(cont. from § 11) Overall environmental issues (cont. MJU13)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The member reacted to the announcement that came from the government and the Sweden Democrats recently regarding the reduction obligation.

Overall environmental issues

The Social Democratic-led government introduced the reduction obligation a number of years ago. Then there was a small pause. But next year, the reduction obligation will be shock-increased to 40 percent.

Thanks to the government parties and the Sweden Democrats, we now see a reduction to 6 percent. It is very important now with the inflation crisis we are in. It affects households and companies. It particularly affects our agriculture, which produces our food, and the transport in our country that is needed for the food to be taken to the stores, and it affects households when they are going to shop and when they are going to the grocery store.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats complain about the news that we are to see a reduction in fuel prices, transport costs, and the costs for our agriculture. The Social Democrats do not like this.

What I am trying to understand is: What do the Social Democrats want? At what level of the reduction obligation do they want it? Did they think that the legislation that they introduced while in government was good, that it should continue to roll on, and that we would see a shock increase of the reduction obligation every year moving forward?

We should have reached 40 percent by January 1. Then we should have moved towards 45, 50 and upwards. My question to the member is simply: What do the Social Democrats want regarding the reduction obligation?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Kinnunen, for the question!

I believe we all agree that electrification of the transport sector is the way forward. That is how we will manage the transition to 2045.

By 2030, however, it is the case that even if all new car sales in Sweden were electric cars starting from today, more than half of the vehicle fleet will still have internal combustion engines.

To meet the transport goal of reducing emissions from the transport sector, we need to manage the emissions from internal combustion engines. There, the reduction obligation was the answer that virtually everyone except the Sweden Democrats stood behind when we introduced it.

Regarding the announcement that has now been made, there are a number of different arguments for why this is being done. The industry is highly skeptical as to whether it will achieve the economic effects.

One can also imagine that with the resources available, one could have made quite large social interventions to direct support to those who need it. If we are to be honest, there are not particularly many families with children where diesel cars are driven.

The question is rather: How has the government and the Sweden Democrats intended to meet the transport goal for 2030? How are you going to reduce the emissions?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the answer!

I did not receive a clear answer. Should I interpret this as that Joakim Järrebring and the Social Democrats think that the current reduction obligation law, which means that the reduction obligation for diesel is to be raised to 40 percent at the turn of the year, is good and stands? In that case, I would like to see a clarification.

Mr. Speaker! It is true that not all households have a diesel car. But all households need to eat food. All households need to find groceries in their grocery store. Everything is connected.

The reduction obligation did not pull in any tax revenues. We received no tax revenues through the reduction obligation that we can distribute to different households. It will also not cost significant amounts of tax funds to lower the reduction obligation. That is the wonderful thing about this reform. We can lower the reduction obligation and bring down costs in society during the inflation crisis that we are in.

Mr. Speaker! Joakim Järrebring mentions the transport goal and electrification. The Sweden Democrats fully share the view that it is electrification that is the key here. We need to get even more charging points out. If one is to travel by car in Sweden, one does not want to wait an hour at a charging station when traveling through the country.

When it comes to electrification, the efforts must be accelerated. It is fortunate that we have had a change of government so that that work can truly get underway in earnest.

Regarding the 2035 target for the transport sector, I believe that target can serve as an important checkpoint in the work of transitioning to electrification of the transport sector. I am convinced that we will get there.

The reduction obligation was not the solution. It was an expensive, inefficient and short-sighted method to get there perhaps a few years faster.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Kinnunen, for the continued questions! It is clear that we still have a tough cost situation in Sweden, even though we see signs of improvement. Inflation is easing, and electricity prices have fallen significantly.

The reduction of the reduction obligation is not happening here and now, but it will only come into force after the turn of the year. Imagine if the government had had some real care for all of Sweden's families with children and, instead of lowering the tax for the richest by 13 billion, had invested in families with children and in those who are actually having a really tough time right now!

It would have been a policy to help the most vulnerable in Sweden instead of these promises of a reduction obligation, which even the industry itself does not believe will lead to lower diesel prices.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the speech! It was so good that I actually hadn't intended to request a reply. But then Joakim Järrebring started to fence a little bit at the end, and then I thought that it should at least be correct in the minutes!

So it is about wind power, and I want to bring to the record that my government has approved as much offshore wind power in 120 days as the red-green government did in eight years. As recently as last week, an additional investigation was also commissioned to streamline the establishment of offshore wind power.

About a year ago, we voted down a proposition here in the chamber that came from the Social Democrats regarding incentives for wind power. There was a reason it was voted down: we simply did not like the content. The incentives missed the mark.

Have the Social Democrats and Joakim Järrebring reviewed this and thought about which incentives could actually help? The incentives that were included in the bill were directed more towards groups than towards the individuals who were truly affected. If one is to get through, it is important that the incentives hit the mark – where they are needed.

Have the Social Democrats reconsidered this issue so that we can find the right paths forward there as well?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the questions! I will start with the wind power. I am genuinely pleased that the Christian Democrats have changed the rhetoric from the election campaign, where people were frightened with large steel forests and so on.

Instead, you now realize that wind power is the only solution in the short and medium term to secure the investments that are so important if we are to create the jobs of the future and the growth of the future and thus also be able to finance a good welfare in Sweden moving forward. So thanks for that!

The proposition that the Chamber voted down was not about the incentives. The criticism from the opposition at that time was precisely that the issue of incentives had not been resolved. The proposition was about the municipalities providing early notification in the planning process.

We did, however, appoint an incentive investigation; that is quite correct. The incoming government gave an additional assignment, or rather a modified assignment, to the investigation. They then removed the possibility for the municipalities to receive any form of financial incentive. Even the investigator pointed out that this was a deficiency, because one does not get all the way there with creating the right incentives.

I am more interested in hearing whether the government parties have taken to heart the investigator's request that that question also needs to be resolved. Otherwise, we view the proposals from the incentive inquiry positively.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We have consistently stood behind the fact that we need all the fossil-free energy we can get hold of - precisely in order to manage the transition.

Furthermore, we are also clear on this: Wind power, yes – but in the right place. It is still very intrusive in people's environment. And as we said in the debate yesterday, and as I had intended to bring up in my speech but did not have time for, it is about acceptance. It is extremely important.

When the bill was discussed last year, government representatives were out in the media, among other things, and pointed out that as a bandage on the wounds, one might perhaps be able to give a municipality a swimming hall because one is establishing a wind farm. But if a wind farm were to be established in my backyard, I feel quite certain that I would not have received any swimming hall anywhere near me. It would have ended up in the central town, five and a half miles away. It would therefore not have helped me at all.

It is important to meet those who are affected, those who, for example, have their property value reduced and those who cannot build due to the regulations that accompany the wind farm. It is there that the incentives must first be established in order to be able to move forward.

We still think that the municipal veto is very important, because as said: Acceptance is A and O if we are to move forward. When it comes to the municipal veto, it would be interesting to know how it is with this, because we know that social democratically governed municipalities have used it and said no. How do the Social Democrats now, when they are no longer bound in government, stand on the question of municipal veto?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! It is quite simply this: To give an early notification in the planning process is not to give up the municipal veto. It only requires that the municipalities take a position at an early stage so that one avoids spending a lot of time and money unnecessarily on developing a wind power project only to, at a late stage, receive a negative notification.

It is extremely uneconomical, and it wastes societal resources. Therefore, an early notification in the planning processes from the municipalities' side would be good in many different ways.

We are in complete agreement regarding the incentives. It is obviously important that there is acceptance for all forms of power types for those who are affected and who are neighbors.

There is a reason why I raised this in my speech. The Christian Democrats – and I believe also both the Moderates and the Liberals – are not just talking about nuclear power now, but actually also about the importance of wind power. I thought I heard it from all representatives for the government parties. But the coalition party that the government is completely dependent on to be able to push through any kind of policy in this chamber, the Sweden Democrats, has announced that they will stop every single wind power project they can.

That is why it was important for me to emphasize the need for everyone to realize that it is Swedish jobs, Swedish growth, and Sweden's future financing of the welfare state that is at stake if we do not produce the electricity production that we need in the near term.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Now we stand here to debate again. This time it concerns overall environmental issues. It is broad, one can state.

I intended to keep it quite brief and focus mostly on the peat issue. It is perhaps hardly surprising for the assembly here, given that it has a fairly strong connection to the government's initiatives on the rewetting of wetlands.

Wetlands—that is, those that have not been drained—store greenhouse gases. Drained wetlands, on the other hand, often release them. Since the mid-1800s, over 2 million hectares of wetland have been drained in Sweden. The effort that is now being made on rewetting is therefore of great benefit.

But now it is not the rewetting that I shall spend my time on here at the rostrum, but I intended to bring up the peat extraction. Peat extraction has a large climate impact. We in the Liberals believe that it needs to be reduced in order to be phased out in the long run. Peat in drained lands decomposes slowly and releases carbon dioxide. When the peat is extracted to be burned, which is indeed not so common anymore, or when it becomes cultivation soil or is used in other ways, the emissions are accelerated.

Today, as has been said, very little peat is used for electricity and heating, and that is good. Instead, however, the production of cultivation soil has increased, which means that the soil you buy and carry home to the garden has a fairly large climate impact. This needs to be realized by garden enthusiasts like myself. It is not automatically good for the area's bees, birds, and wildlife if the garden is full of flowers if you plant them in soil that contains a lot of peat.

Peat is for many an unknown climate culprit. Large parts of Sweden's area consist of peatland, and large areas of peatland have historically been drained, as I mentioned, to make room for agriculture. Much of that land is covered today by forest. It was certainly the right decision then. It was certainly necessary for Sweden's development. Now, however, we stand in a different situation.

Peat consists, as is well known, of plant parts that have accumulated over thousands of years and which have not been able to decay in the wet ground. When it is drained, the water disappears and the peat comes into contact with oxygen, starting a decomposition that releases large amounts of carbon dioxide. This is very problematic, as climate gas emissions in the coming decades must be reduced very significantly.

In the report we are debating today, a motion is addressed where it is stated that it has become more difficult to extract peat in recent years following a legislative change - 2017, I believe it was - and that this development needs to be reversed. The purpose of the motion is therefore to make it easier to obtain permits to extract peat. This is rejected by the committee majority, which I think is good. If it were to be implemented, if it were to become easier to extract peat, it would have a major impact on the climate.

Madam Speaker! Peat extraction needs, just as I said earlier, to be significantly reduced and eventually phased out. To push for increased peat extraction is, in my opinion, completely the wrong way to go.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the speech!

I return to the question of shortening the process for permit assessments. I still think I have received a number of answers from previous speakers from the coalition parties, but specifically regarding the resources for the county administrative boards, I still lack an answer. Does Elin Nilsson share my and the Social Democrats' view that if we are to be able to speed up the permit processes in the near term, before we have had changed legislation in place, it is a matter of ensuring that there are the right resources at the authorities that are to carry out the assessments? And how does that, in that case, square with the fact that in a government position, the funding to the county administrative boards is being reduced both in the autumn budget and in the year-end budget? Does Elin Nilsson not share my view that this is quite counterproductive if the goal is to achieve faster permit processes?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Member Järrebring!

I certainly share the view that it is important to work for shorter, more efficient, and always legally secure permit processes. It is a problem that is often raised by interest organizations, by companies, and by those who want to obtain permits. I believe that we are all contacted regarding this and that we also share the view that it needs to happen.

When it comes to resources, we have presented a responsible budget based on the current situation. It is a tight budget based on high inflation, recession, and high electricity prices. We take responsibility for Sweden by presenting a budget that is restrictive. This means that all agencies may not always receive the same funds as they have received previously. Then one has to consider how to manage that. An agency also cannot count on always receiving the same funds.

Authorities can, however, be steered in ways other than just through financial means. For the government and for us in the government base, it is important that the permit processes are shortened, and then we can be clear towards the county administrative boards in other ways.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson for the answer!

I still dare to say that it is a political prioritization that lies behind this. It is difficult to say that the competent officials who are to handle the permit processes can do more when resources are reduced for just them. When 800 million kronor per year disappears for Västra Götaland, i.e., 16 positions, it becomes difficult to reconcile the rhetoric. It is important to shorten the permit processes, but not as important as lowering the tax for the very richest.

Even though we agree that a tight policy regarding the economic conditions is currently needed to push back inflation, there is still a political prioritization behind the fact that you, in a government position, choose to lower taxes for the very richest before resources for the families with children and before resources to shorten the permit processes.

Doesn't it sting a little in the conscience to claim that you stand up for high climate and environmental goals while your priorities regarding economic resources point in another direction?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! This autumn, we presented the second most ambitious environmental budget of all time. We have high environmental and climate ambitions, and we will have them throughout the entire mandate period.

When it comes to authorities, allocated funds, and processing times, it is not automatic that more money makes an authority work faster and more efficiently. I can share this, as someone who has worked at authorities for over ten years. It is often much other things that can also make it possible for authorities to shorten their processing times. There is also work to be done here that is not linked to money at all the county administrative boards in the country, because the processes need to become more efficient. I share that picture with the member.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for your speech on peat extraction and peat, which was very interesting to listen to. In this, we do differ very much in opinion.

The drainage in Sweden has occurred in a rather brutal way, even though it has served us well. 75 percent of all major wetlands below the mountain range are gone, 90 percent in the lowland landscape. Now a major effort is underway, which we also must undertake, to restore wetlands.

The quarrying causes major problems, as you said, but it is also one of the activities where one actually has a restoration requirement afterwards, which one cannot say about all other activities that nibble at the edges.

Elin Nilsson also said, Madam Speaker, that it might not benefit even the biodiversity in one's own garden in the way one thinks if one brings home soil with peat, because it has done poorly for the environment at the other end – that was how I perceived her. In that case, I cannot help but ask a question.

The government has allocated funds to restore wetlands. But those funds are not new, additional funds, but rather money taken from the allocation for valuable nature. It actually becomes the same thing: One creates wetlands with money that was actually on its way to becoming something else. The money is earmarked for valuable nature so that there is less for, for example, meadow management. We heard great protests from outside the country when it was now not going to be possible to manage their nature reserves and such.

How do Elin Nilsson and the Liberals view this? Is it, given the commitment here for the peatlands and wetlands, something that will be changed - so that there actually becomes more money so that instead of either/or, one can do both?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! We are very pleased with the investments being made in the restoration of wetlands. But we see that it would need to happen faster, more urgently. In that regard, the responsible authorities have work to do. One can feel some frustration that more is not being delivered. It depends somewhat on which authority one looks at, but here the authorities would need to do more.

When one sets a budget, one must always prioritize. But I share the view that if you protect the environment, it is also important to allocate money to manage it. We would like to see more money being allocated in the future.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Elin Nilsson for the answer. I see it, in any case, as a half-promise that the Liberals will fight for it. I hope that you succeed.

It does, however, clash a bit with how you are behaving now that you are in a government position, in particular when it comes to the budget and the priorities that are being made. The climate side has been up, but when it comes to biodiversity, it is quite empty.

Now we are getting new legislation from the EU that will help when it comes to biodiversity. It is said that what we have now is the baseline and that we are to increase the restoration of our lands. Elin Nilsson herself was on the point that we have changed the landscape and to some extent must recreate it.

How can the government then oppose that legislation and try to weaken it? The arguments Elin Nilsson presents here are about what we must do. The Swedish government is now diluting the system. Everything concerning regaining biological diversity or creating such in the forest and, according to the restoration law, all biological systems, we are trying to wiggle out of and consider to be bad. How is it that the government has that attitude? Does the member agree with it?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I am not entirely certain what the question was about. But it is of course important to restore land that has been damaged during the time humans have cultivated it.

Then one always has to make trade-offs when it comes to EU legislation and when negotiating new EU legislation. It needs to be adapted to the conditions that exist in Sweden. What it ends up as remains to be seen.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report Overall environmental issues. Despite a depressing name, it contains many important issues.

I thought I would begin by speaking about peat, just as Elin Nilsson from Liberalerna did. It then becomes inevitable to think of our now deceased former member Mats Nordberg. He worked intensively with those issues for many years and won much respect across the country for his commitment.

Madam Speaker! Due to the lack of brown coal mines and oil fields, peat has come into focus for an increasingly radicalized environmental movement, which in its illegal sabotage actions around our country today focuses on portraying peat as something of a terrible threat to global climate work. Nothing could be more incorrect.

The climate movement likes to refer to the IPCC and the research. But then one must remember that the IPCC does not classify peat as fossil, rather peat is classified as just peat. It is its own class.

One can also observe that the peat in Sweden is growing. It is therefore more than what is harvested.

Madam Speaker! The nature conservation policy that has been pursued during the recent parliamentary terms has not been good. For nature conservation to be able to exist, it must coexist with human activities. In Sweden, it has today become very difficult, sometimes impossible, to obtain permits for new peat extraction sites. It is a major problem that more people must dare to speak openly about, even if some interest groups in the city will become upset. In a few years, we could face a situation with a serious shortage of peat in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! There are some facts that are unavoidable. Peat was needed for both forest seedlings and vegetable cultivation. We all want the self-sufficiency rate to increase. But there are no alternatives that can fully replace peat. If the development continues, agriculture and forestry will be forced to rely on imports of raw materials with significantly worse environmental performance. The alternatives are not particularly good.

It might be about coconuts from Asia, which require an extreme amount of water to be washed. It likely has a significantly greater environmental impact, especially if one takes into account the extremely long transports, not to mention the costs for them.

It can be about products from the forest and paper industry. But these are things that we already use in various industrial processes. One also speaks of park and garden waste. But that is also something that is already used in cultivation. And one speaks of bio-compost. But that requires a lot of processing and cannot fully replace peat. It can be combined with peat, but it is no replacement.

Madam Speaker! Peat extraction is today carried out only on half a percent of Sweden's cultivated peatlands. On 99.5 percent, there is therefore no peat extraction. The proportion of greenhouse gas emissions caused by peat extraction is negligible in relation to the emissions from cultivated peatlands in general. But despite its smallness, peat extraction generates great benefit by contributing to the fact that we get Swedish food on the table and timber products out in the world.

Peat-based soil also contributes, through its good ability to bind moisture, to minimizing nutrient leakage and thereby to us reaching the environmental goals. When peat is harvested, new wetland is created, which almost always becomes extremely popular sites for birdlife, precisely because there are requirements for restoration.

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, a broad investigation must now be commissioned on how it is possible to increase Sweden's utilization of peat, as growing peat in the form of cultivation substrate and bedding material in animal husbandry as well as energy peat in combination with wood fuel in the best way. Furthermore, permit activities for peat extraction should be investigated with the aim of making it easier and simpler to obtain permits on suitable land across the country. The lessons from the Ukraine crisis regarding Swedish food security also need to be investigated in relation to the possibility of ensuring and increasing the use of peat as cultivation substrate.

From a security policy perspective, one should also look at the possibility of utilizing peat in our energy production as a safeguard during shortage situations, roughly as is done in Finland. We often use Finland as a good example. It is a country that stores important products in a good way, which we would like to emulate. They use peat in this way.

In light of this, I would like to take the opportunity to move for approval of reservation 23.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats also want to focus on the foundation of the environmental work, that is, the environmental goals system. It has been shown that the assessment of how environmental goals, including environmental quality goals, are achieved is often made based on unreasonable conditions. The goals become unattainable. It is counterproductive and will over time reduce the motivation of those concerned and undermine the confidence in the goals and the work with them.

We cannot, as today, have goals that authorities and a number of political parties consider unattainable, as the necessary measures conflict with other goals. The environmental goals and their follow-up must be assessed impartially and based on the need to simultaneously promote both economic development and the environment.

An obvious example of goals that are not achievable is that all species should be able to achieve good conservation status. All species in Sweden can never have this. Such goals must be reformulated. Species vary over time, and we will always have unusual species. I should not be misunderstood here. Species conservation work is important, but we cannot have unreasonable goals that cannot be achieved.

Madam Speaker! Finally, it is worth mentioning the licensing issues, which are found in the report. These are acute problems that the Sweden Democrats have done our best to highlight here in the chamber during the Social Democrats' eight years in power. Thanks to the Tidö Agreement, we have had a new government in place, with a government base that at this moment is working to shorten the licensing processes, increase predictability, reduce the risk for entrepreneurs, and so on. Eight years with left-wing rule have been eight lost years.

If we are to tackle stagnant growth and be able to enable a green transition, a new approach must be taken. The Social Democrats refer here in the chamber to the fact that two inquiries have been commissioned. We thus had a Social Democratic government in power for two terms that did not deliver a single relevant bill that solved the problem. They delivered two inquiries that have been completely condemned as insufficient by all industries and trade organizations.

Yes, significantly more needs to be done.

There are certain details in the investigations that are positive and should be implemented, but only the surface was scratched. Most of the work unfortunately remains. It will take some time to sort out the mess that has been created over the years, and it is precisely that opportunity we get now. With the Tidö Agreement, the opportunity is created to establish a functioning system. This issue is currently being prepared at the Government Offices, and I would be surprised if we do not soon receive word on how the government intends to proceed with the permit issues.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Martin Kinnunen, for the interesting speech and the hymn of praise to peat! I do not intend to dwell on that further, but I will continue the exchange we had by reason of my own speech regarding the lacking answers on how the Sweden Democrats and Martin Kinnunen view how Sweden should reach the transport goal for 2030 in light of the agreement that has now been made to lower the reduction obligation. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has been clear, and their assessment is that it is not possible to reach the transport goal for 2030 with such a significant reduction of the reduction obligation.

Connecting to this, I think it is interesting to listen to what the leader of the Sweden Democrats said when he was in 30 minuter. He was also asked questions on this theme and answered that it was simpler for the Sweden Democrats in the negotiations with the government parties regarding the reduction obligation. He said that the Sweden Democrats have greater room for maneuver because they were not involved in voting through the climate law. Does Martin Kinnunen share the approach that his party leader expressed in the interview in 30 minuter?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats were not part of the environmental goal preparation that produced what became the climate policy framework. We were never invited to it, so we never had the opportunity to express our views. That is the background as to why we also did not back the goals. By standing outside, we have been more free, and our perspective is about how we can contribute to solving the problem. The problem is the excessively large emissions of greenhouse gases in the world. This also means that we can consider better solutions even in Sweden. We can think that all referral bodies that opposed the sector goals were perhaps right. It might have been better to have only one goal. The sector-specific goals rather counteract the purpose.

The sector-specific goals led to the Social Democratic government submitting the proposal on the reduction obligation, which makes it extremely expensive to travel in Sweden and results in us having the world's highest diesel prices. We know that biofuels are not the key to electrifying passenger car transport. Instead, it is electrification that is the key, and research agrees with this. Biofuels are of significantly greater use in other sectors.

We will achieve electrification of the transport sector. We may not achieve it by 2035, but we will likely reach it a few years later and it will not be a catastrophe. It will happen in a significantly more efficient way. That is my opinion.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! Now, there will be a certain interpretation from my side, but I make my interpretation against the background that Martin Kinnunen, in an interview as a response to the Minister for Climate and Environment's thoughts on compensatory measures to reach the transport goal for 2030, said that it is nothing that the Sverigedemokraterna will agree to. In his statement during the interview, he referred to the fact that there is nothing in the Tidö Agreement regarding compensatory measures for the reduction of the reduction obligation.

In light of Jimmie Åkesson's statement for 30 minutes, the interview with Martin Kinnunen himself, and the answers I have received now, the question arises as to whether there is other legislation - for the Climate Act is indeed a law - that the Sweden Democrats do not consider themselves bound by, even though it has been decided in Sweden's Riksdag?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Regarding compensatory measures, these statements were about the fact that when we and the coalition partners negotiated the reduction obligation before the government took office, compensatory measures were not included. To introduce talk of compensatory measures after a negotiation has been completed is not reasonable. That was what we reacted to. I can state that the negotiation is now concluded for the second time, and there were no compensatory measures.

The Government and the Sweden Democrats will, of course, contribute to the task of delivering on Sweden's horrible commitment towards the European Union regarding the ESR criteria. The Government will report on how they are working with it further ahead.

One does not need to focus solely on measures in Sweden, as ESR provides the possibility for measures even in other countries. There is a flexibility in the LULUCF sector, the agricultural sector, and the forestry sector, but it is not one we are interested in using. Production needs to be increased as much as possible in those sectors. On the other hand, the flexibility regarding other countries is interesting to look at. It may be possible to run projects and conclude agreements with other countries and achieve these requirements in a significantly more efficient way.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I could not help but press the button when I heard two such diametrically opposed speeches, one from a representative of the government party Liberalerna and one from the coalition party Sverigedemokraterna, which are the basis for the government Sweden now has being able to gather a majority.

Regarding the peat issue, it was the world turned upside down regarding what you said. I wonder how the cooperation can work and who decides when government representatives talk about the disadvantages of peat and peat extraction and that it should be phased out, while Martin Kinnunen rather sings the praises of peat and sees it as the solution to very many of the future's challenges.

The first question from my side is simply whether the parties can cooperate and the second is who wins if this were to come up. Is there any cooperation at all between the government and the Sverigedemokraterna here?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is true; the Sweden Democrats do not think the same as the Liberals on this issue. One cannot agree on everything. We have a good cooperation, but when it comes to the peat issues, we obviously have somewhat different perspectives. It may be the liberal wing of this government that we Sweden Democrats have the greatest problems with regarding the peat issues.

My hope is that we will be able to convince even liberals that one needs to cultivate peat on a tiny fraction of Sweden's peatlands. For the most part, one should not cultivate peat on the lands, but it concerns a very small part. On 99.5 percent of these lands, there is no peat cultivation today, and I believe that risks will also be discovered here – just as in many other sectors of society in Sweden where we have pointed out risks.

Sweden is dependent on peat for production in the agricultural sector and in forestry. It is a very sustainable production in Sweden. We do not want a situation as in other European countries where large amounts of peat are imported from countries with significantly poorer environmental protection than Sweden has.

It is true that we do not agree on these issues, but I am convinced that we Sverigedemokrater will be able to convince more and more people of the reasonableness of maintaining a peat production that is environmentally sustainable in Sweden.

We have no cooperation today on the peat issue. We have cooperation on budget issues, regarding matters that may possibly concern authorities responsible for such things, and on licensing issues. But some formal cooperation regarding peat we unfortunately do not have yet.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! No, it was almost obvious that there is no cooperation here, given the statements we have heard. But that makes me and probably many in the Swedish people wonder how stable it is in the government and in the coalition parties, especially when it comes to our fateful issue: the climate and the environment. As we heard in a previous exchange of remarks, there have been differences of opinion; the Sverigedemokraterna, for example, have been out demanding that we remove the reduction obligation. Even when it comes to forestry and other matters, there are several examples of the government and the governing parties having a different perspective.

But who is it that decides in these matters? You say that there is no cooperation, but what happens if you disagree? I believe that there are many who would like to know that.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén again for the questions. When we disagree and have no cooperation, we in the Sweden Democrats present our proposals in the chamber, vote on them, and try to convince as many others as possible that they should also vote for them. That is also how we do with our reservation regarding peat.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to climate issues, I am positive about the possibilities for us four parties to be able to agree on a direction and a strategy for both targets as well as ECR-sectors and other climate measures. I do not think the substantive differences are very large. It may happen that different words are used and that different risks are emphasized in different ways. But when we actually discuss the substance, we are very much in agreement.

We are convinced that electrification is the key. We are convinced that the permitting processes are the key to making electrification work. We also have a Tidö Agreement that clearly states that we shall have an ambitious and effective climate policy, where large parts of the climate section are directly taken from the Sweden Democrats' election platform.

This means that the parties are quite in agreement. We have been able to agree on texts that have been taken from our party's election platform. This creates good conditions for cooperation moving forward. I do not think that Emma Nohrén needs to be so worried. There will be good delivery in the climate policy area moving forward.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I appreciate it when the members follow the parliamentary tradition - address each other by first and last names and remember to speak through the Speaker.)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! Several of the proposals in this report concern permit processes. No one is against us having fast and efficient permit processes. The risk, however, is that one pushes too hard and that we instead get a legally insecure permit where the weight of companies' investments and establishments is prioritized over the protection of the environment. We must remember that we have the Environmental Code, the Planning and Building Act, and other legislation precisely so that we can make a balance between exploitation and environmental and nature considerations. In that case, it is important that it also becomes a good balance and that it is a process that is allowed to take the time required to make such a balance.

I and my party want to emphasize that the Environmental Code needs to become a sharper tool to achieve the climate goals as well as the other national environmental goals. According to the UN, we face a triple crisis; it concerns the climate, the depletion of biodiversity, and the spread of pollution. These global challenges must be handled in parallel, and this must also be reflected in the Environmental Code.

Today, Sweden's existing industries account for approximately one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions. It is not reasonable that permits are essentially granted forever to these operations. Today, the permits can only be reassessed under certain specified conditions and at the initiative of an environmental authority. In the bill to the Environmental Code, it was proposed that permits should be granted for a limited time to an increased extent and that this should primarily apply to large operations with a large environmental impact. That is not the situation today. In the cases where operations are time-limited, it concerns primarily smaller operations.

Our view is that the Environmental Code and its application should be reviewed, so that permits reflect technological developments and changes in society. The main principle should be that permits are time-limited. It is the only reasonable approach for a modern environmental legislation.

Existing environmental permits for all activities that cause greenhouse gas emissions should cease to be valid by 2030 at the latest, to thereafter be reassessed and granted a waiver if the activity takes climate responsibility. All new activities must be assessed based on our environmental goals, including the climate goals.

Madam Speaker! I would also like to speak for the Left Party's reservation regarding the municipal veto against wind power establishments. The municipal veto means that a municipality can at any time and on any grounds, through a decision that cannot be appealed, say no to the establishment of wind turbines. This was introduced by the bourgeois government in 2009. The purpose they stated at the time was that the permit processes should go faster, but now we see that it has become exactly the opposite. According to the industry itself, 73 percent of the relevant onshore wind turbines were stopped by the municipalities last year.

Sweden has good conditions for wind power, not least because we have a long coast where the winds are strong. In our neighboring countries Denmark and Germany, wind power produces 50 and 23 percent of the electricity respectively, which shows the potential and that it is fully possible for Sweden as well to expand wind power at a much higher rate than today. Wind power must be expanded to enable the transition of industry and transport. A substantial expansion of both land-based and offshore wind power is the fastest way to expand Sweden's electricity production.

At the same time, wind power often meets local opposition. Those who live in areas with wind turbines must, of course, receive reasonable compensation. Vänsterpartiet wants to increase the acceptance of wind power by legislating for a production-based financial compensation that goes to the local communities where wind turbines are built.

However, the municipal veto that exists today is not sustainable. The forms of the municipalities' influence on the wind power side must be changed and the requirement for approval must be removed. The municipalities should, however, be involved and be part of the process at an early stage. It is also important to maintain high requirements for a legally secure review with regard to people's health and the environment. The municipalities' opinion shall carry great weight, but in a situation where Sweden is to move from fossil energy to renewable energy, a municipal veto is unreasonable. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 20.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Sweden may have the world's most ambitious and comprehensive environmental legislation. In many ways, this is positive. At the same time, the legislation in several respects is based on old truths and outdated structures from a time when Sweden and the world looked different. In order for us to be able to fully transition to a circular economy and accelerate the pace of the climate transition, large parts of the Environmental Code must be fundamentally reviewed and modernized, so that we can achieve environmental and climate effects from new innovations without the permit processes hindering progress.

The idea behind ambitious environmental legislation is good, and it is good to be cautious with new innovations. But in reality, the outcome is often different. The Environmental Code hinders rather than helps us in transitioning to a circular and fossil-free society.

9297021953954I want to give some examples. If we are to be able to reach the climate goals, we need to transition to a circular economy. We need to use all our raw materials multiple times. But unfortunately, the industry and manufacturing are limited due to regulations and legislation. For example, it is not possible to extract all metals from our waste facilities, because these are considered dangerous.

That is why we want national end-of-waste criteria to be developed in cooperation with the industry. We want clearer and more modern definitions of when waste ceases to be waste and is instead to be regarded as a resource. Different criteria are needed for different types of materials. This needs to be introduced in Sweden as soon as possible.

The same applies to the rules and principles for the waste hierarchy. The waste hierarchy must be replaced by a resource hierarchy based on the premise that we shall utilize what we have already extracted or produced for as long as possible. This principle has been a fundamental pillar in environmental policy for a long time and has served us well, especially in getting us out of the previous waste society, but every management tool has a limitation in both time and space.

The waste hierarchy is about reducing and avoiding waste instead of starting from a resource perspective, that is, to design, circulate and share resources. Our alternative is a resource hierarchy that starts from utilizing a resource in the best possible way and making it live as long as possible in the cycle. Materials and products should be designed for long life as well as for being able to be repaired and upgraded. This was a principle that was followed for many decades before the modern throw-away society.

Today's environmental regulations also limit us in other ways. Technology and development are moving forward with new green innovations, but the legislation is not quite keeping up. It is often small and growing companies, which employ young people, that want to show and demonstrate their innovations, but they are met by a wall of burdensome state regulation and supervision.

It is, of course, not only small companies that experience this. We want to make it easier for all companies to test new and untested environmental technology without the authorities putting spokes in the wheels with a suffocating regulatory framework that even established companies sometimes find difficult to live up to. We see that the business sector is far ahead in the transition, and we do not want to limit this through outdated legislation.

Madam Speaker! Before I leave this area - a review of the Environmental Code - I want to raise the question of the classification of agriculture. It was not so long ago that we had a declaration that agriculture should not be considered environmentally hazardous activity, but it seems that everyone who spoke passionately about the countryside and Swedish food production during the election campaign has suddenly forgotten what was promised.

It is starting to become a series of things that the government parties promised last year but which are now not being fulfilled. When it comes down to it, agricultural and environmental issues are not being prioritized by this government. The Center Party wants to see the government return to the Riksdag as soon as possible and change the Environmental Code, just as many agreed.

Madam Speaker! Now I shall move on to a matter that we have talked about for a long time, namely the permit processes. They take far too long today.

The Swedish business sector is world-leading in several areas of the green transition. Many companies have been involved in and successfully shaped the transition with global agreements to reduce carbon emissions and steer towards a sustainable business. The new technologies and products that Swedish companies develop and produce will lead to reduced emissions not only in Sweden but in the entire world. Many Swedish companies understand that it is in the transition that the growth and the good future margins are found. Area by area, it is the business sector today that is leading and the politics that is running behind and trying to catch up.

Sweden has the natural resources, the capital, and the innovations to emerge victorious from the transition that can continue to create jobs and growth, but it fails on such a seemingly simple thing as permits. Lengthy and unpredictable permit processes are a threat to both the climate and the jobs. We therefore cannot have an order where bureaucracy and dysfunctional processes hinder the climate transition.

The debate on simplifying permit applications has stalled on wind power. Of course, the permits for wind power are an important part, and it is welcome that the government is now addressing the issue of offshore wind. But it is not only there that simplifications need to be made. Permits are required for power lines, other energy sources, industrial establishments, and not least mineral extraction in entirely new areas in Sweden.

The problems with the permits consist of many parts. It is about the fact that the number of large and complex applications has increased in a very short time, which means that authorities and courts cannot keep up, that national interests and environmental and climate interests are sometimes in conflict, and that authorities, companies, and private individuals act in their own best interests. The vast majority know that this is a problem. Many attempts with coordinators and investigations have been made. The EU Commission has, in the regulations that are currently to be handled in parliament and in the member states, pointed out the long permit processes as one of the most important challenges to address.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party wants to see action here and now. We actually want to go even further than in the motions and proposals being treated in today's report. We now propose a permit preparation that can work closely with the government and the authorities to, over the course of a year, solve the biggest problems that the companies experience and go one step further in the climate transition.

By showing the rest of the world that we have a robust process for breaking today's deadlock, we will be able to signal to investors that Sweden is the best country to carry out climate investments in, not only because Sweden has the resources and the expertise but also because it is a future permit process that is efficient, predictable, and legally secure.

The business community knows that an investment leading to reduced carbon emissions will have a better return than an investment that increases climate emissions. That is how demand looks, regardless of whether one believes in the climate threat or not.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a complicated regulatory framework that limits the green transition. The business sector is ahead and needs support from authorities and politicians in the development.

We in the Center Party have three priorities. We want to reform the Environmental Code to ensure that it is adapted to the present day and reflects today's technological possibilities. We want to make it easier for small companies to test new and innovative environmental technology. We also want to review the permit process so that it becomes more efficient, legally secure, and predictable.

Overall environmental issues

I support all of the Center Party's proposals but move for approval only to reservation 4.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 11 May.)

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