(cont. from § 10) Communications (cont. TU1)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate the 2024 budget for expenditure area 22 Communications.

The transport system is a fundamental pillar for the country's development. One must be able to rely on getting to one's job and that goods arrive on time. We Liberals see the transport system as a whole, and our basic question is: How can we effectively travel and transport goods from door to door? Here, a smooth cooperation between the different modes of transport—road, rail, aviation, and shipping—is extremely important, and all modes of transport in this mix are important.

If we start with road and railway, the government's budget 2024 contains a continued large investment in maintenance and new investments in railway and road. An extra focus has been placed on road maintenance, where an extra investment of 300 million plus 100 million is made specifically for support to operators of private roads. This is needed to begin paying off the maintenance debt, not least on the network of smaller roads, which deteriorates traffic safety and leads to reduced speeds.

The Liberals pushed for the project with new main lines for high-speed trains to be stopped and the ongoing sub-projects to be reviewed. The reason was the dramatic cost increase from originally 120 billion, when the Alliance stood behind the project, to nearly 400 billion. This pushed out other important investments, such as the Norrbotniabanan, two new tracks on the Göteborg-Alingsås section and a number of other projects. Of the three ongoing projects, Ostlänken is now underway, and Trafikverket is negotiating with relevant municipalities and regions regarding new sections on the Göteborg-Borås and Lund-Hässleholm routes.

At the same time, the project with new main lines for high-speed trains constituted a cautionary example regarding cost increases, and therefore the government has commissioned an inquiry on how we can produce better, more accurate cost bases in early stages of the projects, so that we politicians receive better basis for decisions. This is a prerequisite for us to be able to prioritize correctly and get as much infrastructure as possible for the taxpayers' money.

It is easy to think that if we just invest more money, we will get new roads and railways. But the increased investment in our road and railway network and the technological shift in the transport industry place great demands on the supply of competence. Without people with the right education, nothing will happen. That is why it is important that the education sector, the business community, and the state cooperate to meet the transport system's competence challenges and that we also use global companies to expand, so that we get a larger competence base to work from.

The transport sector accounts for a third of Sweden's emissions. Trafikverket points out that every mode of transport must find its own solutions to reduce its emissions, as shifting between different modes of transport only contributes to the goals by a few percent.

Since road transport accounts for over 90 percent of domestic emissions within the transport sector, the electrification of our road transport is a priority for the Liberals, in order to reduce emissions but also to free up fossil-free fuels for aviation and shipping.

We need to quickly expand the charging infrastructure. The Liberals believe that the lack of charging infrastructure poses a significant risk that companies and private individuals will not choose an electric car at their next car purchase and that the climate transition will stall. We also need to support the purchase of electric vehicles.

In the 2024 budget, a whole battery of initiatives is made over a three-year period. 4.5 billion is estimated for support for the purchase of electric trucks and electric work machines, and a new support of 1.6 billion has been introduced for the purchase of light trucks. 500 million is invested in scrapping premiums for those who simultaneously purchase a new electric car. At the same time, 5.3 billion is invested in charging infrastructure, electrofuels, biogas production, and waste management through Klimatklivet. In total, nearly 12 billion is invested in the transition of road transport during the next three-year period.

In order for us to manage the transition of road transport, the production of biofuels needs to increase significantly. Most important for road transport, however, is electrification, because biofuels have a greater value for other modes of transport that have a harder time transitioning, for example aviation and shipping.

Aviation has a very important function for our international contacts and for holding Sweden together. Aviation's climate transition is underway with full force. Already today, one can fly fossil-free for approximately 300 SEK per flight hour, and the developments within electric aviation and alternative fuels are taking large steps forward. Swedish Heart Aerospace is developing an electric aircraft for production in 2028. Production start for electrofuels - we see that biofuels will not be sufficient - occurs in 2027-2029. A majority of airports are operated fossil-free today. Several charging stations for electric aircraft have been installed, and in Skellefteå, there is a training for commercial pilots with a focus on electric aircraft.

We must all see and support the fantastic transition that is taking place right now. Total defense, the general preparedness, as well as the climate transition with the bright future it entails for aviation, not least in Sweden, places great demands on our aviation infrastructure. The Government is therefore increasing the compensation to the non-state airports to 298 million for each respective year 2024-2026.

We Liberals believe in aviation's important function in society and want Sweden to continue to have a leading position within aviation's climate transition. We therefore want to see a continued investment in research and innovation regarding fossil-free aviation, not least electric aviation. We want to simultaneously preserve Bromma as the airport has an important function to fulfill as a hub for Sweden's domestic aviation and for the development of electric aviation.

Of the international freight, 90 percent goes via maritime transport. The importance of Swedish shipping for Sweden cannot be overemphasized. The Government has therefore started work to review the regulatory framework for maritime transport in order to increase the influx to Sweden and review the cost structure. This is important, not least for the preparedness in Sweden and for us to have this competence. Two new icebreakers are being developed so that the maritime transport of people and goods will function even in the winter. The prices for a trip to Gotland have increased - they must be at a reasonable level. In the autumn budget, the Government therefore allocated resources to handle the increase in fuel prices.

Sweden must be at the forefront of digitalization, not least to maintain our competitiveness. Sweden has gladly received its own Chat GPT in Swedish, which is based on Swedish values. Yesterday, we could hear how it is now being attempted to apply it to Swedish welfare and see how administration within, among other things, healthcare can be facilitated. I find this very pleasing.

The government has also appointed an AI commission to push for that we can better utilize the potential of AI in Sweden. The members of the commission represent different sectors and are well-grounded in the rapid development that is occurring regarding AI. I have good hopes that we will now be able to get an increased drive in the AI field.

With better digital connectivity, freedom increases throughout our country while the burden on our roads and railways decreases. To strengthen the expansion of broadband, we are increasing the appropriations by 300 million kronor.

Finally: The major infrastructure event during 2024 is the preparation of the bill for the national infrastructure plan 2026-2037. There is a great need for a long series of reinforcements in the infrastructure, not least regarding the Norrbotniabanan and two new tracks Göteborg-Alingsås to manage the green transition and also to meet the total defense's need for an expanded infrastructure in an east-west direction through Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We Liberals believe that all types of transport are needed, and it is by utilizing the special advantages of each type of transport that we achieve robust transport in Sweden.

I would like to conclude by voting in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As it stands, this is my last debate in this chamber, and one would want it to be as long as possible. Therefore, I thought I would take one more turn.

It is a bit funny to hear Member Helena Gellerman refer to the Norrbotniabanan. It is worth reminding that if the alliance government had not stopped the Norrbotniabanan, it would have been completed much earlier than it will now be. Even there, one can see a back and forth, where one first says go and then stop. Now it is time to go again.

But that was not what my question was going to be about, rather it is about the climate. We have seen just today that an agreement has been concluded in Dubai where the world's countries have agreed that one shall move away from fossil fuels. This is what Sweden has now signed. We have also signed that it shall happen expeditiously. That it shall be done in the coming years is crucial, not least the time until 2030. It is also this that stands in the agreement.

But at the same time – before the ink on the document has even had time to dry and the Minister for the Environment has stepped off the plane – this government will go in the exact opposite direction of what was signed in Dubai. Because the reduction obligation will be torn up, which will significantly increase emissions. Once again, fossil fuel subsidies will be significantly increased. This means that, according to the Riksdag's investigation service, transport emissions will increase by 50 percent from one year to the next due to active political decisions from the government. It also means that the goal that the Swedish Riksdag has committed to – namely to reduce emissions from the transport sector by 70 percent by 2030 – will not be reachable.

It also looks like that with this policy, one will not be able to reach the EU's goals, which Sweden has a commitment to achieve, or for that matter the Paris Agreement, which Sweden has also signed.

My question to Helena Gellerman, who represents the same party as the Minister for the Environment, is: How can there be any credibility for the Liberals, for the government, or for Sweden when one says one thing and then does another? This is exactly what is being done now in Swedish politics.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Per Bolund, for the question, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to have one of the final debates with the member!

I think it was a pity that the development of the Norrbotniabanan was not continued, but in that situation, one also did not know what enormous expansion there would be in Norrbotten regarding the climate transition.

I can, however, ask a counter-question given that the member served as a minister in the previous government. How was it that one did not invest in the Göteborg-Alingsås stretch back then, which is one of the most important routes? It concerns goods that arrive by sea and are transferred to rail. It is a very climate-positive form of transport. Why was this not pushed harder, so that the Port of Gothenburg could transfer even more goods onto the railway?

When it comes to the climate, I can state that the Swedish National Audit Office has reviewed the reduction obligation and says that it was not feasible. It also did not follow the premises that were on the table when the government made the decision. I was personally involved in negotiating the reduction obligation. I did not believe that one could ramp up the production of biofuels at the pace that was required for what the Miljöpartiet and other parties pushed for as a final goal by 2030. That would mean that we would get significantly increased fuel prices. It was not according to the proposal that was on the table. But now it became a different decision there.

Let me also state that the Swedish National Audit Office has said that the current government is the government that, with its measures, is closest to reaching the 2045 goals. We have done a lot, and we will do even more. With the measures that are now on the table, we are the government that is closest to reaching the goals by 2045.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by correcting some question marks and hesitations in what Helena Gellerman has just said.

It is true that the previous government, which I sat in, did not invest in the railway. I can inform the member that it was because we cooperated with the Liberals. The Green Party did everything so that we would increase infrastructure investments, especially in the railway, but the Liberals did everything so that we would cut as much as possible and keep down the money for the railway. If Helena Gellerman means that too little was invested in the railway during that time, she will have to take that up with Mats Persson, who was the one who, on behalf of the Liberals, negotiated with the red-green government.

I also want to correct what Helena Gellerman claims the Riksrevisionen says about the reduction obligation. The Riksrevisionen says on the contrary that it is an effective tool, and if one removes the reduction obligation, one must have an alternative if one wants to reach the goals. The government does not have such an alternative.

I would like to ask one more question to Helena Gellerman. There are three different paths one can take if one wants to reduce emissions from transport. One can switch fuels from fossil to electricity or biofuels, one can reduce the need for transport, and one can switch to other modes of transport. In all of these areas, the government's policy is going in the completely wrong direction.

We have already spoken about the reduction obligation. Biofuels will therefore not be part of the solution with the government's policy. Electrification is moving backwards, because the electric car bonus has been removed. It is therefore moving slower than it did previously. The Swedish Transport Administration also says that even if every car sold from now on were an electric car, the goal for 2030 will not be reached. And when it comes to the transition to other modes of transport, I want to say: If the tracks are full and one does not want to invest in new tracks, it is very difficult to achieve such a transition.

I expect an answer. What is the government's solution to actually reach not only the 2045 goal but also the 2030 goal? What Helena Gellerman refers to is not the government's policy, but that some industrial projects have moved forward, and therefore one can say in a calculation that one is closer to the 2045 goal. But how can emissions be reduced by 70 percent by 2030? What is the answer?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Per Bolund knows that both I and Mats Persson participated in the discussion regarding new main lines. We were very positive towards the new railway. On the other hand, we held back when it came to new main lines because the cost for new main lines has gone from 120 billion to 400 billion. That caused us to push back against, among other things, increased investments targeted towards the Norrbotniabanan, to build Göteborg-Alingsås, to invest in the Inlandsbanan and the stretches Stockholm-Oslo and Göteborg-Oslo.

We must understand the enormous cost increase for new trunk lines. It is more than three times the original funds. This was what we were against. We were not against other investments in the railway. But we held back, because we saw that with these funds we could have invested in many other sections in Sweden.

Then I want to address this regarding the removal of the electric car bonus. Just as I said in my speech, we are investing in electric trucks and electric work machines, and we are also investing in a new support that the previous government had not included, namely for light trucks. We want to help in the initial phase when one is going to transition to electric vehicles.

However, the state should not be there to subsidize when over 50 percent of the cars sold are rechargeable. That the sales have since gone down is very much linked to the general economic situation. If one cannot afford the rent and such, one also cannot invest in a new car.

Finally, regarding the reduction obligation, the member knows that the Liberals were also positive towards it. We wanted it at a lower level and not what it eventually became. But we see that biofuels are an important part for the future.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The world is in a climate emergency. And what we have been shown very clearly during the negotiations that the world's countries have had in Dubai is that it truly is urgent. The year 2023 will become the warmest year that has ever been measured.

We see the result of global warming every day in the form of increasingly extreme weather events. It is heatwaves that cost thousands of people their lives and are followed by extreme drought and forest fires. It is terrible torrential rains that cause deadly floods and dam failures, such as the one in Libya that cost tens of thousands of people their lives. It is hurricanes and storms that create devastation. It is rising sea levels that drown coastal areas.

I would have, as former Minister for the Environment, expected that this would have more of an impact on today's debate. But it is important that someone is raising these perspectives and ensuring that we get the issue on the agenda. This is also what Sweden has signed on to, not only in Dubai but also in Paris and also within the EU system.

Researchers, experts and international judges, such as the UN Secretary-General, are clear. All countries must do much more to reduce climate damage. In Dubai, we now agreed to transition away from fossil fuels, and it was to be done before 2030. It is now that the work must be done.

As we have heard earlier, transport accounts for approximately one-third of Sweden's emissions. If we do not transition the transport sector to zero emissions, we will not be able to transition all of Sweden to the goals that the Riksdag has backed.

The technology exists. We have the solutions. What is required is politics for transition, and that is what is most significantly lacking in Sweden today.

In this situation, the Swedish government chooses to do exactly the opposite of what needs to be done. One increases the fossil subsidies by something enormous. It is 6.5 billion this year. It was just as much last year. It is a total of 13 billion kronor over two years. It is clear that it increases emissions. It also reduces the attractiveness when it comes to, for example, choosing an electric car when one makes it cheaper to use fossil fuels.

They are scrapping environmental measures such as the reduction obligation and the electric car bonus. They are increasing emissions from transport by 50 percent from one year to the next. That is several million tons of carbon dioxide already next year.

When Miljöpartiet sat in government, we showed that it was possible to do the opposite. It was possible to quickly reduce emissions. It was possible to take the steps required for Sweden to move towards a transport system without emissions.

That the government chooses to turn around and increase fossil fuel dependency and emissions - despite all the knowledge that exists, despite signing international declarations in other countries and despite the fact that it is demonstrably possible to transition transport - is nothing other than a monumental betrayal.

The Green Party's transport policy means that we use the strong Swedish public finances to carry out our generation's great social construction. It is about investing in and building the fossil-free welfare nation Sweden now. That, of course, also includes building a fossil-free transport system with zero emissions. But this requires that we have courage, that we build the future's high-speed railway between Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmö, Copenhagen, and Oslo, and that we simultaneously have enough resources to be able to invest in other routes that are needed in our country, for example the Norrbotniabanan.

It is also incredibly important that today's railway system is upgraded to be able to function better than it does today. The constant delays and the cancelled trains, which we see daily, are undermining confidence in the entire railway. Even there, the situation is acute.

And as I have pointed out in previous exchanges: The fact is that all countries in the EU except Sweden are building high-speed railways. Only Sweden is now a desert in terms of modern railway, in contrast to our neighboring countries Denmark and Finland, for example.

This is the situation in a scenario where the tracks are already full and where we know that the Fehmarn Bält link, which will open between Germany and Denmark in a few years, will provide a significantly increased transport capacity in terms of transport of both people and goods from Sweden to the continent. Without immediate decisions on investments, Sweden will be hit by severe traffic congestion and queues when the traffic to and from the continent meets an underdimensioned and outdated Swedish railway network.

We have also touched upon the governing parties' management of new main lines in Sweden previously. It is so poor that it would be laughable if it were not the case that it has large and harmful consequences. To start, stop, start and stop is not a way to manage infrastructure that takes decades to build and that requires long-term perspective. Even Norrbotniabanan and Citybanan in Stockholm have been managed in a corresponding manner by the governing parties, that is to say, one accelerates and brakes and accelerates and brakes.

I peer into the crystal ball. I suspect that the government parties - Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna - will need to change their minds once again on the issue of building new main lines. That would be the fourth time.

Industry points very clearly to the need for more railways and increased capacity to meet the green industrial expansion and the export of fossil-free steel and other green products. Now, the defense sector has also flagged that the overcrowded tracks are a problem when it comes to the transport of troops and defense materiel, not least between the Nordic countries. And without railway investments, the international defense cooperation, which notably Nato emphasizes a strong need for, is delayed. My question is therefore not if, but when the next shift from the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna will come in this matter.

Even when it comes to the maintenance of the railway, the government is unfortunately going in the wrong direction. When it is clear that the Swedish railway is in crisis, they choose to cut the funding for railway maintenance. It is incomprehensible, and it forces millions of travelers to continue suffering from delayed and cancelled trains.

Miljöpartiet does the opposite. We are allocating 15 billion more than the government does on railway infrastructure during the coming year and 5 billion more on maintaining and managing the railway system.

For Miljöpartiet, it is also self-evident that we need to invest in public transport and that it should be cheaper and smoother to get to work by public transport than by, for example, car. We want to invest in increasing public transport availability with urban environment agreements, which the government is now unfortunately scrapping on very poor grounds. It has been shown to have a positive effect and provide increased capacity all over the country.

We also propose that the operation of public transport around our country should be supported by maintaining and expanding the public transport support from the state at 5 billion kronor.

We particularly want to support public transport users by introducing a Sweden card, which provides the opportunity to travel with local and regional public transport throughout our country for less than 500 SEK per month for adults and 250 SEK per month for youth, students, and pensioners.

The government's policy, however, is now leading to increased costs for public transport all over Sweden. There are alternatives. Our green sister party in Germany has implemented corresponding cards in the German public transport system, and it has turned out to be a success. It is possible to lower the cost for all of everyday life's climate heroes.

There are measures that can be taken and that need to be taken to reduce emissions from transport. We have policies in all those areas. It is about switching fuels, increasing electrification, and reducing the need for transport. It is about measures called step one and step two – to streamline the use of the transport system and to reduce the need for travel. It would be very effective and socio-economically profitable. It is also about stimulating the transition to other means of transport with less environmental impact.

The sad thing is that the government's policy is currently heading in the wrong direction in all these areas. That is also what makes it so that one now, in practice, renounces the possibility of reaching the climate policy goals that one has committed to, among other things, in this chamber. It is not impressive.

We consider the aviation sector's environmental impact to be serious. It is important to reduce the emissions of the entire transport sector. This also applies to aviation. And not least on the routes where there is a good railway, we need to switch from air to rail. Therefore, the capacity on the railway also needs to be increased.

I want to conclude by saying that the Riksdag, through a decision, has set the total expenditures for expenditure area 22 at an all-too-low level. We in Miljöpartiet propose a total of 35 billion more for infrastructure and transport in our budget proposal. But since a different decision has been made in this chamber – it is the majority that has made that decision – I will not reserve myself in favor of our proposal. I have instead a special statement that corresponds to the investments in our budget proposal, and I do not participate in this decision.

With this, I intend to conclude my final debate - I shall see if there are any replies. I would like to take the opportunity to wish the Speaker's chair, the civil servants, and the honorable members a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Per Bolund - what an honor to be able to ask a question to a fantastically skilled politician in the final minutes! I believe you have been very important for Miljöpartiet, and I must give you credit for that.

My question is about electricity – can you imagine! In principle, all parties in here are talking today about how important it is to have electricity in the future. To meet the important climate goal, it is important that there is electricity production that works even when it is cold and not blowing.

Nuclear power is such an important source that is also controllable and robust. I want to discuss this with the member a bit. The new spokesperson Daniel Helldén has sat in our committee, so we know him a little - very pleasant, by the way. In an interview a short while ago, he issued a promise - or a threat; it depends on how one sees it - that if there is a new government, the current government's investments in nuclear power will be torn up.

I found this very exciting, and my question to Member Per Bolund is therefore: How are we going to meet our important climate goals?

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Oscarsson, for the question and for the praise at the beginning! I accept it gratefully.

It is always fun to have an energy debate, even in a transport debate as it is now. We in Miljöpartiet never back down from that.

When it comes to the transports, just as it concerns the energy, it is obvious for us to invest in that which gives the most bang for the buck, that is to say that which gives the most electricity for the money.

When it comes to the investments being made around the world and also in Sweden, there is no doubt that it is on the renewable energy side that it costs the least. You get much more electricity for the money you invest when you expand renewable electricity. There are also investors who want to invest. Without any subsidies at all, there are many who want to invest in renewable electricity both from solar and from wind in Sweden.

There are also all the technical solutions needed to be able to store electricity from the times when it blows and when the sun shines to the times when it does not. We have the water reservoirs that handle long-term storage, we have battery technology that is advancing and which is being invested in heavily in both Sweden and the rest of the world, and we also have big plans for hydrogen storage, a fantastic storage medium, in industries all around Sweden.

We are therefore facing a situation where nuclear power just becomes more and more expensive according to the forecasts and assessments being made, while renewable energy has become much, much cheaper and the technology has taken such large steps forward that it is undoubtedly possible to build a 100 percent renewable electricity system. Studies from Statens energimyndighet and Chalmers show that it is not only possible but also the most profitable alternative.

That this government then chooses to invest in that which no one wants to build, which requires enormous state subsidies and which yields less electricity for the money invested, is for me a complete mystery. I cannot see it as anything other than an ideological lock-in that one has become stuck in and cannot get out of. But we are happy to help the government parties get out of that lock-in.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Per Bolund, for the answer!

Everyone listening heard, therefore, that if there is a new government, the investment in nuclear power that this government is now making for more robust and controllable electricity even when there is no wind, which we believe strongly in continuing, will not happen.

I think that it is somehow still important. We are all talking about that we should travel using electricity, for example. Someone spoke earlier about flight shame. We mean that the time for that should be over now, because now we actually have electric aviation, and we also have biofuels which will be as good as can be for aviation moving forward.

Speaking of aviation, some of us were at a seminar yesterday. It was very interesting to discuss with the municipalities that were here. We discussed the future, and many municipalities told about how concerning it is that they might not be able to keep their airport. This is the lifeblood for the companies that exist in the area.

We heard the municipality where Hemavan Tärnaby Airport is located tell us how it looks for them. They have no motorway, and there is no boat service either. They do have trains, admittedly, but not so often and not so well. I don't remember, but it can take up to 24 hours to get to Stockholm.

My final question to Per Bolund is therefore: What does Per Bolund say about this? What is the answer to the municipality that wonders how we are to transport ourselves in the future?

We need to have electricity, we need to have aviation and we need to have good connections with our municipalities all around Sweden.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Oscarsson, for the question!

For Miljöpartiet, it is obvious that when you agree on something, when you shake hands, when you sign, you mean what you say, and then you also carry out what you have agreed upon. In the agreement that exists in Dubai, for example, Sweden has signed on to that we shall triple the electricity from renewable energy. Do you not mean what you say? That is something I am struck by in this debate and in this exchange of remarks.

Miljöpartiet is now the only party that stands behind the energy agreement concluded in 2016, where we agreed and shook hands on that we shall not subsidize any type of energy, but all types of energy shall meet on a level playing field and pay their own costs. We shall not build with state subsidies.

We stand by the agreement. We mean business with a handshake. Unfortunately, it does not seem as if the governing parties do, which is quite sad. It also makes it harder to believe in agreements concluded in Swedish politics going forward.

I am also struck by the fantastic mix that exists of extreme technological optimism in some cases and extreme technological pessimism in others. When it comes to aviation, everything is already solved because a flight on biofuel has already taken place between Malmö and Stockholm. Since there have been discussions about knowledge, one almost wants to ask how many take-offs and landings we have at Swedish airports every day in comparison with this single flight.

There is also a lot of talk about electric aviation. How many electric aircraft have flown in regular traffic with passengers so far, compared to the many, many thousands of take-offs and landings that have occurred?

From the Green Party, it is clear that we need to work on two different tracks. We need to reduce flying, because the research tells us very clearly. We need to shift aviation to other modes of transport. We also need, in parallel with this, to work on reducing aviation's environmental and climate impact, and therefore we also support initiatives on technological development and on finding new solutions.

But to deceive the Swedish people into thinking that we can solve aviation's challenges only with new technology within the time period we now have to reduce climate impact is not serious.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have had both a climate debate and an energy debate in a transport debate, but since this is Per Bolund's last debate in the chamber, perhaps we can be a little generous.

I would, however, like to raise a completely different issue that actually hasn't been raised in this debate at all, and that is the discussion about building a new railway as the solution to the climate issue.

What is not taken into account in these discussions is that the construction itself leads to very large emissions when building a railway. Often it is mentioned by other environmentalists that one should build on land bridges, and that would be so fantastic. But an enormous amount of concrete is used. I have seen a calculation that says it would take up to 50 years to recoup the emissions that the construction of the high-speed railway had led to in Sweden.

If one thinks 50 years into the future, what will the environmental and climate profile for our different modes of transport look like then? Even if we may not have any electric aircraft in the air today, I am quite convinced that they will be there in 50 years. I am also quite convinced that all cars on Sweden's roads will actually be powered by some form of fossil-free fuel. I entered the transport issues four years ago. At that time, no one believed that heavy trucks would run on electricity. They do now. They roll on our roads.

Technology is developing all the time. The risk is that what is today Miljöpartiets actually only solution to the problem, namely to build more railway, leads to huge emissions that then will not be able to be recovered.

This does not align well with the high ambitions we have regarding the climate. It is important that we take into account the technological developments that are occurring and do not lock ourselves into a system that leads to large emissions during the construction period, which we then cannot recover.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Maria Stockhaus for a very important question. I truly share the assessment that when we build infrastructure, it is incredibly important that we build with as small a footprint as is possible. That aspect must really be taken into account in the planning.

This must, however, be weighed against delaying those types of investments and also continuing to have high emissions over a long period, which the government's policy leads to. It is well known that it is not only the final year 2045 that is decisive, but that it is about the path there, that is, how much emissions are at issue during the journey. That is what determines what the climate impact will be and whether Sweden contributes to reaching the 1.5-degree goal or not, which we are now on track not to do with the government's policy.

Now it is about using the remaining emissions budget. With today's emission levels, there are no more than eight to ten years of emissions left. Shall we use the budget to build motorways or to increase emissions from transport by subsidizing fossil fuels? Or shall we use the emissions budget to build the future's sustainable fossil-free infrastructure and welfare society? For Miljöpartiet, the decision is obvious. Obviously, we shall use the emissions budget we have to build that which we will deliver in the future, a zero-emissions society. That is where we differ from the government parties.

The new technology that Swedish industrial companies are now at the forefront of the world in developing, for example fossil-free steel, is now being questioned by Moderates, Sweden Democrats and others. They are trying to throw sand in the gears. Of course, we welcome that development. We have been involved in laying the foundation for it, and then we will, of course, also use the technology to produce infrastructure, for example the railways of the future.

Even for concrete, there is technology that significantly reduces the footprint. In that case, we shall, of course, use the best technology.

I think Maria Stockhaus is missing a fundamental question. She talks about heavy electric vehicles rolling on the roads. Why are heavy electric vehicles rolling on our roads? It is because we have collectively charted the course. We have said that we are to have zero emissions in a little more than 20 years. It is that decision that makes many industries transition now. But the government's actions, which are now increasing emissions, lead to doubt. Does the goal stand or not? That is the question the government has left to answer.

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

Maria Stockhaus (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is no doubt that we stand by the goals, but I believe our paths to get there look different.

We are accused of being technology optimists when we highlight electric aviation, but I believe all new technology for building railways also involves technology optimism.

Let me go back to the question. It would therefore take 50 years before we can offset the emissions from the construction of the high-speed railway. Now we are only talking about the new tracks for the high-speed railway between Stockholm and Gothenburg as well as Stockholm and Malmö. I assume that all types of transport will be fossil-free in 50 years with the technological development prevailing, the direction of the policy, and the clear goals. The debt will not be able to be offset. Then all the carbon dioxide is in the air. The question is whether it is the right way to use our carbon budget instead of investing in that all types of transport should transition.

By constructing a start and landing strip of two kilometers, you reach the whole world. If you lay two kilometers of rail, you go two kilometers. There are enormous opportunities with the fossil-free aviation that is now emerging. In the name of honesty, the emissions per person-kilometer for aviation have gone down enormously. It will be an efficient way to transport oneself over slightly longer distances, and it is everyone's assessment that with electric aviation in the air, the aviation market will be revolutionized and open up completely different opportunities. Then perhaps we stand there with rail that we have released a large amount of carbon dioxide to build, which will not be used because there are more efficient ways to transport oneself - and all modes of transport are fossil-free.

I still think that the question of whether we are building up enormous carbon debts that we will not be able to recover because technological developments lead to the other modes of transport being fossil-free is discussed too little. Miljöpartiet does not have a good answer to that question.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet are technology optimists. We see great opportunities with technology, but we would like to make use of the technology that actually exists, not dream technology or an over-reliance on how quickly the implementation of new technology occurs.

The technology for producing fossil-free steel using hydrogen is established. Production is already underway. I myself have a piece of steel at home produced with the help of hydrogen. Of course, we shall offer a domestic market for the new groundbreaking technologies and show that they are the technologies of the future, which can then become the export successes of the future.

I am concerned that the Moderaterna and the other government parties in that specific case are extreme technology pessimists and oppose the solutions. It is a difficult question for me.

It is also dangerous to only look at emissions and person-kilometers; one must also look at how much travel is involved. Now we see a sharp increase in flying in the world, and it shows that we must work with several different models. We shall absolutely embrace technological development, but given how quickly the shift of aircraft occurs within the aviation industry, it will not be a large enough part of the solution to meet the emissions from aviation. We must also shift flights to other modes of transport. For domestic transport, it is feasible, especially if one chooses to invest in modern high-speed railways—as all other EU countries do except Sweden. Not least the Moderaterna have placed obstacles in the way of that development.

It is obvious that we must now make the investments required to build the future's fossil-free welfare society. That the Moderaterna choose to oppose this is something that I truly regret.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I could not resist the temptation to be the last to rise in reply.

I welcome the Green Party's interest in the climate, but what I have not understood during the five and a half years I have been in the Riksdag is why the Green Party has such a negative attitude towards aviation. I could have had some understanding for it when the Green Party entered the government in 2014 because there were not so many solutions for aviation at that time. But today, the air traveler can purchase biofuels and thus fly emission-free. The development is moving towards electric aviation. The plan is 2028, even though I agree that it takes time before the technology is in place. Electrofuels will arrive in 2027.

Your proposals in the budget concern a phase-out of those flight routes where one can instead travel by train. You are also withdrawing 210 million to various regional airports. If companies and municipalities cannot in some way earn money or maintain the service, we will not manage the transition.

Is it not time for Miljöpartiet to reassess its position on aviation and work for a rapid transition specifically in Sweden and also globally? Now that you are leaving the Riksdag, you can think a bit more broadly!

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Helena Gellerman for the question. We can continue to debate a bit more - it feels good.

It is interesting to note the discrepancy in the Liberals' position on biofuels. When biofuels, according to the Liberals' assessment, increase the cost of fuels at the roadside, one suddenly becomes very much against it, but on the other hand, one is very much in favor of using biofuels in aviation.

How can we trust that the Liberals will not do a complete U-turn even when it comes to biofuels in aviation if prices potentially rise, if one is to believe the Liberals' predictions? It is a bit difficult to feel that the Liberals have any credibility and to trust them in that issue as well.

The Green Party has a policy that stands on two legs. We appointed the Biojet Commission. We were the ones who got the quota system for biofuels for aviation in place, and this system is now delivering. We have also supported the development of electric aviation. But we are also realists. We know how slowly the transition of the aircraft fleet occurs. If Sweden is to have any chance at all of meeting the emission targets that Helena Gellerman and the Liberals have backed in this chamber and the requirements that the EU sets, one must phase over traffic to other modes of transport, ensure that railway traffic is expanded, and ensure that the best modes of transport are used. One must also work on reducing transport demand.

That we build our policy on two legs is what is required for us to reach the finish line. There will also be transports in the future that cannot be carried out in any other way than by air. Then we must ensure that this is sustainable. Systems to, for example, procure socially necessary aviation are already established in the state.

What I find striking about this debate is that the Liberals, like the other government parties, who claim to be market-oriented and believe that the market should decide, do not think that one should invest in the railway when travelers choose it. Then one should not invest in the railway but instead in aviation, which fewer and fewer people choose. To me, it is a mystery.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Many new aspects came up here.

I wanted to mention something about biofuels. Since I entered the Riksdag in 2018, we have pushed to produce more biofuels and, above all, to introduce e-fuels. We know that biofuels will not be sufficient during the transition when it comes to road transport. Also, an incredible amount of biofuels and e-fuels are needed for aviation and shipping to be able to transition. I have been pushing for this since I entered here in 2018, so there you can be completely reassured. The reason we are pushing for electrification of road transport is that we see that biofuels and e-fuels are needed for aviation and shipping.

I would like to return to the fact that 210 million is being withdrawn for aviation and airports. It is very worrying, I think. It will hit very hard against the municipalities that have an airport, which makes it possible for companies to function there and that people can work remotely but sometimes fly to Stockholm or wherever they work.

They are withdrawing 210 million and pulling the rug out from under these airports while this major transition is taking place. I am a bit surprised by the Green Party's position.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the member for the work he has done for the climate. I think Klimatklivet and Industriklivet have been good investments. Even though we do not agree on all solutions, I think it is very important that we cooperate in this assembly so that we can achieve a transition of all types of transport as quickly as possible.

Finally, I would like to thank Per Bolund for his work. I would like to thank the Speaker, the Chancellery, all members of the Committee on Transport and Communications, and others who are sitting here waiting for their debate, and wish you all a very Merry Christmas.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Communications

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Helena Gellerman for the debate.

It is a bit difficult to reconcile that. Helena Gellerman says that one is pushing for biofuels, but at the same time, one is now cutting demand by setting the reduction obligation at the lowest possible level. This also goes directly against what the fuel industry itself, the transport industry, and the green industries want.

There are ambitious plans to expand biofuel production in Sweden. These plans are now being strongly questioned because the basis, namely the demand, is now being cut.

I also want to put a large question mark after this regarding the push for electrification. What we have seen after the electric car bonus was removed is that electrification is faltering alarmingly and that the sale of electric vehicles has gone down instead of up, as it needs to do.

I would like to thank Helena Gellerman for the debate.

The reason why we believe that support for regional airports should be reduced is that we see a need to shift traffic from aviation to rail and electrified road transport.

Communications

We also see that the support that is now going to airports, to a fairly large extent, goes to pure leisure travel, that is, trips to the sun at more southern latitudes and the like. We do not think that is something that society should support with subsidies. If there is a commercial basis, well, that may be the case; then one may continue to run that activity. But in this case, it is about supporting an activity that does not have sufficient economic basis. We think it is better to invest in the modes of transport that the travelers actually choose to use in increasing proportions, not least the railway.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 19 December.)

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