(cont. from § 11) General environmental and nature conservation (cont. MJU1)

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

General environmental and nature conservation

Mr. Speaker! It will be a bit strange now that we had to wait a little, the member and I. But in the budget debate we have today, the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, chooses to increase emissions despite the fact that the Riksdag has decided that greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport shall be reduced by 70 percent by 2030 at the latest.

The increase is due, among other things, to the fact that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, promised before the election and has signaled in the budget that the reduction obligation, that is, the proportion of biofuels to be mixed in when we refuel, shall be lowered to the EU's minimum level. Sweden has also negotiated emission requirements with the EU, where Sweden's target in the ESR sector is a 50 percent reduction by 2030.

In Dagens Nyheter, one could read this week that if Sweden were to drop to the EU's minimum level, we would emit approximately 27 million tons too much carbon dioxide by 2030. That is almost double as much as domestic transport emitted in total during 2021, and according to Dagens Nyheter, the figure is conservatively calculated.

There are four ways to compensate for this: One can reduce the logging of forest. One can use saved emission allowances or borrow from next year's emission budget, but it must be paid back already the following year. One can exchange emission allowances between ESR and ETS, but there is a cap there. One can also buy emission space from other countries, which can become very expensive.

Therefore, my question to the member is what impact assessment the Sweden Democrats have conducted. And what cost analysis has been made? What will the Swedish taxpayers have to pay? The member says in the media, however, that it might be worth for Sweden to pay large sums to avoid EU's climate goals.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my speech, we have recently had an election, and the Swedish voters have voted for lower fuel prices. So that is what shall happen. Fuel prices shall be lowered, and the reduction obligation shall be reduced.

Anna-Caren Sätherberg raises the ESR criteria. I must state that the level that has been set for Sweden is completely unreasonable. I therefore wonder how the Social Democrats intended when they agreed that Sweden should bear the largest burden of the countries in Europe. We in Sweden have phased out fossil fuels from our electricity production and from our heat production – in what way is it reasonable that we should bear the largest burden?

The catastrophic negotiation for which the S-government bears responsibility will, of course, have consequences, but also a shock-high reduction obligation - up to 75 percent on diesel - will have consequences. It will have consequences for our agriculture and our farming. It will have consequences for our forestry. It will make these activities very much more expensive.

This will have consequences for families with children who are going to buy milk in the store - milk that is delivered with the help of trucks powered by diesel, which will become by far the most expensive in the entire world. All of this creates extra costs in society of tens of billions per year, so it is clear that we must find ways to get around the completely failed negotiation that the Social Democrats made at the EU level and try to reach as low socio-economic costs as possible.

It may well be the case that the best option from a socio-economic perspective is to purchase emission credits from other countries, but that remains to be seen.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! In response to the member's question: We just listened to the Prime Minister, who said that one should not put out election promises a few days before the election that one cannot fulfill. That they would lower the cost of refueling by 10 kronor per liter was a typical such election promise from the Sverigedemokraterna. That reduction is not seen by the Swedish population now. It is an election promise that is definitely not fulfilled.

It was not my question, however. When one presents election promises, one must in some way have conducted a consequence analysis—and in this case, also a cost analysis. The member and his party say it would be a good idea for Sweden to buy emission rights, but we know that the emission rights are much fewer. We know that all countries now have higher emission targets in order to be able to meet what we are discussing here today, namely the climate crisis we face.

My question therefore remains. According to Dagens Nyheter, the cost for this will amount to 20 billion kronor. Naturally, the Sweden Democrats must have discussed and taken the consequences of this. Is it the forest that should remain, so that we do not have jobs across the country and can make the climate transition with the help of the forest? Or should we spend 20 billion on buying emission rights instead of spending the money on what the member is bringing up, that is, families with children, welfare, and everything else we need to spend money on in this time of crisis and inflation?

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Something that entails great socio-economic costs is the reduction obligation. If we calculate the price of what it would be with a reduction of 75 percent, which I assume the Social Democrats are aiming for, we would land on increased costs - for Sweden, Swedes, companies, the state and municipalities - totaling perhaps a good bit over 40 billion. That is significantly more than 20 billion, but whether 20 billion is relevant or not remains to be seen.

The climate acts at the EU level are nearing completion. They are partially in the trilogues, and in some cases, they have not reached there yet. In some cases, they are finished. Common to all of them is that our Swedish authorities have not analyzed the consequences of them. It is therefore a job that remains to be done.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, I can promise a few things. We will deliver on the election promise of lower fuel prices. We will not do what the Social Democrats did before they took office eight years ago, when they said before the election that it was too expensive to refuel - and after the election raised the price of gasoline every year as well as secured the world's highest price on diesel. The Sweden Democrats will not do that.

We will ensure that the reduction obligation is lowered to the minimum level. It will become cheaper to refuel. It is not reasonable that we should have the world's highest price for diesel in Sweden. The consequence of the Sweden Democrats' policy will be that it will become cheaper to refuel, and it will reduce the socio-economic costs in our country.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Member Kinnunen! It was interesting to hear an elected representative representing the Sverigedemokraterna talk about the environment. You have not been known for talking about these issues; I did not hear it during the election campaign, and I also do not see that environmental and climate policy has received any significant space in the Tidö Agreement or the government statement.

You mentioned in your speech that you have an ambitious climate policy, Martin Kinnunen, but what I heard here I felt was mostly criticism of other parties' proposals regarding the climate transition. My question is therefore: How do you view the climate changes, and what do you believe we should take for measures to address them?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have no other opinion than what is the prevailing consensus within climate research: We have a global warming that is largely due to human activity. To mitigate the effects of global warming, climate adaptation is needed and we must reduce emissions. In that way, we can simply dampen the temperature increases in the world and in Sweden.

The policy we will pursue will mean that Sweden contributes in an effective and positive way to reduced emissions in Sweden and our world.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I hear that it is repeated that it should be an ambitious policy and that ways must be found to reduce emissions, but I hear no concrete proposals.

The only answer to the environmental issue is nuclear power. The first part of your speech was almost entirely about nuclear power, Martin Kinnunen. The climate bonus, for example, is gone. They do not want to lead in Sweden; instead, things should be solved abroad. At some point, I feel that the Sweden Democrats reason that someone else should take care of the problem somewhere else, at some other time.

I am requesting concrete proposals again. I am repeating the question: Which national measures do you see as needing to be introduced so that Swedish climate emissions will decrease?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö Agreement contains a number of proposals in the climate policy area, and our budget contains a great deal of climate policy. That is the expenditure area we are discussing now. But as I said in my speech, environmental and climate policy is not about what the environmental movement and also the Center Party believe: more regulations, more taxes, and more symbolic politics. It is not necessarily the case that more measures lead to a better world.

We have seen what happens when Centerpartiet gains influence in the energy sector: very important nuclear power is decommissioned. That was what happened with Barsebäck once upon a time. If we still had had the steady electricity supply in area 4, we would have had significantly lower electricity prices in our country today, and we would also have contributed to reduced emissions in Europe.

The Tidö Agreement establishes that we shall develop calculation models for the climate benefits of exports. This is something that is not taken into account today, and in that context, secure energy supply means a great deal. We can obtain clear calculations of the climate benefit with, for example, nuclear power.

It is important that the member mentioned nuclear power. We need to speak more in this chamber about nuclear power and its importance. If we are to be able to achieve or come close to the global climate goals that exist, the world will need more nuclear power. Here, Sweden can take the lead, take responsibility, and show others how it can be done.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Before the adjournment, Member Kinnunen spoke about a new policy that was supposed to show the way for environmental and climate work. Despite that, the policy only seems to be about cutting back and removing.

The overarching goal of environmental policy is, according to the parliamentary-binding generation goal, to hand over a society to the next generation where the major environmental problems in Sweden are solved, without causing environmental and health problems outside Sweden's borders. It is about setting things right, taking responsibility for one's own generation's problems, and enabling the next to live a good life.

Unfortunately, the development for all environmental goals except two points towards a negative trend. We also see a continued increase in greenhouse gases. How is it then that one actually more than halves the climate budget over a three-year period?

The Sweden Democrats were not in the Riksdag when we adopted the environmental goals. My question is whether you stand behind them.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The environmental goals, yes. The Sweden Democrats were not represented in the environmental goals committee when the climate policy goals were adopted and the proposed framework was developed. We were also not represented in the Riksdag when the previous environmental goals were decided. We were not involved when the goals were discussed and would like to see a review of many of the climate goals.

The generational goal that Emma Nohrén raised sounds very good and pretty much corresponds to the Tidö Agreement's writings on the idea of stewardship. It is the same thing that is intended. It is, of course, something we should strive for.

The problem with the various environmental goals and climate goals is that they are often set at a level such that they become difficult or impossible to achieve without violating other goals. It would be relevant to try to establish an environmental goal management with fewer goals and with a realistic path forward that makes it known how they can be achieved. It would be interesting to review in the future.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I hear the member say that climate goals are important and that one should try to achieve them, but that they are not designed as they should be. The question then is which goals the Sweden Democrats want to achieve. What measures do you have?

Item by item in this area, cuts are being made, at the same time as we know that climate change is here and that we must do what we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sweden must do its part - take climate adaptation measures and at the same time protect, recreate and restore biotopes and natural values so as not to deplete biodiversity.

What do the Sweden Democrats see as an important measure here? What I can see is that it is just a slaughter taking place. In this budget, everything concerning the environment and climate is being cut away with surgical precision.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Emma Nohrén. The environmental budget that we will make decisions on - perhaps not today, but tomorrow - is one of the largest environmental budgets ever. I would say that it is somewhat too large. One could prioritize the expenditures better. The main reason is that the state spends a very large amount of tax money on subsidizing cars. Different types of rechargeable vehicles are subsidized with tax funds, and it is an investment that will now be phased out. It is worthwhile and something that we from the Sweden Democrats' side have pointed out the need for for many years.

It is not reasonable to spend a large part of the taxpayers' money on subsidizing vehicles. It is also an inefficient investment, because a large part ends up as increased margins for the vehicle dealers. A large share also ends up on the Norwegian market. It is a bad, inefficient investment. When we have removed it, the environmental budget will be reduced because it is the largest item.

We Sweden Democrats also want to reduce the acquisition of protected areas, and that is because there is no such need. Incorrect definitions of protected areas lie behind all too much money rolling in this area. There is no such acute problem in Swedish society.

Regarding investments, a long series of such are found in the budget, for example, powerful investments in charging infrastructure and a completely new policy for more nuclear power in Sweden. We also have offensive investments in bio-CCS, investments in international climate investments, and so on. There is no lack of investments in this budget. But I definitely believe that we can trim the environmental budget further, prioritize even better with the taxpayers' money, and at the same time achieve good effects in the environmental and climate fields.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are here today to debate expenditure area 20 on general environmental and nature conservation. What could be more fitting than to do this the day after we received the joyful news from Montreal that the UN summit on biodiversity was concluded?

We have received a global framework for biodiversity - a Paris Agreement for animals and nature, species and nature types. The world's countries agreed that 30 percent of all nature types, biotopes, shall be protected before 2030. In this way, the sixth mass extinction, which we are actually in, shall be halted. The slogan was that we shall stop and reverse the loss of biodiversity. That means we must protect, restore and care for nature and generate knowledge.

Of the eight million species that exist on Earth – actually, it is probably many more if you count bacteria and other things, but now I mean the large ones – approximately one million are threatened with extinction. Species and types of nature are threatened today mostly by illegal hunting, loss of habitats – that is to say that we humans push them out – and by climate change, of course.

At another climate summit, just over a month ago, I had the privilege of attending the UN's 27th climate conference in Sharm el-Sheikh on behalf of the committee. There, 40,000 people from all over the world were present to try to fill the Paris Agreement with content, move forward with the technical solutions, and reach an agreement on how to succeed in keeping the earth's warming below 1.5 degrees.

The world's collective scientific community is in agreement that climate change is occurring, that it is happening fast, and that it is caused by us humans.

The government itself writes as follows in its budget bill: "The sixth assessment report produced by the UN's scientific panel, IPCC, during 2021 and 2022 shows that the possibilities of limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees are becoming increasingly smaller and that powerful and

Urgent measures that limit emissions are required. The connection between the increased global average temperature and extreme weather events is scientifically established.

Mr. Speaker! We have entered the period of the Anthropocene - an era where humans affect every aspect of the biosphere. We find pieces of plastic at the very top of the Himalayas. We find environmental toxins at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.

It also means that it is only we humans who can stop climate change, halt the loss of biodiversity, and ensure that the trends reverse and that we live within the planet's limits. We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, do what we can to stay below 1.5 degrees, and at the same time adapt to the coming climate. The Earth's average temperature has already increased by 1.2 degrees. It will continue to increase, because we will not stop these emissions today. But we must do what we can to reduce this and at the same time adapt to the new – in UN language, this is usually called mitigation and adaptation.

The same applies to biodiversity. It is only we humans who can stop the loss of biodiversity.

This is actually a win-win situation, because healthy ecosystems cope better with climate change. Healthy seas, living forests, bustling wetlands and regenerated soils cope better with the stresses. They help us during heavy rainfall, bind carbon and provide us with ecosystem services. Greenery in cities lowers the temperature. Vegetated soils absorb rain. A living forest and natural beaches and coastal zones absorb carbon dioxide and prevent erosion. Climate and biodiversity are linked - sea and climate are two sides of the same coin.

Unfortunately, we are not doing what we should. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres said in his opening speech at COP 27: We are on the highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator. We are on our way towards climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.

This is also what the new government and its coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna are doing. In the budget that we are debating here today, the government, with its coalition partner, seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what the research says we should do. They are cutting the budget for climate and nature conservation by over 50 percent over a three-year period. They have their foot on the gas pedal.

The government itself writes in its budget bill that emissions will increase with the policy they have.

One says they protect the sea, the herring, and the cod, yet they cut the budget for marine environment initiatives. One says they protect the property rights in the forest and the forest owners, yet they carry out a slaughter of the protection of valuable nature. One even announces reductions in environmental monitoring.

It is strange that this government sat and negotiated and emphasized the importance of environmental monitoring and follow-up when they were at COP 15. Without money, there will be no measurements, but perhaps that is how this government wants it. If one does not know what exists, perhaps one also does not need to take responsibility for protecting, preserving, restoring, and caring for the ecosystems that we share.

With surgical precision, they have removed or scaled back everything related to climate and environment. What is the answer? New nuclear power in 10-15 years. But we are to continue driving our cars on diesel.

I will not be such - there is an initiative on wetlands. This can be said to be a continuation of what previous governments have done. But one takes money for it from the appropriation Protection of valuable nature, so it is probably fair to say that it is an initiative. On the other hand, it is an earmarking.

Even internationally, one displays a sense of nonchalance, and we hear how people wonder what has actually happened to Sweden. To COP 27, the climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, the government arrived empty-handed, without any new money, initiatives, or pledges. I am quite certain this is the first time in 27 meetings that a government, regardless of party, has come to a climate summit with nothing. That says something.

We in Miljöpartiet want something different. In our budget, which should be seen as a whole, we want to build a green folkhem where the climate work is world-leading, where welfare is for everyone and where equality is a given. We want to carry out a historic investment based on science and do what is required for Sweden to reach its part of both the Paris Agreement and the new Montreal Agreement.

It requires that one dares to make a big investment. In this area, we want to reverse the biodiversity crisis in the forest and make large investments in preserving and protecting nature areas, as well as invest in the management of already protected areas.

We want to strengthen the work with outdoor life and the right of public access. We must continue the work with invasive species and the endangered species as well as make investments to strengthen biodiversity.

We believe that environmental monitoring is the backbone of Swedish environmental work, and it needs to receive sufficient resources. The work with long time series is central in order to be able to follow up on permits and make the right decisions.

I said earlier that the ocean and climate are two sides of the same coin, and that is true. Therefore, the marine environment management must have a larger and clearer role in climate work. We must have an ecosystem-based management model for all marine environment work and all climate policy.

Mr. Speaker! I see that my speaking time has run out; I apologize for that.

Since we in Miljöpartiet are investing more money than the government in this area, I cannot vote in favor of our proposals. This is due, as everyone knows, to the fact that the Riksdag has already decided on a narrower budget framework.

I still want to point out that the Green Party's budget shows that it is possible to both reach the climate goals and strengthen welfare, to protect at the same time as we are used to, and to have a budget that lives up to Sweden's international commitments and to the Swedish, European and international environmental goals. It is a budget for a future to long for.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for a passionate speech! It was a speech with a lot of empathy. I may not agree with everything the member raised in her speech, but that is a different matter.

In her speech, Emma Nohrén mentioned as a mantra "protect, preserve and restore", and when one reads through the points in the Miljöpartiets budget, it becomes very clear that it is exactly this that it is about.

For the Christian Democrats, the stewardship principle is an important and fundamental principle. When one manages something, one usually does so in a smart way. But for the most part, it does not seem to be about usage at all here, but rather about exactly protecting, preserving, and restoring. Possibly some form of usage is included when one restores.

It seems to be quite clear that the Green Party does not trust Sweden's landowners because you are allocating such an enormous amount of money in your budget to take someone else's land to protect, preserve, and restore. Is it so, Emma Nohrén, that the Green Party does not see that Sweden's landowners are capable of doing the job they have done until now? It is actually the case that much of the nature we have today that has species worthy of protection exists there precisely because it is cultivated and precisely because the landowners have managed it.

Does the Green Party see this as becoming a problem and that one gets even greater problems and polarization regarding the struggle over, among other things, ownership and usage rights?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

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

I am myself a landowner and a forest owner and I practice clear-cut-free methods. I do not think it is a matter of either/or, but we need both. For the last decade or so, we have cultivated too much and with unsustainable methods, especially when it comes to the forest. Our continuity forests, which have not been marked by human activity, are decreasing and continue to be logged. Miljöpartiet thinks that it is more than right that we can buy out the landowners who have these forests, so that they can earn money from their forest without cutting it down and so that we get the common values that we need.

Yesterday, an agreement was reached in Montreal that 30 percent of each nature type must be protected if we are to meet the goals. There are different types of protection, but we will need to do this.

Are the Christian Democrats prepared to do what is required for us to achieve the new international framework?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the counter-question.

I know that Emma Nohrén is a landowner and prefers to practice continuous cover forestry. However, forest research says quite unequivocally that it is not the solution, at least not if one wants to have diversity in one's forest.

If we are to reduce forestry, what shall we use instead in the transition? Products from the forest can today replace everything that we can currently manufacture from oil. It shows that the forest is an important part of the transition, if it is managed.

Emma Nohrén also mentions human activity. Let us go back 200-300 years to Värmland. When the mining industry was active, no forest remained, not even a stick, because everything was cut down to be used in the mining industry. We have, therefore, had human activity for quite a long time. Then came new forest, which in the beginning was largely managed as crown forest. But when it passed into private ownership, diversity arrived, and the forestry was managed in a significantly better way than when the state operated it.

Emma Nohrén mentions the meeting in Montreal and what was put forward there. We have had old goals for some time, but here countries count very differently. In Sweden, we want to be "Bror Duktig" and go a few steps further than everyone else so that we will be the best. This hampers our competitiveness, and we therefore do not become as competitive as other countries on the market because we always have to be the best.

Does the Speaker see that our reductio ad absurdum is tripping us up ourselves instead of doing the climate a favor?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I hope we have learned something since the 1800s about how we should manage forests and what we need to do. We also have other possibilities today. I live myself on the west coast where all the forest was cut down to be able to make oil from herring during the herring seasons. After that, pine and spruce came up in place of the deciduous forest that existed previously.

Today we do so in more places and with harsher methods than we did previously. We will need to continue to manage the forest, but we must do so with gentler methods - and that which needs to be protected needs to be protected.

If we want to know what should be protected and how it should be protected, environmental monitoring is needed, which is something the member's government is cutting back on. If we are to know that we are doing the right thing and want to have data on what we do, environmental monitoring is very important. If we are to measure like other countries, we must also do it in the same way, and then we need to have environmental monitoring data.

If we are to achieve our goals, we must do it together. We will need to protect more than we do today. We will need to cultivate differently than we do today.

Today, 1,000 species are red-listed and on the way out. There are 256 different species of hoverflies that pollinate. We have had over 40 different types of bumblebees in Sweden, and 3-4 of them are already nationally extinct.

We will need to make several different interventions in several different rural areas. However, it is not about laying a dead hand on them, but about strengthening them for the future so that our children and grandchildren get a good world that they can live in and cultivate for a good food production.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

We have just heard the Prime Minister's report and previously the Foreign Affairs Committee's debate. I intended to stick to the same theme, and also Miljöpartiet's Emma Nohrén highlighted an international aspect with COP 15.

The world faces, to put it mildly, extremely large challenges. The pandemic affected us all in one way or another, and we still see the effects in our global environment. In some places, it is still ongoing. Furthermore, we are approaching the anniversary of Russia's illegal and completely unacceptable war of aggression against Ukraine. In about two months, the Ukrainian people will have stood up for their country and their right to exist for an entire year.

And with this war, we have also seen far-reaching effects as the availability of food in the world has changed drastically - something that my colleague John Widegren wisely raised in Saturday's debate on expenditure area 23.

Something that perhaps does not belong in this debate but that I nevertheless want to take the opportunity to mention from the rostrum is the situation in Iran: Woman, life, freedom!

The world is in a very volatile situation, to say the least. Add to that high inflation and a recession in Sweden, as well as a climate crisis.

Sometimes I am reminded of my age in this assignment. As a 27-year-old, I cannot know particularly much. But after a quick look back at history, we can probably conclude that we have never had to handle so many different crises at the same time.

Tough times also require tough decisions, for example a restrictive budget. We see how the opposition's budgets fuel inflation while we look at the long-term and guarantee that we continue to have room to act if the current economic situation were to become prolonged or worse.

It is important that politics also sees people's everyday lives. What else are we doing here in the chamber? All of us have at some point made the decision to engage politically, and I would guess that the vast majority of us were motivated by the ambition to make the world a better place.

Right now, as we have said, we find ourselves in a difficult situation. Christmas is approaching rapidly, and many feel a great deal of anxiety. The economy is under heavy pressure, and every single krona must be turned over so that one can afford both the electricity bill and Christmas presents. The reality is that we have children in Sweden who are freezing because the parent cannot afford the heating. It is also that reality that the state's budget must be based on. Anything else would be unreasonable.

Even though the budget is restrictive overall, we are presenting a historically large budget for this expenditure area. The work for our common environment and for the climate is prioritized.

Mr. Speaker! Let me be extra clear: the Moderates and the government stand by the high national climate goals. Sweden's climate and environmental work is and shall be ambitious. It is deeply rooted in the Moderates' DNA to protect and care for what we will one day leave behind.

We are also a hopeful party. We know that human activity and the burning of fossil fuels raise the average temperature, but we also believe that humans, through technological progress, science, and facts, can solve the problems we face. But it matters that we do it in an efficient way that is goal- and result-oriented.

The climate issue is a global problem that also requires global solutions. Sweden accounts for approximately 0.2 percent of the world's emissions. This means that even if Sweden reached net-zero emissions tomorrow, it would not be enough to stop climate change. Our policy therefore aims to reduce Sweden's emissions and inspire and encourage others to follow suit.

But for Sweden to truly be a leading country and succeed in inspiring, we must also safeguard Swedish competitiveness. Nothing drives development as quickly as competitiveness. Sweden's role on the international arena must therefore be to lead by example that more countries want to follow.

Under the previous Moderate-led government, we succeeded in showing the world that it is indeed possible to reduce emissions while simultaneously increasing growth. These two values are not in opposition, and it therefore requires a policy that looks at the whole and does not put spokes in the wheels of the economy, the competitiveness of companies, and the finances of households.

In order for us to reach the goals, this must be done together, and it requires a policy that is considered legitimate and that is cost-effective and goal-oriented. The Moderates have shown that such a climate policy is possible, and we shall do it again.

An important part of this is to include more people in the transition. When the climate bonus was introduced, it was a support for market introduction and then, in July 2018, the proportion of climate bonus cars amounted to approximately 5 percent. Now it is around 50 percent. We are therefore changing the direction to increase the pace of the expansion of charging infrastructure, something that will ensure that the electric car becomes a real alternative for all residents in Sweden and not just for those who live in large cities.

The EU is Sweden's most important climate policy platform. We welcome that joint proposals are submitted in the areas of environment and climate. At the EU level, we can make a big difference, and I am therefore proud that green transition is one of the government's priorities during the Swedish presidency.

Recently, the EU has agreed on new carbon requirements for light vehicles, which means that all cars sold within the EU must have zero emissions in just 13 years. This means that all manufacturers who want to sell on the EU market must convert their production. Sweden can do a lot, but the EU is a much larger platform where we can achieve more.

Mr. Speaker! Climate policy is fundamentally a question of energy. Without clean electricity, there is no green transition. Our electricity system is, or has been, one of the best in the world with significantly lower emissions compared to countries in our vicinity. The low emissions are largely due to a unique mix of fossil-free power production consisting of nuclear, hydro, and wind power.

Most of the Swedish emissions today come from industries and from transport. It is also there that the emissions must decrease. We have today many companies that are already involved and contributing. They set their own industry goals, drive innovation, and push politics and the market in the right direction. That is good, but now politics must also deliver on its part. We stand firm that the availability of fossil-free electricity when and where it is needed is the single most important prerequisite for the industry and the transport sector to be able to carry out their very crucial part of the climate work.

By 2045, Sweden's electricity demand will more than double. To meet this, new fossil-free and predictable electricity production will be needed.

Mr. Speaker! For far too long, climate work has been focused on projects that look good or feel good for the moment. This has led to the budget increasing, but the effect on the climate has stalled. This is what we want to reverse. We choose a different path.

Climate work must be seen as legitimate, and we therefore invest in that which makes the greatest difference. It is about a functioning electricity supply that can meet the electricity needs of the future. It is about an expanded charging infrastructure so that the electric car can truly be an option in the entire country. It is also about our international initiatives and about promoting the export of climate-friendly products and technology.

Mr. Speaker! There is much left to do, and I have only managed to mention a few parts. This budget is a first step in a direction that will mean we invest in what does the most good and move away from populism. For some, it will feel uncomfortable, and many strong voices have already been raised. But the most important thing is that we lay the foundation for a policy that reaches the climate goals.

I would like to conclude by wishing the Speaker, the Swedish Parliament Administration, and the Committee on Environment and Agriculture a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I apologize for exceeding my speaking time.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for a good speech! But one can still question when the Moderaterna say that they stand behind the climate goals but nevertheless present a budget that increases emissions. It is a bit like an 800-meter runner who lopes through the first lap and then tries to max out the second lap. It is not quite a winning policy.

I would like to ask approximately the same question as I asked the Sweden Democrats. In Dagens Nyheter, we could read this week that if Sweden goes down to the EU's minimum level regarding the reduction obligation, that is, the proportion of biofuels that are mixed in when we refuel, the emissions would increase by approximately 27 million tons of carbon dioxide.

There are four ways to compensate for this:

reduced logging of forest

to use saved emission allowances or to borrow for next year's emission budget

to swap emission allowances between ESR and ETS

to buy emission space from other countries.

It was the Moderates' Jessica Polfjärd, a former parliamentary colleague, who negotiated on behalf of the European Parliament.

My question to the Moderates is which of these four ways you intend to work for if you now proceed with the proposal to lower the reduction obligation to the EU's minimum level. Which of the four ways is it that will make us meet the climate goals that we have committed to through the EU and which we also have our own decisions on here in Sweden's Riksdag?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! We believe that all policy must be based on the current situation. Since the question has already been posed to my colleague from Sverigedemokraterna, I will answer it in a similar manner.

We are currently seeing how Swedish households and companies are incredibly pressured in very many ways. It is also there that the politics must have its starting point. What are we doing to facilitate things for Swedish households and companies?

We must have a realism in politics that sees that it is truly children who are freezing in Sweden today and that it is pensioners who are spending their entire pension on the electricity bill. It is incredibly difficult in very many places. This is what we must start from.

As my colleague previously mentioned, Sweden alone put forward the highest demands in the EU. It was an unsustainable level that one set itself on. It was irresponsible, and it has come at the expense of the Swedes' wallets.

We will proceed with this proposal, because this is what we see as being needed right now. We need to follow a more long-term sustainable path. The demand for biofuels is increasing very greatly throughout the EU. We see that. There is a gold mine for biofuels. Why must we in Sweden always be the best in class and set the highest requirements for ourselves? This is what we want to move away from. We want to move towards a policy that actually sees people's everyday lives and facilitates things there as well.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I truly share the picture of the crisis we are in now. The Member says that it is cold and that electricity is expensive. This is certainly noticed by me, who come from Norrland, where the electricity support is not paid out. This will be a tough winter in wool underwear, as the Minister for Energy expressed it.

Our budget is also about electricity support for everyone. That is a difference from the government's. It is about increased child allowance now that we know it will be tough this winter. It is about a tank discount, so that those in rural areas, where one must have a car, can afford to drive. It is about a major investment in welfare.

But this was not an answer to my question. I truly agree with the problems we have, and we also have the solutions to them. But my question was which of the four models the Moderaterna intend to use so that we can achieve the goals. Is it about reducing the logging of the forest, using saved emission rights, swapping emission rights, or buying emission rights from other countries, which will be very expensive? Or is it about Sweden taking its responsibility and not handing this over to other countries?

I can tell Helena Storckenfeldt that for me, it is about wanting to see Swedish jobs in this country and not having them move abroad.

It is about new green Swedish jobs and new Swedish investments in our country, which we know is export-dependent and has technical expertise. That is how we have always moved Sweden forward.

My question is still: In what way do Helena Storckenfeldt and the Moderaterna intend to compensate for the reduction of the reduction obligation?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! We focus on what provides the greatest effect. What we have seen with the reduction obligation is that it has been at a very unsustainable level. It would not even have been able to run its full course.

It is important to include a perspective. Climate policy must be perceived as legitimate. If the policy heads in one direction while the residents are shouting in another, we will not get anywhere.

It is incredibly important that we have that perspective when we discuss these issues. Everyone must be included. It is the only way we will reach the goals.

It is very good that Member Sätherberg highlights the Swedish companies and green jobs. We also think that they should stay here in Sweden.

The Prime Minister also just stood here and said it. It is incredibly important that we favor our Swedish companies and ensure that those jobs remain and are developed.

It is about us developing new innovations here in Sweden. So we believe that we can make a very great climate benefit in the whole world.

Of course, Sweden should take its responsibility. But it is important to lift it to a higher perspective. What can our technology and our innovations contribute on an international level? That is what I look forward to working with in the future.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Helena Storckenfeldt!

Just the other day, the report followed the summit in Montreal regarding 30 percent protected nature. If I am not mistaken, the member was there on site. It will be interesting to get to see the report from there a bit later, I guess.

We know that biodiversity and climate change are strongly linked. On the news this morning, there was a sad news item about the drought on the Horn of Africa. There, life-sustaining efforts are now underway to save an entire generation of elephants. Climate and diversity are very strongly interconnected.

What I am wondering about is how the government and your party, which leads the government, view climate change. There has been some criticism of the government. It is said that it does not seem to take the climate issue seriously.

We heard the former Finance Minister's nonchalant attitude towards the climate goals. I have not seen many concrete proposals for measures. You yourself mentioned that the climate bonus is gone, or is to be removed.

I am actually asking the same question as I asked the opening speaker here today. How do the Moderates and the member view climate change? What do you believe we should take for measures here in Sweden to address them?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for a very important question!

I have long been passionate about environmental and climate policy, and particularly the climate part. I am half-American. In my small hometown in Michigan, there wasn't always any environmental or climate thinking at all. It was probably there that my political engagement was awakened.

We obviously stand behind the high climate goals, just as I mentioned in the speech. We see that it is human activity, the burning of fossil fuels, that is increasing the average temperature. That is what is causing the problems we see.

It causes extreme weather, the ice melts and the coral reefs bleach. There are incredibly many parts in the world that the climate affects. Just as the member mentioned, biodiversity is also connected to this. There, we have, among other things, the rewetting of wetlands as one of our proposals. There is a whole range of other proposals.

As I mentioned, it is incredibly important that we look at what we are doing on the international level? What are we doing at the EU level? How can we work to get more countries on board?

We also want to increase the planned electricity production. Without electricity, there will be no green transition. They are incredibly linked. We will need all types of power sources. We naturally think that nuclear power is incredibly important, but we include all types of power.

Charging infrastructure is needed so that one can choose the electric car instead of a regular fuel-thirsty car. It is about carbon capture and storage. There are a huge number of proposals. I look forward to speaking more about it in the next reply.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer!

You mention the international agreements. I agree with that completely. The emissions do not stay within our borders.

You also mention biodiversity, wetlands and nuclear power. I agree with that as well. However, I think we need renewable energy and not just fossil-free.

It is about the transports we have. Emissions come from everywhere. They come from transport, waste management, industry, work machines and land use.

We need to get the emissions right here in our country right now and not just through international agreements. We must sweep clean in front of our own door before we look up, or at least do it in parallel.

In your speech, I thought you pitted the wallet against the environment. One should take the households' economy into account. We naturally shall. But I believe that it is possible to combine them.

The business community has understood that Sweden's most important global task is to lead the way. We can collectively stop emissions and climate change by transitioning and reaching our own climate goals and, furthermore, combining reduced emissions with increased prosperity.

What concrete proposals do the Moderates and the government intend for us to introduce here in Sweden? What national measures do you believe we should introduce to reduce Swedish climate emissions already today?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thought the Prime Minister came up with a great deal of wisdom today. I shall quote him again: The best must not become the good's enemy. That is a very wise saying. It is a bit of what I am trying to carry with me.

The Chairman mentioned that I pitted the wallet against the environment. I completely agree that they must go hand in hand. That was exactly what I tried to convey in my speech and in the replies here.

If we do not get people on board, all these proposals will not help. We must ensure that the business community is involved and that people in their everyday lives find it workable and feel that they are part of the work to reach the environmental and climate goals.

I absolutely believe that we have a very important task to be the country that leads the way. But it is exactly as I mentioned in my speech: If we are to be a pioneering country for real, it matters that we have countries that want to follow.

If we show an example where we set very high demands on ourselves, making it harder for our companies and making it harder for our households, which country will then want to follow that example?

That is why we choose another path where we ensure that we safeguard Swedish competitiveness and ensure that we can do so in a much more long-term way.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Storckenfeldt for her speech and replies with answers.

You said that you have presented a restrictive budget for future costs. That stuck with me. Everyone who engages in climate and environmental policy says that what we do now, we will profit from in the future. The efforts we make in the climate and environmental fields today are therefore cheaper than if we make them tomorrow.

There is a climate report in the government's budget regarding the climate policy framework and Sweden's climate goals. It is a rather gloomy reading. We have been on the right track, but with the new policy that the new government, with the coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna, has presented, we will not reach our climate goals.

Member of Parliament Storckenfeldt said that Sweden only accounts for 0.2 percent of the emissions. That is true, but we are quite a bit less than 0.2 percent of the world's population. If you look at emissions per capita, the Swedes emit far more than the average. We are in the top 20. If every person in the world were to emit as much as we do in Sweden, it would take four globes. If we add our consumption emissions to that, i.e., that which we purchase from other countries, it becomes even higher - 8 tons per year. If we are to reach the climate goals and the Paris Agreement, we must get down to 1 ton per year.

I therefore wonder if the member thinks that Swedes should be allowed to emit more than others, or if we should take our global responsibility and reduce every Swede's emissions as well?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

When I was little, my mother told me that money doesn't grow on trees. But I can state that Miljöpartiet, with its budget, has not taken that course. In Miljöpartiet's world, things do not seem to cost anything, and one presents a budget that fuels inflation in a very irresponsible way.

Yes, this budget is restrictive. But we choose to invest in what makes the biggest difference both long-term and here and now.

That we would benefit from the investments we make today and not tomorrow does not happen if no one follows suit. Again, I truly believe that Sweden has an opportunity to be an example in the world and lead the way. But that does not apply if no one follows suit.

The Prime Minister says that we were on the right track. But we were not at all. We were not at all on track to reach the climate goals with the previous government.

I believe it is a matter of holding two thoughts in mind at the same time when it comes to Sweden's environmental and climate policy. We shall continue to be ambitious. It is incredibly important. But it is also important that we look at people's everyday lives. What does reality look like for people today? That is what our budget is based on.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I notice that I am not receiving answers to my questions: Are Swedes allowed to emit more than others? Should we have a larger carbon footprint per capita than others?

The Leader also says that we were not heading in the right direction. We did not have all the policies in place, but we were heading in the right direction. The curves were going down, and we would reach the 2030 goal.

But when the new government reduces the reduction obligation, as they have announced they will do, and does other things, the curves will turn upwards again. We will get increased car traffic and increased emissions from fossil fuels.

We have an expansive budget - yes. But we also do what the Fiscal Policy Council and others say can be done - borrow for things that we need to do for the future. Now is the time for it. We have a low national debt, and we are a wealthy country, so we can do it.

There are many countries that testify that they have moved climate policy forward thanks to Sweden. Many Swedish representatives have held leading positions at the various climate summits over the years. And it is thanks to Sweden, together with the EU of course. But we have led and been an example.

Ahead of the upcoming EU presidency, I am instead receiving questions from colleagues across Europe. What has happened to Sweden? Will you be able to manage this? There is a lot of important legislation that needs to be passed.

The image of Sweden has thus already changed, and you have succeeded well in doing that in just a couple of months. I hope that you show that we are wrong.

Back to my questions: Should Swedes be allowed to emit more than others? Should we reduce our emissions so that all people on this earth emit the same amount? Or does it not matter what Sweden does because it is such a small country? But per person, it becomes large emissions.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the repeated questions.

Part of this is also that our exports are not counted. There, I believe we can do more. But we can also look at more accurate calculations if we start looking at what Sweden contributes to the world. It will become very interesting when our exports start being counted in the figures.

It is not about shifting the responsibility away, but it is about being a leading country that other countries actually dare to follow. Right now, it is not an economic situation for an expansive budget. I do not quite know how Miljöpartiet can arrive at that in their reasoning.

Again: Money does not actually grow on trees, even if it would be interesting for biodiversity.

Car ownership will increase. But with our budget, it will hopefully be with electric cars since we are going to expand the charging infrastructure. It has not been done in that way previously. We want it to be a comprehensive network across the entire country, so that people actually dare to choose the electric car over other alternatives and that it becomes a real alternative. But it should not happen through a climate bonus that only meant that people increased their ownership of cars and did not switch their car to an electric car. We want it to be a real alternative in the whole country. Our policy focuses on the long-term solutions. That is also what has the greatest effect on the climate. It is simply what gives the most bang for the buck.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats are presenting our own budget alternative, and it should be seen as a whole. Therefore, we abstain from taking a position and instead have a specific statement within the expenditure area.

Madam Speaker! Climate is the defining issue of our time. The Earth is getting hotter. The seas are rising, and the ice is melting. Droughts, floods, fires, and other consequences of a changed climate are already hitting hard against people's opportunities for a good life.

To overcome the climate crisis, it is required that we tackle the challenges and create good conditions in both the short and long term together and that the climate transition happens fairly. For us Social Democrats, the class perspective is always present in the design of climate policy.

That is why we Social Democrats, at the change of power in 2014, gathered the business community, research, politics and other stakeholders in an innovation council under the leadership of the Prime Minister.

Within the framework of Fossilfritt Sverige, 22 different industries have developed action plans to show how they specifically can strengthen their competitiveness by becoming fossil-free or climate-neutral.

After the former Moderate Prime Minister said that the industry was basically gone, we did exactly the opposite. We made investments in industrial projects such as biofuels, plastic refineries, hydrogen production, recycling plants and battery production and started the work with faster permit processes.

We invested in Klimatklivet, Industriklivet, bio-CCS, biogas support, wetland support, the environmental car bonus, charging stations and the blending of renewable fuels when we refuel. We invested in the railway and also in night trains home to Jämtland and much more. That is how we create the jobs of the future.

The green industrial revolution that started in northern Sweden is now spreading across the entire country. That is how we reduce our vulnerability and our unhealthy dependence on fossil inputs. That was how we were supposed to reach the climate goals by 2030.

Now we have the right-conservative government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget which increases emissions. It is said, among other things, that the reduction obligation, which is the biofuel that is mixed in when we refuel, shall be lowered to the EU's lowest level on January 1, 2024.

It may result in large-scale planned and announced investments in Swedish biofuels not being completed. Should Sweden be dependent on rogue states for fuel supply? Or should we have a policy that strengthens Sweden's preparedness and contributes to more Swedish in the tank?

It also means that the commitments that the Swedish government has negotiated with the EU can no longer rely on the reduction obligation but must instead ensure they meet Sweden's conditions in other ways. Will it mean a significantly reduced harvesting of the Swedish forest?

In recent days, we have seen statements that other countries should take responsibility and that we can buy emission rights. This could cost all of Sweden's taxpayers a very large amount of money, Madam Speaker.

What the right-conservative government with the Sweden Democrats wants with the environmental and climate policy has been difficult to get any clarity on at all, other than that, firstly, we are to meet the climate goals and, secondly, we are taking and increasing emissions.

It just doesn't add up, especially in light of the fact that the government's coalition partner, Sverigedemokraterna, is opening up to scrapping the national climate goals. It is "just text on a piece of paper." The Moderate Finance Minister has commented on the government's ambition to reach the climate goals like this: "If we don't do it, we don't do it." A Liberal Member of Parliament writes: I would have liked to see Sweden reach the climate goals by 2030. But it is actually like believing in Santa Claus. And the Christian Democrats' Energy Minister either poses with a vacuum cleaner or talks about how we are now going to have to put on wool underwear. That is what we who live in central and northern Sweden will need, because the government refuses to give us electricity support.

Madam Speaker! The government says it protects the environment and stands behind set climate goals. But the government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget proposals do not show that at all. The budget is cut from just over 23 billion in 2022 to about 10 billion for 2025, which would mean a reduction of 60 percent compared to today's level.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a fantastic and unique nature that is of great importance for both biodiversity and people's health and jobs. The forest is also Sweden's green gold, where jobs are created and today's and tomorrow's fossil-free products and renewable biofuels are manufactured.

We Social Democrats want all the values that the forest gives us, for example outdoor life, hunting, fishing, reindeer husbandry, biodiversity, and the tourism industry, to be enjoyed by all citizens. It is regrettable that the right-conservative government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is making a comprehensive reduction of the funding for the protection of valuable nature. It has created over 2,000 jobs in Sweden's rural areas. The reduced funding also risks having serious consequences for biodiversity, outdoor life, the cultural environment, the tourism industry, and people's opportunities to spend time in nature.

Madam Speaker! The right-conservative government stated in the government statement that they wanted to invest in specific measures to counteract the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Despite this, the same government chooses to reduce the appropriation for measures for the marine and water environment by 355 million kronor in 2023. That is approximately 20 percent.

In the budget, the government also writes that it is particularly urgent to take further measures against eutrophication, to increase the pace of implementation, and that the most valuable sea areas should be protected as marine reserves. How these ambitions align with the funding cuts is not clear. Here too, the government owes the Swedish people an answer.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats are investing a total of 640 million kronor more than the government in expenditure area 20. Our investment in climate premiums will accelerate the introduction of climate-smart technology on the market and contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from heavy transport and work machinery.

The government's proposal to reduce the levels in the appropriations concerning measures and protection for valuable nature is not good for the climate, the countryside, or the forest owners. We Social Democrats will therefore invest 540 million kronor more in these areas, including in environmental monitoring.

Sweden has a well-developed system for monitoring the country's environment. The length of the Swedish measurement series is in many cases unique in the world. By comparing current situation descriptions with previous measurements, changes in the environment can be detected. In this way, one can see whether implemented measures have the desired effect or not. We think it is important that this continues.

We are further investing funds that are to be used for measures for the management and administration of protected nature, conservation and restoration of biodiversity, measures for outdoor life and, not least, compensation to those forest owners who have been denied logging permits.

Madam Speaker! We live in a restless time. Climate change is here and now and hits hard against people's opportunities for a good life. Unfortunately, the government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget for 2023 does not meet the situation Sweden faces. The budget bill is, as we know, a string of broken promises. It is not enough. A responsible policy is required that puts welfare, the climate, and the fight against social problems first and that equips Sweden and the Swedish people to meet tough economic times.

We Social Democrats want to modernize and transition to a fossil-free Sweden. That is how we can meet the climate challenges, safeguard our welfare, and ensure that the jobs of the future do not disappear to other countries.

Madam Speaker! If there are more here in the chamber who want that, one can choose to vote on the Social Democrats' budget motion.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Malin Larsson (both S) concurred.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Anna-Caren Sätherberg presents the Social Democrats' environmental budget. I can state that the differences compared to ours are not enormous. It is a difference of a few percent.

For the Sweden Democrats, environmental issues, as I outlined in my speech, are highly valued. It is particularly important that we address the environmental problems for which we ourselves bear direct responsibility in our country and which we can very easily rectify.

Remediation of contaminated areas has been a priority area for the Sweden Democrats. The idea is that the polluter should pay. But unfortunately, the principal is not always still present. In that case, the state has a responsibility. It is a laborious task. It will take a long time, and even longer will it take to restore the thousands of areas if one, as the Social Democrats want to do, drastically cuts the support.

My question to Anna-Caren Sätherberg is therefore: Why do the Social Democrats want to slaughter the appropriation for the remediation of contaminated areas?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I would not call it slaughtering. I see that the government chooses to add more money there. After having heard the debate here in the chamber earlier, I can imagine that the member's party has pushed that issue and that it is important to you.

It is as the member says; it is the polluter who pays. That is why we have not seen until now that all the money from the government's previous investments in the area has been spent. We have chosen to make other priorities in this case, for example on what I mentioned. It is more important. We can return to this.

The Speaker also said in a previous exchange of remarks that we must not fuel the increased inflation. Here, it is important that the state helps. But it is naturally also important that the polluter pays.

If the member believes that these are the only investments the Social Democrats have in the area, I can say that we see the budget as a whole. There are other investments, for example, free public transport for young people, energy efficiency support for multi-family dwellings, and reprioritization in the rot-support, also for energy efficiency.

In other parts of the budget that lies here today in this area, there are things that were in initiatives from the former Social Democratic and Green Party government and then also from the Social Democratic government. These are initiatives that were not welcomed by all parties in this chamber, such as on industrial steps, climate steps, and other things.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Anna-Caren Sätherberg speaks about priorities. An important priority for the Social Democrats is that fuel prices must go up and that in this way, inflation needs to be further fueled.

In the 2014 election campaign, the then finance minister candidate and later Prime Minister, Magdalena Andersson, declared that taxes on gasoline would not be raised. It was already far too expensive to refuel, it was said. But this promise was worth nothing. Since then, we have had increased taxes. We have had new policy instruments that have increased fuel prices significantly.

In the Social Democratic budget, they continue on this path. Fuel prices are to go up. They want to remove the tax cut that the Sverigedemokraterna pushed through. In this way, the price for gasoline and diesel would increase by 1 krona per liter. S advocates for a cash subsidy. It is somewhat unclear how they have calculated it. The Riksdag's investigation service has no report showing what that model looks like. But it stands clearly, judging by everything, that the money would be eaten up at the pump due to the price increase, as a result of the tax increase. And the administrative costs are reasonably high.

General environmental and nature conservation

If a year ago Sverigedemokraterna and the other coalition parties would have lowered the reduction obligation, the Socialdemokraterna are speaking warmly about this steering measure. The plan is for the reduction for diesel to go up to 75 percent. It is a shock increase.

Then the question is: How high do the Social Democrats actually want the price of diesel to be? This year we have had a price variation of between approximately 23 and 28 kronor. But with a 75 percent reduction, we may perhaps expect a bit over 40 kronor going forward. Is that reasonable? Why do the Social Democrats want to prioritize in this way?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! This is the climate and environmental policy debate that we have in this chamber, and the member chooses to talk about how high the fuel prices should be – go ahead!

When I knocked on doors during the election campaign, I heard this clearly: Yes, but the Sweden Democrats are promising us 10 kronor. They didn't think they would have to wait so long for it. I believe that in this way, they received very many votes in the countryside, where there are long distances.

We are introducing a fuel discount in our budget specifically for those with long distances. In that case, it is not about 14 öre at the pump, but rather it is about a reduction of about 2 kronor. It is a bit more, and it is a bit more important in today's situation when we know how households are struggling with the economy.

If the member wonders what the Social Democrats prioritize, I can say that it is, of course, an electricity support that exists throughout all of Sweden. Why should 60 percent of Sweden's area be discriminated against by the government and the Sweden Democrats?

I wonder what else we prioritize? We know how households are doing right now. In that case, we prioritize child allowance for families with children and much more money for welfare, so that the nursing assistants in welfare do not have fewer colleagues. We must be able to maintain this. These are the Social Democratic priorities that we make. And we prioritize – this is a climate and environment debate – that we must meet the climate goals and not increase emissions.

(Applause)

(cont. § 19)

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