Circular economy

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that we stand behind the committee's proposal for a decision.

The world is in a period of upheaval in history. We see war, inflation, climate crisis and increased polarization, with democracy and human rights in retreat. Issues that previously have been taken for granted are once again high on the agenda.

Perhaps we have been naive. After the Berlin Wall was torn down stone by stone, a new world order was proclaimed where democracy and peace were the watchwords. The technical, medical, political, and social development was supposed to lead us into a future without upheaval, wars, and crises. It was supposed to lead to a standard of living and development that the world had never seen before. But then reality caught up.

Since both the pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine shook the world, it has become clear how important it is to maintain a stable foundation. Security of supply is a word that has been brought into focus by ongoing crises. It was a long time since food security, critical societal resources, or war preparedness stood so high on the agenda. Now everyone is talking about it.

Part of security of supply is about the inflow and preservation of basic socially important resources, and another part is how we use these resources. I would therefore like to weld together the concepts of security of supply, resource efficiency, sustainability, and circular economy. This debate is not about war or crisis but about circular economy, but without a forward-looking policy and without more circularity, I believe that Sweden can run into problems - perhaps not tomorrow, next week, or even in the coming years, but I am convinced that in the future we will stand stronger in the face of upcoming crises if we today make decisions that lead us onto a more circular and sustainable path.

Creating the conditions for a resource-efficient society is high on the Moderaternas agenda. There are many advantages, both from an environmental and an economic perspective, to recycling more and more materials as well as optimizing the use of the resources that exist. An average European consumes between 10 and 20 tons of resources every year. If a larger proportion of these resources are recycled, the need to extract new ones decreases.

The task of politics is therefore to create good conditions for different actors to take responsibility for their waste and to uphold the polluter pays principle. Based on the waste hierarchy, a holistic view, and the idea of a circular economy, Sweden should vigorously continue the transition to a resource-efficient society.

We can be pleased that awareness regarding the circular has increased. Since the Industrial Revolution, man has operated in an economy based on raw material extraction, production, consumption, and then waste - a linear model that works well as long as one assumes that the earth's resources are infinite, available, and cheap. Now we know better. Resources are limited and raw material prices have multiplied. The linear model does not hold.

Many political decisions in a sustainable and circular direction are now being made all around the world. That is good. The decisions are often intended to contribute to innovation and reduced pressure on the environment and climate. The problem arises when the decisions instead contribute to the opposite. The previous government's introduction of the plastic bag tax is such an example. The tax's construction, where fossil-based plastic bags are equated with bags produced from recycled or bio-based plastic, has not favored either circularity or innovative power.

Such decisions come with a high price for Swedish consumers and companies and entail little benefit for the environment and climate. It is bad policy. Just as in other policy areas, the transition to a circular economy must be characterized by cost-effectiveness and a focus on results. If desirable results are not achieved, the decision must be reconsidered, something that I look forward to the bourgeois government taking action on.

Mr. Speaker! The business community is generally very positive towards issues concerning the circular economy and sees it as a business opportunity. Many times, however, it is hindered by strange regulations and unclear interpretations. The dialogue between the public sector and the business community must therefore be improved.

When I was at Svenskt Näringsliv's Företagardagarna, I heard two different people's perspectives. One thought that the politics sometimes goes too fast in certain areas and that it is too difficult to keep up and invest accordingly. The other thought that we should make the decisions that are required to reach the goals, so the business community will solve the rest.

Two different but both true perspectives. The business sector has shorter lead times and is often quick-footed and flexible. Companies are used to finding new opportunities after new conditions arise. Swedish entrepreneurs solve most of it.

With this in mind, we must, once again, not forget the whole. Swedish laws and regulations should be ambitious for the environment and the climate, but we must not create a business climate that makes it impossible for our entrepreneurs to compete. It is the companies that do the work. It is the companies that create something new and drive innovation. If Sweden is to be a green pioneer country, politics and the business sector must go hand in hand.

Mr. Speaker! Environmental crime often has serious consequences for people, animals, and nature, and for a long period of time. Therefore, environmental crime should be taken more seriously and prioritized higher by the law enforcement authorities. Far from all environmental crimes are reported, and even fewer are solved. Environmental crime, not least illegal emissions of environmental toxins, can have far-reaching consequences. But for the majority of environmental crimes that are prosecuted, the penalty is no more than a day-fine, even though imprisonment is in the range of penalties.

In order to curb environmental crimes and to ensure that the penalties are in parity with the crimes, we want to tighten the penalties for more serious environmental crimes.

Mr. Speaker! A natural part of securing the food supply is to reduce food waste. Food waste is defined as food that is thrown away unnecessarily and which could have been consumed if it had been handled differently. The world must do more to limit food waste. From an international perspective, one of the major questions is how we can be able to feed all mouths when the earth's population is expected to have increased to 8.5 billion people in a few years.

The Moderates see that, for example, information initiatives are needed regarding what the "best before" date means for different food products and how the food products should be stored. Here, much knowledge has likely been lost during recent decades. Studies show that approximately six out of ten do not know the difference between "best before" and "use by." Something as simple as replacing the words "best before" with, for example, "minimum shelf life" could lead to less food waste and that our climate footprint becomes smaller.

We also believe that Sweden should be granted an exemption from the EU rules regarding best-before dates for eggs. This would be natural since most Swedish retailers and consumers, unlike in large parts of the EU, treat eggs as a chilled product, which extends the shelf life. This means that today, retailers and consumers unnecessarily throw away large quantities of perfectly edible eggs. What a waste! Furthermore, it is the case that eggs are the raw material that most clearly "tells" when it is bad.

It wouldn't hurt if more consumers took matters into their own hands and smelled that milk carton that has expired before they throw it away.

Mr. Speaker! I began with a reflection on the current global situation. To increase security of supply in Sweden, we must think circularly. To save our environment and the global climate, we must think circularly. But the decisions must be well-founded, and the effect of the measure must be crystal clear. We have neither the time nor the means for a policy that does not achieve real benefit.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Helena Storckenfeldt! It was interesting to hear how the Moderaterna reason regarding sustainability and circular economy. Environmental policy has, so far, not been given such a large space in the government's conducted policy over the last half year and absolutely not in the Tidö Agreement.

It is extra interesting and fun that the member highlights the issue of food waste. It is something that we have pushed for for a very long time.

One of the best ways to benefit a circular economy is to use the products we have in our homes for as long as possible – to repair, fix, procure spare parts, turn to your bicycle workshop, or hand in the jacket for a zipper replacement instead of buying new. But now the Moderates and the government are raising the VAT on repairs. The increase takes effect in a couple of weeks, on April 1st. It doesn't really add up. The Moderates usually want to lower taxes.

My question to Helena Storckenfeldt and the Moderaterna is why it should become more expensive to hand in your shoes to the cobbler when we are now going to strive for a circular economy.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must admit that I thought a bit extra about Member Stina Larsson when I wrote my speech, especially the part about food waste. It is funny that she appreciated that part.

Regarding the tax on repairs, I understand the question. The tax was lowered stepwise during the previous mandate period, from 25 to 12 and then 6 percent. Many perhaps thought it sounded like a good proposal that went in the right direction. Unfortunately, it has turned out that the proposal was only another symbolic gesture by the previous government. The effect was zero.

The bourgeois government has made it clear that priority one this mandate period is to fight inflation. Therefore, these different areas must be prioritized higher.

We do not engage in poster politics, so I look forward to continuing the work in this area to produce proposals that actually make a difference in reality and do not just feel good in the stomach.

I would very gladly have a cup of coffee with member Stina Larsson and discuss further. But measures that have no effect, the Center Party can discuss further with their colleagues on the left wing.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I also look forward to the coffee drinking. It is well known in this context.

I listened to the Minister for Climate and Environment's speech to the EU a couple of weeks ago. Her speech was about circular economy. She emphasized that products that we use every day, for example clothes and shoes, should be repaired and used again.

My follow-up question is then whether there is a split among the Tidö parties here. Is it the case that the Minister for Climate and Environment and the Moderaterna have different starting points in this? Is it as has been said about the climate issue that if there is no circular economy, then there will be none? Or how does the member think the Riksdag should interpret these different messages?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is an interesting point of entry and I truly understand the question, so I am very grateful that Member Stina Larsson posed it to me.

I think like this: There is absolutely no division on the issue, rather the issue is solely about the measure with the introduced tax reduction on repairs. It had no effect. Then it is very good that we succeed in other ways in achieving that more people reuse and repair clothes and shoes and the like. We view that very positively. But just that measure, which was introduced by the previous government, did not have the desired effect. Therefore, it should not remain.

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

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Helena Storckenfeldt, for the speech!

The Chairman touched upon both food waste and food security in his speech. These are two very important issues, and if one links them to the circular economy, one sees a part where I think the circular economy has come quite far in Sweden.

It is about food waste which in the long run becomes biogas which in its turn becomes biofertilizer which can become new food products. This is part of the circular economy which works very well. We saw, for example, in the latest applications to Klimatklivet that the number of applications to build biogas plants increased drastically.

But speaking of the member's previous discussion on poster politics, here comes a question that is truly real.

In June 2020, the EU Commission approved continued tax exemption on biogas until 2030. This tax exemption was appealed, as we all know, before Christmas and has now been declared invalid. The current government decided not to appeal the Commission's decision, which means that right now there are enormous challenges for the public transport industry. Many buses run on biogas today, and the costs hit the tax collective and the transport operators directly.

Also for the transport sector, this is an incredibly hard blow. We see that the companies that are at the forefront, those that have made the transition, are now being penalized by this regulatory framework.

My question is: What will the government do to help the companies that are at the forefront and that have contributed to a circularity in our society?

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the member for the question. It is a very important question, which affects many different parts of the transition right now.

What I can say is that several balls are in motion. I unfortunately cannot say more than that in this situation. This is a matter that we are looking at very closely right now, and I hope to be able to return to the member in the near future with better answers than this.

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

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is good to hear that the government is nevertheless looking into the issue, because this is extremely problematic. We see that the public transport sector is bleeding. It has contracts written that mean that the companies today have to bear the entire cost that this entails. It involves a couple of hundred million if one looks at the entire public transport sector in Sweden.

When it comes to the transport sector, a gas truck today has incurred a cost of approximately 10 kronor extra per kilometer driven, which is an enormous burden for the companies.

It was good to hear this from Helena Storckenfeldt - because I still perceive that her and the government's ambition is that biogas should not be taxed in the same way as fossil gas because you do not think it is reasonable. But the member may be welcome to answer if I have understood this correctly and if the government has an ambition to do something in this area. The member may be welcome to say this once more and clarify it.

I cannot help but conclude by referring back to the previous exchange, where Helena Storckenfeldt spoke about that one had not engaged in poster politics. I have one final question regarding these ten kronor in reduced petrol prices at the pump. So, it was not poster politics that the current government engaged in before the election?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are, of course, looking very closely at the issue, as this is an important issue for many different actors. We have close contact with many companies and organizations, industry organizations and the like. The issue is therefore on the agenda now; I can definitely confirm that once again.

No, it is not poster politics. We have absolutely not been out talking about these 10 kronor. I can only deny that.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Helena Storckenfeldt, for your contribution! It is felt that you are engaged in the issue, and there are several places where we find common drivers when it comes to reducing food waste and other things.

I had actually intended to ask the same question that the Center Party previously asked regarding how you can raise the tax on repairs. The most effective way to reduce the climate impact from consumption is, after all, to consume fewer resource-intensive goods and services and instead reuse more and use what we have – to close the systems and ensure that we get rid of the linear parts.

I heard the member say that the tax cut had not had any effect. Then I do not think the member has been out and met the small business owners who work specifically with this - shoemakers, locksmiths and others. They have indeed rebelled, and they say: How can this happen in our industry, where the margins are so small, and when times are as they are now?

I believe and hope that you, if you look one more time, see that this is a fairly simple way to achieve a more circular economy.

But so as not to ask exactly the same question, I will bring up another way that is also quite low-hanging fruit: to take advantage of the investigation on Sweden's global climate footprint that the Environmental Goals Commission submitted to the government about a year ago. There we have jointly, all parties, agreed on what goals we want to have to reduce the climate footprints. With goals, we can also get a direction and set the policy.

I wonder if the member, who represents a government party, could answer. What is the situation regarding this? Will we see a government bill on Sweden's global climate footprint?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Emma Nohrén, for the question! We consider reuse to be a natural part of the development towards a more sustainable society. We also see that the idea of a circular economy needs to be broadened and also reach beyond Sweden's borders. We would, of course, most prefer that all countries transition and move towards a circular economy as quickly as is possible. Reuse of goods is a natural and important part of this work.

But what we saw regarding the reduced tax on repairs was that it did not have the desired effect, but rather it was something that felt good and looked good. It did that, and it still does. But if the measure does not have the effect that is intended – is it then really right to keep it?

We would instead like to invest in measures that have a greater effect. It is about long-term rules of the game, and it is about ensuring that we have a strong competitiveness in Sweden so that companies get an opportunity to drive innovation in a long-term and sustainable way that extends over a much longer period.

The measure of reduced tax did not have the desired effect, and therefore it is not necessary.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not agree. It had an effect, and it made more people repair [their items]. The shoes I am wearing now, I had to hand them in myself last week after the snowplow here in Stockholm had destroyed them. The person I handed them to probably would not have managed to run their business if we had not previously had these measures in place. We will have to see how it goes now.

You did not answer my second question, Helena Storckenfeldt. It concerned what happens with the Environmental Goals Preparation's work. We are rarely in agreement here in the chamber, and here we have proposals for goals that we would be first in the world with.

I was myself chairman of the committee, and I have followed the communication afterwards. We have stakeholders from Denmark, Norway, Germany and France. We are going to Hamburg to talk about it this summer. There is a great interest, and people ask: How are you going to do it? It would be unfortunate if other countries were to steal our ideas, which we for once agree on here but which are not put on the table.

How is the work progressing, and will we see a government bill with new targets for consumption-based emissions?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask Member Emma Nohrén for an apology for not answering the second question. Unfortunately, I missed it.

We have absolutely not lowered our ambitions. I can be very clear about that. Sweden shall continue to be a green pioneer country, and we shall ensure that the measures we actually get in place have a large effect and make other countries want to follow suit. We shall be the green pioneer country, and we stand fully behind our high-reaching environmental and climate goals.

Whether a proposition will be submitted is something I actually have to get back to the member on. And I am very happy to talk more about this with her.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We must stop burning fossil fuels. We know that there is no alternative. There is no saving future technology that allows us to continue as before.

The order is not mine but Friederike Otto's. She is a climate researcher at Imperial College in London, and this was what she included in the press release regarding the IPCC report. She is one of those who have been part of the core group that has produced the IPCC's report.

I believe that all of you here in the chamber and those of you listening have seen the news, and unfortunately, there is no good news. Things are not going well. The IPCC writes in its report that it is human fault that the earth has already become 1.1 degrees warmer. They write: Our lifestyle and energy consumption are unsustainable. They write: Now emissions must turn down within just a couple of years to mitigate the effects of climate change.

We must do everything we can to keep this as close to zero as possible. We are already at 1.1 degrees. Right now, it does not look like we will reach the Paris Agreement. Or as UN Secretary-General António Guterres already said this past autumn: We are heading straight towards hell with our foot on the gas pedal. Those are strong words.

Mr. Speaker! I started this week up in Tromsø - the gateway to the Arctic, it is called. I participated in the parliamentary Baltic Sea Conference's working group for climate and biodiversity. It was a good meeting with committed politicians from the entire Baltic Sea region. We were there and listened to the researchers from the polar institute and from the university.

The view from the meeting room was fantastic. It was sparkling snow landscapes, magnificent mountains, and deep seas. But the message inside the meeting room was even more frightening. The Earth's average temperature has, as the IPCC says, risen by 1.1 degrees. But the global average temperature hits differently in different places on Earth. And it is in the polar regions where the temperature is being driven up the most. A global average temperature of 1 degree means 3 degrees in the Arctic. It is going three times as fast up there.

The researchers said it is going faster and faster. The ice is decreasing in size. It is decreasing in thickness. It is like a self-playing piano with more open water while we have had more heat. We see that the animals are moving along. Some get a larger distribution area, for others it decreases or disappears. Climate and biodiversity are connected, and this is due to our resource utilization.

We asked these researchers what they thought of the IPCC report, which was released while we were there. Some of them had been involved in the work. They said: Yes, but it is very good, and it shows what we say. But there is one thing that is a bit difficult, and that is that the latest research is not included.

So they are closing it one and a half years before publication.

They said: All our data show that it is going faster and faster and that there are greater effects than we can believe. And the calculation models that the IPCC uses are very conservative and moderate. We have a difficult time ahead of us.

Then I will say that when the researchers say that they are not sharp enough, the IPCC says this: We are not dependent on anything that is still to be invented or discovered. We have all the knowledge we need. We have all the tools we need. We just need to implement it.

Mr. Speaker! One might wonder why I am giving this long introduction when it concerns a report on circular economy, but it is precisely because it is about resource utilization and how we do things. We have had linear flows, and we have used fossil fuels to boost our economy. It is this that has made us where we are.

It is also to counter climate change and the depletion of biodiversity that we must move towards a circular economy. Then we need to continue to recycle. We must reuse. We must reduce waste.

Almost 40 percent of all food becomes food waste. It is completely crazy, also considering the prices we have on food today. Imagine if we would at least use 80-90 percent of the food. We shall use the food before it is too old, but we shall also ensure that we have standards that allow us to use everything.

In order for us to reach this, we must have a clear steering of the policy. A long-term direction is required for the political work. It is so that both companies and individuals shall understand and see that the transition shall be made in such a way that the next step becomes clear. One cannot throw about the rules of the game, because then we will not manage the transition in time.

We need to have both legislation and incentives that pave the way. We must have quantitative targets, for example, for what proportion of plastic packaging should be recycled or should not be recycled. We need to introduce quota obligations so that we can start getting this system in place - this applies to plastic, commercial fertilizer, and other things. Then we can stop using virgin raw materials and start getting these systems in place.

In some parts we must have bans. We must remove what is very bad and ensure that there is another way forward. It must be more expensive to use virgin raw materials.

The most effective way to reduce climate impact is precisely to reduce consumption and to reduce the consumption of resource-intensive goods, raw materials, and services. This leads to reduced waste amounts and reduced environmental impact.

Swedes' consumption emissions are among the highest in the world. We consume approximately four planets per person per year. We can include the carbon emissions that occur abroad when we shop. The pen I am holding in my hand is not manufactured in Sweden. It has caused an emission somewhere, and that falls on that country's account, so to speak. But it is my money and I who have bought it. These are consumption emissions, and that is where we must look at the entire chain. There we are at the top in the world. We are among the top 20.

We must reduce this, and we must take our responsibility. That was the puzzle that the Environmental Goals Commission laid out. How are we going to do it? What are we going to achieve, and how are we going to achieve it? The entire way is not mapped out. Which measures? We never got there. But we must have a path to follow that we agree on and then fill this with content.

I and my party, Miljöpartiet, want to promote a circular economy where resources continue to circulate even when the product has reached the end of its life cycle. We should be able to have a good life and have goods, but we must utilize what we have already taken.

With this, I move for the approval of reservation number 3. I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for the approval of only one.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! According to Wikipedia, circular economy is "an expression of economic models for business opportunities where circular cycles in a company, society or an organization are used rather than linear processes which have been dominant until now".

I do not entirely agree with that definition, Mr. Speaker. In many respects, I would absolutely argue that circular economy has rather been the dominant one until relatively recently, this not primarily for the sake of the environment and climate but rather for the sake of the economy because it did not allow for anything else. At that time, one also did not know that it was called "circular economy".

Clothing is perhaps one of the clearest examples, and I expect there are several here in the chamber who recognize themselves in that. In any case, during my upbringing, inherited clothes were the most obvious thing in the world. Most likely, one was also not the first in the chain to inherit the clothes, but it was someone else who had had the clothes previously. If it was one of the big, tough guys that you really looked up to who had had the clothes, it was even better than getting new ones. Eventually, of course, it was no longer possible to patch and repair them, and the clothes finally became part of mom's rags. It is circular economy!

I also want to assert that it was in a similar way with the food, as we have heard here earlier, even though it thankfully was not inherited. But the word "food waste" is a relatively new phenomenon, at least in the extent we see now. It is estimated that around one-third of all food produced is not eaten but is discarded. Earlier in the debate, we heard that it is up to 40 percent. At the same time, the pressure on our earth's resources is increasing, which places demands on conserving both food and agricultural land.

Most of the waste occurs in households, but even in the retail sector, it is a significant waste, i.e., food waste. There may be more types of waste there. Here is the big puzzle of how we are to achieve an attitude change regarding the "best before" date, which others have touched upon earlier, versus smelling and tasting the food even if the best before date has passed. It is not dangerous. On several products, they have also added "often good after" in connection with the best before date. It is probably a good step forward, but I am not sure that is how we solve the whole thing. But all steps in the right direction are good.

Regarding retail, we notice that traders themselves do not always dare to freeze the goods before they have passed their best-before date. The Swedish Food Agency's regulations give the impression that this should not be permitted or are at least unclear regarding this, while on the Swedish Food Agency's website it is written differently, which makes our traders uncertain about what actually applies. Consequently, in the retail trade, one dares to freeze goods to a very small extent. In the municipalities, we also note that different inspectors make different interpretations.

By freezing chilled products, waste can be reduced while customers could be able to purchase the frozen products at a lower price, which, not least with today's inflation, really should be welcome. Therefore, we Kristdemokrater are working to have the Food Act clarified so that it clearly appears that one is actually allowed to handle food in that manner.

Processing is perhaps the simplest way to handle minced meat, for example by making meatloaf and meatballs. Many stores have an oven, and many stores could in this way be able to sell ready meals. If the store does not have the possibility to process the products themselves, one can work on that in cooperation with others, such as schools, catering firms and so on. It is a good alternative, and therefore we also advocate for the Swedish Food Agency to clarify for the retailers what actually applies so that they will dare, so that the circularity can increase further.

Mr. Speaker! Last year, after some fuss and uncertainties, the Riksdag made a decision regarding property-proximate collection. I will absolutely not trigger that debate in any way, but one of the reasons for the bill Order and Order of Waste, where the property-proximate collection was included as a part, was that the government at the time wanted to increase the recycling of plastic, which in itself is commendable.

Plastic is a common material that occurs in an innumerable amount of products. It is cheap to manufacture and has several desirable properties that are in demand for different types of products. Many of the products that are manufactured are of a disposable nature or are used only for a shorter period. After that, they are thrown away, hopefully in recycling but often in the trash or unfortunately all too often in other places.

From lack of or non-existent waste management, the plastic waste is then spread further out into nature. It is important to reduce plastic littering as well as to avoid that fossil plastic is burned with accompanying CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. The main strategy to prevent these phenomena should be to increase the recycling of plastic. Economic incentives are often effective and would likely have an effect even for increasing the recycling of plastic.

That is why the Christian Democrats have for many years argued that Sweden should introduce an international production tax on plastic manufactured from fossil materials. Through that, the plastic would receive a higher recycling value, and we would also force products made of other and less harmful materials. At the same time, we must remember that plastic is fantastic, as long as it is in the right place.

Mr. Speaker! Waste is many times not waste but a resource. Therefore, end-of-waste criteria should be developed for more products both in the EU and nationally. Many industries are requesting clearer rules on how to handle today's waste streams so that the waste can become tomorrow's raw material.

One of the industries is the tire industry, which receives 90,000 tonnes of collected tires every year. There, efforts have long been made to ensure that there are clear end of waste criteria, as this would facilitate the recycling of these tires and create clarity in how used tires can be used in various new applications and products.

In recent years, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has conducted an investigation regarding these criteria. The investigation pointed largely to the work ongoing within the EU Commission regarding end-of-waste and various waste streams. It is good that the issue is being raised at the EU level, but our assessment is that if we are to await the EU's decision in many of these matters, the result lies very far in the future. We do not have time for that. Sweden should be at the forefront when it comes to recycling, and therefore we are pushing for more of these products to be covered by the criteria.

Mr. Speaker! I had actually intended to speak about something else, but since biogas was raised in a previous speech, I just want to point out that the government chose not to appeal because it was seen that one gets significantly further along if one instead has contact with the Commission. It was also confirmed by the industry that this was a significantly better step to take. The government is now working full out to solve the economic challenges that have arisen, and now we see that in these days new decisions have come in the matter, which means that the solution may be closer in time than we first thought.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against the reservations.

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

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for an engaged and interesting speech!

I must say that I agree with very much of what Kjell-Arne Ottosson raises. I believe, for example, that the discussion surrounding waste and how we are to make waste become a resource is extremely important. Here, it is about the fact that we must find business models. Out in Europe, they are much better at seeing a part of the residual products that emerge as a resource rather than as waste, so there is very much to be done here.

Kjell-Arne Ottosson also raises the issue of household waste collection in his speech. The sad thing is that we have spent ten years debating the issue, and only now is this being implemented. We should probably have settled the issue ten years ago.

This leads me to the question that I intended to ask Kjell-Arne Ottosson. It does not concern household collection, nor does it concern packaging, which is what we mostly always talk about when we talk about recycling. My question instead concerns how we should handle business waste, that is, the waste that today does not come from households. There is construction waste with large amounts of unsorted plastic, and there is much to be done. The previous government has presented a rather ambitious plan for how to handle some of the issues. How does the government view the issues, and how shall we handle the business waste that in many cases is not packaging but which must be recycled and turned into a resource?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Johan Löfstrand for the question.

I am glad that Johan Löfstrand agreed with much of my speech. The area concerning circular economy is a rewarding topic, because here in the chamber we can find a great consensus. It is good and implies a simpler way forward.

I agree with Johan Löfstrand's concerns regarding how we should handle waste in order to make waste a resource. There is absolutely a way forward, but unfortunately it has taken a long time, not least with the end of waste criteria that I mentioned in my speech. We in Sweden would actually like to move faster, but the EU is braking in large parts.

In the name of honesty, I must say that I do not know what has happened after the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's investigation was submitted. I do not have a handle on that. That is where we come to the operational waste, which Johan Löfstrand has also raised. There is a major challenge here, and I believe that Johan Löfstrand shares my opinion on that issue. We note how much of this is handled incorrectly. There is a lot of combustible material that ends up in the container but which should not be there.

Those who receive the goods must "step up" to truly handle them in the right way. Unfortunately, we hear many stories about our waste being handled in a way that is not good and which makes the trust for waste sorting, whether it concerns household waste or waste from factories and large companies, leave a lot to be desired. Instead, we are told that it is not an idea because everyone throws everything in combustible waste since everything ends up in the same container. To manage this, we really must have the companies with us.

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

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Mr. Speaker! I definitely believe that this is an area where we do not find such large dividing lines, but unfortunately, I am a bit worried about what ambition one has. I believe that we certainly want to go in the same direction, but my concern is that the issues are not considered so prioritized. The environmental area in general is not the area that the government has prioritized and looks like it will prioritize moving forward.

We may agree on much, but the question is what ambition the government will have during the coming four years. Here I hope that the government will follow the strategy that the previous government has put forward and, above all, continue to work with both innovations and other parts.

Kjell-Arne Ottosson raises the issue of waste. There has been a considerable amount of crime regarding waste. Waste has been received, payment has been taken, and then the waste has been placed in a landfill. But then it has been pushed over to the municipality to handle the waste. It is extremely important that this is handled.

There is also a global perspective. We perhaps should not push some of our waste to other countries that have difficulty handling this. That is why it is important to look at the issues.

My final question concerns ambition. For ten years, we have discussed packaging collection and starting to recycle packaging. Will the government present proposals and investigations on moving from packaging recycling to material recycling, that is, that we should recycle more than just packaging?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Johan Löfstrand for the question. In a previous exchange of remarks during the preceding debate, an offer was made to continue the conversation over a cup of coffee. I am happy to continue that conversation as well – I experience this more as a conversation with Johan Löfstrand – regarding how we shall move forward together in the issues.

Then there was the question of the level of ambition. One only has to see how large the budget is and compare it with previous budgets. Then Johan Löfstrand sees that this is one of the largest budgets that has existed in the environmental and climate area.

The question is prioritized. Therefore, there is no doubt - for several reasons. Not least because it must be prioritized, given Member of Parliament Emma Nohrén's previous statement. She argued that we must do something now, and we have the opportunity to do something now. It is at least equally important to convey that it is not hopeless.

I agree with the issues that Johan Löfstrand has raised regarding crime and waste. These were some of the issues that were raised when the bill Order and Order on Waste was debated. Regarding the question of precisely that bill that Johan Löfstrand is calling for, I am unable to answer. I do not know which bills the government will submit during the remaining three and a half years. Unfortunately, I am unable to answer.

But when Johan Löfstrand and I sit down with a cup of coffee, I may know more and can thus provide an answer.

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

Johan Löfstrand (S)

Mr. Speaker! As the House has surely noticed, the Committee on Environment and Agriculture is debating a motion report, number 10, which concerns circular economy.

In this committee report, there are a number of motions from us Social Democrats, and I intended to touch upon some of them in my speech. But I will move for approval only to reservation number 1, where one of our motions is included.

Transitioning to a more circular economy is, according to us Social Democrats, a prerequisite for us to meet the environmental goals, for us to meet biodiversity, and for us to create new innovations and new jobs in Sweden.

Kjell-Arne Ottosson said in his speech that in prehistoric times we nevertheless had a circular way of thinking. That is entirely correct. But since industrialization hit and developed our country, one can say that we have had a linear growth. It has been built on the fact that we have produced goods by extracting natural resources, and the natural resources have then been utilized as products. When the products have been used up, they have been thrown away.

Waste has been thrown in all possible places, and we see traces of industrialism and the linear perspective on how we should manage our resources all around the world today.

There are gigantic landfills across large parts of our world. There is an island in the Pacific Ocean consisting solely of plastic. That island is today three times as large as the surface area of France. In the Swedish nature, we can see heaps, cliffs, or pits where, during the last hundred years, both one and the other have been thrown. Everything that disappeared back then was seen as gone.

If we are to manage the environmental and climate challenges that lie ahead, we must ensure that we create a circular economy. It is about the fact that we must reuse and recycle both packaging and products. We must achieve a circularity.

One of the examples that I took up in my previous exchange, which I want to describe as an extremely good example of circularity, concerns when we can get the food waste that is already spoiled – we must, of course, ensure that we have as little waste as possible – to become biogas that we can run our buses or trucks on, while at the same time we get biofertilizer. This biofertilizer we can then spread on our fields to produce new food. This type of circularity must permeate our entire society for us to manage the transition ahead.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have, during the last eight-year period, made a number of major investments so that we can transition society to become more circular. The Social Democrats have, for example, developed a strategy for circular economy with four clear focus areas.

It is about sustainable production and product design. When one produces a pen, it should be made easy to take apart and easy to recycle. That is not the case today.

It is about us consuming sustainably, that is to say that we should consume approximately as much as we need. The consumption that occurs should be moderate.

We must ensure that we create toxin-free products and circular systems. I visited India many years ago, where one of the watercourses I visited had approximately as high levels of antibiotics as one has in the body when taking a course of antibiotics. This cannot be seen as a functioning circular cycle.

Finally, the strategy is also about the fact that we must promote innovation and circular business models. Here, I believe we have much to create for the future. Today, we are good at sorting and taking care of waste, but we in Sweden are not good enough at refining waste. Here, I believe we can do very much.

In addition to the strategy for a circular economy, the previous government produced a specific action plan for how we should handle plastics. Plastic is one of the materials that is not broken down by nature. Plastic remains for a very long time. An extra strong focus is therefore required here. It is about making plastic recyclable, but it is also about the fact that we must reduce the use of plastic generally.

Mr. Speaker! Another important area that the Social Democrats have pointed out is that we must have waste seen as a resource to a much greater extent. Today, waste can, to a very large extent, ultimately become new products, and above all, entirely new added values can be created. That we can get food waste, which actually is waste, to become a resource in the form of both biogas and biofertilizer is an enormous innovation, but it cannot end there. We must do exactly the same thing when it comes to plastic, cellulose fiber, and much more. This creates innovation, sustainability, and jobs.

Comrades! If we are to meet this challenge, we must do it together, and it must be done in unison for us to manage the enormous transition that we face.

Mr. Speaker! As I said, plastic and, above all, commercial waste—that is, the waste that does not come from households but which in many cases comes from industry—that is the waste we now need to focus on. When it comes to the packaging that exists, we have functioning collection systems, but when it comes to commercial waste, there is a great deal to be done. In agriculture, one is good at recycling, for example, silage wrap; this is a very good example. But in, for example, the construction and demolition sector, there are great challenges when it comes to how we are to collect and process the leftover material and the material that arises when houses are demolished.

There is much left to do. I hope that the government now takes a clear grip on this and continues the good work that the previous government started.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring, Malin Larsson, Sofia Skönnbrink and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (all S) concurred.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! There is a great will among many of us to influence and reduce our own climate impact. It is part of many people's daily lives to be environmentally and climate-conscious. It is simply a lifestyle – something that is constantly present. It is about choosing food that has less climate impact. It is about eating the food you take home. It is about sorting waste. It is about repairing, selling, donating, buying secondhand if possible, and choosing to drive less or choosing more climate-smart alternatives.

This does not only apply to private individuals but also to civil society and the public sector. Everyone must participate and contribute. This is a welcome and completely necessary development. More people must choose this path, and it must be easy to do the right thing. The waste of the earth's resources is great, and we must together reduce the waste.

Despite many choosing to prioritize sustainability over price, our consumption is still largely built on wear and waste. It is undeniably problematic with manufacturers who deliberately design for short lifespan on products in order to be able to sell more. There is an inherent problem here because the person who owns the item has difficulty influencing the item's construction and durability. One can, however, see a positive development where consumers to an ever greater extent utilize products by swapping or subscribing instead of buying. This increases the incentives for producers to develop more sustainable products with longer lifespans.

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely this – reducing the waste of the earth's resources through sustainable consumption and smart business solutions – that this debate is about. For companies, it is about shifting from selling as many products as possible to offering products with long lifespans and products that are upgradeable. Digitalization and the sharing economy pave the way for these new consumption patterns. Market economy and growth drive the development forward. It is important that this development is promoted and not hindered. The development must constantly move forward.

I intend to try to keep it brief. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight a fine example of circular economy from my constituency.

When the war in Ukraine began, large numbers of refugees arrived in my hometown. There, the municipality contacted civil actors - or rather, civil actors and the municipality got in touch and began to equip apartments with secondhand furniture. This was very successful. Civil society also has an important role to play in the work of promoting the circular economy; it is important to remember that.

I would like to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to hear how the Liberals reason when it comes to circular economy, because environmental policy, as has been said, has until now not been given much space in the government's conducted policy and absolutely not in the Tidö Agreement.

I intend to ask approximately the same question to the Liberal member as to the Moderate member. I listened to the Minister for Climate and Environment's speech a couple of weeks ago on the occasion that Sweden is the chairing country in the EU. It was about circular economy. The Minister emphasized that products that we use every day, for example clothes and shoes, should be repaired and used again.

But now the government - and the Liberals - are raising the VAT on repairs. The increase takes effect in just a couple of weeks. This does not add up. Therefore, my question to Elin Nilsson and the Liberals is: Why should it become more expensive to take one's shoes to the cobbler if we are now striving for a circular economy?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The EU is the best tool we have for a greener, safer and freer Europe, so it is always pleasant when something happens there.

In response to your question: Just as we have heard from the rostrum earlier this evening, the VAT reduction had no effect. But one can work for a circular economy in many ways, and the incentives can come from the individuals themselves. It is important that we have this debate and highlight the importance of circular economy, reuse and recycling. Things can be moved forward in several ways.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that there is much we can do through the EU and that a great deal of work is being done within circular economy.

I do not quite agree with the Moderates' and the Liberals' assessment that the VAT increase will not have an effect. I believe rather that environmental issues are prioritized in different ways within the government and that the Minister for Environment and Climate is to some extent restricted and tries to pursue a policy that the rest of the government does not stand behind. One says one thing but then makes economic decisions in a completely different direction.

Is there a split between the Tidö parties? Do the Liberals and the Moderates have different starting points in this? Is it perhaps the case that if there is no circular economy, then there will not be one? Or how does the member think the Riksdag should interpret these different messages?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the member is interpreting too much into the picture she is painting. That circular economy is a key factor in the green transition, the Minister for Environment and Climate has been very clear about. I therefore do not share the picture the member is painting.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have sat in the committee for a few years, and I believe it is the ninth time I am debating these issues. "Easy to do right" is heard every time, and it is possibly a bit overused but at the same time a popular phrase and the basis for how one creates the conditions for a circular economy.

In many ways, we have had a fantastic development in this area, not only in Sweden but in large parts of the world. Awareness among people is great, but the awareness among private companies is perhaps even greater. For the companies, it is not primarily about tidying up the sustainability reports but perhaps above all about trying to create as much value as possible in the business models. By-products and waste are desirable today and of high value.

This also has downsides, such as a growing interest in the waste sector by organized crime, and here the police and authorities have a constant task of improvement to be able to crack down on this very destructive and illegal activity. Sharper legislation is needed here.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has been successful. The proportion of waste that is landfilled in Sweden is today at some single per mille, and the food waste is perhaps too high but is far below the EU average. We are also very far ahead compared to other countries when it comes to recycling. This does not, however, mean that the strive towards further improved resource efficiency should cease. In many areas, we can do much more.

The reason for creating conditions for people to contribute to a high degree of circularity regarding packaging, textiles, electronics, etc., is that it should be easy to contribute. Households should easily be able to understand how they go about doing the right thing, and the access to collection systems should be good. Of primary importance is access to recycling stations, but also that packaging materials are designed in such a way that they can be recycled.

A strong producer responsibility gives companies incentives to review their entire production and waste management chain. In that case, waste can be seen as a resource at best, which further contributes to increasing recycling. By taking responsibility for the waste, companies stimulate product design and materials to be adapted so that the recycling process can become as efficient as possible.

Mr. Speaker! In our committee motion, it states that the work at EU level to develop packaging standards that simplify material recycling must be intensified, which is good.

We welcome that the Commission has produced a new proposal for a regulation, but there are several problems with it. The fundamental issue is that the proposal steers towards more plastic and less wood fiber. It is a major misconception from the EU Commission that is rooted in how the forestry industry is viewed, and that is why it is not particularly surprising. Here, it is important that Sweden, together with like-minded countries, where Finland must be an ally, pushes for a more balanced proposal.

It is important to mention that the proposal can also hit the brewing industry hard. By imposing binding requirements to use a minimum level of reusable packaging, one risks causing such large costs for smaller breweries that the business will no longer be viable. The successes on the Swedish market with collection, deposit, and so on depend largely on the fact that people can choose for themselves whether they want to buy cans, returnable glass, or single-use glass. This risks being knocked out, and a transition to crates in the private consumer segment will not contribute to reduced emissions.

Mr. Speaker! Just as it is important to design collection systems and packaging requirements in an optimal way, it is also important that the tax system does not create negative incentives for circularity.

The plastic bag tax is a major problem here because it has wiped out an industry that had been a leader in developing plastic carrier bags made from fossil-free materials. I hope that we can abolish this tax shortly.

The tax on chemicals is directly destructive for circularity because it makes it much more expensive to sell used computers and phones.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to metals and minerals, we have an ethical responsibility to take care of what we once extracted from the ground. An increased ability to recycle materials can be positive from both an environmental perspective and a corporate economic perspective. There are great opportunities to increase the level of material recycling within the mining industry.

Today, in many cases, it is not profitable for companies to recycle materials from, for example, slag heaps, despite the existence of technology to recycle a number of different metals and minerals. Therefore, companies that are at the forefront in this area must be promoted.

Even though recycling and extraction of raw materials from former landfills will not be able to replace the need to mine new material, we see this as a very important complement to our raw material supply.

In order to improve the opportunities to utilize the metals and minerals that have already been extracted from the ground, the Sweden Democrats consider that the regulatory frameworks governing the possibility of efficient recycling and the granting of permits for extraction from, for example, slag heaps and landfills must be reviewed. For this reason, I move for approval of reservation 10.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! For the Left Party, a circular economy is a central part of the transition to a society that is sustainable from an environmental and climate perspective. We want a society where we do not take more from nature than it can bear and where raw materials and products can be used again through reuse and material recycling.

Since 1960, the world's production of plastic has increased twentyfold, and it is estimated to double again in the next 20 years. Only a small portion of the plastic that is produced is recycled or reused. It is simply cheaper to manufacture new instead of conserving what we already have. This has led to enormous emissions of greenhouse gases and constantly growing amounts of plastic waste. A similar problem exists regarding almost all other materials, and measures are required to solve this. To meet the planetary boundary for sustainable resource use, Swedish utilization of virgin raw materials must decrease by 75 percent by 2050.

In a circular economy, the lifespan of materials and products is longer and the extraction of natural resources is less. This requires environmentally adapted, toxin-free production as well as that waste is used as a resource. It is about reusing, repairing, recycling, renting and sharing goods to an increased extent. For this to work, it is required that consumers receive relevant information and that structures are created that enable people to share and reuse goods.

A circular economy based on manufacturing sustainable products with a long lifespan and with the possibility for repair, reuse, and recycling places completely different demands on production and on companies than what we see today. It is not sustainable to constantly extract new raw materials and manufacture new things only to let them end up in the landfill. If products last for a shorter time, it increases waste amounts and counteracts an efficient utilization of natural resources. If we are to reverse the development, political initiatives are required. Initiatives from the market and consumers can take us in the right direction but will be insufficient for us to reach a sustainable circular economy in time.

France has shown the way. They were the first in the world with legislation against so-called planned obsolescence, that is, that goods are manufactured to break after a certain period of use. Since 2021, manufacturers of certain electronic products must also inform customers about the possibilities of repairing the products.

Vänsterpartiet has long worked to secure measures that extend the lifespan of what we produce. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 4, which concerns working to ensure that things last longer and can be repaired through requirements on product design and products' lifespan.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden today has the world's fifteenth largest ecological footprint per person, and we consume resources as if we had more than four globes at our disposal. It is not sustainable. We must carry out a systemic shift and break the linear economy, otherwise we will not reach the climate goals regardless of what we do otherwise.

With today's rapid technological development, such a shift is possible. It would be good for the environment and at the same time create tens of thousands of new jobs here in Sweden. The business community is already far ahead in its own transition and is waiting for politics to take the necessary steps toward creating better market conditions for Swedish companies.

During the previous parliamentary term, Sweden's first national strategy and action plan for a circular economy was adopted. It contained more than a hundred concrete proposals for industrial transition, material supply, and technological development. It was not entirely perfect – it would have been desirable to have a broader international outlook and greater harmonization with ongoing EU legislation. But it took a number of first important steps in the right direction and demonstrated ambition and will from the state side.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, this government seems to have put the strategy for a circular economy at the bottom of the shelf, at the bottom of the pile. Environmental issues have so far not been given much space in the government's conducted policy, and absolutely not in the Tidö Agreement. I have pointed this out in several different contexts and asked the Minister for Environment and Climate where this important environmental work has gone, especially now when the economy is tougher and companies need long-term market conditions for the growth of the circular economy. The answer was rather bleak: Preparation is ongoing in the chancellery.

But it is urgent for the government! Monday's IPCC report shows that the climate crisis is real and that we really must do something now. We have been promised a climate action plan, which has been postponed time and again. It still seems unclear in what form the government intends to present this plan, if it even becomes a government bill this autumn. And what is being done now within environment and circular economy is insufficient. Simply more is needed. Instead, I see proposals that directly counteract the circular economy, for example the VAT on repairs which is being raised now on April 1st. Is it an April Fool's joke? No, it will become more expensive for consumers to have their winter coat repaired by a tailor.

One of the more important incentives for a circular economy is that our products should have a long lifespan. Exactly that is one of the points that the Delegation for Circular Economy has just handed over to the government now at the beginning of March: that we must practice good stewardship of products and thereby ensure that our products have a longer lifespan, simply that our gadgets must last longer. No one wants a throw-away society. Instead, we want to be able to repair the bicycle or our shoes, and it is completely the wrong signal if it suddenly becomes more expensive to do so.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has a whole range of proposals on what needs to be done to move closer to a circular economy. In this report, we have a number of reservations that I stand behind. But I choose to move for approval of reservation 2, as it has a more overarching character.

A holistic approach is needed: We need national goals for circular transition, we need to find a way to measure circularity, we need to work more internationally through for example the EU and the green deal and we need to cooperate between different agencies so that it gains better traction. It is not enough to do what the government is doing now – lean back and let the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency take responsibility. A broader approach is needed. All of this is in reservation 2.

I also want to point out what we can do to reduce food waste, especially now when food prices are skyrocketing. There we see that we must sharpen the national goals with a halving by 2030. We want to lower the temperature from 8 to 4 degrees in the coolers in trucks and stores, and we want to lift the issue to a higher level and talk about a waste-free Sweden, just as we usually advocate for a fossil-free Sweden. Centerpartiet also wants to remove the date marking entirely on those goods where it is not needed and develop models and calculations to see what our food waste actually costs in kronor and öre.

Another question I want to raise is the producer responsibility for mobile phones and small electronics. The recycling rate for these product groups is currently far too low because many consumers let phones and small electronics remain in the desk drawers at home rather than handing them in for reuse or recycling. A developed producer responsibility would have long-lasting positive effects for the environment and could be driven forward by the industries themselves, which is significantly more effective than various state solutions.

As has been said, there are pages and pages of good proposals for a circular economy from Centerpartiet, which I truly urge the government to look into further. Perhaps there is something that can be implemented directly.

Mr. Speaker! The Government says that they have an ambitious environmental and climate policy. But the truth is unfortunately that the Government does not have any convincing plan for how Sweden shall reach its climate goals and even less for how it shall happen with the help of a circular transition. I have not seen that ambition yet. The Government says it protects Swedish business and its competitiveness but has not yet delivered any concrete messages or proposals on how the pace of the circular transition shall be increased.

Circular economy

If the government refuses to deal with what has been done in recent years, it can at least initiate a dialogue with relevant authorities and the business community today to gain insight into all the positive things being done by the industries and how it can contribute to Sweden hopefully being able to reach the climate goals.

Mr. Speaker! Imagine a world where all goods are created so that they can be easily recycled, a world where it is a matter of course to reuse things for as long as possible, a world where all your waste can be used in new production, a world where we no longer have to extract new natural resources but already have everything we need in a cycle. It may sound like a fantasy, but with today's technology, it could soon become a reality. A circular economy is one of the Center Party's primary priorities in the environmental field.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 23 March.)

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