EU's new emissions trading system for fossil fuels

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's bill on the EU's new emissions trading system. The bill is based on an agreement between the government and the Sweden Democrats.

The background to the bill is primarily the decisions made at EU level regarding the introduction of a new emissions trading system that shall cover the sectors which, in short, are not covered by the existing European emissions trading system. It mainly concerns emissions from the combustion of fuels used in buildings and for transport. The new emissions trading system has come to be called ETS 2, and the old one we call ETS 1.

Mr. Speaker! When ETS 2 was discussed in the Riksdag during the negotiations in the European Council, which took place during the previous parliamentary term, the Sweden Democrats were critical, however, not against the idea of introducing an emissions trading system. That emissions are priced is an extraordinarily good model for reducing emissions in a socio-economically efficient manner. The problem that we saw from SD's side was how the EU Commission chose to design the system.

The fundamentally problematic issue with ETS 2 is that the revenues from the emissions trading system do not remain in Sweden but partially accrue to the EU system in the form of a social climate fund—a fund that Sweden will become a net contributor to. In this way, Swedish consumers, through ETS 2, will partially contribute to financing citizens in, for example, Hungary, Poland, and Bulgaria.

This was the background for why the Sweden Democrats in the Riksdag, during the negotiations, opposed the Social Democratic government's line to say yes to the proposal. This, Mr. Speaker, is now history. ETS 2 is today binding EU legislation, and Sweden thus lacks discretion in the matter. ETS 2 shall be introduced regardless of what one thinks about this in substance.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats agreed in the climate action plan that Sweden shall implement ETS 2 broadly from the start and that households and businesses shall be fully compensated. The advantages of not utilizing various opportunities to exempt certain activities are several. A broader implementation already initially guarantees that the system will have a stronger climate policy effect, but it also follows from the design of the system that Sweden will be able to retain a larger share of the revenues, which can be used for compensation.

To prepare proposals on how such a compensation should look, an investigation will be appointed, which we already accounted for in the climate action plan. I know that the issue is being prepared at the Government Offices right now, and I expect that the investigation will be presented during this autumn.

Mr. Speaker! The climate action plan states that a basis for climate policy is public acceptance. The action plan also clarifies that the policy instrument investigation shall take into account that unreasonably high costs shall not arise for households and the business sector with a risk of serious impact on the competitiveness of Swedish companies.

Mr. Speaker! I note that there seems to be consensus here in the Riksdag regarding the proposals in the bill. No opposition party opposes the proposed implementation, but some parties express some of their own views on how the compensation should then look and how the consequences should be analyzed. This is beating a dead horse, for this is precisely what the announced investigation shall occupy itself with. It is a discussion that we will have reason to return to when the investigation directives are presented shortly, but above all when the investigation is finished and a concrete system for compensation is to be developed.

Mr. Speaker! In order to save time, I conclude my speech now.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Colleagues in the Riksdag and the Swedish people! Today we are to debate and discuss the important bill regarding ETS 2, the EU's new emissions trading system for fossil fuels. With this somewhat fig-like name as a heading, it is nevertheless an important debate that we are to hold. I move for approval of reservation 1 from S, V and C, Impact assessments in certain areas. The bill has no debate-friendly name, but it is very important. It is about reducing emissions from transport and buildings.

The climate crisis means that we are experiencing more natural disasters in this time, with severe storms, droughts, floods, and heat. Extreme weather is increasing. Many people on our continent, not least Swedes, have experienced how the basement becomes flooded or how the drought takes its toll on the harvest, which is so important for the family and for the Swedish people. Climate records are now pouring in, but they are no fun records. It is about record heat, record floods, record fires, and record droughts. We must tackle the climate crisis, and we must be clear about what needs to be done.

Sweden has historically pursued an active climate policy and taken on a leadership role. That is no longer the case. This parliamentary year, the EU's climate council has announced that the member states are doing too little to reach the agreed climate goals. Here at home, several agencies have criticized the government because the Swedish climate plan does not reach the climate goals. Regarding the climate action plan, it did not quite turn out to be a climate action plan; it was more a matter of pious hopes and future investigations.

Furthermore, the government is failing to get the investigations done in this regard. For example, a steering mechanism investigation was supposed to have started this spring, but it hasn't even gotten started. We have not seen any directives or investigators.

The government's idea seems to be that everyone should be compensated for everything. At the same time, they are burning half of the reform space in four years and lowering taxes for the very richest. That is where the priorities lie for the Swedish government.

The awareness that we must address, not least, transport emissions exists throughout the EU. We share this challenge across national borders. During the previous term, the European Parliament decided – I was a Member of the European Parliament myself and was there and negotiated – that we shall introduce an emissions trading system for transport and buildings, a so-called ETS 2. This concerns fuels for transport but also the heating and cooling of buildings. 25 percent of the revenues shall go to a so-called social climate fund.

What is on the table now therefore comes from the EU level and not from the Swedish government, which I would call a transport distance. It concerns emission allowances for buildings and road transport as well as fuels for additional sectors. The purpose is to address the sectors where it has been difficult to reduce emissions in the EU.

Some of the revenues shall be used to support vulnerable households and micro-enterprises through a so-called social climate fund. This is an important part of achieving a just transition and a solidary climate policy. The emissions trading system shall have its own emissions cap and its own emission allowances and shall not be linked to ETS 1, which applies to industries and the energy sector.

The important thing here is that producers, importers, and distributors must also ensure that they monitor emissions and surrender emission allowances. We put the pressure upstream and not primarily on the drivers or the consumers, in this case the Swedish people.

The co-legislators were in agreement. This system shall start in 2027. If energy prices become exceptionally high, there may be a delay, so that the system will start a year later. When the system has started, emission allowances will be released for it. Then the emission allowances will decrease progressively year by year. It will simply be a pressure on the producers to transition.

We Social Democrats believe that this system is extremely important to achieve an even distribution throughout the EU. What we are critical of is that the government has not fulfilled its task; in many respects, the bill lacks the parts where the government would have needed to be clear on how this is to be done specifically in Sweden. We lack the impact assessments that need to form the basis for good policy aimed at compensatory measures.

The question is also what the steering mechanism investigation is going to conclude and how it is going to help this system. The steering mechanism investigation's task is, after all, to ensure that the laws we have at the EU level are handled in the most efficient way. It would have been reasonable for us to have been told what the government's ideas are regarding one of the most potent pieces of legislation. But we, as said, do not have the government's ideas on this even for the investigation.

We welcome that emissions from agriculture, forestry, and fisheries are included from the start. We in Sweden should, to the extent we can, go ahead to take care of domestic emissions. But we must also have proper impact analyses here. What is the consequence for competitiveness? Many other countries will act differently. We have not received any clarity from the government at all. The government has not chosen to analyze this in advance, but we think it is reasonable for a government to do so when such large changes are underway.

It is also difficult to understand the wording in the bill regarding that everyone should be compensated financially. As I mentioned earlier, the government is currently burning money on tax cuts. How is it then going to be possible to compensate everyone and everything in the future? This feels mostly like populism, not like a clear bill.

I have a number of questions that I hope the government parties can answer. When, for example, will the plan for using the 25 billion that the system will deliver to Sweden 2027-2030 be available? These funds, which are legitimate and an important part of ensuring we have a just transition, should actually be spent before the system starts. It is about helping the Swedish people to transition, achieve electrification, and get better systems that can help people's wallets. The question then is whether it has been considered that these funds should be spent before the payments arrive. How is that going to be done?

Finally, I wonder what it is with this steering instrument investigation that is preventing the government parties from reaching a conclusion. What is it that we do not understand? This is actually the basis for being able to debate the EU legislation at all.

(Applause)

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

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! The goal of climate policy must be to both reduce Sweden's emissions and encourage other countries to raise their ambitions. Those who have heard me in previous debates know that I usually emphasize the importance of viewing the climate issue from a global perspective instead of staring blindly at what happens solely on Swedish soil. The climate issue is global. Therefore, the solutions must also be. Sweden is and shall continue to be a green pioneer country - not because it feels good for the moment, but because we, through practical action, shall show the world what is possible and get more to want to follow suit.

Mr. Speaker! Since the climate transition is our time's great challenge, efficiency and results must take center stage. Whether we succeed in the transition presupposes a competitive business sector, much more clean electricity, and an acceptance of the climate policy.

This question is not simple. It is not enough with the most convenient measures that might sound impactful and feel good in the stomach. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix, and it is also not enough for Sweden to transition alone. However, it is worth highlighting the journey that Sweden has made.

Sweden's GDP has approximately doubled since the 1990s, while at the same time our greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by over a third. For every krona of our GDP, therefore, only one-sixth as much greenhouse gases are generated as three decades ago. We have reason to proudly point out how Sweden has been able to combine reduced emissions with good economic prosperity.

Mr. Speaker! It is clear: The solution has never been to reduce growth or human activity. The solution has never been to shut down. It has been to transition, to create conditions for businesses and individuals to change methods that harm our living environment in a cost-effective way.

The EU Emission Trading System, or ETS, is a system for emission allowances within the EU area. The system works by limiting the right to emit to a number of emission allowances that the actors within the system can then trade or exchange with one another.

In practice, this means that there is a concrete plan to reduce emissions based on the market's power to steer. The price rises progressively, and the incentives to transition become larger and larger every year. That is climate policy at its best. The policy sets the framework, and the companies decide on the measures.

Mr. Speaker! EU ETS is considered the most cost-effective system in the world for reducing emissions and pushing the transition in the right direction. Greenhouse gas emissions have previously been free despite the major consequences. Climate change is tangible, and it is important that we now transition. The Moderates have long been in favor of a pricing of emissions, and for some time now we have had it in place within the EU area. This report concerns a new ETS system that also includes emissions from, among other things, buildings and road transport.

The EU is Sweden's most important climate policy platform. It is within the European Union that Sweden's binding climate goals and regulatory framework for the green transition are established. It is within the EU that we agree on instruments that effectively distribute climate responsibility between member states. It is within the EU that Sweden fulfills its climate commitments towards the Paris Agreement. The most effective Swedish climate policy is the joint and overarching one that we design together with the other member states within the EU.

But the power of the EU is not just about which emission reductions we achieve here, but also about the normative power that the EU possesses and how we succeed in setting standards in the world. When 450 million Europeans transition, it makes a global difference.

Mr. Speaker! The Moderates' view on climate, energy, and environmental issues is characterized by technological optimism and hopefulness. We are convinced that through technical progress, science, and facts, humanity can solve the problems we face and reach the climate goals.

The technology exists. It is possible. When other countries build new coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions, we must demonstrate the alternative. The green transition must be a competitive advantage that benefits the country's growth and creates jobs and prosperity. Transitioning to fossil-free must be worthwhile.

Mr. Speaker! Common to many of the environmental problems that humanity has encountered so far is that she has also shown herself capable of solving them. Let us do it again!

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Storckenfeldt spoke beautifully at the end of his speech about the importance of believing in technological possibilities and innovation. From the Social Democrats' side, I can say that we truly share the ambition to stand up for a transition within industry and other sectors in order to succeed with this.

But what is being requested from the environmental movement, the Swedish people and authorities right now, and also from the EU level and the EU's climate policy council, is clarity on how the government intends to lead the climate transition. It is not about pious hopes or a sense of trust. It is about legislation, budget and money. That is the part where it is the government's task to act.

Now, Member Storckenfeldt does not belong to the government, but still the most important and largest party in the government. It is important to hear: How do the Moderaterna intend to act so that we finally get the steering measures investigation, which the Minister for Climate and the rest of the government constantly refer to?

We are experiencing a frustration that all criticism during the mandate period has been met with: It will come soon! Soon there will be a budget that delivers, soon there will be a climate action plan that delivers, or soon there will be a steering instrument investigation that delivers.

We cannot keep pushing the politics ahead of us. I wonder if Member Storckenfeldt agrees with this.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Jytte Guteland highlights many good points. My answer back to Jytte Guteland would be: It is coming soon!

I do not belong, just as the member said, to the government. I cannot say what is happening in the corridors of Rosenbad or at the ministry. I only know that the ball is rolling. There will be a steering committee investigation on site soon.

It is important that we also look at the budget and the climate action plan. There we have a plan to reach the long-term goals with a climate action plan that ensures we go all the way to net zero in 2045. Now we also have a budget that ensures we reach our short-term goals by 2030.

We have the systems in place. Not everything is perfect. It is very rare that everything is perfect in politics. We are human beings who sit here, who have thoughts and opinions, and who are to represent our different parties and our voters.

The basis is still that we have a budget that reaches the goals until 2030. We have a climate action plan that reaches the goals until 2045. We have incredibly many initiatives. Many of them were started by the Social Democrats during their time in power. Klimatklivet, Industriklivet and those things are good. We continue to invest in them.

What we are doing is redirecting to compensate for where the Social Democrats have truly not performed during their time in power. It is about ensuring that electrification becomes possible and that we have enough base power in the system.

We are now trying to build those things up during our time in power. I hope that Jytte Guteland has the opportunity to familiarize herself with the work that is ongoing at the Government Offices.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to tell Member Storckenfeldt that there is all the will from the Social Democrats to be helpful with the energy policy and also the climate policy.

The Moderates have chosen to submit to, among others, the Sweden Democrats. I believe that the opinion polls for the Moderates speak to the fact that the Swedish people do not see the clarity in, among other things, the climate policy with the political framework and the government framework that the Moderates have chosen.

Instead of cooperating with parties like the Socialdemokratern on climate issues, one chooses a more skeptical stance. That is also what we see now. It is not that the poor grades apply to the previous government, but it is a bit like: The one who said it, was it. It is actually this government that has problems with delivering. We see that the new industrialization is stalling. We experience that many companies see a political lack of clarity right now. The Climate Policy Council refers to the fact that the climate action plan is not delivering.

The government refers all the time to the mantra "soon it will come," and it seems to be a strategy to postpone climate policy so that it falls into our lap when we take over government power. We think that is irresponsible.

We also see that there is criticism at the EU level regarding the fact that Sweden is no longer taking the leading role. All member countries receive criticism. There was a great skepticism towards the Swedish presidency. My question is therefore: When will the steering measures investigation arrive so that we get answers regarding any of these postponed political pamphlets?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am becoming a bit concerned when Jytte Guteland tries to make it seem as if this government is doing nothing when it comes to climate policy.

First and foremost, it concerns Sweden's presidency in the EU. It was we, the bourgeois government, who ensured that Fit for 55 became a reality. In that regard, we have been proactive in ensuring that it actually was implemented. We have also been proactive in ensuring that more areas are included in the various ETS systems. It is the Moderates who have stood at the forefront to ensure that shipping is included, and in just this, my colleague Jörgen Warborn from Halland has been incredibly proactive.

It is extremely unrealistic to say that the Moderates would not care about climate policy either at the EU level or nationally. Here we have a budget that we have recently presented where we increase the reduction obligation and ensure that we reach the climate goals.

When it comes to various agreements, I cannot be clear enough when I say that no one knows what the Social Democrats think regarding energy policy. I would very much have liked to cooperate with the Social Democrats when it comes to energy policy. The problem is just that it is not possible, because no one knows what the Social Democrats think on the issue of nuclear power. There we are in agreement; it is a large part of what we build our energy policy on. We are in agreement on precisely the issue of nuclear power. I, who come from a nuclear power county, am very aware of how it looked before we moved from an alliance government to an S-led government. There were plans for new reactors in the Ringhals area, but as soon as we switched to an S-led government, these plans were scrapped.

The whole thing is far too unclear for one to be able to sit down at a table with the Social Democrats and agree on anything. Energy policy is far too important for climate policy for one to do such a thing.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There were some things in Helena Storckenfeldts speech that I want to stop at.

The first is the historical review. Sweden has increased, doubled, its GDP while emissions have decreased. This historical review is largely about a period when Miljöpartiet sat in government with the Socialdemokraterna. It has never been about shutting down; it is about transitioning. That is exactly what Miljöpartiet has worked to achieve.

It is about a societal transition where we get a strong economic development, strengthen Swedish competitiveness and at the same time powerfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that we can protect the population from the most serious risks of climate change.

But it is not this historical positive development, which we have had in Sweden, that the Moderate-led government has taken forward and continued with. Instead, the current government has pushed through reform after reform that has powerfully increased greenhouse gas emissions. They have effectively worked on making the fossil fuels cheaper while the renewables have become more expensive.

The economic incentives must, of course, contribute to ensuring that, on the contrary, it becomes easy to do the right thing and more difficult to do things that release and harm society.

My question to Helena Storckenfeldt is therefore: Is Helena Storckenfeldt prepared to instead work on learning from the historical development that Miljöpartiet has contributed to and begin developing its own climate policy that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I mentioned in the previous exchange that, among other things, Klimatklivet and Industriklivet are things that the previous S-led government put forward and which we have continued with. We have good things there, and therefore we continue with them.

On the other hand, we lead a government that has a different view on how we should treat households and companies. We believe that the climate transition cannot be achieved if we do not also demonstrate the connection between precisely reduced emissions and increased growth.

This is something that we succeeded with during the Alliance government. We have the Green Party to thank for much of the climate policy that has reduced emissions over the last ten years, but it was precisely the connection between growth and reduced emissions that the Alliance government was the first to demonstrate. That is what we must return to.

When we look out at the world and see who the absolute largest emitters are, we see that it is not Sweden, but rather countries that are much more dependent on increasing their growth. There are incredibly many examples of countries that will not be willing to sacrifice their growth in favor of transitioning. There we have a fact that we from Sweden must start from.

I get frustrated when I speak with Miljöpartiet about climate policy, because here we have a party that also advocates for climate dictatorship. Miljöpartiet has representatives who have advocated for this; that is true. It worries me seriously, because democracy is also not something that this government is willing to get rid of.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to make the strongest possible statement here. Helena Storckenfeldt claims that Miljöpartiet would advocate for dictatorship. That is beyond all criticism. I truly hope that we can keep the debate at a higher level than sticking completely false allegations on each other. Miljöpartiet is a strong advocate for democracy in Sweden and in the world and has always been so - period.

To return to the core of the debate: Helena Storckenfeldt pointed out in her speech that politics sets the frameworks and that companies develop the solutions. I would say that is part of the explanation. Miljöpartiet, together with many other parties, has pushed forward very good politics in the EU and nationally to set frameworks. We also see that Swedish companies are actively working to come up with and develop solutions and that this has been successful.

We have also, from the Miljöpartiet side, worked actively to create societal conditions for the transition. Through, for example, Industriklivet and Klimatklivet, which Helena Storckenfeldt mentions, we have contributed to creating conditions in society so that the business sector can use innovations, make investments, and get the transition rolling - in addition to the fact that the policy has set the framework.

It concerns the industrial area, where ETS 1 has existed for a long time. But ETS 2, which we are discussing today, concerns the transport sector. There, Miljöpartiet has worked on setting frameworks and ensuring that the business sector can develop solutions. This has concerned biofuels, electrification and so on. But we have also worked on creating conditions – ensuring that there is public transport, ensuring that there is a better railway and ensuring that urban environments are planned so that one can travel sustainably.

The Moderates have implemented reform after reform that worsens these conditions for transition. That is something I am critical of.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must, of course, return to the question of dictatorship. It is enough to google to see that Miljöpartiet has had representatives who have advocated that the climate should be prioritized above everything else. The climate is incredibly important. It is incredibly important that we ensure we achieve the proper green transition and that it permeates all parts of society. But to place it above all other areas, I do not see that as an option.

A state budget has limited funds. One policy area must also be seen in the perspective of the others. Here in the Swedish Riksdag, we have a responsibility to look out for our voters - Sweden's population - and ensure that we make wise decisions that also go hand in hand with other decisions. Miljöpartiet, however, has representatives who have advocated for things such as climate dictatorship, and that is problematic.

Mr. Speaker! I want us to see the climate issue in a broader perspective - partly globally, and partly how it affects other areas. Elin mentioned infrastructure investments. Just look at this budget, the budget bill for 2025, and what infrastructure investments we are making there! This is enormous. It is also something that we are finally tackling. We have had enormous infrastructure deficits and maintenance deficits. Now we are putting in enough money, but at the same time only as much as the authorities can actually manage to handle. It is something that has not been done for a very long time.

We are investing in the infrastructure. We also ensure that we reach the climate goals through several other initiatives.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party supports the bill on the EU's new emissions trading system for fossil fuels, ETS 2. However, we would like to emphasize that there are certain risks with the assessments that the government makes in its bill. These risks are also highlighted in the reservations that we have chosen to support. I choose here to move for approval of reservation 1, which calls for impact assessments in certain areas.

Mr. Speaker! This spring, the EU adopted the directive for the new emissions trading system ETS 2. It is to complement the existing emissions trading system ETS 1, which is the cornerstone of the EU's climate work. ETS 1 covers approximately 50 percent of the Union's carbon emissions, primarily from heavy industries and energy producers. ETS 2 shall include other emissions, especially from road transport and heating of buildings, but also from lighter industries.

The government's ambition is to also include additional sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, and fishing. It is among those where we see large risks as well as a lack of impact assessments in the government's bill.

We in Vänsterpartiet have, in our follow-up motion to the government's climate action plan, set out our position regarding ETS 2. In that motion, we have also set out which climate measures should be taken for Sweden to reach its national climate goals and its climate commitments within the EU.

A national trading system according to the government's plans, as it appears in the bill, risks leading to high fuel prices at the end of the decade. The government's direction is therefore, in our opinion, incompatible with a climate policy with popular anchoring and acceptance.

Mr. Speaker! The Fiscal Policy Council has noted that it complicates matters for individuals to make well-informed decisions about their transition when emission reductions are pushed into the future. When the emissions later need to be reduced more rapidly, there is a great risk that precisely those households that are most economically affected will be hit hardest.

The government's proposal is, in my opinion and my party's opinion, a consequence of the lack of climate policy in recent years, which leads to increased emissions and complicates Sweden's ability to live up to its climate commitments within the EU by 2030 and contribute to a just climate transition.

Mr. Speaker! I also see great risks with the proposal for our Swedish food production. It is important to strengthen Sweden's self-sufficiency in food. Steering measures and reinforced state support for farmers should therefore be introduced in order to achieve a fossil-free and sustainable agriculture. The Government has, however, not accounted for how a necessary green transition support for agriculture shall be implemented in light of this proposal, so that question remains.

Vänsterpartiet also takes a critical stance on the government's intention to fully compensate businesses and consumers with the proposal for a new emissions trading system. I wonder: What is meant by that?

To begin with, we see no reason why all businesses and households should be fully compensated. Since households with low income and those living in rural areas often experience the greatest economic impact in the transition, the support should be directed toward precisely those groups and thus be limited. The climate transition must necessarily be fair in order to succeed.

Finally, we consider that agriculture as an activity is of central importance in order to be able to build a sustainable and less vulnerable society. It should therefore be covered by significant state support in the transition, but there is no reason to fully compensate all operations.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to see that a reply is requested before the speech has even had a chance to begin.

The climate challenge is global. Therefore, it must also be met with global or at least larger and cross-border solutions. Therefore, many of these issues also belong at the EU level for our part.

We stand before decisive moments in our endeavor to combat climate change. The EU's new emissions trading system for fossil fuels, ETS 2, is a powerful tool that will take us further steps toward necessary emission reductions. The expanded system of emission allowances is important and correct, and therefore Sweden should adopt the proposal before us – which, fortunately, also has a completely unanimous Riksdag behind it.

The EU's emissions trading system, which was introduced in 2003 as part of the Kyoto Protocol, has been a cornerstone of our climate policy. The existing system, ETS 1, has successfully regulated emissions from heavy industry, electricity production, and other large-scale operations.

But we know that this is not enough. To reach our climate goals - a reduction of net emissions of at least 55 percent by 2030 compared to 1990 - we must go further. This is where ETS 2 comes into the picture.

ETS 2 is a separate system that extends the scope of the emissions trading to include buildings, road transport and other sectors that previously stood outside. This means that we can finally address emissions from some of the most challenging areas in our economy.

The system works by setting a cap on emissions and gradually reducing the number of available emission allowances. This creates an economic incentive for companies and organizations to reduce their emissions, as it becomes more costly to purchase emission allowances than to invest in cleaner technologies. The idea, therefore, is that supply and demand shall regulate the price.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has chosen to lead the way by participating in ETS 2 from the start. This demonstrates our leadership and our determination when it comes to driving the climate transition. By participating from the beginning, we ensure that Sweden gets to share in the auction revenues and can influence the system's design from the start.

Furthermore, the government has proposed that we should take further steps and include more sectors in ETS 2. It is bold and forward-looking and will lead to a more uniform pricing of carbon and a more cost-effective transition, which is absolutely crucial.

Let me be clear. This is not just about the environment and climate. By acting now, we create the conditions for innovation, new green jobs, and a stronger, more sustainable economy. And we position ourselves as a leader in green technology and sustainable solutions.

By including in principle all combustion of fossil fuels that are not already covered by ETS 1, we also simplify the administration for operators, consumers, and authorities. It is an example of how smart climate policy can go hand in hand with efficient management.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, we are aware of the challenges this may entail for certain sectors and households. The Government takes these concerns seriously. Therefore, it has committed to fully compensating for the effects. It shows that we can combine ambitious climate policy with social justice.

Furthermore, Sweden will benefit from the social climate fund that the EU has established to counteract the negative social effects of ETS 2. The Government has committed to continuing work on how this fund can best be utilized in Sweden to create acceptance for climate policy instruments and support those who are most affected.

Mr. Speaker! This is our chance to show leadership and that Sweden and the EU can combine ambitious climate policy with economic growth and social justice. By adopting this bill, we take another decisive step towards a fossil-free future.

We are facing a global climate crisis. ETS 2 gives us the opportunity to act decisively and effectively. By pricing emissions at the EU level, we ensure that the entire union transitions in a cost-effective manner. Again: These issues are global.

Given the design of the follow-up motions, I cannot interpret it in any other way than that this is a well-thought-out, balanced, and forward-looking initiative that places Sweden at the forefront in the fight against climate change. By adopting this bill, we demonstrate our commitment to a sustainable future, not only for Sweden but for all of Europe and the world.

Mr. Speaker! Let us take this important step together. Let us show that Sweden is ready to lead the way towards a greener, cleaner and more sustainable future.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech from the rostrum!

Initially, I must nevertheless raise the question of how proactive the government has been here. Objectively speaking, this is about the government submitting a proposition as a result of decisions made at the EU level. However, the government avoids explaining in what way it intends to implement this in Sweden. That is actually what is the case here: a lack of proactivity from the government's side.

It was at the EU level that this was decided. I was there, as I was a Member of the European Parliament and leader for just ETS during that time. I was a rapporteur in the European Parliament during the previous term.

The idea here was to develop ETS 2, that is, an emissions trading system for transport and buildings, not least because we see that transport continues to emit in all member countries, even in Sweden and in particular with this government. But it also applies to the buildings. Many buildings in Europe are heated with gas, and we have large emissions. We need to address this.

What the government and Ottosson's party, which leads the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, must do is to clarify how this is to be implemented in Sweden. But we get no answers. Vague descriptions are presented about including one sector or the other sector. But we get no impact assessments.

Take agriculture as an example. I believe that Kjell-Arne Ottosson feels a warmth for that sector. Why is it not described what this will mean there? Sweden may perhaps do something different in that area than the rest of the EU. There is no impact assessment.

My question, of course, is about exactly that. Why are the impact assessments missing? And why is the government doing such a poor job when it is such a marginal part of the work that lies with the government?

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

Consequence analyses are certainly important. We see that time and again in decisions taken in this chamber. And as regards consequence analyses, it has surely not escaped anyone that such were indeed made when it concerned the reduction obligation. We saw what happened there. It has turned out that decisions were made on a basis that did not hold. There, consequence descriptions were truly made for what would subsequently come to pass.

Regarding impact assessments, I am therefore in complete agreement with Jytte Guteland. We need them to do a job as well as possible and to make decisions as well as possible. It is extremely important.

That is exactly why a solid job is being done now in preparing the underlying documents, so that we can truly do a good job and so that we do not end up in a situation similar to that with, for example, the reduction obligation. In that case, prices skyrocketed enormously, which affected the ordinary citizen.

Work is currently being done at the ministry, which Helena Storckenfeldt mentioned in her speech. And in the near future, we will see the directives and what the so-called steering measures investigation is to work from. It is in the near future, and I, just like Jytte Guteland, look forward to it.

Yes, consequence descriptions are absolutely crucial. Therefore, the work must be done in the best possible way.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Ottosson, for the description!

We cannot agree that particularly hard work is being done at the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise. It seems to be frequent presence in various aggressive debates here and there, but very little workshop when it comes to climate policy. That is the feeling we Social Democrats have.

It was the calmest political summer in living memory. Still, one has not received any directive or any investigator for the steering measures investigation, which is to explain how Sweden will manage to reach the goals in the climate area by 2030. Not even this, to produce a couple of directives, has one done.

Regarding the question of the impact assessment, I think it would be close to the members' hearts, as we often hear from the rostrum that the members safeguard precisely agriculture and forestry. It should be readily available to want to know how these sectors are affected by ETS 2. I therefore do not agree.

I would, of course, gladly give the member a chance to elaborate on that a bit more concretely. But otherwise, I want to make a joint motion. Take this up with the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise and the Christian Democratic representatives there, especially their own party leader, who could get the climate work moving!

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thought that Jytte Guteland, as a Social Democrat, advocated for the staff's working situation, how the staff are doing at their work. That includes, among other things, vacation. Even the civil servants who work at the Government Offices are entitled to vacation. I hope that Jytte Guteland also grants that to them.

There is no doubt that the agricultural sector and forestry are very close to my heart. We must produce a proposal that is as good as possible so that we do not compete against ourselves and thereby undermine those industries in Sweden. It is absolutely crucial that these industries can increase their profitability and competitiveness if we are to keep them in Sweden. Therefore, the work must be done as well as possible.

Previously, we have unfortunately seen that decisions have been made that subsequently undermine parts of Swedish operations. It benefits no one, least of all us Swedes.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the presentation. The member mentioned in his presentation that climate change is a global issue, and it is. Climate change affects us all together, and together we are all affected by the consequences of climate change. The climate transition therefore requires efforts at a global level, at an EU level, at a national level, at a regional level, and at a local level.

There are international agreements for how climate policy is structured today. The EU has a certain mandate. Within the EU, we can achieve certain things, such as the emissions trading systems and ETS 2, which we are discussing today. Within the EU, each member state has received commitments. Sweden has the emissions trading systems, ESR, where transport and also agriculture and others are included, as well as the area for land use, land-use change and forestry, LULUCF. Each member country must achieve its commitments within the EU for the EU to achieve its commitment according to the Paris Agreement.

As it stands with the current government, Sweden is not meeting its commitments within the EU. Consequently, we risk contributing to the EU not reaching its commitment according to the Paris Agreement. The IPCC's reports clarify that at the current state, even all the world's commitments according to the Paris Agreement are not sufficient for us to meet the Paris Agreement.

My question to Kjell-Arne Ottosson is therefore: Why has the government implemented reform after reform that increases emissions and not presented measures to manage carbon sequestration in forest and land, which leads to Sweden appearing to miss its commitments in the EU? These are the ones that Kjell-Arne Ottosson highlights as so important.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Elin Söderberg for the question. On the whole, it is probably the case that our ideologies differ regarding the view on this. We point out that the transition should largely take place at the system level. Miljöpartiet focuses more on the individual level. There we differ quite significantly. Regarding, for example, Swedish forest and Swedish forestry, our views differ diametrically.

Unfortunately, many of the member states in the EU also have a view similar to the Green Party's regarding the forest and how the forest should be managed. They only count the forest as a carbon sink, Mr. Speaker. They completely ignore the substitution effect. They do not want to count it in, that is to say when we replace CO2-intensive materials, such as steel and concrete, with materials in wood. That makes almost as much of a difference as the forest as a carbon sink.

If we let the forest stand as a carbon sink, Mr. Speaker, it is a bit like peeing oneself: It is warm and pleasant for the moment, but pretty soon it becomes uncomfortable. In exactly the same way is it here. In the very short term it can make a difference, but then we will get a debt instead if we just let the forest stand. On top of that, we will get a lot of other problems.

Of course, we are going to make a transition. That is probably what Elin Söderberg and the undersigned completely agree on. But what shall we use to manage to make a transition if we do not use materials from the forest?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I want to address this issue regarding system and individual levels. I disagree that there should be ideological differences between the Christian Democrats and the Green Party. The Green Party works very much with reforms at the system level so that we can manage the climate transition, and the Christian Democrats can, in many cases, advance proposals linked to what happens within families. I therefore do not believe that there is any ideological difference when it comes to these parameters.

I think it is relevant to address what is mentioned regarding the forest and about including the substitution effect. It actually boils down to that one must keep in mind that the central point for us to manage the climate transition is how much greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. With more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it is as if we add another blanket around the earth every year, which makes it warmer. This in turn leads to worsened extreme weather with, for example, lost harvests.

In this morning's news reporting, it was reported that extreme storms such as the recent storm, Boris, are much more likely and have become worse due to climate change. Climate risks entail real consequences for human lives, infrastructure, society, and economic development.

Regarding the substitution effect, we can use forest raw materials for a huge number of things that are currently made from fossil raw materials. It is an advantage; we shall use forest raw materials. But we must take into account that emissions to the atmosphere do not increase. If one calculates the substitution effect as Kjell-Arne Ottosson seems to want to do in his post, it becomes a double counting, and then it is not clear to us what social effect it has for the atmosphere and thus the climate changes. I oppose that.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I am in complete agreement with Elin Söderberg regarding greenhouse gas emissions. There is no doubt about that.

Elin Söderberg says that we should use forest raw materials. At the same time, her party pledges both here and at the EU level that we should remove more and more forest from production. This means that we will have even less material to use in the transition. If we cannot use material from the forest, we will completely undermine the transition because we have no other materials to use, as far as we know today. In that case, it is fossil material that remains. I could misinterpret Elin Söderberg; unfortunately, misinterpretation is something that is far too often done in this chamber. But I do not believe that she wants us to use fossil material instead.

If we are to manage the transition, we must look at the realities we have. In Sweden, we have the great advantage of being able to utilize the forest. Sweden and Finland absolutely have the most forest in the EU. If we combine our forests and look at what we have exempted from production, we see that we are already above what is the goal. We are already on green branch when it comes to exemptions from production.

Now we must instead begin to manage the forest that the state has taken from ordinary Swedish landowners. It is forest they intended to use as a pension insurance. Instead of putting the money in a bank account, they bought forest. There, the state has stepped in and taken forest for a modest compensation. It is incredibly dull and something we could have a very long debate about. Now, however, we must ensure that we manage that forest so that the biodiversity, or whatever it is that caused the forest to be taken, is not compromised.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! With creative accounting and by attributing previous governments' ambitions to themselves, the Tidögänget may potentially reach the EU's climate goals - in the best-case scenario - if electrification gains momentum. But it is the same electrification that the government is doing everything to sabotage.

What one does not even mention in a side note is that the previous surplus existed for a reason. We in Centerpartiet were involved and ensured that it was produced so that it could compensate for continued active agriculture and forestry. Now that you are eating up that surplus through fossil subsidies, it is the green industries that take the hit. The countryside is being sacrificed on the altar of petropopulism.

The assessment is that reduced logging of at least 10 percent is required. There are, in fact, EU targets even when it comes to land use. They are called LULUCF. One can have opinions on that and think whatever one wants. But they exist and must be followed. It is therefore not strange that the government has chosen not to even conduct impact assessments for these industries now when ETS 2 is being introduced, which we are debating today and which is the new emissions trading system that is to cover transport, housing, agriculture, etc.

That the system is being introduced is good. In that, we in Centerpartiet are completely in agreement with the government. We also agree that it should be as broad as possible so that as many emissions as possible are priced. But the government then loses its way in its enthusiasm for fossil fuels. The countryside is paying for the big cities' diesel SUVs.

Swedish agriculture, which is world-class environmentally and which competes against significantly dirtier production in other countries, will face increased costs and reduced margins. The only answer the government has is to subsidize fossil fuels. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 2 in the report.

Fortunately, there is another way - the Center Party's way - with green growth, technological development and the phasing out of the fossil fuels that feed rogue states such as Russia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

When we have more electric and biogas vehicles rolling on our roads, particle emissions decrease. Children's lungs develop better while fewer die from heart and vascular diseases caused by poor air. When the green carbon atoms are allowed to flow from agriculture and forestry, they can replace their fossil counterparts in plastics, paints, fabrics, fuels - yes, almost everything. And the money stays in the Swedish countryside instead of ending up in Putin's pockets.

When Swedish innovative companies get a strong domestic market, conditions are created for exports when the rest of the world transitions, and hundreds of thousands of new jobs can be created.

The voters want a tough climate policy, and the voters are not alone in this. A united business community wants sharp climate goals, which are also achieved. Hitachi has secured the largest industrial order in Swedish history for delivery to green technology. It is a simple logic. When the rest of the world transitions – it will happen – we can have Swedish companies that are at the forefront thanks to an ambitious home market where they have been able to test their products, and then they can sell to the rest of the world.

But when the government instead chooses to do as little as possible and puts forward plans that are nowhere near the goals, the competitiveness of the companies is at risk. Then it is we who will have to buy from the rest of the world, and the companies will move there where the conditions are better.

This threat is not made up. It is not fear propaganda. It is real. A report from Västra Götalandsregionen recently showed that 25,000 jobs are threatened if the electricity demand for 2030 is not met. Sydsvenska Handelskammaren speaks of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Despite this, decisions are being dragged out in the government's long bench. The talk about shorter permit processes does not seem to apply to the government's own climate work. Important parts are being pushed into the future. Investigations are not being appointed. New climate proposals are not to be presented until the next mandate period.

We in the Center Party are ready to accelerate the climate work. We know that the technology exists. We know that the will of the population exists. The new trading system is a good step, but it is not at all sufficient for us to be able to reach where we need to go. We know that it is possible to help those who have it toughest economically. We, unlike the government, have a policy that actually reaches the goals. We hold the line against both populists and Russian energy. We know that a policy was needed that can handle the climate and that can handle competitiveness. Then there is only one choice. It is a green, liberal, and conservative choice - it is the Center Party.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! What we are now debating here in the chamber is an ambitious implementation of the EU's new emissions trading system. The EU's emissions trading system is the world's best instrument for reducing emissions, and we choose to be at the forefront. We do this by including more sectors in the new ETS system. We are therefore going further than what the EU requires.

When this enters into force, it will mean that over 90 percent of the fossil fuel use in Sweden will be covered by one of the two trading systems. We are implementing this as broadly as is possible. This creates greater uniformity and increased cost-efficiency. It is important that all sectors are involved and transition towards fossil-free.

We have been clear that this shall be implemented in a fair way and that it shall be efficient. We will also compensate for price effects so that individual sectors and groups in society are not affected in an unfair way.

The government, with the Liberals' Romina Pourmokhtari at the helm, has been clear that it wants to see a fair transition where the conditions for households and companies are protected.

We pursue a policy that increases people's freedom instead of restricting their everyday lives. We want to see a broad spectrum of measures so that the steering tools we propose do not affect individual groups or sectors in society in an unfair way.

Since it is not possible to determine in advance how the price of an emission allowance within this system will develop, we take that into account. The price will initially be capped, and companies and consumers will be fully compensated for increased fuel prices. That is important. We must have a system that is sustainable in the long run.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: the EU is the world's best climate and environmental organization. The EU makes a difference in Sweden and in the rest of the EU and is also, as has been mentioned here earlier today, an important locomotive for the rest of the world to follow. It is only together that we can effectively handle climate change. But that does not prevent us from pursuing an ambitious policy nationally. The implementation of ETS 2 - and how it is done - is an important part of just this.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would first like to say that we Social Democrats can definitely share Member Nilsson's description of the EU meaning an enormous amount for climate policy. Probably, the Liberals feel a great sense of relief that they have the EU level, in the time that the Liberals now find themselves in. They themselves are very much in the pocket of the Sweden Democrats. Therefore, the contributions from the Liberals in this chamber are more pious hopes than real politics. A very large amount of what the Minister for Climate and Environment – who is a Liberal – delivers is rather based on hopes that the transition will occur somewhere else.

It is, to say the least, unclear – I am being kind – what the Minister for Climate wants to achieve with the emissions trading system EU ETS 2 or with any other legislation at all concerning climate policy.

We have been told that a steering measure investigation is to give us the answers. I would then like to ask the members: What is the directive? Who is the investigator? What are the government's intentions with this steering measure investigation? Is it just a mantra aimed at facilitating the debates? That is how we perceive it right now.

We are also wondering about the finances. The member says that everyone should be compensated, but at the same time, we have received zero information on how to use the 25 billion kronor that the system is expected to generate. I would then like to ask the member: How should the money be used?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for the questions! When it comes to replies to a speech, it is always a bit like a lottery what the questions will be about. But one thing that can be known is that the choice of cooperation partners is raised in almost all contexts. If I want to say: I am proud to be part of a cooperation that takes responsibility for Sweden. We see, for example, a reorganization of the energy policy. We take responsibility and are now moving forward to build new nuclear power. That is very important in the context we are discussing today, which concerns climate policy. There, we are cleaning up after eight years of paralysis.

But I shall answer the member's questions. Yes, it is clear that it is good that we have the EU level to lean on. Sweden would not manage the climate challenges without the EU cooperation. The EU is a locomotive for us and for other countries.

When it comes to the steering mechanism investigation, I would say that the member has already received the answers that can be obtained. The directives are, as I understand it, being drafted. Investigators will be appointed, if they have not already been. I am not entirely certain about that. The information we have received is that work is being done intensively on the issue and that the steering mechanism investigation will be presented soon. I cannot say when. But the work is ongoing intensively.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not doubt for a moment that Member Nilsson has good intentions in all contexts and wants to deliver policy. Of that, I am convinced. But this concerns the government's paralysis right now, a paralysis that I believe is obvious to everyone, including liberals, when it comes to climate policy.

The criticism is coming from all sides - from authorities in Sweden and at the EU level, from organizations and from the Swedish people. Journalists are asking questions, because it can be seen that the climate action plan that has been delivered is not sufficient to meet the goals for 2030.

Then we face an enormous difficulty in Sweden. We risk having to pay billion-kronor fines because we do not live up to the legislation that we have jointly decided on, also in this chamber, and these billion-kronor fines will eventually land in the laps of the Swedish people. We are talking about perhaps 30 billion, perhaps more; it depends on how high the prices for emission allowances become. Everyone understands that it is schoolchildren, pensioners, yes, the Swedish people, who will have to pay for this.

This question has not at all received the force that it de facto has, and it is not sufficient to refer to a steering committee investigation to which one has not even given directives or an investigator and say that climate policy is to be resolved there. It is actually not sufficient, and in that case, I understand that there is a limitation in what members of parliament from the Liberal Party can do.

What one can still expect is that you go to the Minister for Climate and say that you want to see significantly more action and that it is much more important than having power together with a climate-denying party and sitting in their lap.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for your committed contribution!

It has been almost two years since we began the reorganization of the climate policy, and the most important thing in this is, just as I said earlier, nuclear power.

If we talk about climate policy, one could speak for a long time, and now time is limited. But we will meet the climate goals. The member mentions the Minister for Climate and Environment and thinks I should take up the issue with her. The Climate Minister is deeply committed to these issues. She does not need incentives to do more. We work tirelessly day and night to meet the climate challenges, and we are actually steering the ship towards a fossil-free future.

We do what we can. We are working and handling a number of challenges, just as Member Storckenfeldt said earlier. Climate policy and climate challenges are an important part. We take responsibility for Sweden in a broad perspective, and we will take responsibility for the climate.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Liberal member points out that a reorganization of the climate policy is being made, and that has definitely been done. When the Green Party left the government, it was with a direction towards reaching the climate goals by 2030. We also, year after year, had adjusted the climate policy, developed it, and put in a collective effort in the Environmental Goals Commission to broadly anchor climate policy reforms, and step by step we reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

The realignment that the Liberals have been involved in carrying out when they chose to cooperate with the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Sweden Democrats has led to the fact that Sweden's emissions are now increasing and that we are on track to not reach a single climate goal, nor our commitments towards the EU.

When the proposal for the introduction of ETS 2 is now presented, it is written that one wants to compensate fully. What the Liberals and the current government have done to compensate is to make fossil fuels cheaper through reforms so that emissions have increased.

My question to Elin Nilsson is therefore: What do the Liberals mean when they talk about compensating people and actors? What do they want to do? Is it something that contributes to the climate transition or something that will only reduce the effect of ETS 2 and risk increasing emissions?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! What do the Liberals want to do? We want to contribute to a sustainable, green transition. It is obvious that the incentives we decide on shall steer in a direction where fossil emissions are reduced. Exactly what these supports will look like, I cannot answer today. It is not decided and finalized, so we ask to be allowed to return to that.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a number of commitments within the EU, and as I have mentioned earlier, the EU has global commitments under the Paris Agreement. That Sweden meets our commitments is central to the global work to reach the Paris Agreement. But as the situation looks now, we are on track to not reach the Paris Agreement, rather we are on track towards 3 degrees of global warming. The consequences will be horrible if we do not implement climate policy in an effective, ambitious way in Sweden, in Europe, and in the world. We in Sweden must take responsibility for our part.

What the current government has done has led to increased emissions, and we are not expected to reach either the ESR target, where transport is included now but will later be included in ETS 2, nor our commitments regarding increased carbon sequestration in forest and land. The proposals or policy directions that have emerged from the government so far are that they want to harvest more and not protect more. They talk about forest policy in a way that does not show at all that they will do what is required to increase carbon sequestration in the forest.

Regarding the ESR area, the transport sector's emissions which will now also be part of ETS 2, several reforms have been carried out that instead increase emissions. The question of how one wants to compensate actors during the introduction of ETS 2 and how one works with the transport sector's transition is central, and that is why I ask questions about this to Elin Nilsson.

Sweden is on track to not reach our goals. Everything that has been done so far has taken us further from the goals. A major turnaround from the current government is required if, in any way, we are to be anywhere near Sweden reaching our EU commitments. What does Elin Nilsson from the Liberals want to do so that this shall happen?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have already answered that question in my previous remarks. We will pursue an ambitious climate policy in cooperation to reach the goals.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to my colleagues for this climate debate and discussion on the introduction of ETS 2! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 4 in the report.

The reform and the introduction of ETS 2 that we are debating today is about the fact that we must reduce emissions in order to protect our populations from the most serious risks of climate change.

This morning, the news came that the terrible storm Boris, which has moved over Eastern and Central Europe, has become more powerful, and the probability of it occurring is greater as a result of global warming. It is said that the rainfall amounts have been 20 percent greater than if there had not been a climate change caused by human activity.

In Sweden, we are already seeing the consequences of climate change. It is in a situation where, over the past year, we have found ourselves on the wrong side of the 1.5-degree goal, that is to say, 1.5 degrees of global warming.

We are in no way about to stop here. Unfortunately, the development is moving powerfully and rapidly in the wrong direction. The warming is increasing, and the IPCC assesses that we are approaching a world 3 degrees warmer at the end of this century. As it looks now, we are on our way towards 2 degrees already by the 2050s.

The consequences for people's lives, health, and property are extremely serious for our societies' economies and how our societies have been built up. The entire development of our civilization has occurred during the last 10,000 years, during which we had an incredibly stable climate - a climate that we have left behind.

I cannot emphasize enough the seriousness of the issue we are discussing today. All the world's countries need to take responsibility for their share of global emissions. In Sweden, we need to take responsibility for our share of the EU's commitments, and the EU needs to take responsibility for its share under the Paris Agreement. At present, no one is doing enough.

What has happened since this government took office is that one has actively increased greenhouse gas emissions. We have moved further away from the climate goals that exist. Those are the climate goals that we have agreed upon in the Swedish Riksdag and the climate goals that we have committed to follow within the framework of the EU cooperation.

The first emissions trading system primarily covers industry, and it looks good at the present time. The other territorial greenhouse gas emissions, mainly transport and agriculture, the ESR target, and which to some extent will be covered by ETS 2, do not look good at all.

When Miljöpartiet was in government, we built up a surplus. We reduced emissions more than we needed to. But since the current government took office, emissions have been increased so significantly that they stood at a press conference and tried to use numerical tricks to hide the consequences. They want to use the surplus that the previous government built up and use emission space from industry, which industry has worked hard to build up, to cover up for their own climate failure within the framework of ESR, primarily within the transport sector.

They chose not to mention in a single word that the goal is also linked to Sweden's commitment regarding forest and land, the LULUCF commitment. The LULUCF goal looks even worse. In the government's budget bill, one can read in the climate annex that there is a deficit of at least 11 million tons during the period 2021-2025 in the goal for forest and land. It also clearly appears there that when there is a deficit within the LULUCF sector, it will automatically be transferred to the ESR goal. That is to say that the surplus that Miljöpartiet built up when we were in government in the ESR goal, which the Minister for Climate and Environment together with the Minister for Finance fiddled with at a press conference and claimed that the climate goals are now being met, is now not available to use. The surplus is eaten up by the fact that they have logged too much while it has grown too poorly in the forest.

It is time to start developing climate policy that addresses all emissions in Sweden. I would really like to see all parties take action, sit down in the chamber at home and develop reform proposals to increase carbon sequestration in forests and land, to meet the transport sector's emissions, to limit emissions from agriculture, and to create even better conditions for the industry's transition. We need to work quickly on a broad front. It matters whether we can reduce emissions before 2030 or if it happens first in 2040, when we are currently on track to blow past 2 degrees by the 2050s. What we have seen from the current government is unfortunately that they have chosen to increase the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has expressed reservations regarding the report. These concern, among other things, fully compensating actors, but there is no clear account of what compensation. It is important to be clear about how the compensation shall take place. If it occurs in such a way that it nullifies the climate benefit of the climate management of ETS 2, the bill will become a mass administration without any climate benefit.

If effective compensation is implemented, which contributes to the conditions for transition and is specifically targeted at those who truly need to transition, the compensation can instead contribute to accelerating the transition and reducing emissions. But this has not been accounted for by the government in the bill.

We also have a reservation regarding the cumulative effect of the climate policy. ETS 2 is a tool, but it is a tool that is needed among many others in order for us to actually reduce emissions quickly enough so that we reach the national climate goals by 2030, our EU commitments by 2030, and that we avoid the most serious risks of climate change as a result of us reducing emissions.

But we shall also seize the opportunities that will come. This is about social investments in better transport infrastructure, better mobility, more pleasant cities, better conditions for community services in rural areas. This is an opportunity to invest in Sweden, to build Sverige AB strong and build better local communities for the population. But this is entirely dependent on what the government chooses to do alongside the introduction of ETS 2.

ETS 2 is a complement to other national policy instruments. It cannot be seen as something that can replace existing climate policy instruments, especially in the transport sector.

I thank you for the debate, and I move for the approval of reservation 4.

EU's new emissions trading system for fossil fuels

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 10.)

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