GDP-indexing of taxes on chemicals in certain electronics and waste incineration

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! Excise taxes on chemicals in certain electronics and waste incineration, which are addressed in today's matter, have previously been vigorously debated in various contexts, and also here in the chamber. Today's debate is primarily about the introduction of a GDP indexing of precisely those taxes. But the follow-up motions from the Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna, with proposals for both rejection and abolition of these excise taxes, give me reason to make some comments.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with the tax on chemicals in certain electronics. It is a relatively new tax that was introduced on 1 April 2017. The purpose of the tax is to reduce the occurrence of, or the risk of exposure to and dispersal of, environmentally and health-hazardous substances from various product groups. Chemical substances in goods are generally significantly less regulated than the substances themselves or their use in chemical products. Today's prohibitions and restrictions do not address many of the risks that are actually associated with dangerous chemicals in just consumer goods.

The investigation that formed the basis for the introduction of the tax chose to produce proposals that specifically reduce the occurrence of hazardous substances in people's home environments. Studies have shown that common sources of hazardous substances in people's home environments include, among others, flame retardants in electronics. Examples of goods covered are microwave ovens, refrigerators, washing machines, tablets, mobile phones, televisions and so on.

In the same year that the tax on chemicals in certain electronics was introduced, the government made the assessment that the tax and its design need to be reviewed and updated at regular intervals. The government therefore commissioned Skatteverket and Kemikalieinspektionen at the end of 2019 to evaluate the effects of the chemical tax. The assignments were reported in two parts during the autumn of 2020 and the spring of 2021.

This evaluation shows that neither the companies' profits nor employment have been affected by this tax. However, there were views on the tax's cost-effectiveness and the administrative burden, which was considered burdensome by many companies. These signals were taken seriously by the government, and in June this year, the government decided on a referral to the Council on Legislation regarding a simpler and clearer chemical tax. Among other things, a simplified deduction system is proposed, and there shall be clearer and simpler rules for used goods.

Madam Speaker! The tax on waste incineration was introduced as recently as 2020 in order to achieve, in the long term, a more resource-efficient and toxin-free waste management in accordance with the waste hierarchy and to fulfill the goal that Sweden should lead the way in the field of climate and environment.

An evaluation of the effects of the waste incineration tax has been carried out by the Swedish Tax Agency. The report was presented in October 2021, and it showed that the tax does not fully steer towards a more resource-efficient and toxin-free waste management in an effective and cost-efficient manner. At the same time, this tax also seems to be partly passed on to the reception fees, and a portion also burdens the waste incinerators' results.

This has had the effect that some combined heat and power and heating plants have had to revise their reinvestment and new investment plans after the tax was introduced. This means that the waste incineration tax risks having a negative impact on the power situation in a very serious energy supply situation for Sweden.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Russia's actions on the energy market have also significantly changed the conditions for the European electricity market. Swedish households and companies now face a winter with much higher electricity prices than normal. Both economically weak households and electricity-intensive industry risk being hit hard. To counteract exactly this, the Social Democratic government referred a proposal on September 9 this year that the waste incineration tax should be abolished from January 1, 2023.

Under the condition that the current government actually proceeds with this proposal, the bill's proposal to index the waste incineration tax is no longer relevant.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: Certain excise taxes are recalculated annually with regard to changes in the consumer price index, KPI. The purpose is simply to follow the general price development. Certain excise taxes are furthermore recalculated, in addition to the changes in KPI, in such a way that a standardized addition of 2 percentage points is made to take into account real income increases, that is, the development of GDP.

The purpose of the tax on chemicals in certain electronics is, as I have previously said, to reduce the supply of hazardous substances to people's home environment and in that way also protect people's health. It is therefore also reasonable to consider the real development of revenues by introducing a GDP indexing of the tax.

Since it can, however, be assumed that the tax on waste incineration will be abolished on good grounds, there is no reason to proceed with a GDP-indexing of that specific tax.

Madam Speaker! With this said, I move for approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! The Government has presented a bill on the GDP-indexing of taxes on chemicals in certain electronics and waste incineration. But this debate will probably not primarily be about the GDP-indexing itself, as the Committee on Taxation rejects the bill because it is believed that the chemical tax and the waste incineration tax will probably be abolished as part of the Government's work on the state budget for 2023. The debate will probably be about the taxes and not about their indexing. At least my contribution here will primarily be about the taxes.

Vänsterpartiet considered already when the waste incineration tax was introduced that there were flaws in the proposal and its implementation. But we also considered that there is a long-term value for the environment and climate with a waste incineration tax. For example, we shared the current government's assessment that, in the longer term, after 2030, it can lead to a reduced import of waste fuel. Thus, the current trend of increasing greenhouse gas emissions due to ever higher capacity regarding waste incineration would be broken.

In the longer term, the waste incineration tax can steer towards increased sorting for recycling, which reduces the need for new production of materials. From an environmental and climate perspective, this is a desirable direction. Extensive waste incineration of, for example, plastic, which should instead be recycled, is not compatible with either our climate goals or a circular economy. Incinerating waste for energy recovery is resource-efficient when priorities are made according to the waste hierarchy and suitable fractions are thus incinerated. Waste incineration in combined heat and power plants near our cities also plays an important role for our need for planned electricity production.

When the tax was introduced, a number of referral bodies stated that measures higher up in the waste hierarchy were needed. This is something that we in Vänsterpartiet agreed with then and which we still agree with. A tax on waste incineration is insufficient and should therefore be followed by policy measures that reduce the generation of waste as well as increase reuse and material recycling. Such policy measures should have been introduced when the tax was introduced or now, as it has shown that it does not steer sufficiently.

The Committee notes that evaluations conducted indicate that the waste incineration tax has not been effective in steering towards the goals that were the purpose of it. The evaluations thus confirm what Vänsterpartiet put forward when the tax was introduced: partly that the reduction of emissions can occur in the longer term, and partly that the tax should have been complemented with other steering measures. Examples of steering measures can be that producers are held responsible for producing products to an increased extent that can be reused and recycled and that reduce the burden on the environment from hazardous substances, as well as that requirements for standardization of plastic types are introduced to increase the recycling of plastic.

To increase the material recycling of packaging and return paper, the collection of these fractions should be organized through the municipalities to make the collection system more accessible and efficient with reduced transport needs. The full economic responsibility for such an organization should, according to the polluter pays principle, be borne by the producers, not by the consumers.

When the government's proposal at the introduction of the tax had a number of shortcomings in terms of impact assessment, the Left Party emphasized the importance of the government evaluating the tax's effects early on in order to, if necessary, correct shortcomings in the design regarding sorted waste and the district heating sector. The government, both the former and the current, chooses to interpret the evaluations as that the tax has no effect and therefore should be abolished. The Left Party argues instead that the tax needs to be developed with more steering instruments. In light of this, I move for approval of the proposition when it comes to GDP indexing.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the tax on chemicals in certain electronics, the Left Party argues that it should also be changed as it is not achieving the intended effect. The tax's environmental steering effect must be improved, and the negative effects it has for the Swedish market for reused products must be addressed.

Instead of abolishing the chemical tax, it needs to be developed. In order to meet the planetary boundary for sustainable resource use, Swedish utilization of virgin raw materials must decrease by 75 percent by the year 2050. Stimulating the reuse of electronic products is therefore central to achieving a circular economy. Despite this, companies that, for example, refurbish used computers and phones so that they can be used again, are affected economically in a negative way by the chemical tax on electronic products. The tax therefore needs to be changed so that it hits the mark and produces the intended effect.

But that the majority now announces that it intends to abolish the taxes instead of adjusting them so that they hit the mark is perhaps no surprise when we have a government that is going to abolish the Ministry of the Environment and whose proposals so far are calculated to increase our emissions, this in a time when Sweden and the rest of the world's countries need to do everything to reach the climate goals and reduce emissions.

Madam Speaker! For the sake of the climate and the environment, I move for the approval of the Left Party's and the Green Party's joint reservation, that is to say reservation 2.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Since this is my first speech as a member of the Swedish Parliament, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the voters for the trust to stand here.

I move for approval of reservation 3. We support the bill in its entirety.

Regarding the chemicals tax, the purpose, as mentioned, is to reduce the supply of hazardous substances to people's home environment and in this way protect people's health. Hazardous chemicals in our everyday lives are a major and growing threat to both people and the environment, and children are particularly vulnerable. It concerns chemicals that affect the hormonal system and reproduction, are carcinogenic, and affect children's physiological development in a number of different ways. Furthermore, we know very little about the so-called cocktail effect, which occurs when several substances interact, as well as the aggregated effect over time. But we know that many substances are potentially dangerous even at low concentrations.

Only an extremely small proportion of the hazardous chemicals in circulation are covered by any type of regulation. The process is largely harmonized at the EU level and is constantly many steps behind the chemical companies' work of placing new chemicals on the market. The legislation is moving too slowly. But the precautionary principle argues that we should do everything to limit hazardous chemicals in our everyday lives, especially considering how vulnerable children are.

In order for the tax to better serve the original purpose, I think it should be expanded to more products and to include more hazardous chemicals. A starting point could be the EU's candidate list of substances of very high concern. Then, I am also positive about the tax being evaluated and improved to fulfill its original purpose.

Regarding the waste incineration tax, the purpose mentioned is to achieve the national climate goals and a more resource-efficient and toxin-free waste management. Emissions from the incineration of plastic are a major problem today. Fossil oil constitutes the raw material for the absolute majority of the plastic produced in the world. Climate emissions from plastic account for around 4 percent of the world's total emissions. I can give an example. At Vattenfall's facility in Uppsala alone, hundreds of thousands of tons of plastic are burned every year. For Uppsala municipality, this means that the climate emissions from the incineration of plastic are almost as large as the emissions from all car traffic in the municipality.

In the current situation, the waste incineration tax is the only general policy instrument that, in accordance with the waste hierarchy, specifically aims to steer away from waste incineration, where a large part of the content consists of precisely fossil plastics. Even if there may be a logic in importing and burning waste from countries with poorer waste management today, all countries need to transition to a fully circular economy. In the long run, waste incineration needs to decrease if we are to reach the climate goals by 2045, and the waste incineration tax is an important part of steering away from investments in overcapacity.

But I am also open to the tax being reviewed in its design to better fulfill its purpose - if it is allowed to remain, which is highly unlikely. I also want to add that significantly more needs to be done to steer towards a circular and resource-efficient economy.

When it comes to the concerns regarding the power and district heating system that are raised, I want to say first that Swedish power and district heating is an extremely important and fundamental part of Sweden's energy system and something that Miljöpartiet wants to invest in developing. But when it comes to the question of competitiveness and power issues, I can say that there are significantly better ways to strengthen competitiveness than to abolish the waste incineration tax. We have been insistent on developing a strategy for power and district heating.

We want, among other things, to provide investment support for energy storage and bring more solar heat into the system. We also want that it should be possible to receive more payment for the local utility that district heating provides by creating electricity inside cities. I think it is a better way to invest in district heating and combined heat and power.

I will also mention that this tax was introduced as part of a green tax shift. The principle behind a green tax shift is a lower tax on work and entrepreneurship and a higher tax on things that negatively affect the environment and the climate. The alternative to a green tax shift is either higher tax on work and entrepreneurship, worsened welfare, or a worse environment.

It is also important that environmental taxes maintain their steering effect over time. In that case, indexing is a good tool.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Eric Westroth (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee's report.

Today we are debating one of the previous government's proposals to GDP-index the taxes on waste incineration and the tax on chemicals in certain electronics, the so-called chemical tax. These are taxes that were introduced with good intentions. With the electronics tax, the aim was, as far as possible, to avoid dangerous chemicals and environmentally hazardous flame retardants in electrical products. With the waste incineration tax, the intention was to increase the recycling of materials instead of burning them up, which is naturally also laudable. However, both of these taxes have come to be fiscal rather than behavior-steering.

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the waste incineration tax, Sweden already introduced a tax on the incineration of waste in 2006. It was admittedly designed differently, but it was hardly introduced before an investigation was commissioned to analyze it. The investigation proposed that the tax should be abolished because it did not cost-effectively steer towards relevant political goals and because it had had a modest effect on material recycling. The waste incineration tax was abolished in 2010, just over four years after it had been introduced.

In the previous government's own combustion tax investigation from 2017, the introduction of a new combustion tax was rejected, as such a tax would also entail cost increases and impaired profitability for combined heat and power plants.

But a new waste incineration tax was introduced on 1 April 2020, despite many heavy referral bodies' objections that the tax as it was designed did not steer towards set environmental goals. Waste incineration in Sweden is also already included in the EU's emissions trading system, which means that the waste incineration plants are affected by a double taxation.

Mr. Speaker! In 2020, the Swedish Energy Agency published a report on a comprehensive assessment of the potential for heating and cooling. They warned there that the lower profitability that a waste incineration tax gives the plants would lead to underinvestment in combined heat and power and that the plants would only invest in hot water production, which is significantly cheaper and technically simpler. This would, in turn, mean a risk of loss of important electrical power.

It is probably against the background of this and Sweden's high electricity prices, and a feared electricity deficit in the winter, that the previous government has prepared a memorandum on once again abolishing the waste incineration tax in order to give the combined heat and power plants increased resources and improved opportunities to produce much-needed electricity.

Combined heat and power accounted for no less than 9 percent of the total electricity production in Sweden during 2021, which is slightly more than half of what wind power produced during the same period. It may sound like a little, but it is primarily locally that combined heat and power is a contribution to the energy mix. I was myself on a study visit to Jönköping Energi's combined heat and power plant in 2020. There, a full 20 percent of the electricity consumed in their own grid in Jönköping Municipality is produced.

Combined heat and power is also, unlike wind power, independent of the weather and an important part of the power balance and the stability of the electricity system, which means that more wind turbines can also be connected.

We naturally welcome the previous government's change of course regarding the waste incineration tax and the GDP indexing, which we are debating today, and hope that this can lead to new investments in both environmentally improving technology and capacity increases at Sweden's combined heat and power plants.

Mr. Speaker! The chemical tax has some of the same problems as the waste incineration tax. It is perceived more or less as a fiscal tax without actually steering towards the goals that were used to justify the introduction of the tax in 2017. The overall goal of the tax was to reduce the supply of hazardous substances in people's home environments and at the same time stimulate companies to choose safer chemicals.

It is probably few who do not agree with this, but is a tax on these products for Swedish consumers the right way to go? Will the large international electronics giants transition and replace the chemicals that the tax intends to hit because Sweden has introduced a tax on their products? Is the Swedish market large enough to have such an impact?

Mr. Speaker! Several instances have investigated and examined the tax and its design. Initially, only Swedish retailers were included in the tax. This led to Swedish consumers instead turning to foreign retailers, who could maintain lower prices as they were not affected by the tax. This had major negative consequences for an already very price-pressured industry with weak profitability in many places.

The Institute for Trade Research produced a report in 2019 where it was calculated that the tax had resulted in large sales reductions and many lost job opportunities.

The Swedish Tax Agency and the Swedish Chemicals Agency also received government mandates to review the electronics tax. They conclude in summary that they have not succeeded in establishing that the presence of flame retardants had decreased in people's home environments as a result of the tax. The tax was also not judged to be cost-effectively designed.

Their evaluation shows that the cost of the tax was simply passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices on electronic goods. They also point out that the administrative burden of the chemicals tax for the taxable entities, namely importers and retailers, is perceived as relatively high in comparison with other instruments. The tax is furthermore criticized for its construction, as it is weight-based, and for difficulties in verifying the deductions that can be made from it.

The tax is already recalculated today with the consumer price index. In the bill, it is now also proposed that the tax, in the same way as it applies to fuels, shall be over-indexed every year with GDP, that is, an addition of 2 percent to the CPI indexing.

Mr. Speaker! We view positively that the committee proposes a rejection of the bill on GDP-indexing these taxes. The waste incineration tax and the chemical tax are incorrectly designed and would need to be abolished in their current form. The Sweden Democrats proposed this in a follow-up motion. Instead of a reservation, we have however chosen to submit a special statement in the report, and we intend, within the framework of our cooperation with the new government, to work for proposals in that direction.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! As late as in May, when this bill was submitted to the Riksdag, Magdalena Andersson's government considered it a good idea to increase the chemical tax and the waste incineration tax by 2 percentage points in addition to the increase according to the consumer price index, or in other words, it was a good idea to add to the burden for both companies and consumers.

It is, however, positive that the then Social Democratic government had a change of heart two days before the election. They improved themselves to the utmost and proposed that the waste incineration tax should be abolished. Peder Björk from the Socialdemokraterna explained in his speech this with the global situation and Russia's war in Ukraine as well as with the concern for Sweden's energy supply situation, but it could just as easily have been about the concern for the election result when the Socialdemokraterna's failed energy policy had burned deep holes in the Swedes' wallets.

That the waste incineration tax was harmful to the energy supply was however nothing new. It has been known for a long time. The waste incineration tax was condemned by experts even before it was introduced, and the experts were right. As has already been stated, the tax has resulted in combined heat and power plants and heating plants revising their reinvestment and new investment plans, with a negative impact on Sweden's electricity supply.

I remember that we Moderates in the chamber debate on the introduction of the waste incineration tax warned that it would worsen the electricity crisis in Skåne and other parts of the country. Why did the Social Democrats not listen then?

Ilona Szatmári Waldau and Linus Lakso spoke well in their speeches about tax on waste incineration. They thought it was good for the environment. I will try to explain why they are wrong.

The word waste incineration is actually misleading. In reality, it is about energy recovery and a tax on precisely energy recovery. I want to be clear: we Moderates are for a more resource-efficient and toxin-free waste management. These are goals that the Moderaterna stand behind. We want a clean and toxin-free environment and reduced emissions. Therefore, we have consistently been against the waste incineration tax, because it is directly counterproductive when it comes to achieving the environmental goals.

Energy recovery of foreign waste has led to one of Sweden's greatest successes in terms of the export of environmental technology, regarding both economy and environmental benefit.

Many products cannot be materially recycled, for example used diapers and other hygiene products, toys and certain textiles. These must instead go to energy recovery.

Making it more expensive to recover energy in Sweden leads to other countries taking over shares of the waste management market. Sweden loses important revenues, and the waste is handled in a less environmentally friendly way.

In Europe, there is a large deficit of energy recovery capacity, which means that waste instead ends up in landfills, which are the only local alternatives for waste material that cannot be recycled. The landfills leak methane, which is much more dangerous than carbon dioxide. They also increase the risk of fires, which have a very large environmental impact.

Therefore, it is good that this tax is now being phased out. But it should never have been introduced.

Mr. Speaker! Nor does the chemical tax, which the Löfven government introduced in 2017 and increased in 2019, meet the criteria regarding environmental benefit, cost-effectiveness, and consistency with instruments in other parts of the common market. It functions solely as a punitive tax on household appliances and home electronics. An evaluation of the tax conducted by Skatteverket and Kemikalieinspektionen has not been able to show that the tax reduces the occurrence of chlorine, bromine, and phosphorus in flame retardants, which it was intended to do.

The administrative burden for the taxable entities is perceived by many companies as burdensome, and the tax is judged overall not to be cost-effectively designed because it is not the chemical substances that are taxed, as the tax is instead calculated based on the weight of the product.

The tax also hits reused electronics, which completely counteracts all incentives to extend the lifespan of products that are already on the market. Why these products should be taxed twice is incomprehensible. A used computer monitor that costs 300 kronor is burdened with 451 kronor in chemical tax. In that case, it becomes cheaper to throw it away than to repair it.

The Moderates were against the introduction of the chemical tax, and of course, we are now against its GDP indexing.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I would like to summarize. It is counterproductive to introduce taxes that experts advise against, taxes that are introduced in the name of the environment but which, upon closer inspection, turn out to counteract their purpose. And not only that, they also undermine the competitiveness of companies and burden Swedish consumers. The previous government has not only introduced a number of such purely fiscal taxes under the guise that they are good for the environment but has also made attempts to GDP-index these. It is therefore pleasing that a majority in the Committee on Taxation is stopping this.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Lindahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party believes that it is important that the most harmful chemicals are phased out or banned entirely, preferably at the EU level, and that the work for more health- and environmentally friendly chemicals is accelerated.

Since the tax on chemicals and certain electronics was introduced in 2017, we have advocated that it should be evaluated after a number of years. This was also done in 2021, by the Swedish Chemicals Agency and the Swedish Tax Agency. They concluded - I will now repeat what many here have already said - that the tax has not led to the intended environmental goals being achieved because harmful chemicals can still be used to a large extent, that it is not cost-effective, and that it causes additional administrative work for companies.

Mr. Speaker! A fundamental problem is that the tax is national while the goods covered are manufactured and sold on a global market. It is difficult for a small country to achieve a change in a global industry through its own policy instruments. Private imports are also increasing through e-commerce and are becoming increasingly common. In that case, we believe that the best and most effective thing would be to work through the EU's chemical legislation Reach - perhaps something more time-consuming but, as said, more effective.

It is also problematic that companies that do not use any harmful chemicals at all in their products are not granted full tax deductions. That alone is a bit crazy and steers completely the wrong way.

Reused and second-hand products are also not completely exempt from the tax. Just as my colleague Boriana Åberg pointed out regarding this computer screen, it would be better to feel that one could use a second-hand product for its entire lifespan than for an expensive chemicals tax to cause one to throw it in a landfill. I think that is very unfortunate, and we definitely need to do something about that if we are interested in more circular economy.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party also considers that environmental taxes should optimize the environmental steering effect and that fiscal elements should be avoided. It cannot be the intention that a chemicals tax should be a tax that just goes straight into the state treasury to strengthen the economy for the state. It should, after all, provide carrots to be able to transition society. Those who do the right thing should also be rewarded.

We do not consider that the tax on chemicals in certain electronics meets these criteria. Therefore, we in Centerpartiet are open to appointing a new investigation that shall, in a broader and more neutral manner, examine measures for a toxin-free everyday life, or alternatively to initiate discussions on the long-term abolition of the tax.

For these reasons, the Center Party will vote so that the tax on chemicals in certain electronics shall not be over-indexed from January 1, 2023.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Similar criticism has also been voiced against the tax on waste incineration. My party has long advocated for a review of that tax as well, so that it should steer towards increased circularity and provide incentives in the right parts of the value chain and not lead to strange side effects.

Just as many of my colleagues here in the chamber have pointed out, the international consequences of the tax should also be highlighted. What does it help if it becomes very expensive to incinerate in Sweden if we then send the waste somewhere else where the environmental regulations are not as tough or are not even complied with in the same way, or where it is sent to landfills? That is also unfortunate.

Centerpartiet will therefore, pending a new investigation, vote to ensure that the tax on waste incineration is not over-indexed from January 1, 2023.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The purpose of the taxes on chemicals in certain electronics and waste incineration was to reduce the consumption of electronic goods containing harmful flame retardants while simultaneously expecting increased tax revenues for the state. Evaluations that have been made show that the chemical tax has not contributed to reducing the amount of hazardous substances in people's home environments. Furthermore, the revenues are significantly lower than expected, and the number of jobs in the industry has decreased by thousands.

Electronic products are manufactured on a global market, and manufacturers do not produce based on specific Swedish rules that we introduce. It is not the Swedish regulatory framework that governs what they put in the products. If substances, however, were to be banned or restricted within the entire EU, production could be changed successively.

Mr. Speaker! It turns out that private imports have increased at approximately the same rate as jobs have disappeared from Sweden. In today's digital society, it is no problem to order the product on a global market from suppliers in other countries where one does not need to add the cost of a Swedish chemical tax.

The Swedish Tax Agency and the Swedish Chemicals Agency have evaluated the effects of the tax. The evaluation showed clearly and distinctly that the tax has led to increased administration for companies while at the same time not having contributed to reducing the amount of hazardous substances in our home environment.

Mr. Speaker! The chemicals tax also has a very negative impact on the circular economy. There are companies today that purchase old and obsolete electronics to reuse, renew, and repair them. They renovate and refurbish them to then sell them on a market that actually exists, for example, in countries where one perhaps has not come so far or to companies that do not need the latest electronics. The business idea is that we are to achieve increased circular use and that the electronic devices are to have a longer lifespan.

The tax becomes counterproductive in light of the previous government's environmental thinking at the time of the tax's introduction. The use of the harmful substances does not decrease when one cannot reuse them and instead needs to manufacture as many products anew.

Measures to reduce the use of harmful chemicals are important. But if Sweden alone introduces a tax, it entails competitive disadvantages for Swedish business. This also applies to waste incineration. Much of what has been manufactured can be used and recycled in the form of energy, which we can have use for in today's society. We need all the energy we can get.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats do not consider the chemical tax to be purposefully designed. We do not think, for example, that used goods should be taxed, as it hits hard against the companies that sell used electronics. It is problematic since reusing already manufactured products is better and can lead to a more circular and environmentally friendly economy.

The Christian Democrats are also against the proposed GDP indexing. A tax that does not work does not become better because it is higher.

A tax that counteracts the use of harmful substances is not wrong in itself. However, the design of the tax is problematic. It has not had the intended effect. It leads to more administration for the companies and to jobs disappearing from the Swedish market. Used products also become, in principle, double-taxed.

Mr. Speaker! It is good to have high environmental ambitions, but then one must use instruments that provide a real effect. A bad tax does not become better because one raises it. And the environmental benefit it aims for must, in that case, be made more efficient. The tax must be abolished. The Christian Democrats therefore stand behind the committee's proposal in the report and move for the rejection of the government bill.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to focus on the tax on waste incineration as it has a large and negative effect on our energy system.

The energy system, with its needs and demand, needs to be stable and secure in its supply so that consumers and companies can feel secure that electricity and heat are available when needed. In recent years, this system has been heavily challenged. It accelerated when Ringhals 1 and 2 were finally decommissioned. Since then, we have seen as an effect that the prices in the different electricity areas have drifted apart.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine and actions on the energy market have also significantly changed the conditions for the European electricity market. Swedish households and companies now face yet another winter with sky-high electricity prices; it will be worse than during the winter of 2021.

Planned electricity is the foundation of a stable energy system, and in an optimal energy system, that production should exist throughout the country based on demand. Weather-dependent electricity production is good, as we need much more electricity production to manage the electrification of society that will reduce emissions in the way that the climate requires. But when nuclear power was dismantled, the electricity system became more unpredictable and unstable. Svenska kraftnät is planning to potentially implement planned power outages this winter to maintain the balance in the grid. A further effect is that this has led to the high electricity prices we see in Sweden, not least in southern Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Combined heat and power plants, which are affected by this tax, play an important role for the energy system by providing local dispatchable power in areas that risk being affected by power and capacity shortages. This applies in particular in metropolitan areas and in southern Sweden due to what I have stated.

The intention was that the tax on waste incineration would lead to increased material recycling, that is, that companies would recycle more when it costs more to burn the waste. The Swedish Tax Agency's review of the tax shows, however, that it has instead led to more expensive waste management and increased administration. One of the things they want to address is plastic, but what we can see is that this tax has not led to an increase in that recycling.

The emissions from waste incineration are already included in the emissions trading system. In that way, we are already ensuring that the emitter pays. The Swedish Tax Agency also addressed this in its review and noted that the tax does not contribute to reduced emissions to any significant extent since a system for instruments already existed. To then link the tax to the GDP development cannot be considered reasonable.

Combined heat and power is currently a hidden asset for quickly producing more predictable electricity production and in this way stabilizing both the electricity system and the prices. By removing misguided taxes and steering instruments, combined heat and power can contribute electricity equivalent to the electricity from up to two new nuclear reactors - without us needing to build new facilities, claim new land or build new power grids.

It is also ironic that the previous government writes in the bill, under the heading "Effects on the environment", that the tax is judged to have a limited effect in reducing emissions - but later in the same paragraph goes against several referral bodies and says that the assessment is nevertheless that it has an environment-steering effect. It becomes very difficult to understand.

Waste incineration is also something we in Sweden have become known for. Instead of, as in many parts of the world, sending the waste to landfills, we create electricity and heat from it. It is something I think we should be proud of. In total, during 2022, energy production with waste as fuel is expected to correspond to 16 terawatt-hours of heat and 4 terawatt-hours of electricity. It is energy we really need.

Households and companies need low, stable electricity prices. We cannot worsen the conditions for good, predictable electricity production that simultaneously ensures that we manage our waste in a wise way. Here in Halland, where the shutdowns of Ringhals 1 and 2 hit hard, there is a great need for additional predictable electricity – just as in many other places in Sweden. When Swedish electricity customers face a tough winter, it is not the time for politics to impose additional taxes on energy.

The fact that the tax is simultaneously inefficient climate policy and fails regarding the goal of increasing material recycling means that we in the Liberals vote for the rejection of the bill. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 9.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)