prevent forest damage by strengthening biodiversity. Forestry and agriculture on mineral soils should also be adjusted to sequester more carbon. Besides mitigating the climate crisis, these solutions also combat loss of biodiversity. Negative emissions technologies, such as biogenic carbon dioxide capture and storage, supplement the larger forest sink.

Many of the solutions needed, particularly the different technological changes, require significant investment. Investment also increases employment and can support a sustainable recovery from the Covid-19 crisis. Although the solutions are known, many of them have not reached maturity, and being ahead of the curve gives an opportunity to develop solutions for a growing global market. This creates export opportunities and jobs, and allows Finland to have a larger role in solving the climate crisis.

Barriers and corrective measures

We identified seven cross-sectoral barriers to the solutions.

  1. Lack of positive vision and leadership across society as a whole, in municipalities and in businesses. Visions are needed to create direction and inspiration for action. Government should also set the necessary long-term targets, create a clear picture of the transition ahead, and prepare policies well in advance.
  2. Lack of economic incentives for many of the required solutions. Incentives are needed for reducing natural resource use, replacing fossil fuel based raw materials, climate action in agriculture, negative emissions and sustainable consumption and mobility choices.
  3. Existing subsidies promote substantial wood use in applications that are climate-inefficient. Guidance is needed to direct limited sustainable bioresources in a way that is most beneficial for the climate. Incentives are needed for using wood as a carbon sink and to replace fossil raw materials, instead of for basic heat generation.
  4. Existing infrastructure is not enough. A cost-effective transition requires a resource efficient urban fabric that allows for sustainable mobility, buildings capable of efficient and smart energy use, an adequate distribution network for transport electricity and new fuels, and infrastructure for the transport of hydrogen and captured carbon dioxide.
  5. The risks of new solutions have not been sufficiently shared. Stronger support for product development, demonstration and commercialisation of new solutions is needed to accelerate their adoption.
  6. Lack of knowledge and skills. There is a need to comprehend the severity of the climate crisis and the urgency of climate measures, and to develop new capabilities required by the transition. Climate knowledge should be integrated to all levels of education. Investments are needed from top research and the piloting of new solutions to the continuing education of agriculture and forestry professionals.
  7. Administrative barriers. Licensing and other administrative hurdles must be removed from the path of climate solutions. Wind power construction and area control must be coordinated, and the licensing of wind parks and electricity networks must be streamlined. Planning must be made more flexible to allow for faster urban development, and clear processes should be put in place for the utilisation of recycled materials. Nuclear energy legislation should be revised to ease the deployment of small reactors.

Government has a decisive role in setting regulations and incentives, clearing administrative barriers and representing Finland in EU-level decision-making. Municipalities play an important role in putting solutions into practice: their decisions largely determine the urban structure and the mobility infrastructure, and they can steer their own energy companies towards carbon neutrality. Businesses on the other hand develop solutions and mostly carry out investments in practice. Consumers, on the other hand, ultimately decide what kind of products and services are in demand.

How to ensure a just transition?

All decision making must ensure that the people are kept in the loop. Three steps for this can be outlined.

First is to ensure that the change does not come as a surprise. Predictable actions are a prerequisite for a just transition. It is important to put in place long term goals and a clear vision of the transition towards them to guide decisions. Investments that lock into solutions that complicate the transition must be prevented.

Second, the cost of the transition must be minimised. Choosing cost-efficient solutions and policies allows for public funds to be used wisely and to minimise the overall burden on people, businesses, and society.

Third, we need to look at the distribution of the burden and ensure that it is not too great for anyone. The transition will undoubtedly result in the loss of some old jobs, but at the same time generate new ones. The impact of decisions on different groups of people and regions must be assessed and any disproportionate disadvantages must be compensated. People must be given a true opportunity to bring forward their views and participate in the decision making that concerns them. People must be supported in upgrading their skills and searching for new livelihoods.

Next, we will look at the solutions, barriers, and corrective measures in different sectors.

Power and district heating

Current emissions

The emissions from power and district heat production were 14.2 Mt in 2019, one fifth of Finland’s total emissions. Seventy-five per cent of the emissions came from the combustion of coal and peat. Ninety per cent of the emissions resulted from combined heat and power production (CHP), where the primary driver is the need of district heating, and almost 10 per cent from separate heat production. The main policy instrument for reducing the emissions is the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).


Electrification is important for reducing emissions in heat production.  Electricity can be used to generate heat particularly with heat pumps that utilise different kinds of waste and ambient heat. Wind power is the cheapest way of increasing electricity generation capacity to meet rising demand and replace current power production from CHPs. Nuclear energy can also be used as a reliable source for baseload electricity and urban district heating. Batteries and heat storages, flexible consumption of electricity and heat, and the strengthening of international electricity transmission links will allow for increased non-combustion based energy production. However, flexible generation from such sources as bioenergy, hydropower and hydrogen is also needed.

Barriers and corrective measures

Barrier: The Defence Forces’ radar surveillance restricts wind power construction, especially in Eastern Finland.
Corrective measure: Find a solution to the radar issue in cooperation with wind power developers and the Defence Forces. At the very least, this should be done in areas where wind power could significantly improve the energy system’s cost-efficiency by balancing production over time and in different regions, which promotes the efficient utilisation of the power grid.

Barrier: Permitting and planning processes for wind power and power grids are slow and rigid.
Corrective measure: Increase the resources in administrative courts handling complaints, make planning more flexible and permitting processes smoother. Remove overlapping processes regarding offshore wind power.

Barrier: The limited supply of sustainable biomass is being directed to baseload heat production, and the deployment of non-combustion-based solutions is slow.
Corrective measure: Ensure the viability of non-combustion-based solutions in relation to biomass by, for example, revising taxation of heat production. Increase support for the commercialisation of new technologies. Revise nuclear energy legislation to ease the deployment of small reactors.

Barrier: Market-based development may not necessarily lead to a cost-efficient and secure power system.
Corrective measure: Closely monitor the development of the energy system and, if necessary, introduce incentives, for example for increasing flexible generation to guarantee security of supply. Plan power transmission and hydrogen infrastructure as a whole, so that energy transmission is cost-efficient.


Current emissions

The direct emissions from industry were 13.3 Mt in 2019, about a fifth of Finland’s total emissions. Emissions are generated from energy use (from industry’s own heat and power generation and machinery) and the manufacturing processes of, for example, steel, hydrogen, and cement. Industrial production also generates emissions in other sectors, such as power and heat generation (around 7,5 Mt), transport, and waste management. Emissions are also produced outside Finland through intermediate goods. The most important policy instrument in use is the EU ETS.


To reduce emissions from industry, material efficiency must be increased through the circular economy and greater energy efficiency. High emissions products and raw materials (such as F-gases and crude oil) must be replaced, zero emissions production processes for example for steel and hydrogen must be deployed, and a transition to clean energy using electrification or fuel switching must be made. It is very difficult or expensive to avoid all emissions from industrial processes with current technology, but in large point sources, such as in cement production, carbon capture and storage can be used. Elsewhere, emissions can be offset by producing negative emissions, especially by capturing and storing biogenic carbon dioxide.

Barriers and corrective measures

Barrier: The framework for large-scale investments in industry is not sufficiently stable and predictable.
Corrective measure: Take long-term approach by setting emission targets as well as emission budgets and carbon sink targets until 2040 and 2050. At national level, develop sector-specific long-term roadmaps for emissions reductions, infrastructure, and policy instruments. Prepare the required policy instruments well in advance. Lobby in the EU to bring climate policy in line with the 1.5-degree target.

Barrier: Lack of incentives and regulation for circular economy, replacement of fossil raw materials, production of negative emissions and the creation of hydrogen economy.
Corrective measure: Advocacy at EU-level to create incentives and regulation for more efficient use of natural resources, negative emissions, and hydrogen. Also set national targets for these, draw up a roadmap for their deployment and create incentives with sustainable tax reform and for example blending mandates.

Barrier: Slow commercialisation and deployment of new solutions.
Corrective measure: Increase public R&D&I support and funding for piloting and demonstrating solutions. Create lead markets for low-carbon products with, for example, public procurement, carbon contracts for difference (CCFD), or blending mandates.

Barrier: Lack of skills.
Corrective measure: Anticipate demand for skilled labour and training. Make labour migration smoother. Increase resources in higher education, basic research and interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity. Broadly integrate climate and circular economy studies to all levels of education and teacher training. Invest in measures that promote a just transition, such as re-education.

Built environment

Current emissions

The direct emissions from buildings (3.9 Mt or 6 per cent of total emissions) consist of oil heating, construction sites and land use change caused by construction. The built environment is also a significant user of materials, power, and heat, and overall it is responsible for about a quarter of Finland’s total emissions. Additionally, the built environment greatly influences people’s chances to choose sustainable modes of transport. Environmental policy in buildings has so far focused on improving energy efficiency through regulation and subsidies.


Phasing out oil heating will remove most direct emissions from the built environment. Resource-wise urban planning and increasing the occupancy rate and service life of buildings will promote resource efficiency, thus reducing emissions from the production of materials and often energy, as well as emissions from construction and mobility. Increasing buildings’ energy efficiency and smart energy use support emission reductions in energy production. Construction related emissions can also be reduced by more careful use of materials, choosing low-emissions materials, and electrifying or switching fuels in machinery and transport.

Barriers and corrective measures

Barrier: Climate issues are not taken sufficiently into account in urban planning, and rigid zoning make urban development difficult.
Corrective measure: Make a stronger national recommendation and in cities a strategic decision to build the necessary new housing as infill construction along public transport routes and by converting buildings with a low occupancy rate. Introduce a fee on land use change and obligatory ecological compensation. Make zoning more flexible, so that the intended use of buildings can be more easily changed.

Barrier: Construction regulation and requirements are not ambitious enough.
Corrective measure: Develop regulation to require a 100-year service life for buildings by default, tighten energy efficiency requirements for both new construction and renovations, and include the ability to use electricity and heat flexibly.

Barrier: Lack of information and knowhow on smart energy solutions.
Corrective measure: Improve the training and continuous education of professionals and teachers. Provide guidance and tools to property owners and support the forming of knowledge sharing communities. Require condominiums to have a property strategy including an energy efficiency improvement plan.

Barrier: Funding for energy renovations is not always available.
Corrective measure: Support areas where market-based funding is not available, for example with state guaranteed loans. Encourage group renovations. Allow energy efficiency subsidies to be used also in energy investments carried out by service models.


Current emissions

Emissions from domestic transport were 11.3 Mt in 2019, about a sixth of Finland’s total emissions. Emissions from international aviation or maritime transport are not included in Finland’s emissions inventory or targets, but their global warming impact equals 8.7 Mt of emissions. Ninety-five per cent of domestic transport emissions come from road transport. The government has set a target for fossil free domestic transport by 2045, and an interim target for halving emissions by 2030. Transport’s emissions are managed by regulation, taxes, and subsidies.


The energy consumption and therefore emissions of passenger transport can be reduced by decreasing the need for transport in favour of walking, biking, and public transport. Logistics can be made more efficient with optimisation enabled by digitalisation, by utilising new, more efficient modes of transport and by moving freight from road to rail. The largest emission reductions are expected to come from the shift to new forms of propulsion such as electricity, biogas, and hydrogen. Emissions can also be avoided by switching fossil fuels to renewable or synthetic fuels in applications where switching to alternative propulsion would be difficult or expensive.

Barriers and corrective measures

Barrier: The transport system is designed for private vehicles.
Corrective measure: Improve the conditions for sustainable modes of transport by investing in infrastructure, prioritising sustainable transport modes in traffic management and by increasing subsidies for public transport. Decrease the parking requirements for apartments and enable congestion pricing in cities.

Barrier: Weak financial incentives for shifting to more sustainable modes of transport or motive power.
Corrective measure: Carry out a comprehensive taxation, payment and subsidy reform that aims towards emissions reductions in transport. Ensure that the measures are fair by for example providing additional economic support to low-income families in rural areas if needed.

Barrier: Sustainable fuels are expensive, and their raw materials limited.
Corrective measure: Increase support for the development, demonstration and market access of sustainable fuels. Examine increasing the required share of advanced fuels in the blending mandate of renewable fuels.

Barrier: Lack of climate governance in aviation and maritime transport.
Corrective measure: Set a goal for climate neutral aviation and maritime transport within or leaving from inside Finnish borders and phase out the sale of fossil aviation and marine fuel in Finland by 2050. Introduce a tightening blending mandate for renewable fuels in aviation and maritime transport. Promote targets, blending mandates and sufficient carbon pricing also on the EU level and globally.


Current emissions

Emissions from agriculture were 16.2 Mt in 2019, or a quarter of Finland’s total emissions. More than a half (8.8 Mt) of agricultural emissions come from the cultivation of peatlands, although their share of the total cropland is only around 10 per cent. In total soils and fertilisation form three quarters, animal digestion and manure management a fifth, and machinery and other energy use six per cent of agricultural emissions. At present, no significant climate measures are in place for agriculture.


To reduce emissions, the land area required by agriculture can be reduced by shifting to more plant and fish based diets, minimising food waste, utilising new food production methods, and increasing crop yields. This allows for the afforestation of low-yield cropland, and in the case of peatlands also restoration to wetlands, shifting to paludiculture, or simply stopping agricultural activities. Peatlands that remain in agriculture should be converted to perennial crops, and their water levels raised by controlling drainage. On mineral soils, regenerative farming methods should be utilised to improve soil carbon sequestration. Land clearing should be ceased, especially on peatlands, which is enabled by processing manure into biogas and recycled fertilisers. The emissions from energy use can be eliminated by electrification or by fuel switching for work machinery and heating.

Barriers and corrective measures

Barrier: Lack of incentives for emission reductions in agriculture.
Corrective measure: Set incentives for climate action. Guarantee agricultural subsidies for paludiculture and phase them out from peatlands where water levels are not kept high. Develop new incentives that reward emission reductions when cropland is left out of agricultural use. Focus environment payments on most effective emissions reductions measures. Finland should also promote change at EU-level, particularly concerning peatland.

Barrier: Land clearing is profitable.
Corrective measure: Promote land consolidation and increase resources for their implementation. Require an environmental permit for land clearing in peatlands. Set a fee for land use change. Promote cooperation between farms and support green fodder markets.

Barrier: The markets for recycled fertilisers and growing substrate alternatives to peat are weak.
Corrective measure: Support the development and commercialisation of recycled fertilisers and growing substrate alternatives to peat and help grow their demand and cost competitiveness. Promote the development of new incentives also on the EU level.

Barrier: Consumers are used to animal products, and they are affordable.
Corrective measure: Utilise public procurement, dietary guidelines, and food education in schools to direct people towards more climate friendly food choices. Examine how to implement mandatory climate impact labels for products, as well as an emissions-based taxation for food products.

Use of forests and wetlands

Current emissions

Tree biomass, mineral soil and wood products sequestered a total of 32.9 Mt of carbon dioxide in 2019. The emissions from peatland forest soils, wetlands (i.e. peat production sites and unsuccessfully drained peatlands) and work machinery were 9.3 Mt. The net sink of forests and wetlands was thereby 23.6 Mt, which reduced Finland’s net emissions by about 40 per cent. So far there have been no climate policies for forestry, but there have been long-term efforts to improve forest growth.


Emissions from the use of forests and wetlands can be reduced by shifting to continuous-cover forestry on peatlands, restoring low-yield peatland forests to wetlands, ending land clearing for peat production and by retreating peatlands that are freed from production. Carbon sinks can be increased by strengthening biodiversity, which promotes forest growth and prevents forest damage, and by changing forestry practices to increase sequestration. Reducing deforestation and reforesting areas that are left out of agriculture or peat production help as well. Wood products that are longer-lasting or replace fossil fuel use will both increase the sink of wood products and help reduce emissions in other sectors.

Barriers and corrective measures

Barrier: Forest owners lack incentives to increase carbon sequestration or enhance biodiversity.
Corrective measure: Set financial incentives for carbon sequestration. Start by developing the knowledge base and by piloting a carbon remuneration system, where forest owners are paid subsidies for increasing their carbon storages. Also promote voluntary carbon trading. Set forest management practices that support biodiversity, such as maintaining of a diverse tree species ratio, as a requirement for forestry subsidies. Renew the subsidies so that they will treat both continuous cover and even-aged forestry equally.

Barrier: Forestry subsidies promote even-aged forest management also in peatland forests.
Corrective measure: Reform subsidies and regulation to guide continuous cover forestry in peatland forests, and abolish subsidies for improvement of ditching, early tending of seedling stands and management of young stands in peatland forests. Direct more subsidies towards restoring high-emission peatland forests to wetlands.

Barrier: Deficient regulation of peat production sites.
Corrective measure: After production is finished, peat production sites should be treated in a way that minimises impacts on climate and nature. Support peatland treatment so that it becomes economically viable or make it mandatory. Phase out peat use.

Barrier: Wood is being directed to products with short lifespans and poor emissions reduction potentials.
Corrective measure: Critically review policies that increase demand on wood and fix them accordingly. For example, ensure that non-combustion-based baseload heat production is more competitive than burning biomass. On the other hand, blending mandates can be set for materials where replacing them with wood-based ones makes sense. Examine how a comprehensive climate policy for wood use could be implemented.

Waste management

Current emissions

The direct emissions from waste management in 2019 were 1.8 Mt or around three per cent of total emissions in Finland. The most significant emissions come from the decomposing organic waste in landfills (1.4 Mt). Emissions also arise from wastewater treatment (0.2 Mt) and the composting and anaerobic digestion of organic waste (0.1 Mt). Emissions from waste incineration (0.7 Mt) are reported in the energy sector. Waste management is controlled by the EU’s waste directive and the waste act, which prohibited depositing organic waste in landfills from 2016 onwards.


To significantly reduce emissions, the amount of waste must be reduced. Circular economy – for example material efficiency, durability, and recyclability – should be considered already in the product and material development phase (see also industry). Consumption choices must also become more sustainable. When waste is generated, it should be sorted better, and treatment processes that enable the utilisation of new waste streams as materials should be deployed.

Barriers and corrective measures

Barrier: Lack of incentives for resource efficient product design, and insufficient demand for recycled materials.
Corrective measure: Create incentives and regulation for resource efficiency in industry (see industry). Weaken the relative profitability of waste incineration by expanding the waste tax to waste incineration and by raising it or by including waste incineration in the Emissions Trading System.

Barrier: Incentives for climate friendly consumption choices are insufficient.
Corrective measure: Offer guidance regarding circular economy services and the climate impacts of consumption choices. Develop environmental certificates to be more in line with circular economy. Examine implementing a carbon tax for consumer products, mandatory carbon footprint labels and supporting the use of repair services. Promote consumer’s rights to get information about the sustainability and repairability of products at EU-level.

Publication details


Korjausliike (in Finnish)


Suomi kohti 1,5 asteen tavoitteen mukaisia ilmastotoimia


Mariko Landström, Alexander Kohl, Samuli Puroila, Rasmus Sihvonen and Saara Tamminen

Place of publication


Year of publication





146 p.






Sitra studies

Publication number


What's this about?