Circular and toxic-free economy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
SD wants more independence from the EU to benefit Swedish households 1 2 and believes that the market is the key to a circular economy where waste is seen as a resource 3. SD supports the committee's report in its entirety 3. S argues that the transition to a circular economy is the prerequisite for achieving climate goals and creating jobs 4. S wants clear steering instruments and a distribution of responsibility where companies drive the development forward 4. M emphasizes the importance of property-based collection 5. M considers it good that the Swedish Chemicals Agency works with market control 5. M argues that the government has made an investment in the Swedish Chemicals Agency 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Chris Dahlqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! The hour is late, and now we can conclude this day on a high note by debating a circular and toxic-free economy. It is always fun.
Creating reasonable conditions for a circular economy where packaging, textiles, IT, and other products are recycled and reused has been a relevant issue for some time, which is now increasingly becoming topical in Swedish households. The key to success when it comes to a circular economy is that it must be easy for Swedish households to sort correctly. The collection systems must be accessible and clear, and packaging must be designed in such a way that all Swedes can sort them correctly as easily as possible.
We can do a lot, but much of the existing regulatory framework is largely regulated at the EU level. This means that we as Swedish legislators have less and less room to make sensible trade-offs ourselves in important issues such as those we are dealing with here tonight.
A highly topical issue for Swedish households is the household-based collection. Many think it is cumbersome with a new system and with waste bins that take up increasingly more space. It is not all that many of them who daily sort their waste and try to do the right thing who are happy to now also receive an increased fee, which is a consequence of the investments that must be made when we introduce the household-based collection.
But despite this, there are those who are happy about the household collection as part of what we are discussing today: the circular economy, where materials must become more reusable. It becomes that, as said, when they are sorted correctly.
Mr. Speaker! A circular economy is primarily driven by a strong market. When costs due to various requirements increase the price for the end consumer, it is not good. As we move towards an increasingly strict EU regulatory framework, we lose our own autonomy, which affects all Swedish households negatively.
Mr. Speaker! We have a high degree of national competence in Sweden on this issue. The individuals who possess this enormous competence are often overlooked due to the ever-increasing degree of regulation from EU legislation. When it comes to textiles, the situation, as we all know, is getting worse.
Mr. Speaker! A circular and toxin-free environment is important, but even more important is a long-term policy that holds over time. The important thing is that we as a nation collectively take a decisive action on this issue, but then the rules of the game must change and waste must be seen more as a resource than just as waste.
An example of policy that has been pursued during this mandate period and which has been very good is that excavated material, rock and soil can now be reused at construction sites in a better way than being transported to a landfill. This also avoids long transports.
SD makes a big difference, and we will continue to do so. We stand behind the committee's report in its entirety.
Stina Larsson (C)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Dahlqvist! It is nice that you are present at our debate. What I understand is that it is the first time you are participating in the debate on circular economy.
It is interesting to hear about property-side collection, waste, excavated materials and so on. The member also mentioned the EU legislation and said that the national competence was so much better. It is the case that we tried to separate textile waste from our old clothes but had to back down. The government failed there, and we had to incinerate our clothes again. That is because we have no producer responsibility. Here we await the EU legislation because the flows are too small here in Sweden. We need the large flows. We have international European trade, and therefore we must handle this together.
My question is: How do the Sweden Democrats and Member Dahlqvist intend to handle the textile issue now that it is being said that the EU legislation is not sufficient?
Chris Dahlqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the question.
As said, the EU regulation in these areas is high. Given that it is as high as it is, we from Sverigedemokraterna, as we have said in many other debates, want more independence in Sweden and to take back what we can decide so that we can do what is best for all Swedish households out there.
The textile issue is a complicated issue. Just as I touched upon in my speech, it is the market that in different ways provides the conditions for the circular economy. Here, the market has seen that it is difficult to handle textiles. That is what also makes it difficult for us as decision-makers to be involved and regulate these types of issues. It is for this reason that we from Sverigedemokraterna believe that it should not be decision-makers on the continent, in Europe, who provide the conditions for what should apply for us in Sweden.
Regarding the producer responsibility for packaging and various materials, it is clear and distinct that when different types of materials are to be reused or recycled, it must be easy for Swedish consumers to do so. The household-proximate collection is largely good, but what is important to remember is that the packaging responsibility must apply across all of Europe in such a way that it works for all member states. It is a problem in the current situation.
Stina Larsson (C)
Mr. Speaker! It is the traditional rhetoric from the Sweden Democrats that we must bring the decisions home because they cannot be solved with the help of the EU's regulations and legislation. But the problem with textile recycling is that the market is too small in Sweden. We need the European one. We have too few material flows.
At the same time, the Sweden Democrats raise the issue of packaging. Then, suddenly, it is a good market. The argumentation does not hold.
Do the Sweden Democrats care about circular economy at all? When I talk about circularity in panel debates, participate in surveys, fill out questionnaires and describe our policy, the Sweden Democrats' views are missing. They do not submit answers.
When I search on your website, I do not get a single hit on circular economy. I have also not seen any proposals. Instead, the problem is to be solved somewhere else some other time. Preferably, the problem should not be addressed at all. Perhaps we should sort our waste. The proposals for the large business models and the large solutions for a green transition and growth are missing.
Chris Dahlqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I have used our traditional rhetoric. The reason we use the traditional rhetoric is that it works well for the Sweden Democrats. We have the people with us on those types of issues. By reason of the fact that we have the people with us on those types of issues, it is a self-evident matter for us that we shall take back the power from all EU bureaucrats to the Swedish people. It is a central and important issue for us in the Sweden Democrats.
I am completely convinced that the day we have the decision-making back in Sweden in this chamber in the Riksdag, things will be resolved in a much more purposeful way than in the current situation.
Johan Löfstrand (S)
Mr. Speaker! We shall continue to debate the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report Circular and Toxic-Free Economy.
The Social Democrats have a number of motions and reservations in the report, but I move for approval only of reservation 6.
Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces significant environmental and climate challenges today. An important part of the solution is that we must use our resources better than we do today. For far too long, we have had a linear economy. We extract natural resources, produce goods, use them for far too short a time, and then throw them away. The result is large amounts of waste and an extensive waste of our resources. This development must be stopped and changed.
The transition to a circular economy is therefore the prerequisite for us to meet the climate goals, reduce the environmental impact, and at the same time create new jobs, innovations, and growth in Sweden. One can also observe that in the extremely sensitive global situation we currently find ourselves in, circular flows and resource efficiency would give us better resilience and preparedness in the event of crisis and war.
In a circular economy, resources are used for longer. Products are designed to last longer, to be repaired, reused and, ultimately, recycled. Waste shall primarily be treated and, secondarily, become a new resource in a circular cycle.
The Social Democrats have for a long time developed different types of action plans so that we can manage the transition. The latest Social Democratic government developed an action plan to transition Sweden. The strategy was built on four pillars. It was about creating sustainable products and product design. We must have more sustainable consumption. We must ensure that we create toxin-free and circular cycles, and we must strengthen the business sector's opportunities to develop circular business models.
The action plan also contains many important elements for the transformation of our society to proceed faster. An important part of this is that we also need a new industrialization. We in Sweden have always been good at innovation and development and at being at the forefront of technology. The strategy has built Sweden strong and has been important when we have built up the industrial Sweden. Unfortunately, the development has stalled – much due to a lack of vision, short-sighted decisions, and an unclear policy.
Take, for example, the biofuel industry or the chemical industry. The green transition is a fact and has been for a long time. Over the last four years, we have seen how large investments have been put into a sack, and innovation and development have not occurred due to short-sighted decisions that have led to fewer jobs and fewer investments in our country.
We Social Democrats believe that for the transition to gain momentum again, clear steering instruments and a distribution of responsibility are required where the focus is on efficiency, innovation, and development. The companies shall drive the development forward. That is how we create jobs and growth.
Mr. Speaker! The transition to a circular economy is fundamentally about how we value our resources. We cannot continue to use the earth's resources as if they were infinite. Instead, we should build a society where resources are used smartly, where products last longer, and where waste increasingly becomes new raw materials. It is good for the environment and the climate, and it is also good for Swedish growth and competitiveness in the future.
Lars Johnsson (M)
Mr. Speaker! As the Speaker is well aware, all Members of Parliament who reside some distance from Stockholm are offered overnight accommodation in the capital. The apartments are well-adapted with furniture and equipped with household items. However, there was one thing in my apartment that both surprised and puzzled me. In the cupboard under the kitchen sink, there was only one waste bin. I missed a set of waste bins for sorting my household waste.
At first I thought it was a mistake, but gradually I realized that the household-based waste sorting was not particularly well-developed in Stockholm. It was a new insight. In my home municipality Hässleholm, all households have sorted their household waste since 1997. Everything is collected by the municipality directly at the residence. If I am not mistaken, Hässleholm was one of the first municipalities in the country with fully developed household-based waste sorting.
Mr. Speaker! Why do I mention this? Besides the fact that I naturally want to do a bit of advertising for my home municipality, the theme for today's debate is, among other things, circular economy. Waste is no longer something that should be landfilled but a resource that can be used, as raw material in new products or as energy. Nowadays, it is a natural way to view waste in order to conserve the earth's finite resources. That is why it is welcome that all the country's municipalities shall have introduced property-proximate collection for all households by January 1st next year at the latest. At the same time, it is a bit disappointing that it should have to take 30 years. Hässleholm showed the way already in 1997.
Mr. Speaker! Textiles constitute a very large environmental burden, primarily in the manufacturing phase. Production requires large amounts of water, energy, and chemicals. According to the EU waste directive, the Member States shall have introduced the collection of textiles by January 1, 2025, at the latest. The collection shall take place separately from other waste in order to contribute to a more circular management of textiles.
There have, however, been problems linked to the recycling of textiles, which we have heard earlier in the debate. There are, for example, technical limitations as technology is lacking for the recycling of certain types of textiles. There has therefore been a complete lack of outlets for spent textiles other than for incineration.
Against that background, it is gratifying to be able to state that there are companies in Sweden that are investing in recycling old textiles and using them as raw material in new textiles. An excellent example is Södra's initiative Once More in Mörrum in Blekinge. Södra is an economic association owned by over 50,000 family forest owners in southern Sweden.
Once More is the world's first large-scale process for recycling, among other things, textiles. In Södra's process, new textile pulp is produced by mixing textile waste with wood fiber. Today, the final product contains 20 percent recycled textiles, but the goal is to reach 50 percent. The final product can be used for viscose, modal, or lyocell fabrics.
It is naturally good that requirements are set for the collection of textiles, but the point of the collection is that the textiles should be able to be reused. Therefore, we need more initiatives like Södra's Once More. Södra deserves praise for the fashion to dare to lead the way.
Mr. Speaker! The use of chemicals is generally increasing in society. An ever larger proportion of production today takes place outside the EU and with lower environmental requirements than in Sweden. The Swedish Chemicals Agency has stated that the rapidly growing e-commerce from marketplaces outside the EU poses major challenges for chemical control. Dangerous substances that have already been banned in the EU are re-entering Europe via this e-commerce. It is often products of low quality that cannot be reused.
In addition to the environmental problems it causes, the import also entails unfair competition against serious companies that follow current laws. It is therefore good that the EU has agreed to abolish the customs exemption even for packages with a value under 150 euro.
It is also good that the Swedish Chemicals Agency is actively working with market control for these products, in order to reduce risks to people and the environment. The Agency collaborates with the Swedish Customs Service to streamline its controls. Through this collaboration, thousands of goods containing prohibited chemicals were stopped from being sold in Sweden during 2024. For 2026, the government has therefore made an investment in the Swedish Chemicals Agency regarding the work with chemical control.
Mr. Speaker! PFAS is a collective name for a large group of synthetically manufactured chemicals. PFAS are often called forever chemicals, as they are extremely stable and in practice do not break down in nature. According to the Swedish Chemicals Agency, there are more than 10,000 different PFAS chemicals.
PFAS are greasy, water- and dirt-repellent, which makes them desirable in many products. They are found in, among other things, clothes, furniture, household items, food packaging, cosmetics and fire-fighting foam. We are therefore constantly surrounded by PFAS. There are plenty of studies pointing out that these chemicals lead to serious health effects, for example hormonal disruptions and increased cancer risk.
The Swedish Chemicals Agency, together with authorities in four other countries, has developed a broad proposal on the restriction of PFAS in the EU. The proposal has been submitted to the Commission for further action. Experience shows that the use of hazardous substances often decreases significantly after they have been regulated in the EU. It is therefore important that the Commission returns as soon as possible with a proposal on the restriction of PFAS. The Swedish government is pushing forward this work in the EU. In the Government Bill, the Prime Minister was clear that Sweden has taken a leading role within the EU in the fight against environmental toxins.
Parallel to the work in the EU, the government is also preparing a national plan to reduce the spread of PFAS. A total of 335 million kronor has also been allocated for this work until 2028.
Mr. Speaker! With those words, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.