(cont. from § 13) Climate policy (cont. MJU14)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we live in a restless time, a time where war rages in Europe and where threats of tariffs rain down upon us. This takes much focus – with all the right. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is an existential issue, but so is the climate.

Global warming must be stopped, and this can only be solved through a better and more sustainable tomorrow in every country around the world.

The Fit for 55 package, which was pushed through during the Swedish presidency of the EU, is a crucial piece of the puzzle for Sweden and Europe. But Sweden cannot solely lean on the EU. Sweden must be a pioneer in climate policy, and this requires an ambitious policy that is doubly sustainable.

Mr. Speaker! It requires a policy that is effective and long-term but that also works in everyday life – for companies and for private individuals. Otherwise, the political measures will be abolished before they have had a chance to take effect, and Sweden will simply be left without tools to reduce emissions.

Neither the climate nor the companies that want to contribute to the transition benefit from a regulatory framework that fails when energy prices skyrocket or from symbolic taxes that are introduced one year and abolished the next.

Mr. Speaker! The climate work has come a good way, but it must continue. We Liberals stand for a policy that shows that climate transition and economic development go hand in hand. Countries in economic decline will not have the prerequisites to take the step towards a climate-neutral economy. They will also not become role models for others. No one is convinced by a country that dramatically reduces its prosperity in the pursuit of climate-smartness.

For us Liberals, it is crucial that climate policy does not only work in the large cities. It must work in all of Sweden. It must work for those who produce our food, build our prosperity and have a long way to school and work – for us who live in the countryside, quite simply.

We Liberals believe that the combination of freedom and responsibility is more important to promote than coercion. Our climate policy follows that principle. It is based on technological development, on the innovative power of companies, and on people's will to do the right thing when the opportunity exists. In order for people to be part of the transition, prerequisites and incentives need to be strengthened.

The climate transition is fundamentally an energy transition. Without stable electricity, no green industry, no electric cars, and no climate transition. But I am not the first to say this in the chamber today: Sweden is still heavily affected by the politically motivated decommissioning of nuclear power. The work to get new baseload power in the form of nuclear power in place is absolutely crucial for us to be able to produce the electricity required for today's emission-intensive industries to become sustainable through electrification.

Unfortunately, important innovations that could have reduced emissions have been held back by the ideological blinkers of previous governments. Now, decisive action is being taken to secure Sweden's future energy supply and competitiveness. Fossil-free energy is absolutely crucial to meeting the climate transition. I am very proud to be part of the cooperation that is pushing so hard for new nuclear power. It is to show leadership. It is to take responsibility, as a member here said earlier: If you have no energy policy, you also have no climate policy.

The challenges are great but not insurmountable. Despair regarding solving the challenges risks fundamentally undermining the legitimacy of climate work. A belief in people's ability to adapt and find solutions is needed. We Liberals believe in development, research, and curiosity as the driving force. We do not believe that we must choose between climate and growth. We believe that it is precisely there, at the intersection, that the new is born.

Let us therefore choose hope over doom, technology over prohibition, and the future over fear. That is how Sweden maintains the lead. That is how the cities prosper, that is how the countryside grows, and that is how the climate is saved. That is how we build a stronger Sweden for the future.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Nilsson, for the contribution!

I also want to thank you for the clarity regarding the member's view that it is important that we work at the EU level to achieve climate policy. We truly share that insight, and I also think that there is a great deal of maturity in the Swedish debate regarding this, where many parties can agree and see the EU as a very relevant actor.

More concerning is that the EU's climate council urges member states to do significantly more. They publish annual reports on how the climate policy is progressing, and there it is shown that Sweden and other EU countries are not doing enough. It is deeply worrying.

Even authorities at home indicate that Sweden is backing down when it comes to climate policy. This concerns both the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Climate Policy Council, and as we have said, we have also received criticism at the EU level because Sweden does not appear to be meeting the 2030 targets.

All of this is deeply concerning, and I assume it also concerns Member Nilsson that her government is unable to deliver in the area of climate policy. My question to Member Nilsson is therefore: How should the Minister for Climate act?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for the question and perhaps also for the cheers! It is truly the case that the EU is crucial in the transition work. The EU is such a strong international actor, and therefore it is a very important key in all of this to get all of the EU's member states on board but also the rest of the world.

I naturally share the concern for what we see happening, but I am also convinced that our policy will lead us all the way to net-zero 2045. One must sometimes lift one's gaze and see that we are heading in the right direction. We are taking measures that will have an effect, not least when it comes to energy policy. I am aware that the member may not want to discuss energy policy here today, but one cannot separate climate policy and energy policy. They go hand in hand. Electrification is crucial in this matter.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer from the member!

From the Social Democrats' side, we believe that we should have a clear, good and ambitious climate policy as well as an energy mix in Sweden that ensures that electrification works. One does not contradict the other.

What we are requesting from the government is an increased pace regarding climate policy. We know that the budget has decreased by 31 percent compared to 2022. We know that several of the climate tools that this government did not consider appropriate have been removed, and no new climate tools have been added from the government's side.

It has been said earlier in this debate that the government's strategy right now seems to be to constantly postpone the climate policy. First it was about the climate action plan, then it was about the Styrmedelsutredningen, and then perhaps about the Miljömålsberedningen and the climate goals. It is always something that is to happen further ahead.

It seems as if one wants to pass the buck to the government that takes office after the next election. But it only becomes more expensive and worse to act in that way. I therefore still want to stubbornly continue to ask Member Nilsson if there are no additional climate tools in the Liberals' toolbox. Is this what we are going to see during this mandate period, or is there a will to do more in the climate area so that Sweden does not lose ground and its opportunities to meet the 2030 goals?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the member for the question!

We are doing many things. We have presented the climate action plan with 70 points that are to lead all the way to net zero 2045. What we are doing concerns electrification, simpler permit processes, and international cooperation and agreements, but it also concerns investigating how we can meet our commitments. The previous Environmental Goals Commission, for example, conducted a review of how we should meet our LULUCF commitments, and that is under preparation at the Government Offices where work is ongoing to see how to proceed with it. There is also an environmental goals commission ongoing now, where the member and I are sitting, where the climate goals are being reviewed. So, things are happening all the time.

To return to the previous Environmental Goals Commission and the proposals submitted there regarding LULUCF, the forest is a very important part of the Swedish climate work. However, there are great difficulties in reaching the commitments that Sweden has, because the forest is a sector with such great inherent uncertainty when it comes to drought, pest attacks, and so on. But there are proposals on how to handle this that are on the Government Offices' desk, and I look forward to those proposals being handled.

A specific proposal that I am very pleased with in the Environmental Goals Preparation is the proposal to phase out peat extraction. It is something that I personally, as well as my party, would like to see become a reality. Then it is a matter of coordination, but if I were to decide, we would phase out peat extraction in Sweden.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In recent days, we have been able to read that a Swedish study on climate change and the spread of TBE has been stopped because it has the word climate change in the title. The reason is the Trump administration's change of NIH, which means that they will no longer fund research on the health effects of climate change. At the same time, the USA is restricting access to existing climate data, which can, among other things, lead to both climate adaptation measures and mapping of risk areas for various infectious diseases being made impossible.

It may feel crazy, but we are also on the wrong track in Sweden. Here, the Sweden Democrats want to terrorize climate activists. SD states that they have signed an agreement with the Tidöregeringen to stop support for the green transition, or at least for certain companies within the green transition.

The current government and the Sweden Democrats have lowered the climate ambitions to such an extent that Sweden is now judged to miss all international, European, and national climate goals. We are therefore no longer even doing our part for the EU to meet its climate goals, but are one of the countries within the EU that has the fastest increases in emissions.

That Swedish climate emissions are now increasing instead of us seeing the reductions we need is entirely due to the government's policy. We have a Prime Minister who mocks priorities and climate measures. We have a climate action plan that lacks action. We have a government that procrastinates and hinders the work of reaching the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping the earth's temperature increase well below two degrees.

Mr. Speaker! We have a government in Sweden that actively counteracts climate policy. Swedish emissions are increasing. The government's policy stands in sharp contrast to other news. 2024 was the first year that the global average temperature exceeded the 1.5-degree goal. The carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere is at the highest level in 800,000 years. The last ten years, from 2015, are the ten warmest years that have been measured globally.

According to a study conducted in 125 countries, 89 percent of the population want a more powerful climate policy and almost 70 percent are prepared to sacrifice 1 percent of their income every month for climate measures. It is important to remember when talking about acceptance among the population. The Tidö government only hears climate-denying trolls on social media but also needs to listen to the worried Friday protesters, the stinging rebel mothers, the warning researchers, and all of us in between. There are many of us who have a strong climate anxiety and who are fighting for a better climate policy.

The knowledge, the money, and the technology exist to reduce emissions. It seems to be mostly the will that is lacking from the government. But today's situation is extremely serious, both for future generations and for us who stand here today.

Mr. Speaker! We need to do everything we can to minimize the effects of climate change. In the report on climate policy that we are debating today, there are 46 reservations, and the committee's proposal is that all 46 are rejected. I believe that it is 18 or 19 of those reservations that come from Miljöpartiet. I naturally stand behind all of these, but according to the party agreement we have, I only motion to approve two of them: reservation 17 regarding a national carbon budget and reservation 29 regarding the forest's carbon sequestration capacity. There are, however, other motions that I would like to highlight because it is clear that very much must be done for Sweden to have a climate policy worthy of the name.

First and foremost, something that should be very simple: We must stop subsidizing the use of fossil fuels. Our tax money needs to be used to steer towards a sustainable and climate-efficient future, nothing else.

According to the Climate Policy Council, the Swedish government is investing around 4.7 billion kronor in the budget for 2025 on decisions that counteract the possibilities of reaching the climate goals. This includes, among other things, tax cuts on gasoline, diesel, and flights. It is more than double the amount invested in measures to reduce climate emissions.

Much of our EU money is also used for fossil subsidies. We therefore believe that Sweden should work for an international ban on fossil subsidies.

Public procurement accounts for a large part of our climate emissions. Therefore, it is important that we take special responsibility for quickly reducing these emissions. Climate requirements need to be set in all public procurement. We should adopt a new goal that the public sector shall lead the way to reach near-zero emissions by 2030. Our tax money can work towards Sweden developing in a more sustainable direction by us procuring clean and fossil-free operations and technology that steer away from the fossil.

Climate change is driven by the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Therefore, steering of how much Sweden emits in total and which measures are taken is required. With the help of an emissions budget, a total amount of emissions can be linked to Sweden's climate goals. We therefore want the government to develop a national carbon budget based on existing climate research and the goals of the Paris Agreement. The carbon budget should be updated every year, and steering instruments and measures should be designed and implemented based on the new goals and sub-goals. Authorities and state-owned companies should then be given their own emissions budgets defined in regulatory letters and directives. It is a method of steering that is used in several municipalities, for example.

To reach the climate goals that Sweden has internationally within the EU and nationally, one must, across all policy areas, take a greater and more integrated responsibility for climate policy. Climate policy is complex, and it is of fundamental importance that all policy areas take a collective and integrated responsibility. Better coordination between climate goals and other societal goals can reduce the risk of conflicts, and one can also achieve clear synergies. Climate and environmental issues need to be integrated into the work with all policy areas and sectors and at all levels in society.

The EU's new emissions trading system for, among other things, transport and housing, ETS 2, should be introduced as quickly as possible in Sweden. We do not, however, believe that introducing ETS 2 will be sufficient for Sweden to reach the climate goals for 2030. Therefore, we want to see a national emissions trading system where the distribution goes towards compensating those citizens who currently have the hardest time transitioning. The introduction of an emissions trading system, we believe, needs to be combined with tightenings of other national measures, such as carbon tax, reduction obligation, and distance-based taxes.

Now we come to carbon sequestration in forests. Within the EU, Sweden has received a binding goal to increase carbon sequestration in forest and land by approximately 4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents by 2030. But in recent years, the development, as most know, has gone in the wrong direction in Sweden. The uptake of carbon in forest and land has instead decreased radically as a result of the forest growing poorly, that we have had droughts, and that logging has increased. Measures that allow forest and land to take up more carbon must be implemented in the near term so that we can reach the goals of LULUCF and Sweden's binding commitments within the EU. We need a strategic effort with a number of measures to increase the sequestration of carbon in forest and land.

If drought becomes more common due to climate change, there is a risk that the carbon sink in the Swedish forests will decrease even faster over time and that both the forest and forestry will be damaged. Measures that contribute to protecting and climate-adapting the forest and making it more resilient to drought are needed to protect the forest's carbon storage and increase carbon sequestration.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to highlight a more general policy for climate adaptation. Right now, we are eagerly awaiting the major climate adaptation inquiry which should be published in the near future. I really want to emphasize the importance of preparing the country for an entirely new weather in the wake of climate change. We need to protect human lives, important infrastructure, and private property through long-term, stable, and increased national support for climate adaptation measures.

County administrative boards and municipalities must receive clearer frameworks and resources. A national plan is needed for truly large-scale climate adaptation projects, for example, a plan to protect Göta älv and surrounding municipalities and work to protect the drinking water source Mälaren from the intrusion of Baltic Sea water. We believe that the government must increase its level of ambition regarding Sweden's climate adaptation work.

Mr. Speaker! The government needs to do much more than it does today to protect us and the people of the future from harmful climate changes. We have on repeated occasions requested a new climate action plan that focuses on action instead of long, postponed investigations.

The government has long since lost control over climate policy and the increasing emissions. But there is still time to act. We have the technology, we have the economy, and we still have the opportunity to do our part to avoid a climate catastrophe.

Unfortunately, it does not seem as if the government has a plan in place that takes the climate issue seriously. Therefore, we need a new government in place that takes the climate issue seriously. That was my final wish, wasn't it?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party shares a good deal of the Green Party's thoughts, but perhaps not quite all of them. However, we both want to increase timber house construction to reduce the need for fossil materials in the form of, for example, steel and cement. We also, of course, want to replace the fossil materials in plastics, fuels, and other things with renewable alternatives.

Miljöpartiet has a goal that the construction of wooden houses or the wooden frames in multi-family buildings should increase from 20 to 50 percent. That is approximately 6,000 apartments per year. The big question then becomes: Where shall the timber come from? At the same time as Miljöpartiet wants more of the Swedish forest to remain standing and not be felled, they want more to be built of wood. To build more of wood, timber is required, and timber comes from the forest. But where shall the timber come from if the forest is to remain standing, Katarina Luhr?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the question!

Rickard Nordin did not sit in the previous environmental goals preparation. In it, a large discussion was ongoing about how the forest can bind more carbon and how the forest should be managed. One of the important points that the investigation came to was that we need to get rid of the short-lived products. Today, a very large amount of our forest goes to paper. It is something that is used for a very short time and then burned in district heating plants.

We think that a sharp policy is needed so that more timber and other long-lived products can be extracted from the forest and to try to push out the short-lived products. It is important that there is still an active forestry. We want to invest money in, for example, a transition support, so that those who use conventional forestry methods switch to using selection felling and other methods that allow one to save more forest and reduce the carbon dioxide emissions created by the larger clear-cuts that we see today. Was that an answer to the question?

The main issue is about shifting from short-lived products from the forest to long-lived ones. We should not make toilet paper directly from the forest; instead, the forest should be used to build in and store carbon dioxide in, for example, buildings.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! We shall push out short-lived products such as toilet paper, says Katarina Luhr. The first question then becomes: Which measures should, according to the Green Party, make us use less toilet paper in Sweden? The second question is: How does the Green Party intend to do this?

The highest value in a log is the timber. That is what one wants to use primarily if possible. These are residual products that are burned in power and district heating plants. No one burns prime firewood there; instead, it concerns bark, chips, debris, and timber that has been damaged by bark beetle infestation or fire. This does not really add up.

If we are to push out short-lived products such as toilet paper, I am curious about what proposals Miljöpartiet has for how we should use less toilet paper in Sweden or elsewhere for that part. What other paper products should we use? What instruments of government does Miljöpartiet want? I find it a bit difficult to see that anything could replace such large volumes that we can use timber to build wooden houses if we are simultaneously going to let a large part of the forest remain.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This raises some questions. This very proposal is one of those that proceeded from the Environmental Goals Preparation. It meant that one should shift from short-lived to long-lived products so that more carbon can be stored in structures, buildings, and houses.

Do the Centre Party and Rickard Nordin think it is good that we cut down forests to make toilet paper from them? Does Rickard Nordin think it is good that we use it that has been extracted once – during one use – and then burn it up? It is not the best way to use our forests, if one wants to store carbon dioxide and thinks that the forest has an important role in contributing to climate benefits.

If the forest is to contribute to climate benefit, it is much better that when one takes the carbon out of the forest, one builds something out of it so that the carbon is stored instead of being directly burned. Otherwise, one cannot claim that the forest contributes to Sweden's climate benefit.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Much in Katarina Luhr's speech invited a reply. One thing mentioned was activists. I interpreted Katarina Luhr, perhaps a bit between the lines, as having a different view on activism and activists than the undersigned does.

It is often called civil disobedience. At the beginning of the week, a number of activists from an organization that wants to oppose wolf hunting were at the home of the Minister for Rural Affairs. They did not, of course, dare to show who they were, but they wore hoods. They came there to intimidate. These are people who do not stand behind democratically made decisions. These are decisions that are made in this chamber.

There are activists who are not as cowardly as these but who, in the name of the climate, gladly sit down and block roads. There are activists who, in the name of the climate, disrupt ski competitions and, for example, have tried to stop Vasaloppet. They tried to cause disruption for ordinary citizens and for community life at one of Sweden's largest sporting events.

Do Katarina Luhr and Miljöpartiet believe that it leads to more people joining the will that the activists and apparently Miljöpartiet have? Do Katarina Luhr and Miljöpartiet consider it the right way to go to get more people on board with the climate transition?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

There are many different types of activism, and I absolutely and strongly distance myself from people going to the home of a minister or any person whatsoever for the purpose of intimidation. I think there are better and worse ways to demonstrate, but very many of the climate activists I have met sit peacefully and knit, for example, long red scarves. They sit somewhere to show themselves. Some sit outside the Riksdag every Friday.

If one is to classify a certain demonstration purpose – that specifically climate activists should be classified as terrorists – I think we are on a very slippery slope. I want to emphasize that. Civil disobedience and activism have led to a good deal of our better societal changes. However, that does not mean that all methods of activism are good.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Katarina Luhr for the answer. It is good that she nevertheless distances herself from certain activism.

I cannot help but continue with what Rickard Nordin raised regarding the forest in his exchange. It is still the case, Mr. Speaker, that trees are round while planks and boards are angular. Evolution has not yet led to trees becoming angular, and it means that when logs arrive at sawmills, there is waste.

If we are to get the long-lived products that Miljöpartiet and Katarina Luhr strive for, we must cull. Otherwise, we get no growth and really fine logs. It is by managing the forest that we get growth. Another way to quickly increase the carbon sink is to fertilize the forest. But Miljöpartiet does not want that, because it leads to other things which, according to them, would be a backlash.

One hundred years ago, we had 1.5 billion cubic meters of forest in Sweden. Now we have 3 billion cubic meters of forest, that is twice as much forest now as we had a hundred years ago. During these hundred years, we have harvested four times the growth. We have harvested 6 billion cubic meters of forest in Sweden. Still, we have twice as much forest now as we had a hundred years ago.

This forest is apparently supposed to stand and decay, because that is what is happening. Apparently, we are instead supposed to import timber in order to be able to supply the industry with all the timber it needs. As a conclusion, I must therefore ask a question: Do Katarina Luhr and Miljöpartiet consider that other countries in Europe and the world have more sustainable forestry than we have in Sweden, given that the timber is to be imported?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

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

I and Miljöpartiet are really not against the use of the forest, but we want to see a more sustainable use.

We also want to see that the forest retains some of its carbon-binding capacity. We see today that the forest's carbon-binding capacity has decreased radically in just a period of 10–15 years. This means that we need to make even sharper emission reductions if we are to remain in balance when the forest stops helping us remove carbon dioxide from the air.

I think it is important that we look at alternatives. We are working on all levels now, I believe, with circular economy, for example. I myself have worked a lot with circular construction – that one can reuse.

It is important that we look at sustainable forestry and that we ensure that the forests we have are managed in a way that allows them to have long-term growth, that the one who manages the forest receives a reasonable income from their work, that our forests are healthy and that we can extract the other values that exist from our forests, for example blueberries, game and everything that the forests give us today, so that we do not lose the huge value we have in Sweden's forests.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for a fine speech! It is nice that we have our first debate here in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker! For the first time, Sweden now has a climate policy action plan that shows the entire way to net zero. I think we should be honest about what has actually been delivered during previous mandates and under other governments. During the eight years that S and MP were in power, there were certainly very fine climate goals, but no concrete plan for how the goals would be reached. Only now, with a conservative government, does Sweden have a climate policy action plan that extends all the way to net zero emissions in 2045.

They chose to focus heavily on the reduction obligation as the main instrument, without sufficient consideration for costs, social effects, or alternative technologies. The result was sharply increased fuel prices and a transition that lost its popular anchoring.

Mr. Speaker! We are broadening the toolbox, we are strengthening the industry's green transition, and we are expanding fossil-free electricity production. And we have acceptance for our policy. I wonder: How would the Green Party have intended to implement a policy that obviously does not win acceptance among the people?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Storckenfeldt, for the question!

First and foremost, I would like to say that there have been climate action plans even before, and I would say that the differences between the climate action plans are that the plan developed by the red-green government contained action, measures, and policy.

The plan that has now been developed is called the Government's Climate Action Plan – all the way to net zero, but those who have reviewed it say that the title is misleading. All measures are pushed into the future, and we have not seen which measures are to be taken because they are to appear in the report of the Steering Means Inquiry, which is not yet on the table. I therefore think that there are quite large differences between the climate action plans.

When it comes to us putting all our eggs in one basket, one can examine a bit what kind of politics the government is pursuing. Much of the active policy being pursued is actually to remove measures. Of all the measures that the governing parties say did not exist, this government has most recently succeeded in removing the tax reduction on solar cells. The reduction obligation has been lowered. The energy tax has been lowered. The bonus for eco-cars has been scrapped. And the VAT for repairs has been raised.

There are long lists of measures that existed in our time but which are now either abolished or worsened. I believe that very many of these measures have great acceptance among the population.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that the red-green climate action plan contained action, but only until 2030. Then, unfortunately, it came to a halt.

I also cannot refrain from speaking about forest policy now that we have the chance. We see all too often that the Green Party's policy for the forest in general is characterized by mistrust towards Sweden's 300,000 forest owners. Instead of the forest being seen as a sustainable, renewable resource for climate benefit, jobs, and growth, it becomes more and more burdens on Sweden's forest owners.

We believe in the forest owners' role in the climate transition, not as a problem but as an absolutely incredibly important part of the solution. We need more, not less, sustainably managed forest in Sweden.

It becomes better, generally speaking, when the forest owners get the right of disposal. We have seen very clear examples of this in Swedish forest policy. We have twice as much forest now as 100 years ago, the products that are produced push out the fossil ones, and landowners contribute to good biodiversity, high nature values, and so on.

Mr. Speaker! I wonder how the Green Party thinks the climate goals will be reached if we hinder those who want to manage their forests in a sustainable way and with responsibility and long-term perspective. How is Sweden to reach the climate goals without also having the forest owners with us?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet does not believe that we will solve the climate issue if we hinder forest owners who manage their forests slowly, carefully, and meticulously in order to contribute to climate benefits. We want to support forest owners. What we see today is that forest owners have found it harder and harder to live off their forestry.

The great profit today of owning forest is that one can sell it at some point in the future, but one has very difficulty obtaining income from the forestry that one conducts. We want to change that. We want it to become more profitable to manage the forest in a long-term and sustainable way. We know that the forest has an important role, and we know that the forest owners have an important role.

All the puzzle pieces are needed, but we also need the forest in that puzzle required to be able to solve the climate crisis. All the data says so. It is enough to read a little bit regarding climate policy to understand that.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö Agreement marked a new chapter for Swedish climate policy, but the ambitions regarding the transition remain firm.

The big news is that popular anchoring is fundamental for all future climate policy. There must be a popular acceptance. If there is to be a popular acceptance, it must also be a climate policy that can be reconciled with growth, both regarding jobs and industry as well as regarding growth in our food production.

It must also be an effective policy where one can see that tax money is making a difference. One must also be prepared to conduct consequence analyses of the policies pursued. When they do not work and do not produce the desired effect, or perhaps do not lead to popular acceptance, one must be prepared to reconsider them.

Climate policy is an ongoing process, just like all other policy areas. It is not the case that a climate action plan will be able to present all future climate policy up to a certain year. I have worked in the committee for a while and remember when a climate action plan was presented by the red-green government, which was criticized in exactly the same way. Concrete proposals were missing there, and it was a long series of investigations. One also had an Environment Party climate minister who said that one did not present solutions to achieve the 2045 goal; that was made clear.

I stated that the climate action plan violated the law, because the law is designed in such a way that it is impossible to achieve.

Mr. Speaker! As I said, the ongoing policy must be reviewed, and the Swedish climate goals are being reviewed today. Even the European goals must be reviewed. It is clear that alarm bells must ring for many when one sees that the EU has designed LULUCF legislation that is completely impossible to achieve without destroying Swedish forestry. It is simply not possible.

Then, of course, one can be a bit annoyed that the previous government negotiated this. The idea was, after all, that Sweden could solve both the ESR commitment and that which concerns LULUCF through the reduction obligation. Now we know that it would not have been enough even with the world's by far highest diesel prices – we would not have been able to achieve these things in any case. Here, one must naturally push to get a change in the EU policy.

One must also be prepared to review the EU's energy policy. We have an electricity market directive that leads to people in Sweden today being hit by an electric car tax if they charge the car at home, namely the power charge. It affects virtually everyone who charges an electric car. It is impossible to escape it once it has been introduced. Not all households have been reached by it yet, but it is on the way. It is an EU mandate and an example of legislation that we should review.

Mr. Speaker! What we see here in the chamber is a radicalized opposition. One can speak about what people want and do not want. But what we see here is a radicalized opposition where the goals must be reached at any cost, no matter what the cost may be. But what that cost will be, one cannot answer.

They are trying to mix the cards by saying that if we change some technicalities regarding reduction obligations and biofuels, it won't have to become more expensive at all. They ignore the fact that if you are going to mix something into the fuel that is much more expensive to produce, it will have an effect on the price. That effect can be attempted to be compensated for with tax funds, but it cannot be conjured away.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Kinnunen, for the contribution! There are some thoughts that come to me when I listen to Kinnunen in the speaker's chair. The first is that there is a complete absence of climate policy. Not one word about what the Sverigedemokraterna want to see for climate policy did we hear here. The speech was about everything other than climate policy, and very much was about shifting the blame.

The second: When one listens to the Sweden Democrats, it is difficult to know in which direction the policy is headed. Often it is a matter of saying one thing but doing another. Today I have understood that when the Sweden Democrats, in the form of Member Kinnunen, say one thing, the reality is actually quite the opposite. That is how one should read his speech. I believe it can be an eye-opener for many.

When the Sweden Democrats say that the Swedish people do not want to see a climate policy, it is in fact quite the opposite. Climate policy has no popular support, say the Sweden Democrats. Yes, it is exactly the opposite: the Swedish people want to see an active climate policy. It is the Sweden Democrats who do not want an active climate policy, and it is apparently the blame-shifting rhetoric that is the most popular and most successful recipe for becoming a member of parliament for the Sweden Democrats in the Swedish Riksdag.

My question is, of course: Where is the climate policy, Kinnunen?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Jytte Guteland is in opposition today. When she was a Member of the European Parliament, she was also in opposition to the Social Democratic government, because the Social Democrats in the European Parliament were not satisfied with the Social Democratic government's policy here in Sweden. They wanted a tougher policy. They wanted a more radical climate policy. They wanted to establish regulatory frameworks that would force the Commission to punish member states severely if they did not follow the EU's climate legislation.

Mr. Speaker! It was among other things this I was referring to when I said that we have received a more radicalized opposition on the climate issue. I think it is unfortunate. I think we could lower the tone a bit.

We agree that we want to see a transition, and we are now seeing a transition. We see that the development in the long run is going quite well in the entire Western world. We have problems with Russia. There are problems in Asia, India, China and South America. Not much is happening there. There, emissions are increasing in avalanche-like quantities. It is there that we have the dramatic problems right now. If this cannot be solved, one will not come anywhere near any global climate goals at all.

Mr. Speaker! Jytte Guteland suggests in some irritated manner that if I say one thing, I mean another.

When the reduction obligation was introduced, I debated with the Social Democrats. I said that the reduction obligation would lead to much higher prices on fuels. Then the Social Democrats argued that I was wrong, because it would suddenly become much cheaper to produce the biofuels. When we then said that we will enable lower fuel prices, they also argued that we were wrong.

We can probably state that sometimes it is the Sweden Democrats who are right and the Social Democrats who are wrong. It is also the Social Democrats who follow the Sweden Democrats and try to rectify things.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Kinnunen says that the Social Democrats are sometimes wrong. Does that actually mean that we are usually right? If so, I thank him for the compliment.

I note once again that "radicalized opposition" seems to be a favorite word, a new word from the Sverigedemokraterna. But in reality, I believe we should read it exactly the opposite way: It is about a radicalized majority. It is the Sverigedemokraterna who contribute to the radicalism in braking climate policy, raising the tone, and creating chaos in various political areas. One is either uninterested or wants to steer the focus toward completely different issues.

Let's be honest: climate policy is not your favorite branch. The Sweden Democrats have no interest in climate policy. They are not particularly against it and not particularly for it – they simply do not care.

I want to tell Member Kinnunen that climate policy is absolutely crucial for achieving positive effects for Sweden – positive effects in the form of innovation power, more companies, and more jobs. Sweden is currently in urgent need of more jobs. We are in a situation with mass unemployment, where bankruptcies are piling up. It is that policy that you are leading the government to deliver.

I want to ask Kinnunen if he is against all the positive effects that an active climate policy provides.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs a business-friendly policy that creates incentives for work and makes it easy and simple to run businesses. We need good access to labor. But we must not deceive ourselves into thinking that it is through a climate budget that we create jobs and growth. It is a whole. Nor is it us politicians who are to do everything.

A great deal is about us, from the political side, having to remove obstacles. It is not through massive stimuli and Soviet-style politics that we will create new jobs and growth in our country. That is not how it is.

We have a framework at the European level that can be observed to be good in some respects and very bad in others. We can also observe that it would have become very much worse if Jytte Guteland had gotten what she wanted, because then it would not have just required twice as high fuel prices, but perhaps three times as high fuel prices.

We need to have a policy that focuses on jobs and growth in all areas, but we must not deceive ourselves into thinking that it is through the climate budget and a certain number of billions in stimuli to a certain sector that we change everything.

Climate policy

Mr. Speaker! Regarding stability, we can say that it has rarely been so stable in Sweden's Riksdag as during this mandate period. Every single budget has passed. Not a single Prime Minister has been fired yet. Things and matters seem to be quite stable compared to when the Social Democrats tried to govern the country.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 8 May.)

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