Most people are aware that the Amazon and Borneo's rain forests are being devastated, but that almost all of Sweden's natural forests have disappeared is not so well known. Today, only a smaller part of Sweden's original forest landscape remains, the rest of the forest is cultivated forest plantations and industrial stands, which are harrowed, planted, sown and harvested in the same way as the farmer's fields. In these more monotonous industrial tree stands, biodiversity is lacking, as the trees are cut down as soon as they have reached mature age. Despite the fact that Swedish forestry often presents itself as both considerate and responsible, the devastation of the last remnants of the natural and semi- natural forest ecosystems continues. Forestry is the biggest direct threat to wildlife in Sweden. About 53 percent of the Swedish red-listed endangered species are forest-dwelling. We are often told in Sweden that our forest ecosystem is a "carbon sink" that accumulates about 43 million tons of carbon dioxide per year from the atmosphere. That the forest can save the climate. But why does no one say that the direct emissions from forestry and the forest industry are over 80 million tonnes per year? Only the emissions from the manufacturing process in Swedish paper mills are double the emissions compared to traffic, ie about 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. The forest sector causes 61 percent of Sweden's direct emissions of greenhouse gases. Swedish forestry has a saying: "For every tree that is felled, we plant at least two new ones". But how sustainable is the Swedish forestry really? Are "freedom under responsibility" and "public interest" sufficient protection to safeguard biodiversity and a living climate?