Dick Dasterdly

I agree that to say Sweden is a no.1 carer of nature is something of a fallacy.
Even in their own country,almost every square inch that is unsuitable for housing or farming is given over to millions of acres of boring,identical man-made pine forests for purely commercial interests.
There is nothing to compare with the diversity of the UK national parks, some of which have been protected for more than a thousand years.
Nor to compare with the huge areas of unspoilt countryside that still exists in Spain.
What so-called protected areas Sweden now has, are mainly given over to commercial interests.
I don't know much about the damage they did in Spain, but the devastion they caused in Poland for mining and other commercial interests is absolutely shocking.
As bil mentioned they were the last European country to stop compulsory sterilisation and some of the heartbreak that caused is still to be seen.
Nor are they a particularly warm,caring society compared to Spain, which is one of the reasons that their much publicised immigration policy has been something of a disaster,with an almost complete failure of integration.

bil

Didn't know that. I must admit the Swede's outward appearance does seem greatly at odds with what they actually do.

EsuriJohn

I am under the impression that quick growing commercial forest were very good for the environment and atmosphere on many levels.

The damage was caused by a dam failure on a stilling pond up in the area of Rio Tinto that held millions of cubic metres of toxic heavy metal By-product (copper zinc etc). This flowed down various waterways into the Costa Del la Luz and did serious damage to some world nature sites.

bil

Just not on the environmental level of biodiversity. Planting fir plantations can only be said to have relevance on the Carbon front. A diverse forest of endemic species would boost bio diversity, and diversity is far more important than people realise.