Circular and toxic-free economy and the National Audit Office's report on the management of decommissioned solar panels and wind turbine blades

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! This year's European election takes place in a very uncertain time. Not since the Second World War has the security situation in Europe been as serious as it is now. It has become increasingly clear just how important it is to maintain a stable foundation.

Security of supply is a word that has been highlighted by ongoing crises. It was a long time since food security, critical societal resources, and war preparedness stood so high on the agenda. One part of the security of supply is the inflow and preservation of basic socially important resources. Another part is how we utilize these resources. I am convinced that we will stand stronger in the face of future crises if we today make decisions that lead us onto a more circular and sustainable path.

Creating the conditions for a resource-efficient society is high on the Moderaterna's agenda. There are many advantages from both an environmental and an economic perspective in recycling more and more materials as well as optimizing the use of the resources that exist. An average European consumes between 10 and 20 tons of resources every year. If a larger share of these resources are recycled, the need to extract new ones decreases. The task of politics is therefore to create good conditions for different actors to take responsibility for their waste and uphold the principle that the polluter pays.

We can be pleased that awareness regarding the circular has increased. Since the Industrial Revolution, man has operated in an economy based on raw material extraction, production, consumption, and waste - a linear model that works well as long as one assumes that the earth's resources are infinite, available, and cheap.

Now we know better. Resources are finite, and raw material prices have multiplied. The linear model no longer holds. Many political decisions are now being made around the world in a sustainable and circular direction. That is good. The decisions are often intended to contribute to innovation and reduced pressure on the environment and climate. The problem is when the decisions instead contribute to the opposite.

The previous government's introduction of the plastic bag tax is such an example, where the tax's construction, which equates fossil-based plastic bags with those produced from recycled or bio-based plastic, has not favored either circularity or innovative power. One of the S-led government's alleged arguments was to obtain cleaner oceans, which we obviously support. But since 90 percent of the plastic waste in the world's oceans comes from ten rivers in Asia and Africa, we believe it is more effective to instead try to stop the emissions at the source.

The decision on the plastic bag tax comes with a high price for Swedish consumers and companies but with little benefit for the environment and climate. It is bad policy. Just as in other policy areas, the transition to a circular economy must be characterized by cost-effectiveness and a focus on results. If desired results are not achieved, the decision must be reconsidered, something that the bourgeois government has now addressed. On November 1, 2024, the plastic bag tax will be abolished.

I would also like to emphasize the importance of abolishing the chemicals tax for used products. It is another tax that hits completely wrong and puts spokes in the wheels of a necessary transition towards circularity.

Mr. Speaker! A natural part of the food supply is to reduce food waste. The world must do more to limit food waste. From an international perspective, one of the major questions is how we can be able to feed all mouths when the earth's population is steadily growing.

To reduce food waste, information initiatives are needed regarding what "best before" means for different food products and how the food products should be stored. Much knowledge has been lost during recent decades.

Mr. Speaker! In ten days, the polling stations will close, and it is important that everyone goes and votes. The need for a more circular economy is clear, and in the European Parliament, the Moderaterna have been extra proactive. We have led several negotiations that have resulted in wise and well-considered decisions to increase circularity in the EU.

The concept of sustainable development is neither a contradiction nor an abstract vision, but a fundamental prerequisite for Europe to be able to lead by example and bring other actors along in the green transition.

Sweden has an important role to play in that work, and it is something that we should highlight at the EU level. Our companies possess deep knowledge when it comes to sustainability, and with our export-oriented industrial model, we are particularly well positioned to push for an efficient circular market in Europe.

The work towards a circular economy is an opportunity to take initiative in our climate work and strengthen the internal market while we strengthen Swedish competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker! We are surrounded daily by thousands of chemicals. Many are essential and have been crucial for building the society we have today. Chemicals have, among other things, enabled longer shelf life for food, durable building materials, and reduced risk of fire in electronic products. Chemicals also enable the development of medicines that prolong and save lives. Our modern society is in many ways dependent on innovations that take advantage of chemicals. Through this, chemicals can also make important contributions to the economic and social welfare of the citizens through trade and employment.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, there are risks with many chemicals. With an ever-increasing use of chemicals, there is also a greater responsibility for which chemicals we spread and how these affect both the environment and us humans in the long term. Not all chemicals are desirable everywhere.

The Moderates are keen that the chemicals present in society should be safe for human health and for the environment when they are used in a normal way.

Mr. Speaker! PFAS is what is called forever chemicals. They break down very, very slowly, if at all. PFAS substances have been created to repel fat, dirt, and water and are incredibly useful under the right conditions. Today, there are thousands of different types on the market. They are found in frying pans, functional clothing, fabrics, ski wax, firefighting foam, technology, defense materiel, and medicines. But lately, we have become increasingly aware of their negative effects.

PFAS can have effects on reproductive capacity and cause liver damage and endocrine disruption. Certain types are also suspected to be carcinogenic.

Mr. Speaker! There are still many question marks surrounding PFAS substances, but it is clear that stricter restrictions are required so that PFAS do not end up in the wrong place and cause damage to human health and nature.

To limit continued emissions, the government continues Sweden's active work nationally, within the EU and internationally to phase out the use of PFAS substances.

Mr. Speaker! This is a very broad report. There is much to say within the framework of the report - it is, after all, about circular economy, about chemicals, and about a report from the National Audit Office that I have not had time to speak about yet. But I will stop there and move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Helena Storckenfeldt, for the presentation! I really appreciated the introduction about that we must be careful with our resources. I fully agree with this.

With the climate changes, the water issue is coming onto the agenda. This winter, we saw major floods in several parts of the country. In my home municipality, it was the Kävlingeån that overflowed because the authorities were forced to ensure access to clean drinking water.

It poses great challenges within agriculture when the fields are underwater and it is time for spring cultivation. But other years it has been exactly the opposite. We all remember 2018, when there was drought and the lack of water availability led to crisis meetings and conflicts over how we should ration the water.

We all agree that garden pools should not be included in the first priority. But then, what? Should we ban washing the car, watering our garden plots and agricultural crops, or water for our livestock barns?

One thing is certain: We need to reduce unnecessary water use. That is something I and the Center Party want to include in the EU's eco-design directive. It is also an issue we are clear about in the EU election campaign – that we shall favor innovations and steer towards more water-saving technology.

But the Moderates and the government have said no to this. It is also stated in today's report. Why do the Moderates and the government have that position, Helena Storckenfeldt?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, there is very much that we would like to do to achieve a more circular economy and to get better products and more technology that actually succeeds in achieving what I believe both I and Stina are looking for.

Stina Larsson began her speech by speaking about water. There, I would like to clarify with something that I see before me and that I myself go and think about quite often. I would like us in Sweden to develop a water strategy, because we see year after year that it will become more and more relevant how we manage water and water flows and how we should think forward when we find ourselves in a climate crisis that will cause more extreme weather. There I see an opportunity to lead the way and ensure that we have a strategy in place before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker! I will be honest and say that I did not quite understand the rest of Stina's remark. She is welcome to repeat it.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I shall try to explain it again.

First, I just want to say regarding a water strategy: Absolutely, if we can achieve a good strategy together, I really look forward to it. It is being requested all around our country, especially by municipalities that bear the large cost for water and sewage.

But I say this: When we reduce water consumption, we also reduce water scarcity and the need for new water sources and new sewage treatment plants. Especially in the southern and eastern parts of Sweden, there is a great concern that this will require large investments in the future.

But at the household level, we can contribute to more efficient water consumption with relatively simple measures. Through sharper ecodesign requirements, higher standards are set for the design of products already in the manufacturing phase. That is where we want to be clear and say that already in the design, in the ecodesign directive in Sweden and by extension in the EU, we want this to be included.

We have seen examples of this already today. Toilets that are water-saving or use greywater already occur. Studies show that one can save almost 50 percent of the water if one has the right type of measures. Therefore, I think that we should already in an EU context steer towards this.

Apart from the water strategy, which I think sounds like a good idea but was needed already, I wonder which other proposals the Moderates think we should implement already today. For me, it is an urgent issue, but what does the member think about the access to water? Is it a concern today or not?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Then I understand the question much better.

I am on the same track. More municipalities should invest in water-saving toilets and ensure that greywater is used in a better way in new construction. There are very many such solutions that I know many municipalities, which also have responsibility for this development at the local level, are passionate about.

Our own Lisa Andersson, KSO in Kungsbacka municipality, is strongly driving this issue. It is an issue that is absolutely not foreign to the Moderaterna, but rather something that we support.

Then I believe everyone in this chamber knows what it can look like and sound like around the negotiating table at the EU level. We have at least heard it from our parliamentarians. It is a give and take. There, we have been proactive in ensuring that we put forward good proposals for ecodesign. Our own Jessica Polfjärd has been proactive in that matter.

I suspect that when it comes to the EU level, it is perhaps not greywater or water-saving toilets that are the absolute highest priority. There were probably other things that were higher priority at that specific negotiating table.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Helena Storckenfeldt for the introduction to this important debate on circular economy.

I want to point out that we Social Democrats share what was stated regarding the importance of achieving circular material flows. Today, we have an all too linear view of production - and consumption, for that matter. We really need to address this together and work on it across party lines.

I noted the pride regarding the abolition of the plastic tax. I can personally think that the timing was strange since there are very large needs right now, not least in welfare, and when these 650 million kronor in tax revenues would have been much needed during a cost crisis for Sweden. The plastic issue is also concerning, not least because it is a very great waste of resources that we use so incredibly much plastic.

Regarding the view on which rivers are most polluted, it can be noted that the Mediterranean Sea also has a very high concentration. Even a sea that is very loved by the Swedish people and where the Swedish people are very present, not least during different tourist seasons, is very polluted. It is therefore important to address the plastic issue.

My question, however, concerns chemical policy. I want to hear how the Moderates and the government reason regarding achieving stricter chemical legislation during the upcoming term in the European Parliament. It is closely linked with the circular economy. Without better chemical policy, we cannot achieve a truly good circular economy. We will then get a chemical cocktail that becomes problematic.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! It is always easier to introduce a tax than to remove a tax. I believe this is the core of what distinguishes the Social Democrats from the Moderates.

The Social Democrats always see an opportunity to introduce a tax and then see it as a problem when one chooses to remove a tax. The Social Democrats would rather use taxes to make it easier for households and companies and distribute it in the way the Social Democrats think.

We think rather the opposite: It is better for households and companies to keep that money in their pockets and decide for themselves how it should be spent instead of being burdened with an extra tax.

The solution is not always subsidies and taxes, but the very best solutions for issues such as the circular economy are to facilitate for companies to actually innovate and come up with new technical solutions. The best way to work, both in Sweden and in Europe, is to remove more regulations. We must reduce the regulatory burden, and we must ensure that we have good competitiveness in the EU.

We see that Europe is falling behind, not least when we have countries like the USA that are introducing large subsidy packages to support their business sector and drive the green transition there. It is very good that the USA is taking those steps, but what does it do to the competitiveness and the competitive conditions?

We believe very strongly in the market. We believe that the market has the possibility to create the right conditions for a more circular economy. We would like to see more focus on this at the EU level.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Storckenfeldt for the report on the economic policy.

We Social Democrats think that it has been a real winter of wolves, both for the state, the municipalities and the households, and that it would have been possible to alleviate it by ensuring that tax revenues were retained and being able to distribute better.

It has been a very tough time for the Swedish people, and it continues to be so. We see evictions. We see that the municipalities cannot help properly when it comes to people who are very vulnerable because there have been high prices in many different places for the Swedish people. It would have been welcome to have a state that could have helped municipalities and could have distributed better, perhaps with an extra child allowance. However, that is another debate.

Regarding the chemical policy, it would have been welcome to hear from Member Storckenfeldt how one intends to limit the chemical cocktail that we are flooded with in our everyday lives. Both the Member and the undersigned and the Swedish people live with 5,000 chemicals around us in everyday life that are mixed into a cocktail and which affect our health. This concerns everything from fertility to problems with certain cancer tumors and, for example, thyroid problems.

There are an enormous number of diseases that the Swedish people suffer from, and this also applies to other populations within the EU. We need to do much more to strengthen the chemical legislation. I heard nothing from the member regarding this.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I realize that I missed the chemical question when I got properly going on the plastic bag tax.

The Moderaterna are keen that the chemicals present in society should be safe for human health and for the environment; that is also what I said in my speech. The chemical legislation shall be well-grounded in science and based on proper risk assessments. We continue to stand behind the precautionary principle and the substitution principle.

Thanks to Swedish environmental laws, tightened legislation within the EU and international agreements, the use of many dangerous chemicals has decreased. This is something that we will continue to push for.

I know that it is very difficult when it comes to the question of PFAS because there are so incredibly many different types used for different things that are actually socially necessary. Just when it comes to PFAS, it is about two things.

It is a matter of limiting the continued emissions of PFAS substances, and our work continues both nationally, within the EU, and internationally to phase out the use of these substances. It is a matter of being cautious and not doing it in a wrong way that would jeopardize, for example, the food industry or defense. We also know that the technology industry needs these substances to continue.

It is also about managing the consequences of the previous spread that has already occurred. There, we are focusing on remediating these areas. It is difficult to know when there is no specific person who can be pointed to as being responsible. How do you manage that?

We have allocated special funds for this in the remediation grant for contaminated areas. It is something that we will continue to drive.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are here to debate a circular and toxic-free economy but also the National Audit Office's report on decommissioned solar panels and wind turbine blades.

Madam Speaker! Last year, when we had the debate on circular economy, I pointed out that when I started in the Riksdag in 2014, this committee was called Waste. I said then that I was glad that we have come so far that something has actually happened and that we now see waste as a resource and also as a part of the economy.

But when I sat and read up before this debate, I became a bit sad. I thought I had a handle on this area, but in that circularity gap report that was produced in 2022 – it is a report that is made in several different European countries and also outside the EU where they look at the gap between what could be circular and what is circular – it appears that Sweden is very poor. It is estimated that 3.4 percent of our economy is circular while the average in the EU is 13.7. We thus have a circularity gap, as it is called, of over 96 percent. I actually did not think it was that bad.

The average in the world is 8.9 percent, so we are worse than the world, and absolutely among the worst in the EU. Highest is Austria with 9.7 percent and the Netherlands with 24.5 percent. The survey is available to read, and it is among others Rise that has been involved in developing it.

In Sweden, 266 million tons of resources are added to our economy every year, and that means that material consumption per capita - from baby to very old - is 25 tons per head, i.e., 70 kilos per day in Sweden. It is a figure that has increased year by year and which looks set to continue to increase in the future.

Domestic resource extraction is in approximately the same order of magnitude. Sweden thus has the fourth largest resource extraction in the world per capita. This is of course because we have a lot of raw materials. We have mines, and we have forests that we export and make goods from. But now that we have it, we should also be better at making it circular.

Regardless of how it looks, the consumption of virgin material must decrease for Sweden to be able to become a pioneer country for sustainable consumption or for sustainability in general, as we so dearly want.

Sweden is fortunately a wealthy country. We are equipped to become a leader in this. We have knowledge, we have innovative power, we have capital, and we also have enormous resources in the form of mines and forests and also domestic extraction of resources that we have control over.

We also have fantastic companies that want to do this. I believe that all of us participating in the debate have attended countless seminars with industry representatives who want to contribute to this in different ways, who want to make a difference, and who know that what was previously waste can actually be a resource if it gets a little help.

This is something that we have discussed many times in this chamber, where we are often also in agreement. I listened to the member Helena Storckenfeldt here earlier, and I agree with much of what she said regarding the basic problem itself. How we are then to reach forward is a matter of other things.

Judge my surprise when I read Svenskt Näringsliv's letter to the government, which arrived this week and was addressed to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Climate and Environment, the Minister for Energy and Business, and the Minister for Rural Affairs. In the letter, they say that they are extremely concerned about how the government is about to neglect the work that Naturvårdsverket is doing. It is the authority that handles the circular economy and which is also to ensure that several of the various new legislations that will be implemented.

Svenskt Näringsliv, whose letter is signed by 14 of their various subgroups, writes: "How well the implementation turns out will be crucial for Swedish competitiveness and thus Swedish companies' opportunities to continue to be at the forefront regarding technological development, manufacturing of sustainable products, as well as being the engine in the transition to a circular and fossil-free society."

One notes how the upcoming packaging order, which we have discussed a lot and which is part of how we can reuse and know which packaging we should use. Without the help of Naturvårdsverket, this will be delayed, and competitiveness will be lost.

When it comes to the ecodesign regulation, which we have said will be one of the major parts for achieving circularity and where our Swedish companies have been very active, they also say that Naturvårdsverket is one of the key actors.

There is a new directive regarding what one may and may not say, so-called greenwashing, i.e., which environmental claims one is allowed to make. It is extremely important that it is implemented and that there are rules that work. When someone puts their stamp on something, the consumer should be able to trust that the stamp means something. This is also handled by Naturvårdsverket.

In summary, Madam Speaker, I think this is a powerful blow - one of the biggest I have seen - from the business community to the government regarding how they are ruining the chance to be part of the transition.

The government perhaps did not know themselves what they were doing when they cut so much from the funding for Naturvårdsverket. Maybe they thought other things would happen, but 50 fewer employees and new regulatory letters make a difference. It is not that Svenskt Näringsliv has wanted to hide that they sent the letter. They seem quite angry. Here, it is a matter of doing it over and doing it right.

If one looks instead at the report on what we in Miljöpartiet want to do, one sees that it is precisely to ensure that the regulations become a reality and that Swedish companies and Sweden can lead the way. We have food, plastic, textiles, critical raw materials, and construction and demolition materials. It is these parts we must address.

Did the Speaker know that 87 percent of the plastic that is collected is burned or goes to energy recovery? Only 10 percent is recycled and becomes new plastic. On the other hand, one sees that in the parts where there are deposit systems for PET bottles and other items, it is 37 percent. We have a motion in which we want to introduce a deposit on more areas. This is something that is included in, for example, the eco-design directive.

Water was addressed previously. We also have a motion on how water should be recycled. We see that water is misused in processes today, and it is also part of the circular economy.

Something that has also been raised earlier in the debate is chemicals and the Reach system, which is the common system we use within the EU. It is moving too slowly there. There has been a long discussion about it needing to change, that substances should be taken in groups and that it should be easy to ban them, but then nothing really happens. Sweden must push on there. Sweden has been a leader in this area since the end of the 90s. There we have a joint reservation from Socialdemokraterna, Vänstern and Miljöpartiet, which I want to move for approval. That is number 34.

We also want to see a European substitution center. We introduced such a center in Sweden under a red-green government, and it has functioned well. It ensures that one can conduct research so that one knows which substances to target. It should be scaled up. It should be a Swedish initiative to do this at a European level.

Last but not least, those who do wrong - those who profit from this - must be punished. We have seen a terrible crime involving waste recently, not least here in the Stockholm area. There are colors and other things involved in their names, which I will not say out loud.

We want to see that this crime is addressed, that it is investigated how it can be tackled and that there are stricter penalties. Therefore, I also want to move for approval of reservation 23. Otherwise, I stand behind all reservations, including the previous one, but this time it felt like I needed to move for approval of two reservations.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The report has a very long name, so I will not even try to say it because I do not have it with me in writing. Circular economy is, in any case, the basis of it all.

Circular economy is perhaps one of the oldest things that exists in environmental work at all, and people have been doing it for as long as humans have existed. One just hasn't known that it is called that. However, it was done for different reasons than the reasons why we are to transition to a more circular economy today.

Regarding the motions being treated in the report, I note that in the vast majority of cases these are good motions that we could stand behind, but work is already being done in these areas. With this, Madam Speaker, I wish to move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of all reservations.

One thing that is being raised and which is very important is public procurement and how we in it can facilitate what concerns circular economy. The motion itself is very good, but the National Agency for Public Procurement has already received a mandate to work with this. Public procurement is so large that it would make a huge impact if we could become better at circular economy specifically when it comes to public procurement.

One thing that I do not believe, if I have listened attentively enough, has come up in the debate today but which is always usually raised when it comes to circular economy is textiles, not least considering all the e-commerce we see and how one handles all the returns. Several strategies have been developed. Both at EU level and at Swedish level, an action plan regarding circular economy has been developed. We also know that a textile collection will arrive on 1 January 2025.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, we see some challenges for the civil society organizations that receive collected clothes to then send them on to those in greater need. Here we need to take action so that they are not affected.

Electronics have been something several have been involved in. My colleague Emma Nohrén raised this with a pledge. There is an investigation that was conducted some years ago and which shows that a pledge system would not work in a desirable way regarding specifically electronics. Even if the idea itself might have been good, the investigation shows something else.

Here, we in the Christian Democrats are pushing another point, namely that the chemical tax should be removed. It is purely counterproductive.

Even regarding minerals and metals, there are motions where they write about a deposit system. As said, there is an investigation pointing out that it is not feasible in the way that is desired. Then, preparatory work is ongoing to improve circular flows of minerals and metals. It is a self-evident matter that circularity there should increase, no doubt about that, but perhaps in other ways than specifically with a deposit system.

The previous debate was about agriculture. There, nitrogen and phosphorus are important components for us to have vegetation at all. At the same time, we have challenges with nitrogen and phosphorus, for example when the substances end up in our watercourses. Work is now being done at the Government Offices to see how we can both reduce the use, and also remove what is already out in our watercourses, for example. It is very important that we get the opportunity to recirculate these substances.

At the same time, we see that we then have perhaps an even greater task ahead of us, namely to change the entire water and waste system. We have a water and waste system that truly requires a major renovation. If we do not do such, there is a risk that regardless of what we do in the agricultural area, we will not succeed regarding these specific substances.

Another motion concerns, among other things, the scrapping premium. Money has been allocated there. It is to get started. One might, in fact, wonder – I did when I read about this – what a scrapping premium has to do here. This is about circular economy, and when scrapping, one ends something. Here, it is about transitioning to cars that run on electricity. Therefore, this is included here, even if one can discuss the circular aspect of it.

I believe it was again my colleague Emma Nohrén who raised this with end of waste criteria, i.e., that we must increasingly see waste as a resource. This is being done, but there are more steps to go here. It is very important. We have many companies in the country that are requesting help with this.

One thing that I believe I have raised in every debate on circular economy during my years in the Riksdag is food waste. I am taught that one does not throw away food, but approximately one-third of all food produced, from the production side to the refrigerator, is thrown away. There we truly have a job to do to learn to manage this. Our ancestors could do it. They were truly taught to do it. The problem is perhaps, Madam Speaker, that our food has become too cheap. We are not afraid enough of it. We should be.

Here, Vinnova has received a mandate and also forwarded money to innovation mandates at the system level for a sustainable and competitive food system. There, Madam Speaker, we have a word that is very important regardless of where we are in the transition: The change shall occur at the system level, i.e., at an overarching level. That is when we truly make the big changes that must be made.

Regarding simplifying the circular economy, the government has an ongoing investigation concerning VAT rules for both gifts and second-hand goods to facilitate this and ensure that we can bring in even more into our second-hand stores. The non-profit second-hand stores are already exempt from VAT, but perhaps further things can be done. It is therefore an investigation that is ongoing and which will be interesting to follow.

PFAS has been brought up by several. There, I believe the consensus is total in this chamber: We must get rid of PFAS. The government is working here in two tracks. One is to limit the spread that is currently ongoing, and the other is to handle the consequences of previous spread. Work is being done nationally but also at the EU level and internationally, which is very important. These are chemicals that do not know any borders.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, it is a challenge. In some parts, PFAS is today a fantastic chemical - or "a" is wrong; it is ten thousand substances. In cancer medicine, for example, it is the carrier of the medicine, and today one has no other carrier, as far as we know. Hopefully, a development is underway so that one will.

We also see it in other parts, where as of today we do not see anything that works better than PFAS. But of course, this is an ongoing work, and I hope that we can soon phase out more and more.

I also intended to say a little about waste-related crime, but I see that my speaking time is up. Regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's report, the government agrees with the points that the Swedish National Audit Office makes. Therefore, the Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish Chemicals Agency have been tasked to address those challenges.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Kjell-Arne Ottosson! I heard myself being mentioned a few times. However, I will not dwell on that, but I intended to ask about the letter that Svenskt Näringsliv has written regarding what, according to them, hinders the circular transition, makes it difficult to implement the new EU directives, and so on.

Both those who wrote the letter and those of us who have read it and see how serious it is now wonder: Will the government take this to heart? Will the budget be changed?

We saw this week that the Director General of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency shared the criticism - or criticism I shouldn't say, but he said that they saw the same effects of the cuts that have been made and shared the assessment that these would be the effects. Soon those who have been laid off will leave, and then new ones shall be hired.

The question is really how the government will receive this. Will anything be changed so that we do not lose in competitiveness and opportunities for transition?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I too have received this letter and have also had meetings with some of the actors who are signatories. It was news to me when they presented this. I had not heard it previously. Therefore, I took it further to the relevant actors.

What the government will do next, I believe Emma Nohrén knows that I cannot answer. The government will answer when the government has prepared this and is finished.

There is, however, no doubt that at least I have seen and further conveyed the criticism and am working in the channels that I have.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Member Ottosson! It is clear that you have taken note of it.

I know from previous debates in the chamber that Naturvårdsverket does not always rank high in the members' trust. Here we now see what incredibly important work they do. Will you work to ensure we get an amendment in the autumn budget, for example? This is something that is happening here and now. We have a lot of legislation that needs to be implemented. We have companies that must get this done. This is urgent now. How will this be taken forward?

I understand that the member has taken note of it, but what will the member work for?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Emma Nohrén is right that I have been quite critical of how Naturvårdsverket has acted in certain matters. I am not ashamed of it at all, but I can truly stand by that criticism.

Therefore, it is extremely important that the regulatory letters become even clearer, so that one truly does what one is supposed to do and does it in the right way. It also applies to using money where it is actually supposed to be used. Miljöpartiet and Kristdemokraterna have different views on how we want Naturvårdsverket to work, and we truly have different views on what should be prioritized. In that regard, this issue of how the government steers, both through regulatory letters and through the money bag, is completely decisive for the agency to end up in the right place.

Then one must be very clear regarding what the intentions of the politics are, and regarding this question, as said, the signals that have reached me are still very clear. Of course, I will look into this further; I will not just leave it to the government and say thank you, but I will look into it more and see what actually lies behind it, in order to get to the bottom of the whole thing.

Anyone can make requests, and then the question is how well-founded they are. Based on what I have seen here, I think they are quite well-founded, but I still want to familiarize myself with them more in order to see how to proceed. Then it is, just as I said in my previous speech, the government that decides, and what the government does I cannot decide. But I can at least be involved in trying to influence where it is appropriate.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the speech! I agree with several of the points that the Member raised in the speech. This applies to several areas, but what I want to focus on is textiles.

Textiles account for approximately 10 percent of global emissions, and it is truly a priority issue for us. We have good EU legislation in the works with the textile strategy, the ecodesign requirements, and the waste directive – we have discussed it on a number of occasions at our meetings – but what happens in the EU takes a very long time, and it is not enough. It is required that the EU takes a firm stand.

Before negotiations, in the deliberations on the Swedish position, the Center Party has on several occasions pushed for innovation and new technology but received a no from the Minister for Environment and Climate. I can only state that we do not make the same priorities and the same assessment in this matter. I do not quite think that it receives the weight it deserves.

My question to the member is actually: What do Kjell-Arne Ottosson and the government want to do to increase the recycling of textiles?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree with Stina Larsson that this is an issue that should truly carry weight, because when we look at the production of textiles, we see how great a climate impact it has.

It is possible that we are not entirely in agreement regarding the tools that have been developed. Just as I said in my speech, and just as Stina Larsson also mentioned in her reply, strategies have been developed. We have an action plan at the Swedish level, and we have it at the EU level regarding textiles. We know now that there will be textile collection starting from January 1, 2025.

I do not know how far one has come with that, Madam Speaker, but furthermore, a ban will be introduced against destroying textiles and footwear that are returned within e-commerce. As I mentioned, it is apparently a huge number of people who purchase many clothes and shoes via e-commerce and then send back very much – which is destroyed. Work is ongoing there, but as I said, I do not know how far that work has come. However, one should straightforwardly ban actors from destroying these goods.

Here we have a huge number of tools that have been launched. I think that we must now let the tools start working so that we see how far they go. Then one must constantly evaluate to see if anything needs to be changed or sharpened and what we need to move forward with. It is a constantly living job. But what we are to do now is to ensure that the action plans, the strategies, and the laws that have come into being become a reality and are launched. It is truly step one.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Kjell-Arne Ottosson says that the tools should start working and that we shall have a collection starting from January 1. That is not enough. I can only state that the government and Kjell-Arne Ottosson have no concrete proposals.

The municipalities are not prepared to start the collection on January 1. Textile is a very special product that must be kept away from moisture. The textiles will be stored in containers, and there will be large piles of clothes at the municipalities before they can handle this. We have no industrial structure and no flows for textiles in Sweden today. The producer responsibility for textiles, which is actually the key in this, will start at the earliest in 2028. We cannot wait as long as that.

I see that we must introduce a quota for recycled material in textiles - let's say 5-10 percent - just to increase the profitability of recycling. Thereby, we get better flows and better systems, because the economic tools really steer. Then we must also invest in quality. We must ensure that our clothes are produced with high quality and have a longer life cycle, just as the member describes. But then one cannot simultaneously raise the tax on repairs of clothes and shoes, which the government actually has done for a year. It becomes more expensive and more difficult, and fewer people repair their clothes.

I think, therefore, that Kjell-Arne Ottosson needs to go home to his government and push. It is not enough to sit and wait for the EU. We talked about this during the election campaign – the textile strategy and the waste directive – and now something really must happen. We have talked and negotiated about this year in and year out, and so far we have no producer responsibility. No, go home and do your homework! That is what I would like to say to the government.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Given that the time is past half past seven, I would have liked to have gone home a long time ago, but we have a debate to address. That is what we must do first.

I can only agree with Stina Larsson regarding exactly this matter of quality, that is to say that we should buy better quality and less often - absolutely, really. Then it is not everyone who has that possibility, but if you have it, you really should do it.

Regarding VAT on repairs, it turned out to make very little difference. Investigations were conducted on this which showed that it is not the VAT reduction that is decisive, but that other parts are significantly more decisive for us to move forward regarding just repairs. Then there is also this matter of having actual possibilities to do so.

I still want to assert that the laws and strategies that have been launched must be allowed to start working. One cannot do what the EU Commission does in some issues, that is to say, spray out proposals without consequence analyses and then see how they work. One cannot just come up with a lot of proposals without actually getting results in the whole of it. I think it is exactly the same thing with this – here, there must be results.

Much of what Stina Larsson is afraid of is actually civil society organizations that ensure things are solved where the municipalities do not have the possibility. That is very good, because then you have civil society organizations that collect clothes to then donate them to those in greater need. The clothes go abroad, for example, and that is very good. They can then be used again.

Civil society organizations are therefore doing the job that Stina Larsson claims many municipalities today do not have the possibility to do. They can thus use that as a solution, which is very important. But there are some legislative changes that must be made so that we can facilitate even more for civil society. That is where I believe we have a large part of the solution if we want to achieve a circular economy.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker, colleagues in the Riksdag and the Swedish people! We have an important debate here today on the circular economy.

On behalf of the Social Democrats, I would like to, for the sake of time, request approval only for reservation 38 on PFAS and endocrine-disrupting substances, but we obviously stand behind all our reservations.

Madam Speaker! Increased consumption has meant that we, not least in Sweden, have been able to improve our standard of living. It has meant many good things for us humans, but it also means that we now use resources equivalent to several Earths. It is often said that we live as if we had 1.7 planets in the world. It is particularly the wealthier countries that overconsume. We in Sweden stand high on the list today. If one looks at the consumption that the Swedish people account for, one sees that even more Earths are needed.

At the same time, there are many billions on our earth who would need to increase their prosperity. They are hungry, starving, or have far too harsh conditions to live under. Everyone understands that it is not sustainable. It is unequal, unjust, and dangerous for our planet.

In times of security policy unrest and preparedness, it is also an important investment to invest in becoming more resource-smart. This applies to both energy supply and our material flows.

Madam Speaker! The circular economy is an important priority for us Social Democrats. The environmental benefits of transitioning to a more circular model from the linear one are obvious to most. But there are also many socio-economic gains to be made here.

Society simply must find ways to move from the linear to the circular. It has been said before. To manage the transition, we must begin to see waste much more as a resource and not as waste.

Today we have many systems and laws that counteract the necessary development towards a circular economy. That counteraction occurs in all stages. It is design, choice of materials, use, reuse and recycling. In all those stages, we need to think in new ways and find ways to become more sustainable.

It is many times cheaper today to use virgin material even though it should be the opposite. Swedish companies are nevertheless often at the forefront when it comes to creating circular products and services. But most often, the regulatory framework has not kept up. This puts obstacles in the way of the capable entrepreneurs.

It is important that politics helps with smart control systems and public investments that enable the transition. It should be difficult to be able to exploit nature for free with great damage as a consequence. Instead, it should be easy to do the right thing.

When it comes to the responsibility of politics, the Social Democratic government presented a strategy and an action plan for the transition to a circular economy. The Social Democratic government also took several steps to improve the procurement legislation.

Every year, the state, municipalities, and regions procure approximately 800 billion kronor. It is a significant part of the economy of society. The public sector is therefore a great opportunity to lead and be proactive in the important transition, which is good both for the planet and for a green technology.

Through procurement processes permeated by the sustainability perspective and the circular economy, smart environmental and climate impact can truly gain momentum in society. Sweden must be there. We must be at the forefront.

Madam Speaker! The work to create a circular economy does not stop at Sweden's borders. These are global issues. Several of my colleagues have touched upon this in the debate.

We live in a global time. I believe we need to talk more about it. We trade internationally, and therefore we must work with circular material flows also across national borders.

We Social Democrats are therefore positive about the EU working with so-called end-of-waste criteria. Work has begun on this. It is regulated in the EU's framework directive for waste.

Waste thus ceases to be waste and instead becomes a resource that can be used for a clear purpose. We must hurry. We must get it into more sectors than those that are currently there.

We Social Democrats fought to include, for example, textiles, paper and tires in the material flows. But that is not enough. We must do much more.

Madam Speaker! Several industries today face great challenges and thus also opportunities to improve their work. But there are more who are currently having a hard time and who are not doing enough.

One can, for example, look at the textile industry. The trend of fast fashion is one of the more extreme expressions of an unsustainable throwaway society. As soon as the season is over, clothes are out of fashion. They are often not to be sold on, but instead hung in a wardrobe or thrown away.

It does not work to let last season's clothes become some kind of dinosaurs of environmental destruction in the wardrobe. We must instead ensure that the clothes see the light of day again, that they are used by someone else, or that the material is used to produce new clothes.

The textiles that today so often end up in this sorrowful way have also been very resource-inefficient. We throw away, as said, approximately 10 kilos per person per year. But a large part of the clothes have been thrown away unworn.

It is also said that approximately 2 kilos of chemicals and 55 bathtubs of water have been used to make a couple of new jeans. We all understand that it does not work. We must achieve circularity in all industries.

Madam Speaker! A sustainable circular economy must also include better chemical legislation. Sweden has a proud history of being proactive in chemical policy. It is important that that work does not stall with the current government.

Many of the chemicals found in products form cocktails that become dangerous for us humans or for the environment if we do not reduce harmful and dangerous chemicals.

A major example that has also been debated here today is PFAS. We know that PFAS are harmful to us humans. It can lead to cancerous tumors, risk of thyroid issues or diseases, and also difficulties in having children.

These chemicals are also everlasting. We cannot even oversee how long PFAS will remain in the environment. It is also stated that 75,000 tonnes of these forever chemicals end up in the environment annually.

Then the government's somewhat sedentary attitude in the PFAS issue is not sufficient. If we want to achieve circularity, we must also get started with the chemical policy.

I want to conclude by saying that we have a series of proposals in our committee motion. We will be at the forefront if we Social Democrats get to decide on issues concerning the recycling and reuse of textiles.

We want to see that the collection systems are improved. We want to give the municipalities increased influence. We want to increase the recycling of mobile phones and small electronics, which we see as a major concern.

We want waste to be seen as a resource so that it becomes more resource-efficient in the future. We want Sweden to push the EU for stricter chemical legislation. We also have a reservation on this together with MP and V.

We want to work for legislation where people and the environment are protected from PFAS and also from the harmful effects of endocrine-disrupting substances, just to mention some of the proposals we have in our committee motion.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I will not give a very long speech, even though it is an important issue with many aspects to highlight. I still hope that I manage to include the most important points.

We need to become more circular. It is as Member Storckenfeldt said here in the speaker's chair before me: The linear model no longer holds. That is truly the case. Becoming more circular is one of many factors that affect our chances of achieving the climate transition. We need to move from the linear to becoming more circular. It is an important tool.

The Swedish business sector is an important driver in the transition. Through entrepreneurship and innovation, based on circular material flows and business models, the development of a more resource-efficient, toxic-free, circular and bio-based economy can be strengthened throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! It is only in a growing economy with green growth that we can steer towards a more sustainable society. Circular economy is about creating greater value from fewer resources. The same pursuit is the foundation for every prosperous economy. We shall live rich lives on the planet's terms.

It is about reducing the waste of the earth's resources. Products should be manufactured to last. They should be repairable, and the materials they are made of should be easy to recycle. A more efficient use of materials makes it possible for us to live rich lives within the planet's boundaries.

Just as has been raised here earlier, EU cooperation is very important to achieve the change that is required. Together we can make a big difference.

Madam Speaker! We must reduce the waste of the earth's resources. Products should, as I have already said, be manufactured to last. A more efficient use of materials makes it possible for us to live rich lives without devastating nature.

At the same time, we will always need mines, timber from the forest, and other resources from nature. This is required, not least, for us to succeed in phasing out coal, oil, and gas. But we must become much better at using the materials we have extracted. The EU must lead the way in this work. There is an enormous strength in 27 countries having the same rules for products.

Madam Speaker! I say it again: It is only in a growing economy with green growth that we can steer towards a more sustainable society.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Our climate impact in Sweden is significantly higher than the global average. In Sweden, the impact today is on average eight tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per person per year.

Emissions from domestic transport account for a third of Sweden's total greenhouse gas emissions. The majority of the emissions occur in road transport and come primarily from passenger cars and heavy vehicles.

Emissions from transport have decreased for a long time, which is good. But the trend now appears to be reversing. Trafikverket fears that emissions from transport will increase this year, and the same is confirmed by Drivkraft Sverige, the industry organization for fuel companies, whose preliminary figures for the first quarter of this year say that emissions from road transport have increased by 24 percent.

The primary explanation for this is that we are using less biofuel, and that is also due to the reduction of the reduction obligation. Furthermore, the electric car market does not really look to be increasing as intended. The government pulled the rug out when they abolished the electric car bonus. The sale of electric cars plummeted, and no clear recovery is still seen.

The government's response to this is a palette of measures that are described in the climate action plan - the same plan that has been questioned and criticized, not least by the Climate Policy Council, and which does not contain the concrete proposals that it gives the impression of.

There is one remaining color spot regarding measures, namely the scrapping premium, which is expected to come into force on August 15 if everything goes according to plan with referrals and other matters. It will be temporary and apply for one and a half years.

My question to Elin Nilsson is: When we talk about the great opportunities of electrification, do you assess that emissions will decrease with this temporary scrappage premium?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Larsson, for the question! First, a brief comment. We see that emissions are increasing as a result of the reduction obligation being abolished. But this was necessary; we had to take responsibility for Sweden in a difficult time. People had difficulty putting food on the table, and fuel prices were too high.

We are actively working with electrification. We are trying to facilitate charging for people who have electrified cars, even outside of cities - it is important. We are investing in charging infrastructure.

When it comes to the scrapping premium, it remains to be seen, of course, what effects it will have. But the hope is that it will lead to cars that are negative for the climate being scrapped and that we instead reward investments in electric cars.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not believe that this temporary premium is sufficient. Many actors have already cut down this proposal and do not think it is enough. The electric car industry itself says that those who own old cars will not trade them in and argue that it is far too little money. Compared to how much was invested previously, first 3 billion and then an additional 4 billion on climate bonuses in 2021 and 2022, this, 250 million kronor, is pocket change.

I and the Center Party have in our budget prioritized the climate bonus and biofuels as significant parts of the green transition. In today's report, we also have a broader proposal for a scrapping premium, which means that one should be able to receive compensation if one buys a used eco-friendly car, an electric bicycle, or a public transport pass. The purpose is to reduce emissions overall, change behaviors, and also reduce both the pollution from our roads and the noise.

Why does Member Elin Nilsson not want to stand behind our broader proposal for a scrapping premium, which would also reduce the total traffic on the roads?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Larsson, for the follow-up question! As we have said, we must evaluate the scrapping premium that now exists and see what it leads to before we take a position on how we shall work forward.

We are moving out of economically difficult times. We have taken responsibility for Sweden. We have had a limited purse of money to distribute. We have invested in very many important things in the government's budget. Then it became this amount we arrived at that we would invest.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve reservation 21.

As a representative for the Sweden Democrats, a social-conservative party characterized by the idea of stewardship, the starting point for this debate regarding circular economy and chemical issues involves several central questions.

We must utilize resources as carefully and efficiently as possible. The vast majority of the resources we utilize have, at some stage, an environmental impact. It is therefore fundamental that we utilize every resource as efficiently as possible. But what is efficient must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, for example, it can be most efficient to reuse. Sometimes it is most efficient to materially recycle. And sometimes it is most efficient to energy recycle. Nothing is necessarily better than the other; there is no conflict here.

When it comes to virgin raw materials, it is not something to strive for - it is better to utilize raw materials that we have already extracted. But no matter how skilled we are at that, we will always need virgin raw materials. In that case, it is fundamental to have a balance between need, utility, and care for animals and nature.

Madam Speaker! Chemicals are essential for human health and must be used based on scientific principles. A chemical can be life-threatening but at the same time life-saving. We therefore need a balanced chemical policy so that we can, for example, avoid PFAS ending up in our water while simultaneously understanding that PFAS is currently required for essential cancer medicine, the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries, laboratory equipment, pharmaceutical research, safe aircraft engines, mobile phones, and so on.

Madam Speaker! The circular economy has great potential to grow. The greatest acute threat here in Sweden is perhaps organized crime, which over decades has been allowed to become a part of this industry as well. It is important that environmental crime is given priority by the law enforcement authorities as the consequences of them are extremely serious. It is desirable to review the possibility of toughening the penalties for the more serious environmental crimes.

In recent years, several incidents have occurred where waste has been moved between locations by unscrupulous and sometimes criminal operators because they want to avoid having to bear the remediation costs. Here, the supervision needs to become better. When meeting with operators and industry organizations, an increasingly alarming picture emerges. Control is lacking partly due to fear – controls are sometimes directed towards more law-abiding operators who follow the rules, while one hesitates to follow up on how things work in companies and industries with significantly clearer problem areas. Here, the municipalities likely need increased support, guidance, and backing from the police and other authorities. We must not accept a situation where criminal networks take more and more market shares at the expense of law-abiding operators.

Madam Speaker! A fundamental conflict in this area concerns how one views consumed resources. Traditionally, exhausted material is classified as waste that people need to protect themselves from. In Sweden, we have a landfill tax which has been a good management tool, but at the same time, we have a situation today where in several countries people have started to excavate deposited material to, with the help of new technology that did not exist previously, give these goods new areas of use. The Swedish waste tax makes such activity in Sweden unprofitable today. There, one could for example look at how a changed waste tax can contribute to a transition to a more circular society.

Madam Speaker! The international waste regulations need to be reformed to meet challenges with new technology for, for example, extracting critical raw materials and managing waste consisting of critical raw materials found in different countries. The Basel Convention and various OECD regulations currently contribute to hindering the trade of potentially important waste flows. To promote innovation within the circular economy, it needs to become easier to move waste between countries, while simultaneously being able to minimize the risk of illegal dumping in third countries in a purposeful manner.

Madam Speaker! Economic instruments are important for steering away from hazardous products and hazardous chemicals towards more environmentally friendly alternatives. At the same time, policy fails repeatedly in this regard. The Swedish plastic bag tax is an exceptionally good example of a poor instrument without environmental benefit. Later this autumn, this very bad tax will finally disappear. But there is more to be done.

In the debate here, the chemical tax has been raised, which partially affects, for example, even recycled mobile phones. That tax should naturally be removed, not just for recycled mobile phones but for all electronics. Environmental management through taxation simply does not work.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Martin Kinnunen!

Last week, there was a large event at Brygghuset here in Stockholm concerning textiles. It was a meeting with actors, companies, organizations, and authorities to learn more and network around sustainable fashion. The subtitle was Habit Impact Day.

All the parliamentary parties were invited. The only ones who came were myself from Centerpartiet and a representative for Miljöpartiet. I stood on the stage and spoke about the EU's legislation regarding textiles, what we can do in Sweden, and whether we can increase recycling and circularity.

We received many questions about what we wanted to do. One of the questions was actually directed specifically to the Sweden Democrats and MP Martin Kinnunen, who was registered as a participant in the event but for various reasons was not present. I promised to forward the question here in the chamber. I will read directly from the material we received:

There is a considerable amount of EU legislation in the works for textiles, and a number of new laws are to be expected for fashion companies. The EU wants to see longer life cycles for clothes and shoes and that they are designed to last longer and circulate longer. Question to SD: On April 1, 2023, the VAT for repairs of, among other things, shoes and clothes was increased from 6 percent to 12 percent. This was backed by the Sweden Democrats. What was your thinking?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Stina Larsson, for the questions! It was good that Stina Larsson had the opportunity to attend the seminar. I did not. I was in a committee meeting at that exact time. We had hoped to have a substitute at the committee meeting so that I could have attended the seminar, but in these election times, it is not always so easy to arrange such a thing.

Madam Speaker! The question of the VAT on repairs has been discussed previously here in the chamber. As it happened, there was an increase from 6 percent to 12 percent.

I can state that the difference in kronor for a normal repair as a result of this is minimal. As a consumer of children's clothing, I also struggle with the thought when I buy jeans for my son: Should I have these repaired, or should I buy new ones? It is influenced by the cost. So that is it for me, at least.

But whether it is 6 percent VAT or 12 percent VAT will not make any difference. It will still be an all-too-great cost to have someone patch up the jeans when I cannot do it myself. It will have no significant effect at all.

It is, however, impactful and popular among the opposition to campaign on that, but in substance it has no significance. The problem we have in the entire Western world is that labor is relatively expensive. It therefore becomes relatively expensive to hire labor to repair the jeans. Often it can cost about as much to buy new jeans at Hennes & Mauritz or Kappahl instead of having them repaired by the tailor. This has to do with the fact that one has significantly higher wages in Sweden than in the countries where these trousers are manufactured.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Yes, labor is expensive in Sweden. I absolutely think we should change that, but perhaps that is not what is in focus here, but I am thinking specifically about the question of the repairs.

I can say that in this context, no one agreed with the Sweden Democrats' positions on this. Everyone there experienced that it has become a deterioration when one cannot have their clothes repaired in the same way as before because there are also fewer actors, i.e., fewer shoemakers, tailors, etcetera.

What should be done then to increase circularity when it comes to textiles? In all simplicity, I think that this is not a major issue for the government and the Sverigedemokraterna. It is not prioritized and is not so high on the agenda. Possibly there is, as the member mentioned, an interest in circularity when one speaks about waste crime and trade with trash and waste. A great deal of clothes are dumped in other countries, in Africa for example. It affects the environment there in an enormous way and has devastating consequences for people and ecosystems. It is not primarily there that the problem should be solved. We should actually address what is the fundamental reason why clothes are dumped in the first place.

The textile industry accounts for 10 percent of global emissions. Swedish consumption is devastating for the climate. We must do something here.

We have presented a number of proposals that we stand behind. It concerns quota requirements and a clearer producer responsibility when it comes to textiles within the EU.

What do the Sweden Democrats think we can do to facilitate this? We must take small steps at a time, for example by lowering the tax on repairs. But what else is there that we could do? What proposals do the Sweden Democrats have when it comes to getting circularity in order?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Once again: regarding the repairs, there is no analysis showing that the changed VAT had any effect. We could not discern any price reduction on the repairs when the VAT reduction occurred, and no one has either succeeded in identifying any price increase afterwards. At any rate, I have not noticed it when I have had things repaired at the tailor's.

I believe rather that the price increases have been due to the high inflation. This has also required us, in the budget work, to be forced to manage the state's resources responsibly.

Madam Speaker! Then it concerns recycling. The fundamental thing, as I see it, is the new business models being created. It is the market economy that drives this. We see an increased popularity in selling secondhand, from individuals. We see new companies being started up. It is a positive development we discern.

The fundamental problem when it comes to the throwaway fashion is actually people's preferences. People like to vary themselves when it comes to fashion. That is the case regardless of what the EU Commission writes in its fine and very boring documents about that one should strive to go around with the same clothes year in and year out. They should be sustainable clothes, clothes that perhaps have been produced in Europe and that last for several years. Ordinary people actually seem to prefer to be able to vary themselves more. They want to follow different types of trends. The fundamental problem here, I see, is people's preferences, and I do not really see that one will be able to change this overnight.

Opinion building is probably required. One must change how one reflects on things. But I also believe that one should be a bit humble, when one works in this house and has a fairly good salary, compared to people who perhaps buy clothes of lower quality, which are significantly cheaper.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! According to the UN's international resource panel, inefficient resource use is the cause of half of the world's climate emissions, and it has caused 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 most noticeable 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. That analysis of how Sweden consumes materials shows that Sweden is only circular to 3.4 percent. The global average is 8.6 percent. When it comes to resource extraction and resource use, it turns out that Sweden belongs to the countries that perform worst in the study.

According to a report from the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, the material footprint needs to be kept within the limit of 5-8 tons per person per year by 2050. Sweden currently consumes approximately 25 tons per person per year. This means that our material footprint needs to be reduced by 70-80 percent in order for us to stay within the planetary boundaries. Vänsterpartiet therefore considers that Sweden must adopt goals of at least a 75 percent reduction of the material footprint by 2050. I move for approval of reservation 1.

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 in time. In a circular economy, the lifespan of materials and products is longer and the extraction of natural resources is less. For that, environmentally adapted and toxin-free production is required and that waste is used as a resource. It is about reusing, repairing, recycling, renting, and sharing goods to an increased extent. For this to work, consumers must receive relevant information and structures must be created that enable people to share and reuse goods. It is not sustainable to constantly extract new raw materials and manufacture new things only to let them end up in the landfill.

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. A very small portion of the plastic that is produced is recycled today, even in Sweden. If the number of plastic types were reduced, recycling would be facilitated.

Madam Speaker! The climate transition will require greater access to certain metals. Today, Europe and Sweden import a large part of these. Vänsterpartiet is open to the idea that Sweden may need to mine some of these metals within the country to reduce our own vulnerability and contribute to Europe's climate transition. But all mining involves a major impact on the environment and the local community, and therefore a thorough environmental assessment is required.

To reduce the need for new mines, political measures are needed to streamline the use of and reuse and recycle products to a greater extent. Steering measures that make it more expensive to use newly extracted raw materials than recycled ones must be introduced.

Madam 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 upsetting that we have chemical substances on the market in Sweden and 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.

80 percent 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 within the EU has been calculated to cost society 150 billion euros per year in healthcare costs and reduced productivity. The health-related costs caused by PFAS have been calculated to over 50 billion euros every year. A research project that has collected samples from thousands of people across Europe shows widespread occurrence of health-harming chemicals in our bodies, in many cases at levels that are known to involve risks to health.

When assessing chemicals, the precautionary principle should apply. This 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 begin to be used before their potential negative impacts have been investigated. Chemicals with properties that are not sufficiently known should be assessed as dangerous until they have been reviewed.

The EU Commission adopted a chemical 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 chemical 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 that the work is characterized by 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 are found almost everywhere in the environment today. The substances are present in a wide variety of products, including textiles, food packaging, makeup, mobile phones, and firefighting foam. They can spread over long distances and are therefore found today all over the world. We know that a number of PFAS are reproductive toxins, and several are suspected to be carcinogenic. Within the chemical industry, the risks associated with PFAS have been known for a long time, but the producers have chosen not to disclose that information and withdraw the substances. Instead, they have continued to manufacture them in ever increasing quantities. Consequently, this could have spread in the environment and to us humans through the water we drink, the food we eat, and the things we surround ourselves with. That this could have happened is proof that today's chemical legislation is not working and must be tightened.

Those who have been hit hardest by PFAS contamination are the residents of Kallinge in Blekinge. Due to the Armed Forces' use of firefighting foam containing PFAS, their water source was contaminated. 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.

Last week I asked Ulf Kristersson if the government intends to do anything so that those affected can receive the care they need, but it turned out that he didn't even know about the issue. It is embarrassing. Here we have perhaps the biggest chemical scandal in Sweden since the 70s, where 5,000 people have been poisoned and fought for over ten years for redress, and the Prime Minister hasn't even noticed anything. I hope that the government pulls itself together and ensures that those affected receive health checks, because it cannot go on like this in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! It is of the utmost importance that we ban these substances as quickly as possible. The Swedish Chemicals Agency, together with chemical authorities in four other European countries, has developed a proposal that would significantly restrict the use of PFAS within the EU. Vänsterpartiet welcomes the proposal and wants it implemented as soon as possible without being watered down. Today, we primarily get PFAS into our bodies via the indoor environment and through food and drinking water. Even if the substances were banned today, they will continue to circulate in the environment for a long time to come, and we will also find them in food in the future.

The authorities must work to reduce people's exposure through food and water. This can, for example, occur by stopping the sale of food from contaminated areas and the extraction of drinking water from contaminated watercourses and through remediation. Vänsterpartiet wants the government to introduce interim targets in the environmental goals system that food and drinking water shall be free from PFAS. I move for approval of reservation 39.

Madam Speaker! Experience from recent decades teaches us that it is not enough to ban individual substances. It is also not enough to ensure that consumers receive better information; instead, the chemical legislation must be strengthened fundamentally. We must regulate chemicals in groups. We must also address how chemicals function in mixtures.

It is the industry that should bear the burden of proof. It is the industry that must prove that substances are needed and that they are not harmful. Only then should they be allowed to be released on the market. 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)

Madam Speaker! Climate change is one of the great challenges of our time. It is about the environment and biodiversity, the impact on people, and an acute impact with weather changes, floods, droughts, and most recently, changed pollen forecasts. But it is also, of course, about a broader perspective with the conditions for access to drinking water and our production of food.

Part of the solution to these problems is that we reduce emissions and become more circular. We are not that good at circularity in Sweden. According to the figures from the Circularity Gap Report, which we have heard about earlier today, Sweden is among the worst in its class on this with 3.5 percent. So we cannot have that!

Circular economy is part of the green transition. Good and wise investments are needed that contribute to our economic development and that at the same time contribute to reduced emissions and thus a green growth. Because I and Centerpartiet believe in the economy; we believe that it must be profitable for companies and the business sector to transition for real.

There are great competitive advantages for Swedish companies if we lead the way in the transition, but then we in politics must contribute our share. We must show political leadership where we take responsibility and point out the direction and steering measures. That is what I lack from the government we have today.

Centerpartiet wants to invest in new technology and new innovations. It is included in our budget, within the framework of Industriklivet, where wise and good investments are needed that contribute to economic development while also being part of the green growth. We see that industrial investments are needed in textile recycling, but of course, they are also needed in other areas.

We should do more within the plastics industry. Plastics have been called the oil industry's bread and butter and salvation. News came as recently as the other day that there are microplastics in the human body which, among other things, affect our ability to reproduce.

The transition to a circular economy should be even more linked to the Swedish climate action plan. This plan has been likened by many to a castle in the air, if one is to believe everyone who has scrutinized it, including the Climate Policy Council. There, the government and the Tidö parties need to do more. As it stands now, we will not reach the goals for 2030 and probably not for 2045 either, despite all the talk about a palette of measures.

Madam Speaker! What can we do then? I intend to focus on textiles, which account for 10 percent of global emissions. It is truly a priority issue for us. The EU legislation is finally underway. The textile strategy, the eco-design requirements, and the waste directive are good. But it is not enough; it is required that the EU takes a firm stand. We have pushed the Swedish government ahead of the negotiations for the Swedish position and pressed for innovation and new technology on a number of occasions.

But the government and the Tidö parties do not make the same assessment. I can state that the governing parties do not consider this to be as important and urgent as the Center Party does, and as the issue deserves.

What the government has done is to place even more work on the municipalities. From January 1, 2025, the municipalities shall collect textiles from households. This is good from a household and consumer perspective. But there are not many municipalities that are ready. There will be containers with discarded fabrics and clothes. Many municipalities do not know how they are to take the voluntary forces and the voluntary organizations into account. Fabrics are a difficult material to handle. They should preferably not get wet, and many envision that there will be storage premises with old clothes waiting for recycling, i.e., mountains of clothes even here in Sweden.

In the best-case scenario, the garments will then be sorted into polyester, cotton, and so on to then be recycled. A major investment was made in recycling, among other things by Renewcell, but it did not pay off. One could not sell the volumes that had been envisioned because virgin material is much cheaper, and the company has now gone bankrupt.

SKR has been critical of the initiative that the municipalities should be responsible for the collection, as it is a large cost that falls precisely on the municipalities since they do not have full producer responsibility for textiles.

I foresee that many municipalities will probably be granted exemptions and avoid collecting textile waste. That is what happened with the rule for food waste and bio-waste; almost a third of Sweden's municipalities have found various reasons not to collect the food waste. It costs too much, and it is not technically feasible. It is not what one would expect that it is the Norrland municipalities and other municipalities with long distances that are at the bottom of the class. A large proportion is instead in the Stockholm area and in Västra Götaland. I fear that it will be the same on January 1st within the textile area.

Centerpartiet has a couple of requests for the textile area. We wish that producer responsibility will enter into full force within the EU as soon as possible. We want to introduce a quota obligation for recycled material within textiles of 5-10 percent as a tool to increase the profitability of recycling. We will thus get larger flows and better systems for circular flows for textiles. We also want to invest in quality and ensure that our clothes are produced with high quality so that they last longer and can be repaired several times. A long life cycle is completely crucial to reduce waste.

Madam Speaker! I therefore wish to move for the approval of reservation 9, which concerns textiles.

I also want to raise the question of what we can do in the public sector. There is a great waste occurring with large economic and environmental consequences in our agencies. Public procurements are controlled by laws and scrutinized by the media. But to address the waste, we must also look at residual values and opportunities to sell off equipment once it has served its purpose.

There is a large bureaucratic apparatus with Konkurrensverket, Upphandlingsmyndigheten and a number of other organizations that work to help authorities, municipalities and county councils to procure correctly and well. Many procurements are also closely monitored by both bidders and the media.

So far everything is fine, but why is it almost exclusively spoken about what amounts authorities procure for and never about how large amounts go up in smoke? Why this one-way focusing on purchases and nothing about residual values, life cycle analyses and opportunities to divest assets once they have done their job? Why is there no law for how the procured products shall be handled when they are no longer needed?

Admittedly, there are many good examples of reuse of furniture and equipment, but we can do more. One thing is certain: There is a great value in the furniture, the vehicles, the medical technology, the tools and computers and other equipment that Sweden's nearly 800 agencies, municipalities and regions phase out and send away as waste.

There is a great waste occurring with major economic and environmental consequences because all production consumes large amounts of raw materials and energy. So how can we stop the waste, increase reuse, and build a circular economy?

One of the Center Party's proposals is that just as we have a law on public procurement, we should have a law on public divestment, precisely to force more agencies to take advantage of the value in their assets and save our common funds. To create good public deals with the citizens' best interests in mind, it must reasonably be just as natural to sell off what one does not use as it is to procure what one needs.

Madam Speaker! A holistic approach needs to be taken and larger investments must be made to get the circular flows started in Sweden. Facilities are needed that can sort and recycle all types of materials, textiles, plastics, electronics etcetera, and only incinerate that which truly lacks any use. Municipal recycling stations are not enough.

Swedish environmental technology is already world-leading, and we have great opportunities to develop the technology and become leaders within the EU. Many EU countries must exert more effort when it comes to waste management, but we can help each other with the infrastructure for recycling.

EU countries must take care of their own waste themselves. Waste must not be dumped and become an environmental burden somewhere else, but we must take care of it in a good way. For this to become a reality, the legislation needs to be changed so that we and the business community view waste and refuse as a resource.

The time for revolutionary change is now. If Sweden is to continue to be a pioneer for sustainability, consumption must decrease. And we are well-equipped to become leaders in a circular transition. There is knowledge and innovative power, and there is enormous potential in large and renewable forests and large-scale extraction of domestic resources. It provides an enormous opportunity for change.

I have high hopes, but it requires a political leadership that focuses on the issue, gets the circular economy on the agenda and sets new bold goals. Remember when you vote in the EU parliamentary election that the parties have different ambitions.

The business community needs to realize that in the long run, a circular economy is most economically profitable. That is how we can achieve a transition and a systemic shift. Sweden has great potential.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 12 June.)

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