(cont. from § 13) General environmental and nature conservation (cont. MJU1)

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

The time is 17.00, and the Chamber resumes its meeting. We shall continue with the debates.

First, I want to inform you that we assess that what remains of the debate on the Education Committee's report 1 will not be completed today. The Speaker has therefore already decided to place the matter last on tomorrow's agenda.

The Chamber will adjourn at 23.00 today, and if there are remaining speakers in the debate on the Education Committee's report 2, they will also be moved to tomorrow, after the debate on the Education Committee's report 1.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Even if it becomes somewhat of an anticlimax when one breaks in a debate, I would like to thank the member for the speech!

As I pointed out in my own speech, we find ourselves in an incredibly tough situation right now. I do not know if Member Sätherberg has also been made aware of this, but I have, in any case, received email after email describing a completely horrible situation. Children are freezing, and pensioners are forced to spend their entire pension on the electricity bill. Furthermore, we know that we will need approximately twice as much electricity by 2045 - because without electricity, there is no green transition.

My question to the Social Democratic member Sätherberg is: How can one, in today's situation, justify that Social Democrats sat in this chamber and applauded when the vote was cast to abolish nuclear power?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are going to discuss emissions, environment and climate. But of course, we can also have an energy debate. Otherwise, it is always the Sweden Democrats' nuclear power tics that break through. I have always had to discuss nuclear power with them.

I do not know if the member was a member when this decision was made, but I do not recognize that the Social Democrats applauded. On the other hand, we can say that the entire decision was made in 2015 by the company. It was therefore a market-based decision that was made before we jointly moved forward with the Moderaterna in 2016 in an energy agreement, where we also made a decision to abolish the power tax.

Despite the fact that we did it, the market still wanted to continue to shut down. Eon, which is a private company, shut down Oskarshamn 2. The market economy of that time resulted in the choice to shut down nuclear power. It was not shut down by any politician in this chamber, neither by the Moderates who raised the power tax the most nor by the Social Democrats.

Madam Speaker! I truly share the member's view that it is tough. It is tough for families with children, and therefore we are increasing the child allowance for them this winter. As the member said, electricity bills are expensive, and we want an electricity subsidy to not only land where the member lives but also where the other 60 percent of us live, namely in central and northern Sweden. We want a tank discount to mitigate the effects.

We do very many things that the member does not do in his budget.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! We are talking about 2020, so not that long ago. We know that we would have found ourselves in a very different situation today if that decision had not been made.

The electricity price support is a very important proposal, and if I don't remember entirely incorrectly, it was the previous government that gave the assignment to develop the proposal. I find it very difficult to believe that any other proposal would have been submitted in a situation where it is important to actually get the money out as quickly as possible.

The Social Democrats have an incredible ability to disown responsibility, and they are doing so now as well. We know that it was not due to market reasons, something that has become very clear because stakeholders have suddenly reappeared in Sweden after the change of government.

It was the policy that was responsible for the shutdown. The applause were not okay then, and they are not even almost okay now. I would like to urge the Social Democrats to take people's situation seriously. We want to see new, predictable production overall, primarily nuclear power. What does S want to do to guarantee the electricity supply in Sweden?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I must nevertheless protest against the historical description. Until 2019, Helena Storckenfeldt's and my party were completely in agreement on how this was to proceed. Before that, the Alliance was completely in agreement and significantly raised the electricity tax for nuclear power.

In 2016 and up until 2019, we were in complete agreement. It has been three years, Madam Speaker. Three years ago, a committee initiative was submitted in the Committee on Industry, where I sat, where they suddenly wanted to tell the government that the government should tell a company what the company should do regarding something they had planned since 2015. The company said that it could not be stopped, and they said that already in 2015.

Is it this that we are to discuss here, or shall we discuss the future? Here and now, we Social Democrats actually demand, and have submitted a committee initiative to the Committee on Finance regarding it, that the electricity support shall apply to all of Sweden. All of Sweden is affected by the high costs, and therefore the government should take responsibility for all of Sweden.

Regarding the expansion of electricity production, we share the same view. It even states in our joint papers that we must double production. But then one must also take responsibility in the southern municipalities and perhaps say yes to offshore wind power and other things that can happen here and now.

I share the view that society must be electrified more, and therefore we shall, of course, also ensure that the prerequisites for that exist. But to say that the party I represent has abandoned nuclear power is something I think the Moderaterna should stop doing.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Anna-Caren Sätherberg mentioned the future in the previous exchange. I cannot help but reflect on how it sounded during the election campaign. There, there were very few proposals for the future from the Social Democrats. It was mostly about talking about how everyone else has made mistakes. I also noted that it took seven minutes before the member, in her speech, came up with proposals from the Social Democrats. Before that, it was only about what everyone else has done wrong.

Given what is stated in the introduction to the Socialdemokraternas special statement, I must nevertheless remind you that it is actually you who have been involved in governing for the last eight years. It is a bit difficult to see when one reads in the special statement.

In parts of today's debate, Anna-Caren Sätherberg has spoken about something that is close to both her heart and mine, namely the forest and the management of the forest. The question is how we are to proceed in order to continue managing the forest. Anna-Caren Sätherberg speaks about the jobs of the future – something the forest constitutes.

Now that the Social Democrats stand here alone and pursue their own policy, will we be to receive a different view on the forest, a different view on property rights, and a different view on how we cooperate with like-minded countries compared to what we have seen previously?

We have previously criticized Social Democratic ministers for not participating in joint meetings at the EU level where one can speak with like-minded people about forest policy. They have chosen not to sign ministerial letters to press on how we should work with the forest, from the perspective of utilizing the forest, for the climate, for the transition.

How do the Social Democrats view forest policy now that you can present your own policy and your own budget?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the questions.

I thought I would start where the member began, that is to say, that he perceived that we did not talk so much about the future in the election campaign. We talked about three things, namely security in Sweden, the climate transition and welfare.

It was not the Social Democrats who, during the election campaign, issued promises that are impossible to fulfill in terms of time or in any other way. This is something other parties—I am looking at the representative for one of them—have stood for during this election campaign. It is nothing that we do.

The members of the House could hear in my speech about the policy that has created jobs in Sweden. It is the green industrial revolution in the north that is now moving down. It has been strategic work from the side of politics, the business sector, research, and the organizations. Today we have discussed how we are to meet the climate goals by 2030, which we will not do with the current government's policy.

Regarding forest policy, we produced a forest bill, which I fully stand behind. Just as the member well knows, the goals for the forest are equally valuable, that is to say both production and environment. I absolutely do not want to say that one is above the other. Instead, that is in this way Swedish forest policy has been successful, by the fact that we have seen further growth in the forest, have managed the forest and used the forest in the climate transition. Just as the member says, fossil products have been replaced by renewable and fossil-free products. That is the strength of Swedish forest.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Anna-Caren Sätherberg accuses me of breaking promises. We have governed for nine weeks, and one cannot achieve everything in nine weeks. Anna-Caren Sätherberg knows that too. Otherwise, one can choose to do as the Social Democrats largely did in the election, namely to not make election promises or speak about future prospects. Then one breaks no election promises.

It is not only the lack of presence in the EU that has given us the problems that exist with the forest. We note how we in Sweden manage the forest and how we report to the EU. It puts us in a difficult position. We report in one way, but many other EU countries report in another way. Thus, we put ourselves in a more difficult position.

Even when it concerns LULUCF, which the member raised earlier, we see that another large forest country, Finland, reports in one way, and Sweden reports in a completely different way. So we cannot continue. This is what we are now reviewing so that we can, among other things, secure Swedish forestry in order to be able to manage the forest during the transition.

Are the Social Democrats prepared to make a shift in order to help ensure that we can handle the issues equally within the EU, that is to say, that we report in the same way?

The fundamental issue is in itself that the forest is a national competence, which I note that even the Social Democrats claim. But if one does not participate in the meetings in the EU and advocate for the Swedish forestry industry's interests, it will be disappointing. We have seen how large the absence has been at these meetings.

Will we see a shift where the Social Democrats join forces with us to secure sustainable Swedish forestry, not least regarding the actions in the EU?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you again for the questions.

I wanted to say something about the election promises, namely the November 1st [date], the high-cost protection, the amortization requirement, and the fuel price. Those are three promises. I also realize that one cannot do everything in two months, but some promises are time-bound – and they have not been fulfilled. The member cannot say anything about that.

I share the member's view regarding the reporting of forests within the EU. We have done that for a long time. Therefore, we gave a mandate to Naturvårdsverket together with Skogsstyrelsen to review the previous period, so that they began reporting in a different way.

Finland reports in one way, but all other countries report in another way. One therefore cannot say that everyone reports in a certain way within the EU. That is what I would like them to do. Then it would be possible to compare, and everyone would report in the same way. Then there would be no under-reporting or over-reporting.

Now follows a rhetorical question. The Member says that we will manage the forestry. I have agreed with that question for a long time. I called the Minister to the committee, which the Member surely remembers, precisely so that she would tell me how Swedish forestry is managed when the reduction obligation has been lowered. No one in the government or colleagues from the other side of the table in the committee has managed to answer that question yet.

I have had that debate earlier with the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates. If the reduction obligation is lowered, there are four ways to go. One of them is to reduce the logging of the Swedish forest. Another is to buy emission rights and not take responsibility. On those questions, I did not receive answers from the member's colleagues either.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Huge snowstorm over Värmland. Risk of 10 centimeters of snow. Extreme cold moving in over Sweden. Minus 20 degrees. These are headlines from the media over the last two weeks.

10 centimeters of snow in Värmland in December is no snowstorm. 20 degrees of cold in Värmland in December is no extreme cold. I wonder what words should be used in the media when there really is a lot of snow or it gets really cold. Similar tones are heard in the budget debate, perhaps not as much here as before the debate in the media. But there has been talk of slaughter and abuse.

Madam Speaker! The budget that we are debating today will, with very high probability after tomorrow's vote, be the second largest environmental and climate budget that has ever won a majority in the chamber. The largest was last year, and that was also a budget where the Christian Democrats were part of the majority parties.

It should also be said that it is not all about the amount of money, but it is also about how one uses them and what they are used for. The budget states that climate and environmental policy shall be cost-effective and goal-oriented. I look forward with confidence to this government's budgets when we can get effective investments and not just a craze for spending money on inefficient investments and symbolic politics, which, unfortunately, to a large extent, characterized the previous government's environmental and climate budgets.

Then I shall say in their defense that some of the most symbol-political initiatives from a climate and environmental point of view were removed over time, and other initiatives were improved so that they would truly make a difference. A compliment for that nonetheless.

But back to 2022 and the budget for 2023, where we see that Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet compete to spend the most money, and now money that the state does not even have.

Madam Speaker! I have great ignorance in many areas - I am no better than that - and also many shortcomings. One of them is that I am not economically educated. Despite that, I understand very well that in such an uncertain time as the one we are in now, with an inflation of 9.5 percent in November, one cannot scatter money even if one would like to, and in any case, not distribute money that does not exist. The printing press certainly does not help with inflation.

I note that Miljöpartiet proposes that Sweden should run a deficit in all years that the budget covers. They want to increase the debt by 275 billion compared to the government.

Vänsterpartiet proposes that Sweden should run a deficit in two out of three years during the budget period and wants to increase the debt by more than 200 billion compared to the government – this at a time when Sweden finds itself in a tough economic situation and we are heading towards an economic winter where many are struggling with high electricity and fuel prices, high inflation, and additionally higher interest rates. It was primarily higher prices on electricity that contributed to an even greater rise in inflation during November.

This must be handled in the right way. The budget that the coalition partners have presented prioritizes the very most important things. We want to support households in a difficult situation and invest in the justice system, defense, and welfare, and we do so without fueling inflation. We also ensure that there is room for action if the economic downturn becomes deeper than what we currently see ahead of us.

Madam Speaker! Now we need to sharpen Sweden's climate policy so that we can significantly reduce emissions, and the most important part of this is electrification. That is why we are so eager for all clean energy production - wind, solar, and water - and to quickly get new nuclear power in place. Furthermore, an expanded production is part of lowering the high prices.

The abolished waste incineration tax, more money for energy efficiency and Klimatklivet are some of the central energy measures and thus climate measures in the budget bill.

Another important part concerns increasing investments in charging infrastructure, not least in rural and sparsely populated areas. This primarily concerns support for public charging stations for light vehicles and support for the electrification of heavy transport. A total of 1.1 billion kronor is invested in this during 2023, an increase of 500 million kronor compared to 2022. The Government also announces the introduction of a temporary tax exemption for the benefit of charging at the workplace for a private car or a company car.

Energy efficiency also receives a larger pot of money. In total, the government wants to invest approximately 1.2 billion during 2023-2025, partly to support the conversion of heating systems and energy-efficient renovation of small houses that are currently heated with direct electricity or gas. Furthermore, the tax reduction for the installation of own solar cells shall be increased from 15 to 20 percent.

Madam Speaker! Earlier in my speech, I was critical of parts of the policy that the previous governments have pursued. Something that, however, has become really good as the path has shaped it is Industriklivet. Industry has made great progress, which one must do if one is to be on the playing field today. Still, industry accounts for about one-third of Sweden's total emissions. There is, therefore, more to be done.

That is why the investments in Industriklivet continue and are increased to 1.35 billion. This concerns measures that can in different ways reduce carbon dioxide emissions within the industry, for example bio-CCS.

When it comes to bio-CCS, the government also continues the initiative that has already been decided, which means a support of 36 billion kronor between 2026 and 2046. This support shall be distributed through so-called reverse auctions, where those who deliver bio-CCS at the lowest cost win. This is an initiative that has been included in the Christian Democrats' budget previously, so I am glad that it continues to be included and that it is now part of the government's budget.

The government also allocates 40 million kronor to the Geological Survey of Sweden to investigate suitable storage sites for carbon dioxide in Sweden.

Klimatklivet has also made significant progress since it was introduced and receives a reinforcement of around 400 million SEK per year, primarily to increase investments in charging infrastructure.

Madam Speaker! In the budget bill, the government also announces that it will return to the matter of changing so that the goal of 100 percent renewable electricity production by 2040 is replaced with a goal of 100 percent fossil-free electricity production. It may sound like hair-splitting, but it is crucial if we really want to make a real transition. If we are to be able to transition, electrification is absolutely crucial.

Madam Speaker! The signals from the business community are very clear. To be playable in the market today, one must have done one's homework regarding sustainability.

Unfortunately, it is the state that is hindering the transition that is most effective in several aspects. Here, in addition to producing clean electricity, it is about having efficient permit processes that promote the transition, rather than hindering it.

The government will have a sharp focus on these permit processes in its upcoming work so that we can obtain efficient and purposeful permit processes, which we unfortunately do not have to a large extent today.

Here I also look forward to us having a joint department for both environment and business after the New Year. The silos must be removed, and one must cooperate for the sake of the transition. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that one gets closer cooperation where one sees each other's challenges.

I note now, Madam Speaker, that my allotted speaking time has been exceeded. I had intended to speak about wetlands, forests, property rights and so on, but out of respect for others who are to speak during the evening, I choose to let it lie.

I conclude by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report.

I also want to wish the Speaker, the Speaker's Bureau, the Chamber Office, the Environment and Agriculture Committee's office and my colleagues in the Environment and Agriculture Committee a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I truly share Kjell-Arne Ottsson's longing for snow, the white gold. It is something that we share. -20 degrees cold - it just crunches a bit under the boots. On the other hand, we who live up there know that the electricity bills follow accordingly. An electricity subsidy would have suited the whole of Sweden.

This budget actually increases emissions, so one question to the member is how he intends for the goal of 2030 to be reached.

Then I want to comment on the member saying that he was somewhat critical of the Social Democratic government's initiatives. I am not so terribly sure about that, because I see that you follow all our initiatives when it comes to everything from Klimatklivet and Industriklivet to bio-CCS, biogas support, wetland support, and charging stations. You might remove the night trains to Jämtland just because you do not care about anything north of Dalälven, but I hope that does not happen.

I have a question number two for the member.

This week we could read that the Minister for Climate and Environment says that the ban on lead shot for shotguns is one of the five most important measures the government sees to protect endangered species. I am a bit surprised by this, because I remember that the debate has been held in the Swedish Riksdag for a very long time.

The Minister also said that this was a very niche issue, which might surprise those who have followed the debate for a long time. We know, of course, that there are hunters everywhere in all of Sweden.

When will the government's proposal on a ban on lead shot for shotguns arrive? That is my second question, Madam Speaker.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I can well state that Anna-Caren Sätherberg is shooting both high and low in the debate.

Regarding the electricity support, I will unpromptedly think of Cato and "Furthermore, I believe that Carthage should be destroyed," as he concluded every speech with.

The proposal for electricity support that is currently under consideration is largely based on what was developed by the previous government, that is, Anna-Caren Sätherberg's government. It is also based on the fact that an average price of 75 öre per kilowatt has been reached, which in the northern parts of Sweden has only been achieved now in December. The southern parts have struggled with this for over a year. That is the difference. If one sees that the high electricity prices continue in Norrland and remain where they are now, then measures must also be taken there. But it is, therefore, a problem that people in southern Sweden have had for over a year but which people in northern Sweden have not had, thanks to the supply of electricity that one has up there with the large rivers. It is the so-called bottleneck fees—one has paid very much there—which are now to be paid back. Hence this.

Yes, we have, as I also said in my speech, been critical of parts of the government's initiatives. But I also said that some parts have improved along the way. Both Industriklivet and Klimatklivet have improved along the way, even though there were parts at the beginning that truly deserved criticism, which also came from, among others, the Konjunkturinstitutet and the Riksrevisionen. There is no doubt that there were some teething problems in those initiatives.

Now I see that my time is up, so I will return to question number two in the next reply.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! So that the member does not forget question number two, I would like to remind that it was about the Minister for Climate and the Environment saying that she will submit a proposal on a ban on lead shot for shotguns. According to the Minister for Climate and the Environment, it is one of the five most important measures the government sees to protect endangered species. My question, so that we do not forget it, is when we will see the government's proposal for the ban.

I can say, speaking of high and low, that I do not know what is high and what is low. The current Minister for Energy posed in the snow with a vacuum cleaner to tell Sweden that one must be allowed to vacuum when one wants to. The next comment from the Minister for Energy was: Put on your wool underwear! I can tell you, member, that we need that in northern Sweden.

If the member looks, he will see that it is not only in December that there have been high costs for electricity in Norrland. I cannot understand that it is the Värmland member's opinion that northern Sweden should not receive the electricity support - that one does not see that there is a Sweden above the Dalälven. There is no minister there, but one should have others who can speak about exactly what is happening up in Norrland. One should also understand that cooling and everything else, as the member said, causes a bit more electricity to be consumed than in other places.

But another question that I definitely did not get an answer to was how, now that emissions are being increased, the 2030 goal is to be reached. The other question I asked was the one, as the Minister for Climate and Environment said, niche question about the ban on lead shot for shotguns.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for this barrage of questions! Yes, I am fully aware that there are now concerns regarding electricity prices even in northern Sweden. As I said and as has been said from the government, this is being reviewed now because prices have also risen there. But the electricity support is based on how it has looked historically over the past year, and it is electricity areas 3 and 4 that have had the absolute greatest challenges because the electricity shortage is greater there, among other things. Therefore, there have been significantly higher prices there, above the average price of 75 öre per kilowatt which those in electricity areas 1 and 2 have not reached until late this autumn - hence this.

As I said, the government is following this to see if prices continue to rise in the same way also in electricity price areas 1 and 2. In that case, actions will also be taken there. But we must see what has actually happened.

Regarding the lead, it is quite interesting that a member from the Social Democrats is somewhat beating their chest on that issue. It is very clear that, when this was handled by Social Democratic and Green Party ministers down in Brussels, no criticism was voiced against this proposal. No criticism came until we finally in the EU Committee could show that we in Sweden have a majority for an opinion other than the one that the S-MP government presented in Brussels. Only then did they change their minds, and by then it was too late.

What is being done now is to really review whether there are exceptions that can be made. Given that it concerns a regulation at the EU level, it is difficult, but there is no doubt that Sweden's hunters and sport shooters should not be left behind in this. The Government is reviewing what can be done.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is getting very late. I might not have intended to hold up the House much longer, but then I heard my party being mentioned. The big drum was beaten regarding all the strange things we do.

The strange thing about what Miljöpartiet does is that we keep our election promises. During the election campaign, we promised our voters that we would strengthen welfare, increase equality, and invest in climate work. And that is what we do with our budget proposal.

The Speaker said that borrowing money is inflation-driving. Sweden is one of the world's wealthiest countries. We have not had such a low public debt since the 70s. Many are suggesting that we should now borrow money to be able to do what is inevitable in order not to bite our own tail later - the Fiscal Policy Council, for example, and many renowned economists.

The large investments in renewable energy production and energy efficiency that we propose are such things that will lower the price of energy instead of it continuing to increase. We also make certain tax increases that dampen the inflation rate. Climate change is so important that we cannot take a break from this now.

The same applies to biodiversity. The Government says that it shall protect property rights in the forest and the forest owners. Nevertheless, the appropriations and the entire environmental budget are being reduced by over 50 percent over a three-year period.

We now have a global agreement that we shall protect 30 percent of our forests, lakes, and whatever we have for different types of nature by 2030. How is that going to happen with this budget? Does the government stand behind what was produced in Montreal?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question, even though it is starting to drag on now!

As I said in a previous exchange – it was perhaps even when we stood here last time, though in reversed roles – it is thanks to the fact that we have people who manage their nature, their forest, that we have the biodiversity. Take, for example, nature grazing lands. We would need to have much more nature grazing lands, because it is in nature grazing lands that biodiversity is truly promoted. The problem is that we have both parties and certain lobby organizations that quite vigorously push that we should not have meat, but grazing mules we should have. That does not add up.

If we want nature grazing lands and truly achieve greater biodiversity there, it is precisely our animals we must have. Then we must create the conditions to have more animals, among other things through our subsidies, but also ensure that we have a predator policy worthy of the name so that people dare to have these nature grazing lands.

The second thing is that one manages their forest. It should rather be the default mode that when a forest is reported for logging, the natural values are high. That should be the norm. But today, there are many who do not dare to manage their forest in the way they could, because they know that then they will not be allowed to log. We cannot go that way. Then we truly shoot ourselves in the foot in several ways. We are not allowed to log, which affects the landowner, while at the same time we do not get timber – we do not get the material for the transition that we so much need.

This is the challenge for the Green Party. One fails to see the whole, as I see it, but instead only picks out certain parts. Consequently, one punishes both the country and the individual landowner.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! As I see it, it is the Christian Democrats and Kjell-Arne Ottosson who do not see the big picture. We are to protect 30 percent of our different types of nature by 2030. Cultivated forest can be one of them, but we must also protect uncultivated forest. Today we see that the rate of logging in valuable forests is at a record high. These are forests that should be protected on paper, but that is not being done today.

We are in complete agreement when it comes to natural grazing lands. We also have this included in our budget. We need more grazing areas. But it also means that we must have an animal husbandry that allows us to have more animals out.

Should, for example, the world-unique mountain-adjacent forests that we have in Sweden not be preserved as they are? Should all nature be utilized? Is that what the Christian Democrats and Kjell-Arne Ottosson think?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! To a large extent, it shall depend on the individual landowner. Protection of forest shall be based on voluntariness.

I have lived near the Norwegian border for a long time. In Norway, there was previously a very high level of conflict regarding the forest. Then they moved to a form of voluntary protection, where the landowner was allowed to have a greater say themselves and did not become an adversary to the state. Consequently, the level of conflict dropped, and they found a much better way forward. I believe in that path, because the vast majority of landowners want to protect these truly beautiful areas. It is much better to have the decision in one's own hands than for big brother the state to come and point with a whole fist and tell you how to do it.

Property rights are not just about receiving compensation for one's forest. It is only some kind of bandage on the wounds. One must not forget that property rights are so much more. Someone may have inherited forest for generations. Then it is not easy when the state comes and says: We are going to take this! I know that Emma Nohrén herself is a landowner, and I believe she is still able to realize that it is about more than financial compensation.

If I don't remember entirely incorrectly, 61 percent of the mountain-adjacent forest is already protected today. That we would not protect any mountain-adjacent forest is not correct. A very large amount is already protected. Regarding the 30 percent that has now been agreed upon in Montreal, I want to remind of what I mentioned in my exchange with Anna-Caren Sätherberg. Now it is really important that we count equally and do equally. We in Sweden should not do as we usually do and go three steps further than everyone else to be "Bror Duktig". Then we shoot ourselves in the foot. None of us want that. Thank you and Merry Christmas!

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! In a time when the world needs to unite to meet the climate crisis, the government shames Sweden and lowers the Swedish climate ambitions. With the current development, Sweden reaches neither the climate goals nor the other environmental quality goals. In that situation, the government chooses to present a budget that takes us further and further away from achieving the national goals set by the Riksdag. The government also abdicates from global commitments such as the 1.5-degree goal and promises to preserve biodiversity.

In the budget bill, the government notes that emissions will increase as a result of several climate-damaging proposals. It is evident that the government's and the Sweden Democrats' lack of interest in the climate and the environment has now translated into passivity and a climate-hostile reform program. Those who placed their trust in the Liberals in the hope that they would safeguard the climate perspective in a right-wing nationalist government have every reason to feel disappointed. The right-wing parties have initiated a draconian cutback policy in the environmental area. The abolition of the Ministry of the Environment is unfortunately far from the only example. Up until 2025, the governing parties have announced a halving of the environmental budget.

The lack of investments, reforms, and initiatives to strengthen Sweden's climate work is a historical betrayal of future generations and at the same time bad politics for our time. The governing parties join the shrinking number of governments that ignore or question the climate crisis. This lack of crisis awareness and will for reform risks delaying or preventing the transition within the industrial sector, the transport sector, and the real estate sector.

If Vänsterpartiet had been in charge, we would have started the launch of a historic investment program for the climate next year, which would be implemented from 2024 and scaled up over ten years. Already in 2023, we would have launched initiatives to protect valuable nature and restore natural carbon sinks. These are important environmental measures that would benefit biodiversity and lower emissions.

Vänsterpartiet considers that the climate crisis and the extinction of species must be in focus for increased investments within expenditure area 20. These two crises are intimately connected and must be solved jointly. A united research community warns that both climate and biodiversity are acutely threatened and that these threats are interconnected. In the Paris Agreement, the importance of countries protecting and increasing carbon stocks and carbon sinks is emphasized. Healthy ecosystems with rich biodiversity are more resilient to the negative effects of the climate crisis. Protection and restoration of natural ecosystems also provide great opportunities to capture and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Compared to the government's budget, Vänsterpartiet wants to invest 1.8 billion kronor more on measures for valuable nature. The money would, among other things, go towards restoration of wetlands and rewetting of peatlands - measures that provide many benefits for the environment and the climate. Drained wetlands leak carbon, and by rewetting them, they can instead become carbon sinks. Establishing wetlands is of great importance for biodiversity. Wetlands also strengthen the landscape's protection against drought, flooding, and fire, which contributes to climate adaptation. The government's so-called investment in the area is embarrassingly low in comparison to ours and in fact represents a cut, because the money is only moved from other nature conservation and furthermore decreases in the coming years. In addition to wetlands, we want to invest in measures for endangered species and on restoration of nature grazing lands.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to invest heavily in the protection of valuable nature. We are adding over 3 billion kronor more to our budget for this compared to the government. The UN's climate panel IPCC states in its latest report that measures to preserve ecosystems are a relatively inexpensive way to reduce emissions. Protection and restoration of natural ecosystems provide great opportunities to store carbon dioxide. To safeguard the forest's importance for biodiversity and the climate, a transition of forestry is required. The development for biodiversity in the forest is negative. Threatened species and habitats are decreasing. Forests with high nature values continue to be logged instead of being protected.

Management measures and regulations are required to achieve sustainable forestry. The remaining old-growth forests in Sweden must receive long-term protection, and for that, increased state funds are required. A large part of the forests that need protection are mountain-adjacent forests. With the insufficient resources that the government allocates, many of these forests risk being logged instead, and many forest owners who want to have their forest protected risk being left without compensation. Irreplaceable natural values are thus lost. Vänsterpartiet considers that the large contiguous mountain-adjacent old-growth forests should be protected in the long term through formal protection.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet rejects the government's proposal on the phase-out of the climate bonus for electric cars. Less than one-third of the new cars in the last year were electric cars. That is an all too low proportion. If the climate goals are to be reached without a mass of new cars being scrapped, new car sales need to quickly transition to 100 percent fossil-free cars. It is therefore completely central to continue supporting the purchase of electric cars and improving the charging infrastructure. The support must be designed so that it provides incentives to develop cars that ordinary households can afford. We therefore propose a new design of the climate bonus that allows more people to have the opportunity to buy electric cars at a lower price, while more expensive cars do not receive any bonus. A specially designed support for used electric cars is also included in our proposal.

The changes in the system are cost-neutral for the state in relation to the system that applied previously. We also want to introduce a climate transition support for passenger cars consisting of a scrapping premium and support for conversion from gasoline and diesel operation to operation with renewable fuels.

Vänsterpartiet also proposes a new investment support for the production of renewable fuels and charging infrastructure. Swedish emissions need to decrease significantly faster than today. For new technology, the market needs state interventions in the form of risk-sharing and financing to invest in the fossil-free solutions. Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes increased targeted support for climate investments compared to the government and in addition to the current Klimatklivet. Through this investment support for the production of biogas, e-fuels, and other sustainable fuels, we would strengthen our domestic opportunities for increased production of biofuels and achieve a higher degree of national self-sufficiency. Naturally, these fuels shall be produced in a way that does not reduce natural carbon sinks or endanger biodiversity. We also want to use the support for increased availability of charging infrastructure and faster expansion of hydrogen infrastructure.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to invest 1 billion kronor in research for climate transition. The purpose is, among other things, to use the research to design climate measures that can gain broad popular acceptance. We also want to strengthen research for designing sustainable production methods to enhance carbon sequestration in the green industries.

In total, I and my party allocate more than 5.5 billion kronor more than the government to expenditure area 20 for the year 2023.

Since the parliamentary majority in the first step of the budget process has given the budget policy a different direction than the Left Party desires, I abstain from taking a position regarding the allocation of appropriations within expenditure area 20. The Left Party's proposal within the expenditure area is part of our budget alternative, which is a whole. We present our priorities in our special statement.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech! The member mentioned the Liberals, so it was difficult not to take a reply.

Our and the government's ambition is that Sweden shall have an ambitious climate and environmental policy. This was stated by the Prime Minister in the government's statement, and it is evident from the Tidö Agreement. The budget we are now presenting is the second largest environmental budget.

It is always exciting to listen to Vänsterpartiet in budget debates. It is almost always the case that the cash box appears bottomless. For the previous expenditure area we debated, Vänsterpartiet invests 3.4 billion more than the government, and here they invest 5.5 billion more than the government, if I have understood everything correctly.

My question to the member, Madam Speaker, is: How does one intend to finance these investments?

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! If one wants to see how we finance our initiatives, one can look at our budget. It is in balance, so it is not a problem.

As I said, we propose, starting in 2024 and for the following ten years, an investment program that will be loan-financed, but it would still make Sweden one of the least indebted countries in Europe. We therefore do not see that it would be any problem to finance it.

I think it is interesting that the member says that the government wants their climate policy to be ambitious and that it is the second largest environmental budget. The government itself describes in the budget that the proposals being put forward will lead to an increase in emissions, so from my perspective, this is not ambitious enough. The goal must be to solve the problems, and even if the budget is the second largest, the problems are growing all the time. To beat one's chest and say that one is presenting a budget that is the second largest appears a bit strange in my eyes.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Environmental sustainability is one of the goals we have to work with. We also have social sustainability and economic sustainability.

We have now taken over the government after eight years of social democracy, with many problems to handle. We therefore have more areas than those we are debating today that need to be financed and managed.

The budget that the government has presented is good for the environment and for the climate.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! We do not agree on that.

I can state that the area we are now debating is perhaps the most important for our long-term survival. If one thinks that one cannot afford to finance it, it is a bit strange.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Andrea Andersson Tay, for your speech! Actually, I had not intended to take the floor, but as I sat and listened to the representative from the Left Party, it started to itch a bit too much in my fingers.

It is known that the Vänsterpartiet's favorite sibling is big brother the state, and this was clearly evident in the speech that Andrea Andersson Tay gave. Regarding the forest, it was largely about instruments and regulations from the state, state money, clear state pointers, formal protection, and so on.

Property rights are part of the UN Charter, part of the European Convention on Human Rights, and part of Chapter 2 of the Swedish constitution. But this does not seem to play such a big role for the Left Party. Does the Left Party not see any problems with handling others' property in that way and that the state is so clearly involved and directing, and sometimes even goes so far as to expropriate forest? Does the Left Party not see that it can sometimes be a problem that one so clearly intervenes and directs property rights, as stipulated by both the UN, the European Convention, and the constitution?

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! I also mentioned in my speech that we are allocating more money for compensation to those landowners who actually want to protect their forest. In that area, the government has cut back.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is exactly as Andrea Andersson Tay says. That is how it is. But there is a reason why we have reduced that part, and it is that we must now ensure that the forest that the state has already taken is taken care of.

We note in many places in the country that the state has taken forest that it then does not manage and which does not look good at all. It is often said that it is for, for example, mobile outdoor recreation, but many of the forests that the state has taken have no mobile outdoor recreation because it is not possible to get through at all. This is the reason why we have scaled back. It is about us redirecting the money to clearly signal that that which we have already taken must be managed.

It concerns individual ownership once again. One takes care of what one owns. If one has a forest that perhaps has been inherited for generations, there is a very deep-seated sense of taking good care of it. No one wants to neglect their forest, as it sometimes sounds like. It also sounds as if the state is significantly better at managing forests, but we have many examples of how it looked previously in the large crown forests. Shortly after these had passed into private ownership, they were significantly better managed.

Does the Left Party never see that the individual landowner can do a better job than the state, that only the state can trust the individual landowner and the individual landowner can trust the state? The important thing here is not the money, as Andrea Andersson Tay mentions, but that there are other parts that are significantly more important, namely to show respect for what property rights actually mean.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! Regardless of what ambitions the government or individual landowners have, we can state that the situation for biodiversity is critical. It is obvious that the measures that are in place and the measures planned by the government are not sufficient to solve the problems. A long row of species that are dependent on the forest are threatened today, and in that case, the state needs to step in and take responsibility and do more.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! We are all completely dependent on biodiversity and our ecosystems for our survival. They constitute part of the very foundation of our society and for our prosperity. We all have a responsibility - both towards ourselves and, perhaps above all, towards future generations - to do what we can to protect plants and animals from extinction.

Sweden has, and will continue to have, an ambitious climate and environmental policy. It is clear when one reads the government statement, the Tidö Agreement, and the budget that we are now rushing through the chamber. We shall reach the climate goals. And we shall do so with a policy that does the right things, a policy that is based on research and science and that creates conditions for both households and companies to transition.

Sweden is one of the countries in the world that is at the forefront of the green transition. We shall continue to do so. Our ambitions are high. We continue to prioritize the green transition. In order to achieve this, the electrification of the transport sector is necessary, and we need to enable companies to be a part of this. For this, a stable energy supply is needed.

Madam Speaker! We need to ensure that we can hand over a world in ecological balance to future generations. This is also our ambition. The overarching goal is precisely that we shall hand over a society to the next generation where the major environmental problems in Sweden are solved, and this without causing increased environmental and health problems outside of Sweden's borders. This presupposes an ambitious environmental policy.

As said: Sweden's climate and environmental policy should aim high, and the policy must be aligned with research and based on facts. Both climate policy and environmental policy need to become more long-term, and they need to strive towards finding the most cost-effective measures without harming industries or having negative consequences for the countryside.

A long-term investment such as the one the government is now undertaking is the rewetting of wetlands. To focus and invest in precisely the wetlands is significant. These are an important carbon sink that is important for the climate, biodiversity, and eutrophication, and they reduce the consequences of heavy rainfall and flooding. Wetlands also play a major role in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The positive properties that the wetlands possess disappear upon drainage, something that has occurred on a fairly large scale over several hundred years in Sweden. This has historically had quite positive effects for Sweden through increased production of both land and forest. But it does have negative effects because it increases greenhouse gas emissions. We therefore need to act here, and therefore it is very good that we are currently investing in rewetting and continuing the investment that has been made previously as well.

That is why it feels extra good to be able to stand here and point out that the government has allocated the second-largest climate and environment budget ever this year. The government's budget makes a real difference!

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your speech! I thought I would start by commenting on the exchange you had earlier where you said that there was much to do after eight years of Social Democratic policy. I still want to tell the Member, in case she has missed it, that one measure we took was that we brought down the national debt so that it was the lowest since the 70s. At the same time, we managed to make enormous investments in school, healthcare, elderly care, the climate and the environment, and to make large industrial investments.

This is important for a Sweden that is to hold together. We also looked at the whole country in those investments.

The Speaker spoke about the importance of ecosystem services and biodiversity. I share that opinion, as do many in our committee, and therefore it was perhaps with surprise that we saw them being deleted in the new EU act that we negotiated just the other day. The Liberals really thought it was great with that deletion, which concerned precisely biodiversity and ecosystem services.

But my question goes to the Liberals. I have always thought that the Liberals are at the forefront when it comes to climate and environmental issues, that you have been forward-looking and have really had a great political will in these issues.

Now, however, I cannot see it, when the first budget one submits after eight years actually increases emissions and one cannot explain how we are to meet the climate goals; when one removes precisely those things that would have made us meet the climate goals. Here, the Liberals are truly to blame. I understand that it is difficult when one is governed by Sverigedemokraterna, but the Liberals simply have to straighten up a bit!

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! First of all: When I, in my previous exchange of remarks, spoke about what the Social Democrats have done during the eight years that we are now cleaning up after, it was perhaps not exactly this area of expenditure I was referring to. It was primarily integration, gang crime, and the school, where we now have massive measures that we have undertaken and which take up a large part of the budget.

But to the member's question: We have not lowered our climate and environmental ambitions. We will continue to work to be at the forefront in these issues. Now we have been in government for nine weeks - give us a little more time, I beg of you. The goal remains that we shall meet the climate goals. That is the message I have to give.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the answers! One can have strong ambitions, but Sweden's reputation has indeed sunk during this time when it comes to climate and environmental policy. We hear that the Czech Republic, which is now in office until January 1, is trying to negotiate most of the acts because they do not want Sweden to do it since they simply do not know what Sweden is doing these days.

One can have high ambitions, but one must also prove what kind of substantive politics will be used to achieve these high ambitions. We could read about how much emissions increase now that there is a desire to lower the reduction obligation to the EU's lowest level. It was about 27 million tons of carbon dioxide by 2030. Here, the Liberals are held accountable, for we can simultaneously see that the Sweden Democrats, which is the largest party and the government's coalition partner, speak of being willing to buy emission rights and that it may cost.

This has not really been the Swedish way until now; rather, it has been that we take responsibility for what we emit. We take responsibility while simultaneously creating new, green jobs for all of Sweden. When we take responsibility and transition, the industry is with us. New battery factories will come, steel without coal, new innovations – Sweden is at the forefront. As the export-dependent small country we are, we push the innovations forward and show leadership. Here is the question: Is it the government's and the Liberals' view that we should buy giantly expensive emission allowances from other countries, or should we take the responsibility ourselves?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for the question! We will, of course, take responsibility for our own emissions and for our own environmental policy as far as is possible. That is the message I have. The responsibility is ours, and we will take it.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! The Government emphasizes in its budget that climate and environmental policy shall be aligned with research and based on facts. One might think that this should be a self-evident matter. It is, in the very foundation, the laws of nature that determine what consequences our actions have for the climate and the environment.

Unfortunately, there is reason to doubt the government's sincerity here. On the one hand, the government parties have aligned themselves with the notorious climate research deniers in the Sverigedemokraterna, and on the other hand, the Liberals' own Minister for Climate and Environment constantly makes statements that suggest she either ignores or misunderstands the researchers' message.

What climate research tells us is that we must reduce emissions as quickly as possible to minimize the effects of the climate crisis. We do not have time to first increase them to reduce them later, which is what the government proposes. Then we will fail.

I want to ask the member from the Liberals: Have you in the governing parties in fact abandoned the climate and environmental goals? And would it not, in that case, be more honest to admit it to the Swedish people?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Our message is clear, and so is the Minister's message: Our climate and environmental policy shall be based on research and facts. We have not changed any position on that.

The statements that the member refers to, Madam Speaker, are unknown to me, so I cannot comment on them.

But I return to the fact that this year we are presenting the second-largest environmental and climate budget ever. It will have an effect. We have not abandoned any ambitions, but our ambitions remain high. We have major issues, and we need to have an ambitious and long-term climate and environmental policy. That is also our ambition.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! When Naturskyddsföreningen, before the election, asked the political parties where they stood on 22 different proposals, the Liberals answered yes to 18 of the questions.

You said, among other things, yes to adopting a Swedish carbon budget in accordance with the Paris Agreement, to protecting 30 percent of Sweden's land and sea by 2030, to conducting a review of forest policy, and to billion-kronor investments in green renovations of housing projects (miljonprogrammet) areas.

I know that many Swedes today are deeply disappointed with the Liberals for your broken promises. To do as the Minister for Climate and Environment does and apologize by saying that you have been forced into compromises with less ambitious parties rings false. The fact is that the Liberals can choose to leave the government any day and ensure that Sweden gets a new government. But you actively choose to govern together with parties that deny the climate crisis rather than cooperating with us who actually want to solve it.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! We have, as we said, governed for nine weeks. Give us some time to prove that we stand up for the climate goals and environmental goals that we have previously said we stand by! We stand by them.

If we are to leave this area a bit and move into the government base and the cooperation we are part of, I believe that the Tidö Agreement and the government that is currently in power is the best alternative for Sweden given the election result we received.

Now we have a government that has a great consensus on many issues and that has a mandate to tackle large and important societal challenges in Sweden - and there are many of such - that we need to handle. Climate and environmental policy is one, but we also have crime, we have integration, and we have unemployment. It is such things that we really need to address and where we really need to act. Now we have support in the Swedish Riksdag to do that.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Elin Nilsson for your speech! You raised biodiversity. It is something that your party Liberalerna has held very highly for many years. There are many times when Miljöpartiet and Liberalerna have ended up on the same side in the debate. We have stood up for that we should conduct environmental assessments of hydropower and wetlands. We have been against changes in the restoration act and have been for an increased salmon fishing ban.

Now you have entered a government position, and there has been a different sound in the shouting. I know it is difficult to be a smaller party in a government, but you should surely do something more than what you actually do?

Since the government took office, we have had an Environment Minister who, when asked a straightforward question about the five most important things to do for biodiversity, answered: wetlands. That is good, but it is also an initiative that is taken away from the protection of nature. We hear about the lead shot ban, which is also good. But then it was quite vague, and I don't really know what the conclusion was regarding these five parts.

However, there is one thing that I have seen so far that is good in the government statement. It says there that you want to increase the efforts to reduce eutrophication. It also says that you are going to move the border - it does not say "the trawling limit" but "the border" - for industrial fishing, large fishing boats or anything of the sort.

Still, you are cutting the budget for the marine and water environment. You say you protect the sea and the herring, but it will be almost 1 billion less on marine and water initiatives until 2025, and 200 million less already next year. How are we supposed to be able to repair our damaged coastal ecosystems and get back large fish when you do that?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Nohrén, for the questions! I only have a brief comment regarding hydropower and the review that is currently being conducted. We stand by the fact that we have important work to do in removing migration barriers and increasing biodiversity in watercourses and so on. But right now, we see that the situation on the energy market is so sensitive that we need to take a break and consider what is the best course of action moving forward. We in the Liberals are not saying that it is a total stop, but we simply need time to think.

I also appreciate that the member sees the importance of the investments in wetlands that we are making. It is important, and it is perhaps the absolute most important investment we have in our environmental budget.

Now we shall see what the question was.

(EMMA NOHRÉN (MP): The marine and water environment.)

Yes, I share the member's view that these are very important issues. We have seas and watercourses that require measures to be in good health, and there are major problems with biodiversity. Measures are required there. But now the government is nine weeks old, and I have been a member of Parliament for eight and a half weeks. I am far from fully experienced, so in this regard, I must actually be held accountable.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! To save time, I can omit the final remark and just take the opportunity to wish the committee a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Climate change is the great defining issue of our time. It has been said in this chamber before, and I say it again: the climate issue is the great defining issue of our time.

The increased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere is changing the living conditions on our planet. We must do something about this. We must slow down the negative development, take care of our environment and protect biodiversity. Environmental work and climate work are closely linked and must be driven globally through, for example, the UN and EU, but also locally in our municipalities and regions where what is decided at other levels is actually to become reality.

The world is also beginning to open its eyes. We have seen a climate meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh in November and an environmental summit in Montreal, and the EU's climate package on future emissions trading was concluded this weekend. There is hope. It is still not too late.

Several actors need to contribute, and this applies to both the business community and us as individuals. It should be easy for each of us to make environmentally conscious choices in our everyday lives. For the Center Party, it is natural to pursue an environmental policy that protects nature and cycles while we can increase growth and prosperity.

Madam Speaker! How are we to proceed then? Yes, the climate is not saved by us stopping development and looking backward. Ingenuity and green growth are needed. New environmental technology and smart solutions can contribute to jobs and growth throughout the country.

The right-wing government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has so far not succeeded in establishing any trust within the environmental sector. Neither in the Tidö Agreement nor in the government statement does environmental policy receive the space it deserves. All focus lies on electrification and nuclear power. Three months into the new mandate period, it is clear that the green transition is by no means a priority for our government.

If the Centre Party had been allowed to decide, we would have reintroduced the climate bonus. Many families who wanted to make the right choice for the climate felt cheated when the government stopped this overnight and they no longer have the means to afford a climate-smart alternative. The sudden phase-out has been met with strong criticism from many sides, and we in Sweden now risk increasing emissions from our transports and missing the climate goals for 2030.

Swedish agriculture also needs to be given long-term conditions to facilitate the climate transition. The Center Party is the only party that has sharp proposals for a green bio-premium for agriculture aimed at leveling the price differences between HVO and diesel. In our budget, we have also made new investments in biofuels facilities to increase domestic production.

In connection with the government lowering the reduction obligation for fuel, the Minister for the Environment announced that instead, they will be efficient and invest very heavily in many small measures. Such measures have been conspicuously absent. I and the Center Party propose that the government instead invest more in the transition to a circular economy. Today, Sweden has the world's fifteenth largest ecological footprint, and therefore we must change our linear production and consumption. A national strategy and action plan for a circular economy is needed.

Centerpartiet was involved in developing such a plan during the previous parliamentary term, with 100 concrete proposals for industrial transition, material supply, technological development, and waste management. Unfortunately, this plan can no longer be found. After the change of government, it, like several other similar strategies, has been removed from the government's website.

In our budget initiative with extra priorities on Industriklivet, we want to turn the proposals into action with modern recycling technology for, for example, plastics and textiles. Regarding textiles, we have a long way to go. Using clothes and shoes longer, as well as repairing and upgrading them, is among the best things we can do to reduce our climate impact. Centerpartiet wants to see a stronger sharing economy where services for reuse, repair, and sharing or renting of clothes increase and where we take advantage of modern digital solutions.

It is therefore deeply regrettable that the government chooses to raise the VAT on repairs of clothes. It sends a very dull signal from the government that resource efficiency is not prioritized – especially as we enter economic crisis times where many families are having a hard time.

Madam Speaker! The forests, the coasts, the wetlands and the cultivated landscape are all important prerequisites for life and sustainable development. The loss of species and ecosystems is one of the most acute environmental problems in the world today.

Sweden has over 5,000 nature reserves and 30 national parks, and the vast majority of Swedes have, on average, only a few kilometers to protected nature. This is positive and unique. Unfortunately, the management of many protected areas is neglected, and they unfortunately do not exhibit the nature values that was intended. We therefore want to increase the pace of the work to restore and rehabilitate protected nature so that even future generations can benefit from resilient ecosystems. We want the measures for valuable nature to be increased by an additional 130 million kronor compared to the government's proposal.

Centerpartiet also wants to see specific initiatives to strengthen biological diversity in the agricultural landscape. In several places in the country, there is competition for land and water resources, and it is required that we are more cautious with exploitation if we are to achieve good economic management. Especially in Skåne, where I come from, there are areas of very high-quality agricultural land over large areas, which are needed for food production – at the same time as we need more housing and recreational areas.

Sweden must increase the self-sufficiency rate through sustainable production of energy, food, and materials. For us, the individual landowner is a central part of the work to preserve and increase biodiversity. They have the local knowledge that is necessary and know their own land best, which provides more efficiency than state compulsion. We want a national program with local action coordinators based on long-term thinking and close cooperation with the landowner.

Invasive species are one of the major threats to biodiversity in Sweden. The government has a great responsibility to ensure that there is proper governance and structure in this work. I can state that it is not working today.

The conditions for life in the sea must also be strengthened. Centerpartiet wants to increase the pace of restoring and protecting the sea. In the Baltic Sea, there is an area larger than all of Denmark where the bottom is now dead, and an entire ecosystem could collapse. The situation is bad with the fish stocks in the Baltic Sea and the Western Sea, and urgent measures are required. We want to move out the trawling limit along the entire Baltic coast, halve the fishing quotas for the large trawlers, and regulate bottom trawling more strictly than today. Centerpartiet also wants more marine nature reserves.

General environmental and nature conservation

Eutrophication in the seas is also an acute problem that we must address as soon as possible. Many countries around the Baltic Sea are involved and contribute to the eutrophication. The Centre Party wants to introduce a new system where the countries that pollute also have to pay, inspired by the EU's system for emissions trading.

Centerpartiet also wants to carry out a historically large upgrade of the Swedish water and sewage infrastructure and see initiatives to streamline water consumption in households. By equipping water treatment plants with modern technology, restoring wetlands and involving more farmers, we can prevent eutrophication and give new life to our seas.

Madam Speaker! The loss of species and biodiversity affects humans fundamentally. One of the most serious consequences concerns our own opportunities to obtain enough food to eat, clean water to drink, and clean air to breathe. Right now, greater efforts are required for us to achieve the Swedish environmental goals. But it is possible to reverse the trend: A report describes how researchers who have followed 50 endangered species in Europe for a long time can state that the species, thanks to conservation measures and regulated hunting, have recovered. This applies to both mammal and bird species.

General environmental and nature conservation

In conclusion: We need to raise knowledge. Pollution must decrease, and we must collectively manage, restore, and recreate nature on a voluntary basis. We need to ensure that we shift into a higher gear to combat invasive alien species and reduce our production and consumption, which have a negative impact on biodiversity. There are great challenges, but there is still hope. It is not yet too late.

With that, I would like to thank you for the floor and take the opportunity to wish everyone in the chair and the Committee on Environment and Agriculture a Merry Christmas.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 21 December.)

Business

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