Circular and toxic-free economy

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! In a world where resources are limited, where the environment is challenged and where new risks are constantly identified, we need to think smarter, more long-term and more circularly.

Sweden has long been at the forefront regarding chemical legislation and environmental responsibility. And rightly so, for the truth is that chemicals in the right contexts and under the right control have contributed to fantastic progress within medicine, within food safety, within industry and in people's everyday lives. We must not forget that.

Mr. Speaker! But there are also downsides that we must work on. We must not turn a blind eye to those either. PFAS, the forever chemicals, are a clear example. These are substances that do not break down in nature and that have been found in drinking water, in animals, and in us humans. These are substances that have been used to create something better, such as fire-fighting foam, impregnation, and protection, but where the consequences have become catastrophic and global. We must take it most seriously. We do, and so does our government.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has been clear: Sweden shall be a strong voice in the EU to reduce the spread of PFAS. I believe we all here in the chamber agree on this. There are also other particularly dangerous substances that are important to limit.

Our government has emphasized the importance of a clear and scientifically anchored regulatory framework, where we both protect people's health and the environment and at the same time provide companies with the conditions to transition. For that is where the protection lies, and that is where the key lies. We cannot have a regulatory framework that neither protects nor enables; we need a regulatory framework that does both.

In our work for a circular economy, the chemical issue is central. It is not circular if we recycle toxins. It is not sustainable if we build cycles that spread what we want to combat. At the same time, we must not pull the rug out from under companies that want to do the right thing.

I want to return here to what both I and the former Member of Parliament, my colleague Bertil Malmberg, have raised in several debates: We need innovation. We need substitutes. We need research. But we also need to understand that the path there must be lined with clarity, not by surprises or foolishness such as removing a pesticide to replace it with one that we have to spray three times and which thereby causes greater emissions. The clarity shall consist of science, not symbolic politics.

Mr. Speaker! Today we have companies in Värmland and in all of Sweden that work on developing sustainable materials with improvement processes and efficient waste management. They are part of the solution that we are working with. But they often struggle with uncertainty, different interpretations between countries, long approval processes, and an unpredictability that hampers their opportunities to grow.

We will ensure that the Swedish Chemicals Agency and other authorities are given the conditions to work quickly, in a legally secure manner, and with clear EU coordination. We will continue to press the EU to create uniformity and to avoid a patchwork of rules that disadvantages Swedish companies that try to take responsibility.

It is not just about PFAS, Mr. Speaker, it concerns our entire chemical policy. It is about creating a system where we encourage recycling but do not recycle environmental toxins. It should be a system where we use technical solutions but also evaluate them, and a system where we act proactively but not in a panic.

Mr. Speaker! In the committee's report Circular and Toxic-Free Economy, we reject a number of motions. This is not because the issues lack significance, on the contrary, but because the work is already underway.

There is a risk in deciding too early, without the big picture. But there is also a risk in waiting too long. Therefore, we must do both: act and analyze. We must take responsibility nationally, regionally and internationally. This applies to our chemical policy. It applies to our producer responsibility. It applies to our view on reuse and resource management. And it applies to how we together build a circular economy that holds not only in thought, but also in practice.

Mr. Speaker! We shall have high ambitions. But we shall also have our feet on the ground. We shall protect people without knocking out the companies that want to be part of the solution. We shall take responsibility, but we shall also provide opportunities.

That is why we continue the work, step by step, for a circular, competitive and toxic-free future. There, we shall take responsibility for protecting people, nature and animals from toxins. It is not easy. But we have begun the work, because it is necessary. Together we can make a difference.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! Earlier this spring, I submitted a proposal for a committee initiative in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture which the entire opposition stood behind. The proposals in the initiative were to improve the supervision of chemicals, that the government should work towards a total ban on PFAS within the EU, that the government should create an action plan to accelerate the phasing out and remediation of PFAS, and that the government should task state-owned companies and agencies with increasing the work on remediating PFAS-contaminated areas.

Despite the fact that Sweden has a long tradition of being at the forefront when it comes to the regulation of chemicals, and that this is something that even this government boasts about, the parties in the government support have rejected the proposal. The argument for doing so was that PFAS is important for a lot of different things. The question that arises is: What can be more important than protecting people's health? Is the chemical industry's interest in continuing to spread poison more important for the government?

The socially important uses of PFAS where alternatives are lacking are already exempted in the authorities' proposals for a ban on PFAS. Merely banning PFAS in consumer products, which appears to be the Moderaternas new line, is completely insufficient to protect us from the diseases that PFAS causes. All experts agree on this.

I also find it difficult to understand why the right-wing parties could not support the other proposals in the intended committee initiative. Does the government not think that more needs to be done to remediate areas contaminated by PFAS or to manage the state's own PFAS debts?

We are reached every year by new alarms about drinking water sources that are contaminated and where people are exposed to great risks. In many cases, it is state authorities or companies that are responsible for the emissions. But the affected receive no help, and the costs are shifted onto the municipalities. Is that how it is supposed to be?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I was clear in my speech that the motions were rejected because the work is ongoing. This was also what we maintained when we discussed the issue in the committee.

To have your feet on the ground means to build legislation that holds, not to delay. We push forward in the EU. We strengthen the work of the authorities. We create stability for companies so that they dare to invest in green solutions. It is action, not passivity.

Just because the work is already underway, no further steering signals are needed that risk creating ambiguity, which the Member of Parliament actually stands behind.

We focus on implementation, not double work. We are also already pushing for the EU's PFAS ban proposal, where the decisions actually have an effect.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that work is underway on these issues. However, there is also a great consensus among experts that this work is not sufficient and that the level of ambition now appears to be too low. The Moderate EU Commissioner Jessika Roswall has stated that her ambition is to ban PFAS in consumer products and not within industry, and this will become a major problem because the large use of PFAS is within industry. People's health is therefore not protected in that way.

The reason the level of ambition has been lowered is precisely because the industry's lobbyists are blocking the proposals. There is no scientific reason to back down here.

I also miss answers from the Moderates on what more can be done at the Swedish level to handle the problems we already have in Sweden. What is being done for the people who have already been affected by contamination of, for example, PFAS? Kallinge is the worst example, where 5,000 people have been heavily poisoned and for over ten years have had to conduct a legal process regarding this entirely on their own. They have received no support whatsoever from the state. What is the government doing for those people?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to emphasize that the events in Kallinge are tragic and that work is being done on that issue.

But I also want to emphasize that there are two different parts in what the Member of Parliament is taking up. We share this concern. We are clear that we do. But we want effective solutions, not symbolic politics. Traceability requires common standards in the EU. We are actively working for that. Until then, we focus on what actually has an effect. We provide research funding, purification technology, and rules that work in practice.

We prioritize both people's health and a functioning transition. Effective chemical protection must go hand in hand with innovation capacity, and here we are strong from Sweden's side within the EU. We have in Sweden examples of companies that are world leaders in purification and replacement substances. We need clear and predictable conditions, not the erratic politics that Vänsterpartiet stands for.

We want this to be solved in scientifically based ways that have an effect. That work is ongoing, both in the EU and in Sweden. The important thing is that we have clarity in the work so that we show where we stand and where we want to go and do not run too fast in these issues.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the speech.

In many and much, I agree with what the member says. The area of chemicals is something that we have often had quite good consensus on in this chamber. Sweden has been at the forefront regardless of which government constellations have been in power. We have often ended up supporting the proposals that have existed, bans on bisphenols and other things.

But despite the member saying that the work is ongoing, that Sweden is in motion, that we are still working with PFAS and other things and that we are pushing forward the chemical work in the EU, the funding for the authority that is our expert authority, Kemikalieinspektionen, has been cut incredibly much. Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to read a bit from Kemikalieinspektionens annual report for 2024.

Thus the director-general says: ”It has been a year characterized by transition. Hiring freezes have applied during a large part of the year. In June, 38 positions were notified and fixed-term employment was terminated prematurely. During the autumn, intensive work has been carried out with relocations and MBL negotiations. – – – The savings have been made with both a cake server and a cheese slicer. The transition has been based on the agency's instructions, entered agreements, and the mandatory requirements of legislation. Most of what is not necessary to do has either been deprioritized or will continue to be carried out with a lower level of ambition. For example, the agency's support to the Government Offices in EU matters has decreased significantly.”

It is precisely in the EU issues where this and all the other things are so important.

We had the authority visiting the committee. We talked, among other things, about the import of parcels, which they do not have the possibility to inspect and will have even less possibility to inspect in the future precisely because of these cuts. They do not have the personnel resources.

How does this rhyme with the level of ambition that the member expresses?

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! I myself sit on the oversight board for the Swedish Chemicals Agency and receive reports on how their work functions. I feel confident in the work they do in this area.

As the member knows, the government and the Riksdag do not have an inexhaustible treasury. We must prioritize, just as the previous government needed to prioritize. When it comes to this area, I think our government is doing solid work both in the EU and nationally. Our government is also clear on Sweden's line in the EU, which shall be based on science and proportionality. We do not want symbol bans that lack alternatives and risk knocking out Swedish industry. We negotiate for real change, not the political markings that the member's party usually wants to make.

I want to be clear that I am not worried about how we work with these issues in Sweden. We are moving forward, and we highlight in the EU what policy Sweden wants and how we work with the issues. We are really pushing in the EU, and we work nationally towards the companies so that this will improve.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

Yes, we are still pushing forward on these issues. At the same time, the questions are becoming more and more complex. We are discovering more connections. Ten years ago, we did not know that PFAS was present in the drinking water in Kallinge. It was discovered then. Just a couple of weeks ago, the water tap had to be turned off outside Vingåker when new PFAS were found that they had no idea about. I therefore find it very difficult to believe that we are doing everything we can in this area, when we are cutting the funding to the agency that works with it.

The government says it is about priorities. That is how it is, and there one clearly sees that the government prioritizes tax cuts for the rich and having Europe's third cheapest petrol price. A gift-free environment and climate must take a backseat. We have the largest increase in emissions, 6 percent last year. We are not meeting our climate and environmental goals. It is clear that it is about priorities.

Again: Is the member satisfied with the level of ambition that exists, and does she believe that we will manage it? Does the member not believe that we could have done more – faster – and save people, sometimes even their lives and health, since many of the substances are carcinogenic, if we had allocated more funds to this?

(Applause)

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

Marléne Lund Kopparklint (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe anyone here in the chamber can be satisfied when we constantly make discoveries of levels of PFAS that are present in our nature and which we discover in different places in our country, but these are discoveries that we must handle. It is a legacy that we must handle because we did not have the knowledge many years ago when the emissions were made. Therefore, innovation, research, and research support in this area is incredibly important. The Swedish Chemicals Agency's role is also incredibly important when it comes to working with this.

We must also safeguard people's health, our nature and our animals when it comes to PFAS and potential emissions that can be limited. Here, the Swedish Chemicals Agency also has an important role, and I see that they are shouldering that role in a very good way.

One cannot be satisfied when seeing the problems. Working with these issues is an important step to take. We agree that we must work hard against PFAS in society, but we must also realize that in some areas, PFAS is necessary. There, we must find alternative solutions. This is what our government is working on, and it is also being worked on in the EU.

Supervision is incredibly important when it comes to PFAS to conduct controls in our nature and at companies, but we must also work together to find solutions to the problems we see in society. In that regard, I think the government is taking important steps and is taking a great responsibility and is clear.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of our reservation 46 in the report Circular and Toxic-Free Economy, so that I do not forget it. It concerns the EU's chemical legislation and the fact that we must speed it up. I believe this is important for all the issues that we are discussing today.

Mr. Speaker! We stand in the midst of a triple challenge or perhaps a quadruple challenge: climate change, loss of biodiversity, resource scarcity, and a growing threat from dangerous chemicals.

We know that we are exceeding the planet's boundaries regarding six of nine parameters and that the others have orange or red lights. Our current system is based on extracting, using, and then discarding, even though we know that resources are finite and even though there are enormous opportunities in what we today call waste. In a world with acute climate and biodiversity crises and with today's uncertain global situation, we cannot afford to waste. A circular economy is not something that is nice to have, but it is actually necessary.

This has been worked on for a long time, Mr. Speaker, and the EU has a huge battery of legislation. Some has been adopted, and other things are underway: the ecodesign regulation, a new waste directive, green product passports, and producer responsibility for textiles.

Many Swedish companies are at the forefront, but that requires that politics keeps up and that we provide the conditions for everyone to work with this. Without political steering, it is rarely the best solutions that win, but rather the cheapest solutions and the loopholes. Then it ends with us doing as we do today: burning textiles and exporting electronic waste to countries with much poorer working environment and environmental protections. So we cannot have that, Mr. Speaker.

In the consideration, we have several reservations, and we have proposals within areas such as sustainable design, lifespan, and the conditions for companies. We also have proposals within key areas such as the construction sector, metal and minerals, waste and food waste, and even on how to reuse boats. This might not be thought of as a big problem, but it is along our coasts. And not least, we have our nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, which we use to produce food and other crops and to grow cotton for our clothes. We use these linearly today instead of circulating them.

Since the speaking time is not long enough to cover everything, I will primarily focus on two issues: textiles and chemicals.

The textile sector has come into the spotlight. We received a collection requirement. The municipalities are responsible for it from January 1st of this year, but it has not gone so well. We were a bit unprepared, but we hope that a producer responsibility will come.

Textiles have an enormous environmental impact. According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, we discard 8 kilograms of textiles per person per year in Sweden. Before we had the collection law that came at the turn of the year, it was only a quarter that was collected. Why is it then so important to reuse textiles? Of all the textile waste that is collected in the world, it is 1 percent that is recycled and becomes new fiber – 1 percent globally. And then we buy approximately 12 kilograms per person in Sweden.

Of the textile waste exported from Sweden, approximately 20 percent will become new raw materials, perhaps combined in car seats and other items. This is a great loss in itself, because textiles have a very large climate impact. To manufacture the jeans I am wearing, it probably required 10,000 liters of water, 3–5 kilos of chemicals, and approximately 20–30 kilos of carbon dioxide equivalents.

Textiles have a very large impact. 80 percent of the impact occurs in the production phase and 20 percent in the user phase. As long as we can continue to use and reuse, it is therefore good, because then we reduce the climate impact. It is not sustainable to do as we do today. The textiles we use have an impact all over the world. There are also appalling working conditions in many places where textiles are manufactured, not only in the factories but also where cotton or whatever it may be is grown.

I therefore hope that the producer responsibility for textiles is not delayed any further but is put in place soon so that manufacturers are held responsible for taking care of it. It is a waste of resources, and it is a betrayal of the companies that are trying to create business models. We need to get repair, reuse, and recycling.

We must also ensure that the public sector takes the lead and procures textiles that can be reused and recycled and perhaps buys reused items in the first instance. Today it is often the opposite – it is not included when it comes to textiles.

Mr. Speaker! In the last few minutes, I want to use the time for chemicals. PFAS was taken up early in the debate. We know that it is present in clothes, makeup, and furniture. A ban is underway. Everyone was in favor of it being banned everywhere and thought: "How can this be here?" Everyone was in agreement until one started to see that PFAS is used a bit everywhere and that there might be some large company that could not produce its products. It was said: "We ban it in the consumer sector, but those who produce can continue to use it."

People are constantly finding loopholes. That is often the case in the world of chemicals. We see it regarding many substances. We begin using chemicals before we know how dangerous they are, and then once they are on the market, we have tied ourselves to systems. When they are finally to be banned, we have entire structures built around the use of just these substances, and then we get workaround solutions.

This must come to an end. We must ensure that within the EU we can ban substances in groups based on hazard and that this can be done in advance. One must prove that a substance is harmless before it is released on the market, instead of having it as it is now, where one has to prove it the other way around.

Mr. Speaker! Let me take an example of how these loopholes can be used. We go to Eskilstuna. There, a company, Senior Materials, has been granted permission to release 90,000 tonnes per year of a toxic and prohibited chemical called methyl chloride, a substance that is classified as dangerous. There are limit values. One is only allowed to release 1.5 kilos per hour or 360 kilos per day according to the industrial emissions directive.

The County Administrative Board wanted the company to be denied its application, because they were not allowed to use as much as they had applied for. But then someone clever there found the following: If we say that this is not something we use as a solvent, but that we use it when we manufacture a new product, we fall under a different legislation. Then we suddenly get an exemption, because there is nothing else to use in just this production.

Permission was thus granted to release 90,000 tonnes per year of a carcinogenic substance.

These loopholes, Mr. Speaker, must be closed. We cannot have a piece of legislation in which we have collectively agreed that a subject is very dangerous and another where it becomes permitted after twisting and turning the arguments a little bit. Therefore, I move for approval of our reservation 46, which concerns how we should change the EU legislation.

Mr. Speaker! Circular economy is also a matter of justice. In many parts of the world, people in poor countries are forced to deal with our waste. I have personally seen people in Bangladesh sitting and smashing light bulbs and, without face masks, removing the filaments by hand. We also know that textiles are washed with dangerous substances that go straight into rivers.

We in Miljöpartiet want to ensure that Sweden pushes forward so that all waste management takes place under safe working conditions, even in our export flows. We are in a systemic crisis. A circular, toxic-free economy is not an issue for the future. It must be solved now. We must have clear goals, strong governance, modern legislation that accounts for this, and investments in solutions that last over time. A circular, toxic-free economy is not a dream. It is something we must achieve for the future.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Even though we are currently having a debate in the chamber, the report on a circular toxin-free economy concerns an area where we are largely in great agreement. We all think it is important to have a circular and toxin-free economy. It is a fundamental part of the stewardship concept, and very much is about common sense.

There are, of course, reservations, and approval has already been requested for some of them. It is part of the politics. But here, as said, it is more about how we handle cases and bills rather than that we are against what is raised in the reservations. It is about how we handle the whole thing – that is why the proposal is that the reservations should be dismissed. The same applies when I request approval for the proposal in the report and dismissal of the reservations.

The Prime Minister has said that the business sector is the new environmental movement. This has been quoted many times. It is extremely important for our companies that what they produce is truly viable and marketable on the market.

Sustainable design and design that enables recycling and reuse in some form is absolutely crucial. The new ecodesign regulation, which was adopted in June 2024, covers both more products and more sustainability aspects in comparison to the directive. The regulation constitutes a framework for establishing ecodesign requirements that products must meet in order to be released on the market or put into use. The purpose is to improve the environmental sustainability of products to make sustainable products the norm and reduce products' total carbon and environmental footprint during their life cycle.

Through the regulation, a digital product passport is also established. Furthermore, a framework is created to prevent unsold consumer products from being destroyed. The regulation applies to all physical goods placed on the internal market, with certain exceptions where it does not work for various reasons.

Many of us here in the chamber often criticize the EU and the EU's eagerness in many respects. But in this case, the EU has done a very good job so that we can have recycling and reuse as the norm. The Ecodesign Directive is very good.

Something, however, that is not as good, Mr. Speaker, but which is in high demand, is all import trade of fast fashion.

The government is working within the EU to remove the duty-free status for low-value shipments. Earlier this spring, the government also organized a round-table discussion with invited representatives from authorities, the business community, and civil society to discuss consumer protection and competition against the background of the problems with e-commerce platforms outside the EU.

The government has now initiated extensive work with representatives from the relevant departments to cover issues such as competitiveness, sustainability, and consumer protection. The purpose is to intensify the cooperation and define which measures need to be taken in the short term to prevent dangerous products from platforms such as Temu and Shein from being imported to Sweden.

Purchases from Chinese e-commerce platforms can be perceived as a real bargain, at least if one looks at the price. But it is paid for in the form of companies that follow Swedish and European laws and regulations risking being wiped out due to unhealthy competition and because dangerous products reach the internal market. It is time to stop the import of dangerous goods and strengthen competition and sustainability and protect Swedish consumers.

Furthermore, fast fashion causes enormous climate footprints. The products are often transported over long distances, which means large carbon emissions. We have seen in the media what absurd routes a returned package from one of these companies can take. Returns have, for example, been shown to be sent from Sweden to be burned in the Atacama Desert in Chile.

Textiles and recycling is another issue on partly the same street, which Emma Nohrén also took up in her speech. After we received new regulations on January 1 of this year, it has become illegal to throw away fabric and old clothes in the regular household waste. Instead, the textile waste shall be delivered to one of the country's recycling centers.

The problems surrounding collection and recycling have clearly been conveyed to the government, and at a meeting in the committee with the Minister for Climate and Environment, she was clear that we cannot sit on our hands and wait for a common EU regulatory framework for how, among other things, producer responsibility shall be handled. Here, we must take the lead and go ahead. I look forward to the result of that.

It is not the civil society organizations that, in their work of helping others, should have to take the hit and handle tasks that do not fall under their responsibility. Unfortunately, we have seen this happen after the legislative change. Their focus, Mr. Speaker, should be one hundred percent on helping others who need the help. The Minister is very clear that we must get a Swedish sorting industry started.

During the morning news today, I also noted how in my own beautiful Värmland, they have started to handle old clothes and fabrics so that they can be used as insulation in walls. They are therefore not reused as clothes but as insulation. It has been shown that this has a lower carbon footprint than the insulation one usually uses today.

A subject that I have raised from this rostrum every year when we have discussed circular economy is food waste. It is something that makes me irritated and frustrated. It is strange how we have totally lost the knowledge that our parents had. I always say that it is not dangerous to smell and taste the milk. You can tell if it is too old.

I had to do an experiment last year. I live in Stockholm a few days every week and am then at home for a few days. Therefore, it becomes a bit hit and miss with what one has for toppings in the refrigerator.

I tried a type of liver pâté. It says that it is shelf-stable for up to five days after opening. When I arrived here in the third week, it still hadn't grown any mold. It didn't smell strange, and it didn't taste strange. This was perhaps pushing it a bit, but we must have a different attitude towards food, Mr. Speaker.

Since I live where I live, it often happens that I fly via Norway to get home. I then stop and buy milk on the way home, because my local general store closes earlier in the day. The milk that comes out in the stores in Norway has a significantly longer shelf life than the milk that comes out in stores in Sweden. It is milked and handled on the same day, but the milk in Norway lasts a week longer. Why is that? Well, it is different EU rules.

We see exactly the same thing with eggs, Mr. Speaker. It looks different in the EU, but we still have one size fits all when it comes to eggs. Consequently, we have date-stamping on that as well. We can look at nature. There, there are no eggs lying in refrigerators, for example. They still hold. We must achieve a change in attitude there.

It is extremely important that we tackle food waste. It is also something that is addressed in the food strategy. In several places in the food strategy, it is clearly pointed out how we must both stop throwing away food and facilitate what is referred to there as food donation.

Since I am already exceeding my speaking time, Mr. Speaker, I shall attempt to come in for landing. It is not only in the food strategy that this issue of food waste is pointed out several times, but it has also been moved forward in government decisions. The Swedish Food Agency has received clear mandates regarding this matter of food waste.

I also intended to talk a little bit about circularity within the construction sector and other parts regarding both second-hand, plastic, and chemicals. But my speaking time is up, and I must therefore thank you and step down. I move, as stated, for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! The circular economy is an important priority for us Social Democrats. The environmental advantage of transitioning from a linear to a circular model is completely obvious, but there are also great socio-economic advantages and gains to be made.

Sweden and the world face major environmental and climate challenges. A key to meeting these is to transition from a linear to a circular economy where resources are used more efficiently and sustainably. This also lies in my party's core values of justice, solidarity, and sustainability.

We have many proposals in this report. They concern everything from the review of the EU's chemical legislation and the importance of developing a sustainable design for products to how we achieve a circular management of textiles, packaging, metals, and minerals. But to adhere to practice, I move for approval of reservation 7 regarding the conditions for companies to transition to a circular economy.

Mr. Speaker! Increased consumption has meant that humans now use resources equivalent to several planets. It is often said that we live as if we had 1.7 planets. In particular, rich countries like Sweden rank high on the list of countries that consume much more than the earth can sustain. At the same time, many billions of people on this planet need to increase their welfare. This means that even more resources will be needed.

Everything I have just mentioned are challenges and problems. The fact is, however, that climate-smart solutions and a circular economy involve opportunities. We must manage our natural resources. We must recycle, reuse, design better, and close the loop so that waste becomes resources. When we rethink and come up with new ways to manufacture, consume, and recycle, opportunities also open up for innovation, for jobs, and of course for health and the environment.

Mr. Speaker! A circular economy means that products are designed to last longer and to be able to be repaired, reused, and recycled. This creates new jobs, promotes innovation, and strengthens competitiveness.

Prevention of waste is a very important starting point. We must take responsibility throughout the entire life cycle. This applies particularly in areas such as electronics, textiles, construction products, and packaging. There, we need to do very much.

We must also keep in mind that in times of security policy unrest – and with the preparedness discussion – it is an investment in increased preparedness to become more resource-smart for both energy and material supply. We Social Democrats therefore have many proposals to improve this area and to safeguard climate, environment and health.

Some of our proposals in the report are to introduce extended producer responsibility to reduce waste and promote reuse and recycling, to ensure fair competition conditions by having all producers pay for their waste, and to develop policy instruments – including a review of the waste tax and the economic incentives that exist for recycled material. We also want to strengthen the regulatory framework to increase the lifespan of products, we want to promote investments in recycling facilities, and we want to favor circular business models.

We Social Democrats also want to use public procurement better, because we know that it is a very large part of the economy and can help in this transition. We want to invest in education, research and cooperation to increase knowledge and accelerate the development of circular solutions.

Mr. Speaker! A sustainable circular economy must also include better chemical legislation. Several colleagues from different parties have raised this in the chamber today. That is positive. Chemicals are today a huge challenge if we are to succeed in achieving circular flows. We cannot and do not want to mix certain chemicals, as they become even more dangerous in this cocktail of chemicals.

We also know that in several industrial processes today, more chemicals and more dangerous ones are used. We can take textiles as an example. It is very crucial that we do not introduce chemicals that hinder the possibility of recycling.

Many of these forever chemicals, such as PFAS, constitute a huge obstacle now that we are to transition to a circular economy. We know that these end up in the environment, and they just accumulate. As it has looked so far, it has been about textiles, fluorinated gases and medical-technical equipment that are being detected in more and more natural areas in Sweden, but also across the entire world.

Within the EU, it has been seen that it is a huge problem that these exist and that they damage the environment and health. More and more research studies now show that PFAS are present in all of our bodies. They are in human bodies everywhere across the entire globe. The chemicals are dangerous for our health. It is also shown that they are deeply harmful. In Sweden, it is enough to talk about the concern that exists in areas where there are contaminations, for example Kallinge, where people have been affected so incredibly hard.

We must do more to stop PFAS. It actually needs to become a total stop. Many say that we need to keep it in industrial processes. Yes, but we can talk about transitional rules where we phase in new and safe substances, because this is life-threatening. We do not want to make people sick by providing medicines that are supposed to prevent other diseases. PFAS is life-threatening. It is time we realize that. PFAS is also a huge obstacle for the circular economy as long as it exists in our environment.

Mr. Speaker! In order to create a toxic-free and circular economy, a number of obstacles in the way must be removed. It must become easier for both companies and people to do the right thing. Today, we have many systems and laws that do not create opportunities for circular flows. It must happen in more stages – from design and material use to reuse and recycling.

We know today that virgin material is often cheaper for companies to use. Those who try to do the right thing are therefore hindered in the competition. Swedish companies are nevertheless at the forefront when it comes to creating circular products and services. People work tirelessly for this, because they know it is important. Politics must, however, help with the instruments of governance – that is quite clear.

Circular Sweden is a business forum for circular economy. In their report this year, they have presented seven policy recommendations, which include, among others, introducing requirements for design for long lifespan and recycling, introducing more requirements on the proportion of recycled material in products, and strengthening the economic incentives for increased circularity. These are some examples of their proposals.

When it comes to the responsibility of politics, the Social Democratic government presented several proposals when we governed Sweden, including regarding improved procurement legislation. We saw that one could also, through Industriklivet, help those who wanted to invest in circularity.

The industrial step was a major investment from the previous government's side. It was about achieving better development for fossil-free steel, technology for negative emissions, and also the production of green hydrogen. In addition to promoting the climate transition in industry, this also contributes to strengthening Swedish exports and competitiveness. Industry today accounts for just over a third of the emissions in Sweden, so it is no small matter to work with the green transition.

Let me conclude by saying that during the recent years, the work on the climate has stalled with the government we have. The green transition has been slowed down. Now we see the results of that: more bankruptcies, a weaker economic policy, and also more in unemployment. It is a huge problem. Social sustainability is linked to the green transition.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a new direction. A climate-smart circular economy is a smart policy for the new direction that Sweden needs to take.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, the circular economy must be in focus for the next chapter in Swedish environmental policy.

We are facing a decisive shift in environmental policy. We need, as far as is possible, to transition from the linear to the circular. The transition includes everything from recycling, reuse, and waste management to plastics, chemicals, and textiles, to name a few. It is about the fact that we must reduce the extraction of new raw materials and increase the reuse of the resources we already have, but also about the fact that we must reduce the impact and pollution of our environment during the process – from manufacturing to use and finally to waste management.

There are many advantages to transitioning from a linear to a circular economy: increased resource efficiency, strengthened Swedish competitiveness, and reduced emissions of both pollutants and greenhouse gases. There are great opportunities here for Swedish companies that choose to be at the forefront regarding technical solutions and sustainable business models – an export that can contribute to the environmental transition worldwide.

Today, unfortunately, there are far too many obstacles hindering the environmental transition that needs to take place, and these must be torn down. Even through small regulatory simplifications, we can take large steps to save our planet and pave the way for successful Swedish companies and world-class technological innovations. Therefore, we Liberals want circular economy to be the focus for the next chapter in Swedish environmental policy.

Mr. Speaker! Consumers are becoming increasingly aware and are setting higher demands when it comes to the products and goods they purchase. This applies to origin, climate impact, and the conditions of production. It is time for politics to set equally high demands and also create better conditions.

We Liberals are pushing forward in the government cooperation so that the issues concerning circular economy shall be re-evaluated and prioritized both in Sweden and especially in the EU. In the reorganization of the environmental policy that the government has begun, we want to move even faster and accelerate the circular environmental transition even more powerfully.

Mr. Speaker! We want to see a ban on Chinese ultra-fast-fashion platforms such as Shein and Temu. We no longer want to allow imports from these platforms, at least as long as they do not comply with Swedish chemical legislation and our rules regarding consumer rights.

Just as has been mentioned here in the rostrum earlier, there is a major problem with precisely Chinese platforms that sell vast amounts of cheap and low-quality products which all too often contain environmental and health-harmful toxins that are not permitted in Sweden and the EU. We need to do more to reduce the clothing industry's emissions and promote a more sustainable and circular consumption. We need to regulate these platforms more strictly.

It is a fact that all consumption and production involves a climate footprint. It is also good that many consumers are aware of this and want to make good and wise choices. More consumers should take responsibility and stop shopping from these irresponsible platforms. It is good both for the climate and the environment and for the working conditions for the people who produce the things.

When one looks into these issues, it is not at all difficult to find examples of goods that are directly repulsive. They contain dangerous chemicals, mold, and traces of insects and pests when they arrive at the customer. Furthermore, the working conditions in the factories, just as I mentioned, are absolutely appalling.

It is the safety of the product and the factory workers' human rights that are compromised when one clicks home these cheap goods. Here, consumers have great influence. Consumer power is important, but at the same time, it must be easy to do the right thing. Therefore, we need to regulate the import of these goods.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Nilsson, for the contribution to this important debate!

I can state that we share common starting points, including regarding the important issues that MP Nilsson raised concerning fast fashion and the challenges we face there. In that regard, it is also pleasing to see that there is a great consensus in the Swedish Riksdag that this needs to be better regulated.

With this said, I would still like to ask Member Nilsson how the Liberals view PFAS. The debate has been significant here in the chamber during the afternoon, and this is an area where many are concerned. We are a few parties who see that we also need to put greater pressure on the production side of the economy.

Several parties have raised this. Not least, we have heard the EU Minister speak about PFAS being regulated at the consumer level, i.e., when it comes to consumer products. But the fact is that more and more production links contain PFAS. We know that it exists in the construction sector. It exists in pesticides, i.e., in agriculture. It exists in everything from textiles to makeup that also reaches consumers. But even the part that does not directly reach consumers but is still present in our economy is important to regulate. I want to hear what Member Nilsson says about this.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for this highly topical and important issue!

There is a great consensus when we discuss how problematic the groups of substances included in PFAS are. This is one of our time's most problematic issues to handle in the environmental field. It is also very serious that PFAS continues to spread.

We want to see a total ban on PFAS. Then some exceptions may be necessary, but they should be restrictive. A good general rule could be that when PFAS as a product saves lives – for example in cancer drugs, where it may need to be included for the medicines to be effective – there may be grounds for exceptions.

But as the member mentioned in a previous exchange here, it is also important to work towards a total ban in the long run. However, transitional rules may be required. I also believe that a key to this is to achieve a ban at the EU level.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Nilsson, for the clarity in the question!

I hope that the Liberals in the Riksdag have a dialogue with the government about expediting this. We Social Democrats have addressed the Minister for Environment on the issue on several occasions, and we know that there is a commitment. But we are afraid that the commitment from the government's side – and also at the EU level – only extends to consumer products and that it is there that they, so to speak, want to be content.

We believe it would be dangerous, because then PFAS would be present in our environment to a very large extent. The large, contaminated tap would continue to release harmful substances that ultimately reach humans and entire ecosystems. We are very concerned about that.

We therefore wish that the Liberals truly speak with the government about this. Ideally, we would cooperate across party lines to achieve a total ban, because this issue is one of our time's greatest environmental challenges – not to mention environmental scandals.

We know that people in Kallinge are affected already today. I have met the association that drives the interest to help those who have been poisoned by the water, and very many have been affected by cancer. It is heartbreaking to hear the stories, to know that this has happened in the community where people should be safe and to see the frustration and anxiety that it leads to. We must stop it from continuing to happen in Sweden and in Europe.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the contribution and the questions.

I share the image of what has happened in Kallinge. What is happening there is absolutely terrible. One should not have to be exposed to environmental toxins in Sweden.

It is an old debt that Kallinge is now hit by, which is one part of this. The other part, which we are discussing here now, is about preventing it from happening again. There, we must work at a high pace and continue the work that the government is actually carrying out for a total ban. Perhaps there should be certain exceptions for pharmaceuticals and so on, just as I said, but the Liberals' position in this is that it should, in that case, be very restrictive. PFAS are substances that should not be in the environment. One should not risk being exposed to them.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of reservation 15.

The creation of a circular economy where packaging, textiles, electronics, and so on are reused or recycled is a vision that I believe most can stand behind. But for this to become a reality, it must be easy for households to contribute. The collection systems must be accessible and clear, and packaging must be designed to be recyclable as effectively as possible.

Since the internal market is regulated at the EU level, there also need to be regulations at the EU level when it comes to these products. What we see today is an EU regulatory framework that is becoming increasingly strict and which also risks counteracting its own purpose. This can lead to – and has led to – price increases, for example in our grocery stores, when the packaging becomes more expensive. Waste fees have also increased as it becomes increasingly costly to collect the packaging.

When it comes to the circular economy, just as in other areas, we have moved from an order with a high degree of national competence to an order dominated by EU legislation. The circular economy is, in many cases, driven by a strong market. Such is the situation, for example, for both metals and fats.

It is worse when it comes to plastic packaging and clothing; here, recycled raw material is usually significantly more expensive than a virgin one, which makes the market much more difficult to create. In that case, it is up to politics to play its part, and it is from that context that we are now seeing very many proposals coming at the EU level.

Mr. Speaker! A strong producer responsibility is central here. It gives companies incentives to see waste as a resource and to design products that facilitate recycling. But the EU's new packaging regulation, with its high requirements for reuse, creates problems. The strict rules drive up costs for the packaging industry, which in turn raises prices on food and other products. Furthermore, waste fees for households increase because the municipalities are forced to handle a more complicated and costly recycling system.

This is a direct consequence of the EU's bureaucratic micro-management, which often lacks flexibility and does not take local conditions into account. At its core, there is also a lack of impact assessments when the proposals are being developed.

Mr. Speaker! We also see an over-reliance on reuse as a solution. Reusable packaging is presented as a universal medicine, but research shows that many packages have a low climate impact even when recycled – sometimes lower. Nevertheless, the EU's regulatory framework forces solutions that are not always the most effective. This is a clear example of how Brussels' uniform starting point stifles innovation and ignores reality.

Sweden should be a clearer voice within the European Union and push for regulations that provide flexibility between reuse and recycling. We need pragmatic solutions that take into account both environmental goals and the citizens' wallets. Instead of letting the EU's bureaucracy drive up costs for households and companies, we should work for a system that makes it easy to do the right thing without it costing too much.

Mr. Speaker! Within environmental policy, interest moves in trends. When I grew up, people in school spoke mostly about the ozone layer and the threat to it. Most often, the problems are not quite as acute as they appear when one reads the headlines in the newspaper, but everything is also not calm just because there is less talk about it. Freons are still a problem in Sweden.

Freons have potentially very negative effects on the environment because they not only break down and thin out the ozone layer but are also a very powerful greenhouse gas. One kilogram of freon has the same greenhouse effect as up to 11,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide. Although the problem with freon is not given as much space in the debate today as it was a few decades ago, freon still causes great damage.

To meet the environmental threat from freons, all materials containing freon shall be handled as hazardous waste, and the material shall be kept intact until it is submitted to an approved facility that has the correct competence to destroy the material. The rules are quite clear in this area, and they are based on both national and European legislation.

The problem is that the law is not followed today. There are masses of examples of decommissioned refrigerators that still contain freons, especially from the grocery store sector, and which are not reused in the correct way. Decommissioned refrigerators from trade and restaurants end up at an approved recycling facility to an all too small extent, which is quite easy to monitor because we do not have particularly many of them. The problem of refrigerators being damaged during transport and leaking freon is also widespread.

Freon is also present in old building materials, which must be given increased attention. Experience from the recycling industry indicates that only a small amount of these building materials are currently handled correctly. The most common practice in many parts of the country is that the materials are incinerated.

More targeted information is needed for all actors who handle materials with freon. The lack of knowledge is widespread today, especially within the construction industry, the real estate sector, and the food retail sector. Supervision and control should therefore be strengthened and improved, which is why we, from the Sweden Democrats' side, want to see an investigation that finds out why so little of these materials are handled correctly today and how one can proceed to improve the situation.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Kinnunen for his speech in the important debate on circular economy!

A question that we Social Democrats ask ourselves is why the Sweden Democrats do not see the great positive effects that exist for employment, innovation, and people when it comes to environmental legislation that is regulated at the EU level. In the speech, Kinnunen spoke about the EU in rather derogatory terms – that it is about greed on the part of the EU. But the purpose of working across borders with this type of legislation is, after all, to ensure that fair rules of the game are obtained for companies. They should have the opportunity to develop products in a good way and compete on fair terms with other companies in the internal market that the EU constitutes.

In a time when bankruptcies are piling up and unemployment is skyrocketing in Sweden, it is difficult to understand why Kinnunen does not want to accelerate the Swedish economy and the opportunities for Swedish companies and jobs.

I am completely convinced that the Swedish people assume that the large support party for the government wants to avoid the economic development we have now. The companies say that the EU is very important for us to get fair rules so that different EU countries do not regulate differently, something that would be very negative for the possibility of growth and more jobs.

Why do the Sweden Democrats continue to be so negative towards the EU level in politics?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for the questions!

We naturally need a fair and balanced policy in the packaging area in Sweden and in Europe. As I noted, we have the internal market, which means we must strive for similar regulatory frameworks. One must have equally good opportunities to recycle a package from Italy sold in Sweden as a Swedish package sold in Italy. We need the EU legislation because we are currently part of the internal market. On that, we are in complete agreement.

The question is to what extent one should look at the consequences. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we think that the EU Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament should have been more concerned about, for example, food prices. We know that the packaging regulation is driving up increased food prices. The packaging becomes more costly. It is a fact that we should be able to agree on here in this chamber.

I believe it is difficult to question that the packaging will continue to increase in price in the coming years as a result of the EU's policy in the area. It is not about a single penny, but it is about a milk carton becoming several percent more expensive due to decisions that have been made at the EU level.

One can have different opinions about this. We can think that it is reasonable for the packaging to become this much more expensive, or we can think that one perhaps should have proceeded a bit more cautiously. One perhaps should have waited for the industry and innovations and established a regulatory framework that would not have had the same consequences for food prices.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, we are critical of this, because we are concerned that food prices continue to increase.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Kinnunen for the answer!

We Social Democrats are deeply concerned about the price developments, not least in Sweden, and about the costs that ordinary Swedes have today. It has never been so expensive to be Swedish in modern times as under this government with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna. We regret that. We truly wish that the government would have a different policy that helps the Swedish people through this economically difficult time.

It was not, however, what Member Kinnunen said in his speech in the debate on circular economy. It was instead a derogatory language about the EU bureaucracy and that the EU should not have its hands in the jam jar. We Social Democrats always think it is important that we have balanced legislation. We must ensure that we do not get regulations that are in any way overlapping or burdensome for companies and that risk increased costs. Companies may also need time for implementation, and such things must always be kept an eye on.

But one thing is certain, and that is that regulations are needed that apply in all our 27 member countries so that we do not end up with 27 different systems that become extremely expensive for companies. Therefore, it is deeply regrettable when there are parties that constantly, in a populist way, want to be an anchor in the EU debate, rub salt in the wounds, or try to put a nail in the eye of the EU and say that it is the EU's fault.

In this case, it is about opportunities for more jobs and better conditions for companies to be able to operate. It is difficult to understand why the Sweden Democrats are always against positive effects for Swedish jobs and Swedish competitiveness.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member must excuse me; I am just trying to convey that I think it is bad that the EU is pushing for the milk packages to become several tens of öre more expensive.

I think it is wrong. I do not think the EU should have a policy that causes milk cartons to become several öre more expensive. I believe that is bad for Europe and bad for Swedish consumers. It will be up to Jytte Guteland to explain to the voters why it is right that milk cartons should become several öre more expensive.

What we see in Europe in general is a continent with all too low growth, a continent where the populations today are becoming poorer relative to the populations on other continents. Therefore, we have today a fairly large consensus in Europe that one should carry out a simplification work. Several omnibus packages have been presented, and more will come which will partially simplify things in the environmental area. I hope that simplifications can also come in the packaging area.

What I know is that the Social Democrats have been critical and fought against these omnibus packages in the European Parliament. In the Riksdag's EU Committee, there have been differing positions. I think it is regrettable.

We have had a problematic price development on food. However, it has been just as high in Sweden as in Europe as a whole. It is not the case that food prices have risen more in Sweden than in other European countries.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, we think it is unfortunate that the European packaging regulation has been designed in a way that drives up food prices. It did not have to be that way. It could have been done better.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! According to the UN's international resource panel, inefficient resource use is the cause of half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and 90 percent of the loss of biodiversity. Resource consumption is unevenly distributed both globally and nationally. A more equitable distribution of resources is a prerequisite for a significantly reduced total resource use to be able to be combined with a good material standard for all. The transition to a sustainable society must be felt most among those who today have the greatest climate impact and who consume the most resources.

In 2022, a mapping of how circular Sweden's economy is was presented for the first time. This analysis of how Sweden consumes materials shows that Sweden is only circular to 3.4 percent. The global average is approximately double this year. When it comes to resource use per capita, it turns out that Sweden is among the worst countries in the world. Our material footprint needs to decrease by 70–80 percent for us to be able to stay within the planetary boundaries.

It is the responsibility of politics to introduce regulations and steering measures to achieve a more resource-efficient society. Initiatives from the market and consumers can take us in the right direction, but it will be insufficient for us to reach a sustainable circular economy. Unfortunately, this is a policy area where, from the government's side, one says that they think it is important but at the same time do very little in practice.

In a circular economy, the lifespan of materials and products is longer and the extraction of natural resources is less. For that, environmentally adapted, toxin-free production is required and waste must be 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 in everyday life. It should in all cases be the easiest and cheapest option, but unfortunately, it does not look like that at all today.

Vänsterpartiet has long worked for measures that extend the lifespan of what we produce. We want to introduce a ban on planned obsolescence and forbid retailers from throwing away new goods and edible food. We also want to increase the requirements on producers to facilitate recycling and reuse. We see that steering instruments are needed that make it more expensive to use newly extracted raw materials than recycled ones.

Mr. Speaker! In order for materials to be able to circulate in society, it is also required that they are free from toxins. Unfortunately, we are far from that goal today. It is both frightening and distressing that we have chemical substances on the market in Sweden and in Europe that can cause serious health damage and cause devastating effects in the environment.

According to the UN, humanity on a global level faces three major crises: global warming, loss of biodiversity, and pollution. Our use of chemicals contributes to all three of these crises. The chemical industry ranks third on the list of industrial sectors that emit the most greenhouse gases globally. A large part of the chemicals produced are harmful to human health and to other species, and thus contribute to the loss of biodiversity. One example is that the number of insects has decreased dramatically in recent decades as a result of the use of pesticides.

A large majority of EU citizens are concerned about how their health is affected by chemicals in everyday products. It is not without reason. The use of endocrine-disrupting substances and PFAS has been calculated to cost EU countries billions of euros every year in healthcare costs and reduced productivity. A research project that has collected samples from thousands of people across Europe shows a widespread prevalence of health-damaging chemicals in our bodies, in many cases at levels that are known to pose risks to health.

When assessing chemicals, the precautionary principle should apply. It means that preventive measures should be taken when there are concerns about threats to health or the environment, even if there is uncertainty. No new chemicals should be started for use before their effects have been investigated.

The EU Commission adopted a chemicals strategy in 2020 aimed at improving protection for health and the environment and promoting innovation of safe and sustainable chemicals. It is important that the high level of ambition in the chemicals strategy is translated into legislation. Above all, the EU's chemical legislation Reach is in great need of improvements. An update of Reach has been announced for a long time but has been postponed following pressure from the chemical industry. It is of the utmost importance that the revision of Reach is carried out as quickly as possible and with a high level of ambition.

A number of chemicals used today must be restricted or banned. This concerns, for example, bisphenols, phthalates and brominated flame retardants. Not least, it concerns PFAS. PFAS is found today almost everywhere in the environment. The substances are present in a wide variety of products and have spread across the entire globe. Today we know that they are harmful to health.

Within the chemical industry, the risks have long been known, but they chose not to make that information public. Instead, they have continued to manufacture chemicals in ever-increasing quantities, which have consequently been able to spread in the environment and to people through the water we drink, the food we eat, and the things we surround ourselves with. That this has been able to happen is proof that today's chemical legislation does not work and must be tightened.

Those who have been hit hardest by PFAS contamination are the residents of Kallinge in Blekinge. Due to the Swedish Armed Forces' use of firefighting foam containing PFAS, their water source was contaminated, and they now have the world's highest levels in their blood. Despite having been poisoned due to state activities, they have received no help or compensation from the state. This is one of the biggest chemical scandals in Sweden's history, where 5,000 people have been poisoned and fought for over ten years for redress, but where the state has done nothing to help them. This should not be allowed to happen in Sweden. Those affected must be given access to preventive health checks.

Mr. Speaker! It is of utmost importance that we ban PFAS as quickly as possible. The Swedish Chemicals Agency, together with authorities in four other European countries, has developed a proposal that would significantly restrict the use of the substances within the EU. But now, worrying signals are coming from the moderate Swedish EU Commissioner that she only wants to ban the substances in consumer products and not within all areas of application. Similar tones are heard from other representatives for the government parties and the Sverigedemokraterna. This makes me very concerned. From the Left Party's side, however, we welcome the Swedish Chemicals Agency's proposal and want it to be implemented as soon as possible without being watered down. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 52.

It is a political responsibility to ban PFAS but also to curb the spread of the substances through better supervision and remediation of contaminated areas. The Government and the Sweden Democrats are taking us in completely the wrong direction when they, in their budget, cut back on the agencies that are to work with exactly this.

Mr. Speaker! Experience from recent decades teaches us that it is not enough to ban individual substances in individual products. It is also not enough to ensure that consumers receive better information. The chemical legislation must be strengthened fundamentally. Industry must be able to prove that substances are needed and that they are not harmful before they are allowed to be used. Let us avoid more scandals with toxic substances that harm people and the environment!

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! A couple of years ago, I started the dishwasher as usual before I left home for work. It is always nice to come home to clean dishes. But when I arrived home a bit later in the day, I noticed immediately that something was not right. It smelled of burning in the kitchen. The dishwasher had stopped in the middle of the program. The display was black. I pulled out the plug and called a repairman to check what it could be.

When I described the problem, the repairman thought it was a short circuit in one of the circuit boards. It was possible to replace it, and the repair itself would cost around 2,000 kronor. The problem was just that he could not promise that it would make the machine function fully again. There might have been more faults.

The machine had a couple of years left on it, and a new one costs between 11,000 and 12,000 kronor, so I started doing some calculations. Repairing it didn't really feel worth it. It actually turned out that we bought a new one instead, and the old one was driven to the recycling center. Actually, this was a great waste of resources in the form of raw materials, materials, and environmental and climate emissions – and my money. But it was the most rational thing for me as an individual consumer. I still don't know if it was just the circuit board that was faulty.

Mr. Speaker! What is required then for it to be worth repairing our appliances, clothes, buildings, and machines? What is required to transition from a linear to a circular economy? It is not about cosmetic changes or individual projects. It is about a transition of our entire economic system, our consumption patterns, and how we view resources. For this to change and become a reality, political leadership is required, that we all take responsibility for our behavior, and that we ensure it becomes easier to do the right thing. We need a system that steers towards increased circularity without you having to read ingredient lists or being forced to be a conscious consumer. Unfortunately, we are far from that today.

Mr. Speaker! What do the figures look like for the circular economy? According to Cradlenet's report, the global average for circularity is around 8.6 percent of the economy. In Sweden, only 3.4 percent of the economy is circular, according to the same report. We are therefore worse than the average, and it is going in the wrong direction. The trend is pointing downwards. How is that possible? Yes, our consumption and resource consumption are increasing at a rapid pace. Sweden's high consumption is partly due to our export dependency. We extract, produce, and export large amounts of virgin material: iron, forest, and minerals. We lack domestic systems to make use of the resources. What we do not burn, we export as waste. Instead of creating value from this at home, we throw it away.

Furthermore, we lack infrastructure. There are not sufficient systems to sort, collect and recycle, for example, textiles, electronics or building materials. In many municipalities across our country, it is easier to throw away than to reuse. It is a loss, both environmentally and economically.

Mr. Speaker! The lack of competence is also a hurdle. Swedish companies within the industry have difficulty finding staff with the right knowledge in reuse and material management. We also have a government that has raised the VAT for certain repairs, which for many has an important signaling value.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we see how other countries succeed. In the Netherlands, which is often compared with, the circular use of materials is a full 24.5 percent. That is seven times more than in Sweden. How can that be? What do they do that we do not? I intended to make a small comparison.

Firstly: The Netherlands has clear goals. They have decided to be fully circular by 2050 with an interim goal of halving the use of virgin materials by 2030. Here in Sweden, we have not yet set any clear national goal for circularity at all. We say that we are going to become sustainable, but we do not dare to define what that means or how fast it must happen.

Secondly: The Netherlands has concrete plans per sector. They have action programs for the construction industry, the textile industry, and the food industry. There is, therefore, a holistic approach. In Sweden, the initiatives are scattered and the responsibility is unclear. We have investigations, reports, and proposals but few binding requirements. We simply lack a unified strategy.

For the third, the Netherlands is investing. Every year they invest hundreds of millions of euros via their climate fund to support circular business models and a green transition. Here in Sweden, the support is more limited. Many companies want to transition, but they lack the right incentives.

Mr. Speaker! I can state that Sweden has much to learn. What is required now is not more visions or inquiries, but a real political will to lead. The delegation for circular economy has been clear in its message: We must stop talking and start delivering. It is not enough for the Minister for Environment and Climate to give fine speeches about the future. We need workshop, not beautiful words.

We also cannot rely solely on the EU. The EU has high ambitions with the ecodesign regulation, which is intended to promote repairs. But a new report from the European Environment Agency shows that waste in Europe is increasing. Much is based on voluntary initiatives and not on real governance.

Centerpartiet wants to introduce a national strategy for circular economy. We want to see a unified approach with clear goals, steering mechanisms, and a roadmap involving the business sector, the public sector, and civil society.

With that said, I would like to move for the approval of reservation number 1.

Mr. Speaker! If Sweden is to reach climate neutrality by 2045, which is the official goal, we must simultaneously aim to have a circular economy in place by 2040 at the latest. Achieving climate neutrality without tackling our linear material flows is impossible. We cannot continue to extract virgin materials, burn resources, or export waste to other countries.

But the circular economy is not just about recycling. It is also about designing out waste from the very beginning. It is about creating products that last and that can be repaired, reused, and ultimately materially recycled. It is about moving from use and discard to sustainable use.

I and the Center Party want to support business models that favor repairs. Today, many people lease their cars. Perhaps we could start leasing all household appliances in a similar way? It already exists to some extent. Then we would not drive to the recycling center and throw away the dishwasher as soon as a circuit board breaks.

We must create systems where it pays to have products of high quality that last a long time. We need to create steering mechanisms that make it profitable to do the right thing. Reuse and resource conservation must be given an economic value. Resource waste shall cost.

Circular and toxic-free economy

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: We have the technology. We have the expertise. We have companies, researchers and municipalities in our country that want to do the right thing. Now what is needed is political will and coordinated leadership. The Netherlands shows that it can be done. Let us take inspiration from there and ensure that Sweden becomes a pioneer in circular economy, not a laggard.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 June.)

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