(cont. from § 15) Climate policy (cont. MJU16)

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a modern country that should not follow the climate opinion like a heavy anchor but drive it. We shall be leading through new industrialization and high ambitions. We shall take responsibility for our historically high emissions as an industrial nation and our current emissions, and we shall show the world that we are doing everything we can to drive the development of the new, green technology. We shall secure climate financing, and we shall accelerate the emission reductions in both Sweden, the EU, and the world.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 35.

Sometimes global warming is described as something that will happen in the future. But it is affecting us now. The climate crisis means that the world is experiencing more natural disasters now than before. It brings severe storms, droughts, floods and heat, and it accelerates species extinction, shakes up agriculture, creates conflicts over scarce resources and drives people into flight.

I believe that many remember with horror the fires that have hit Sweden in recent years. Sweden and Europe are increasingly affected by extreme weather. Last year's summer was the warmest ever recorded on the European continent.

We remember how floods hit Pakistan in a terrible way when a third of the country ended up under the masses of water.

Researchers are now warning that Europe is heading towards another scorching summer, and across the EU and our elongated country Sweden, preparations are underway to handle the approaching summer. Researchers have also established that Europe today runs a ten times greater risk than other continents of being hit by extreme heatwaves due to global warming. The heat is already killing the most.

According to French President Emmanuel Macron, France's water supply will decrease by up to 40 percent by 2050. In Spain, farmers are concerned that there will be no water at all this summer either. In Sweden, the fire season has started with fires in several forests around our country. Municipalities are preparing to handle the opposite as well, floods. Rivers are affected. Most recently Torne älv, where the floods are the worst in 50 years.

Figures from the European Environment Agency and Eurostat show that the EU has lost 145 billion euros as a result of climate-related extreme weather between 2010 and 2020. At the same time, the insurance industry also warns that it will become increasingly difficult to insure Swedish houses across our country because the extreme weather entails such great risks. That is Sweden today.

The Swedish people are involved and see what is happening. There is support for a more active climate policy. The climate is one of the areas that evokes the greatest engagement in Association Sweden. Also, the business sector is pushing and wants to see an increased, more active and more ambitious climate policy. In Sweden, the climate issue is one of the most important issues in the latest opinion polls.

At the same time, the government's policy in this area is limited, unclear, and in some cases purely counterproductive and regressive. It is not sufficient that the policy leaves walkover in our time's most important issue. It is a betrayal, not only against Sweden but against the entire world.

We have many times during the current government's time in power been surprised by how climate policy has been reduced and dismantled. The Climate Minister says one thing; the Sverigedemokraterna, which is part of the government base, says another. In the autumn, during the Czech presidency, negotiations on the important climate package Fit for 55 were rushed because they wanted to avoid the Swedish presidency. Here at home, the reduction obligation was dismantled, and many important budget appropriations for climate work disappeared from the budget. It has been utterly deplorable to follow the climate work from this government and not least the poor Climate Minister, who seems to be sitting in the lap of the Sverigedemokraterna.

We are all now waiting for what is the Minister for Climate's big answer every time we ask questions in the Riksdag: We are supposedly to receive a climate action plan - at some point; when, no one knows.

The latest climate action plan was decided in 2019. It was ambitious. It contained, among other things, descriptions of which measures the government at that time intended to take at a cross-sectoral level and for different emission sectors, with a particular focus on the transport sector which is very important. It was about us concretizing, coordinating, and renewing Sweden.

Now the current Minister for Climate does not know at all how it is to be done. We receive no information. Is it to be a directive? Is it to be a government bill? Who is to participate in the work? It just becomes more and more confusing the more times we ask questions here in the chamber about this.

Madam Speaker! Since Russia's unlawful invasion of Ukraine, we have gained a new, brutal insight into what it is like to sit at the mercy of a dictator or an authoritarian regime's fossil dependency. We do not want to end up in that position again. The fossil imports from Russia helped Putin build his war machine. The Russian war against Ukraine must also, in the long term, motivate us to move away from the fossil dependency on the rest of the world.

The green transition represents an excellent opportunity to transition and tighten the authoritarian levers and the money machine for Putin. The EU has done a lot and Sweden has done a lot, but the work must continue.

The Moderates would like to talk about energy policy - as we just saw in the chamber - as if it had been eight lost years with the Social Democratic government. The fact is that when we took over government power, Sweden was import-dependent on the energy side, but after eight years with us in power, it was the opposite. On the vast majority of days during a year, it was Sweden that exported energy to our surroundings, and furthermore, green energy. We are proud of that, and we hope that you will not dismantle it from the Moderate-led government once again.

Energy Council says in its report for 2022 that Sweden has the most robust energy system in the world. That was what we left to you. So do not shake it with the new government! See instead to develop the policy in the areas where it is needed!

Madam Speaker! Global warming is a threat, but climate policy is an opportunity. The active policy that Sweden pursued at home with its government and the ambitious stance that the EU has taken in the area have driven towards a new industrialization that we can be very proud of in Sweden.

We Social Democrats want to see powerful and ambitious climate measures to live up to the Paris Agreement. We want to see a just climate transition for ordinary people, so that people can feel inclusion and believe in the future. We want to take responsibility also outside of Sweden's borders. We want Sweden to be a role model in its climate work, both within the EU and in the UN. We want to invest in and develop both Klimatklivet and Industriklivet. We see bio-CCS as important, not least for handling the emissions that we will not be able to solve in any other way. We are proud of the work with the EU's climate law and the climate package Fit for 55. But we will continue to push forward in the EU's emissions trading, which we see as one of the most important climate legislations in the world. We want the reduction of emission allowances to continue and ensure that this tool really drives a new industrialization across the entire EU.

This creates more jobs, not fewer. This is an opportunity, not a threat.

Sweden wins on an offensive climate policy and a sustainable societal development. We are a modern country that has always understood the importance of looking forward without nostalgia for old jobs and with confidence in the new ones. But we also know in Sweden that for people to become brave, they must have security, welfare, and a good education along the way. We know that welfare and security create citizens who dare to invest in the new, perhaps even take on the leadership role for that new company.

Sweden shall not follow the climate opinion as a sluggish anchor. We shall drive it!

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring, Sofia Skönnbrink and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (all S) concurred.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for the speech we listened to. There were many words. It was long. Sweden shall show the world, and so on.

I heard there were many complaints about the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy. We have worsened the climate policy, and resources have been removed. Could Jytte Guteland possibly specify what the Social Democrats had in their budget motion that would have dramatically changed the climate policy?

When I look at the Social Democrats' budget motion, I find a few million for repairs, which no one can point to as having changed anything for the climate. It is cheaper or free public transport journeys for young people, which exists in very many regions. I do not believe that it is something that would have affected emissions. It probably would not have led to so very many fewer car journeys, so it would not have been noticed in the calculation.

I do not know if the member could elaborate a bit more on what the Social Democrats' policy is on the climate area. When I read the budget motion, I see roughly that one accepts the government's and the Sweden Democrats' climate policy and makes some superficial changes. Then one stands here in the chamber and tries to paint a picture that the whole world will burn down because our budget was passed, when the differences are extremely superficial.

I also noted that the member criticized the Sweden Democrats' and the government's proposal for more reasonable reduction obligation legislation. Then we come to the question: What do the Social Democrats want? What level should we have within the reduction obligation, according to the Social Democrats?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question from Member Kinnunen.

The Social Democrats have pushed forward, especially during the time when we had a Social Democratic-led government, for climate policy in many areas of the budget and ensured that it has been integrated within the various expenditure areas. It is precisely through such an integrated stance, where one wants to reduce emissions broadly and use the budget for this, that we believe the greatest difference is made. We are also incredibly proud of the investments in Industriklivet and Klimatklivet, which were an extremely good engine for the new industrialization we see in Sweden today.

Member of the Board Kinnunen is very aware that when a new government takes office and redraws the map, it is also about considering the whole.

It is actually Kinnunen's government cooperation that now holds the government power. And it is in many ways Kinnunen who draws the map for Sweden's future and keeps the ministers in check. Then it can, of course, be challenging for an opposition to push completely different budget items during the first period, because you are reworking the map.

With our policy, we want a reduction obligation that ensures Sweden can live up to and meet the climate policy goals in Sweden and contribute our part so that the EU's goals are reached. We must investigate what it should look like and get some time to do that. As was said, it is you who govern and lead Sweden right now. We must get time to develop our policy in the area with the new playing field that you have taken over.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Jytte Guteland!

We hear here that it is difficult to formulate an own policy when one is in opposition. It is also correct that we have not had time to change enough yet. There is still too much left in the budget from the Social Democratic government. But I believe that it should improve moving forward.

We can move on to the reduction obligation. When the Sweden Democrats were in opposition, we already had a concrete proposal several years ago. We thought then that a reduction obligation of 5 percent was a good level. Now it became 6 percent. It is at least quite close. But it was entirely possible for us to formulate such a proposal.

There are authorities that have clear curves. If one wants to reach the 2030 goal for transport, one can set the reduction obligation according to the Swedish Energy Agency's assessment. It is very simple. But the Social Democrats' strategy today is to bark and complain. But they do not want to present the concrete proposal, because they would then simultaneously be telling the citizens: It will be this much more expensive to transport oneself in Sweden, it will be this much more expensive for agriculture to operate in Sweden, it will be this much more expensive for forestry to conduct its operations, and it will be this much more expensive with public transport in Sweden.

When we now change the reduction obligation legislation, it is not only about all private households getting lower prices when they drive cars. It is also about lower costs for agriculture and for forestry. And it is about perhaps several hundred million in lower costs for public transport, which representatives for the regions are pleased about.

The Social Democrats are indeed in opposition. That can be a bit difficult. But at the same time, one has a responsibility to present one's solutions and not just complain.

I want to ask again: Do the Social Democrats wish to retain the reduction obligation legislation that we had, with shock-increased diesel prices as a result at the turn of the year?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Is it not a bit of a communicative strategy from the Sweden Democrats to always be the one who says: The one who said it was it? It is often you who are most critical of everyone else, Martin Kinnunen. And in this case, it is you who are in charge.

Member of the Board Kinnunen questions whether the opposition has the answers for climate policy when the government itself, for which they provide a basis in the Riksdag, fails to manage to present a climate action plan. They do not even manage to describe whether it should be in the form of a bill or a report, what it should contain, or how Sweden intends to live up to the climate goals. It undeniably becomes a bit of a case of throwing stones in a glass house.

Even when it comes to the discussion on the reduction obligation, the Sweden Democrats are waving it vigorously regarding what enormous price reductions it will entail at the pump. There is probably not a single authority that provides any support for that stance. It is mostly about waving some flag to provide answers to the anxiety that households feel over their cost increases.

It would be much more straightforward and kind towards Swedish households if the Sweden Democrats spent the time trying to develop a policy that holds up for ordinary people, so that they can receive support to manage their finances in a time as tough as this.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking Jytte Guteland for the speech. It is pleasing to see how the Social Democrats are working on climate issues and for moving the positions forward.

When we sat in the government together, we took an incredibly large number of measures to strengthen climate work, to truly start the green industrial transition, and to ensure that we transition the transport sector to reach the climate goals by 2030.

I would, however, like to ask a question regarding the reduction obligation specifically. We in Miljöpartiet have been clear that we stand by the planned phased increase of the reduction obligation. We want it to be maintained and developed.

I now experience an ambiguity regarding what the Social Democrats want with the reduction obligation. It was regrettable that it was paused temporarily. We would rather see that we can cooperate on how we can in a better way strengthen the households' economic conditions and how agriculture, forestry and other parts mentioned here shall get better economic conditions while we maintain the climate policy.

Therefore, I ask: What is the Social Democrats' plan for the reduction obligation today?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the question and for the important stance that we in the opposition can cooperate on an ambitious climate policy and push in the right direction.

Within the Social Democrats, there is a will to use the tools that mean we live up to the ambitious climate commitments that Sweden is to have both today and in the future. For us, it is important to have a policy where we have all the tools in the toolbox that are needed to meet both Sweden's Climate Act and the EU's Climate Law.

In that work, the reduction obligation plays an important role. That is what we stand for. We argue for it and engage in debates on those issues every day. On the other hand, I think it feels reasonable to have time to discuss the whole when we are now facing the task of designing our policy and the whole. In that case, we do not describe an exact level, but want to analyze where it will end up best.

It is, however, completely correct – that is what we agree on – that the reduction obligation plays an important role when it comes to reducing emissions in the established car fleet. We need to work with both electrification and with reducing emissions from cars on our roads and with increasing collective travel. It is a mix of measures that is needed in the transport sector.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is true that we need to work with electrification, with switching fuels in the existing vehicle fleet, and with streamlining transport. These are actually the three areas that we have to work with to achieve the transport sector's transition.

The reduction obligation, however, accounts for a large part of the transport sector's reduced greenhouse gas emissions. We saw this, not least when the Climate Policy Council submitted its report, where they describe the consequences of the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, now choosing to drastically reduce the reduction obligation. In that case, we are in a situation where we are no longer expected to reach the climate goals by 2030.

It also leads to us not reaching our EU commitment for the ECR sector. That means we could risk fines. That can be managed by taking those fines or buying emission allowances from other countries. We could also overperform within the LULUCF sector, i.e., increase carbon sequestration in forest and land. But that requires large-scale measures within forest and land.

If one does not want to work with the level of the reduction obligation that we previously planned for, I wonder what measures the Social Democrats want to take instead. Is it to work very powerfully with more efficient transport, i.e., reduce the total number of kilometers driven? Or does one want to work very strongly with the forestry sector? Or does one perhaps not want to reach the goals by 2030 and is therefore prepared to take the costs against the EU?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Söderberg, for this important issue!

In my party, the work will proceed. An answer regarding levels will be presented. But for us, it is important that we get a toolbox where all the parts are included and which means that we can reach both the EU's climate goals and Sweden's own ambitious climate law.

It is important for us that we allow ourselves to see which mix is best and that we do not discard important tools in the way we believe the government has done in the issue of the reduction obligation, because we do not understand how else one can transition the established vehicle fleet. The reduction obligation was needed to handle that, just as Member Söderberg pointed out.

The reduction obligation is merely a flagship for the government to show that they have heard the question regarding cost increases at the pump. There will not be any enormous differences with the government's policy in this area. It will be a disappointment for Swedish households that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna are betraying even more promises from the election campaign about straightening out the price structure for ordinary citizens in this country.

We Social Democrats will, therefore, return to the levels, but for us it is important that it becomes a good, ambitious whole and that we do not discard important climate tools. They must be included in our common pot of climate tools.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is not possible to have a debate on climate policy without talking about Sweden's great competitive advantages, which are the clean energy mix and forestry. These are two advantages that one really must take advantage of and develop. Unfortunately, we note how there clearly are forces that want to dismantle both of these fantastic advantages in favor of ideological scraps that do not lead us forward in the right direction.

When one reads the IPCC's reports, they are clear that we need all the clean electricity we can get. The progress of electrification is absolutely crucial if we are to meet the climate goals, and we should all agree on that. It is the previously cheap and stable electricity production that enables SSAB to create fossil-free steel. A transition of SSAB can cut Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent.

Madam Speaker! It is also clear that electrification is crucial for a sustainable transition of transport. Therefore, the government has made major investments in the charging infrastructure across the entire country. It is absolutely crucial for a non-fossil vehicle fleet.

Regarding forestry, we are struggling with both internal and external pressures. We are fighting against the EU's eagerness to regulate Swedish forestry in such detail that it becomes impossible to operate. Furthermore, there are many domestic forces who devote themselves to stopping sustainable Swedish forestry. They do so under the pretext of saving both the climate and the environment. The problem is that instead, they do everything they can to destroy the large carbon sink and carbon-storing resource bank that the forest is and that we truly need. Additionally, they seem to have completely forgotten the substitution effect that occurs when products from the forest are used to replace CO2-intensive materials.

Madam Speaker! The state needs to work together with the business sector to achieve a transition. This applies in particular to the conditions for permit processes. Large companies invest tens of millions and many years in processes that are conditions for being able to transition to green steel and carbon-neutral cement and preserve electricity production. Then we have several times seen how it falls apart on some small detail in the context.

Our Environmental Code needs to be reviewed. The Environmental Code needs to be reformed so that it is balanced against the overall climate threat and vital societal interests. The conditions of the climate transition and society's needs must be able to be weighed against a local environmental impact. One part of this is also that the environmental legislation begins to base itself on best available technology instead of best possible technology. Therefore, I am pleased that this is a priority issue for the new government.

The permit processes must be simplified and accelerated. The business community demands it. They want to move forward, and they must move forward if they are to be competitive. But today, it is the state that is limiting them.

Madam Speaker! I spoke earlier about the forest as a carbon sink, but one can store CO2 in more ways. Carbon capture and storage is an important part of the work to reduce emissions and reach the climate goals. The IPCC's calculations are based on CCS becoming a viable solution. The EU Commission also relies in its forecasts on CCS and bio-CCS for the EU to become climate neutral by 2050. Therefore, it is positive that the government wants to accelerate the work, expand the cooperation with Norway, and investigate the possibilities of also storing CO2 at home.

Swedish bioenergy plants emit approximately 30 megatons of carbon dioxide annually today. There is thus great potential to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Growing trees and other crops bind carbon. When they are burned in bioenergy plants, carbon dioxide is formed, which can then be captured and stored. The net effect is that carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.

That Sweden has such a large share of energy from biofuels argues that Sweden should prioritize technology for the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. In that way, one can utilize the renewable fuel and at the same time contribute to net removal from the atmosphere. But even in the issue of biofuels, we have had to struggle with the EU. There, it has been clearly shown that the understanding is not there. Pleasantly enough, we won a round this winter regarding whether biofuel should be classified as sustainable or not. For a majority of us Swedes, it is obvious.

Madam Speaker! I have earlier in my speech spoken warmly of the Swedish forest and Swedish forestry. Swedish industry, together with the production of raw material resources from forest, land, minerals and energy, has a fantastic climate benefit and an overlooked potential to realize a positive international climate footprint. The evaluation of Sweden's fulfillment of climate goals must therefore include the export of our production.

It is crucial that Swedish climate policy contributes to reducing emissions globally. Swedish industry fulfills an important function by exporting products with relatively low carbon emissions, which displace goods produced with higher emissions in other countries. According to a previously reported study conducted by Svenskt Näringsliv, Swedish companies contributed, thanks to their exports, to reducing emissions by 26 million tons of carbon dioxide by displacing dirtier production in other countries. This corresponds to approximately half of Sweden's emissions in a year.

In order to be able to steer towards progressively increased climate benefit, it should be a goal for the Swedish climate work to increase the climate benefit of exports even further. But if this is to happen, it must be given the right conditions, opportunities, and resources. The transition is extremely important, Madam Speaker. It is decisive, and it is very important that the shift occurs at the system level, because that is where we get the great gain.

Madam Speaker! As far as I know, this is my last debate in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture in the Chamber for this term. I have debates remaining in both the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Transport where I am a substitute, but I would hereby like to wish all my colleagues in the committee a pleasant summer - even if it is a bit early. I will return to the Speaker's chair and other officials in later speeches.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! How pleasant that Kjell-Arne Ottosson and I get to have our first debate here in the chamber when the member is to leave the Committee on Environment and Agriculture!

There were a few things in the speech that I reacted to. To begin with, for example, SSAB's transition and the significant reduction in emissions it can lead to when the industry is able to truly transition. But that requires electricity - now, in the near term - and not least the supply of competence. Furthermore, more efficient permit processes were needed.

Until now, the government has presented several proposals that increase the cost and complicate the expansion of wind power, which is what can deliver electricity in the near term. They are not investing nearly enough in energy efficiency, as they could have, but have instead chosen to shut down the investigation into white certificates just a few months before it was to be completed.

When it comes to skills supply, one is now, for example, making labor immigration more difficult. One has not at all put forward proposals that handle the enormous challenges in northern Sweden regarding personnel supply.

When it comes to permit processes, there is an incredible amount the government could do simply by giving assignments in regulatory letters to the authorities here and now so that they can work in an advisory and administrative capacity with cooperation and dialogue in a different way. They could also have started developing processes to examine entire value chains collectively instead of it being as it is now, where industries receive permits for one part of the value chain one year and five years later for something else, even though they need to transition in their entirety.

I do not see the government creating any conditions at all for the green industrial transition. On the contrary, they are making it more difficult, and that also impairs Swedish competitiveness.

I want to start by asking Kjell-Arne Ottosson about this. How does the government intend to manage and create conditions for the industry's transition? Right now, I see nothing.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Elin Söderberg for the questions. I also welcome her to the debate in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture.

I want to start by correcting Elin Söderberg. I am not going to resign from the Committee on Environment and Agriculture; however, this is my last debate in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture during this parliamentary year. So, I am not going to resign – I hope at least.

Let me address Elin Söderberg's questions, which are very relevant and important. I believe we have quite a lot of consensus here.

I completely agree with her that we must produce clean electricity if SSAB is to succeed. Some years ago, we went up and looked at the Hybrit project. It was pointed out then that for Hybrit alone, one needs all the energy that Luleälven's ten hydropower plants produce. All this electricity is needed only for Hybrit. Enormous amounts are needed.

If we are to produce these enormous amounts, we cannot just expand wind power. The more wind power we have, the more we need to have to balance it with in the form of secure electricity supply, such as hydropower or nuclear power. The more renewable we have, the more balancing power we must have, otherwise the system will not hold. We must have the balance. It is incredibly important to remember.

As I said in my speech, the IPCC is very clear: We need more of everything. Even the government has said that we need more of everything. If we are to manage the supply, we cannot only rely on wind power.

Let me move on to the skills supply. I sit in the Nordic Council and will travel to Iceland tomorrow morning to attend a meeting in this assembly. We were up in Haparanda and Torneå for a seminar last winter to discuss precisely the skills supply and how we should work to get more people into the workforce, not least into specific occupations.

Now my speaking time has ended, so I will have to continue with half of this and the remaining question in the next speech.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! The IPCC has presented scenarios for the future regarding electricity production. There, they do not distinguish between types of power, and it concerns a global level. In Sweden and in the Swedish Riksdag, we have to manage which energy system we shall have here in Sweden, based on Swedish conditions. We have very good conditions to build up a one hundred percent renewable electricity system.

In the industry's transition, electricity shall primarily be used for hydrogen production. Hydrogen production is ideally suited for an energy system with a high share of renewable electricity production. This is because hydrogen can be produced when we have an overproduction from the renewable sources. Thus, the balance can be maintained both when we have high electricity consumption and when we have high electricity production. There, hydrogen production can contribute to balancing the system. Therefore, we see that there are fantastic opportunities.

Above all, it is wind power that can be expanded in the near term. It makes a huge difference whether the industry transitions by 2030 or if it transitions by 2035, for example. Since it is the sum of emissions over time that determines our climate impact, a five-year delay in the transition means cumulative emissions into the atmosphere from several years that will then warm the earth for hundreds of years.

The business community also shows that they see renewable energy, high environmental requirements, and high climate requirements as a competitive advantage. They want us to have a strong policy that ensures we have a socially and environmentally sustainable green transition. It is this that strengthens Swedish competitiveness. In that case, renewable electricity production in the near term is completely central.

Finally, I would like to ask a question about carbon sequestration in the forest. Sweden now has an environmental goal, despite the government having been against it. What will the government do to increase carbon sequestration in the forest?

In this speech, Katarina Luhr (MP) agreed.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I continue from where I stopped when time ran out.

I believe we are in agreement on this. What we must achieve is to remove obstacles that prevent us from obtaining the labor mobility that is needed, including between us Nordic countries. We have also not placed any obstacles for mobility within the EU.

Another thing is education. We must get people to choose among all types of education. Today, perhaps academic education is considered finer, but we must get more to train as plumbers or carpenters and realize that we need such people. It is just as fine as studying to become a teacher or something else. We need everyone. We must find ways to get people to train so that we get people into the professions where there is a shortage.

When it comes to qualified labor and the supply of skills in the north, we must have valves where we see that it is truly needed and if obstacles arise. But those who live within the EU still have free movement. There are no obstacles there – except possibly within education, which I mentioned earlier. In the Nordic Council, we work to remove the obstacles between our Nordic countries so that we get more mobility and get more people into jobs.

Let me move on to the permit processes. Elin Söderberg's party has been in the government during the last eight years. If I remember correctly, we made four or five announcements regarding permit processes during these eight years. Finally, two inquiries were launched just before the election in the autumn. You have had eight years to do something about the permit processes. But it would surprise me very much if it is not Miljöpartiet that has slowed down the permit processes, because there were five announcements and yet nothing was done. This is more worthy of criticism, Madam Speaker.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for his speech and the introduction to the discussion and the debate.

The Chairman raised several points in his opening statement that we Social Democrats can definitely sign off on, for example, the positive attitude towards the new technology, bio-CCS, which is an important method for handling the emissions that cannot be captured in any other way, and the forest policy. We could cooperate on several parts of it. There, Sweden has a unique opportunity.

When it comes to the transformation of industry and the business sector in Sweden in general, we have today a very modern approach. Many times it is the corporate world and Swedish business in all its parts, but also the industry, that drives the development and that really wants to see Sweden take the lead.

During the last few months, there has been criticism of the sitting government. Member Ottosson's own party leader is the Vice Prime Minister and responsible for industrial policy. The criticism has been that there is a lack of clarity regarding where Sweden is headed and whether increased ambitions and investments in climate spirit is the Swedish position.

I therefore request an answer from Member Ottosson on what view he has on these questions. Should Sweden take the lead and raise the ambitions for climate policy and lead Europe and thereby also the Swedish business community in such a direction?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jytte Guteland for the question.

There is no doubt that we are to take on the leadership role. We have already done that. At the same time, we must lead the work in such a way that it becomes attractive to follow. If we go too fast and too far and people see that the transition does not hold together in the three dimensions – ecologically, economically and socially – the risk is that we get some form of yellow vests even in Sweden. But other countries would also see in that case that they cannot go the same way because it did not hold all the way through.

We must show that with growth we can manage to transition in such a way that it is fun to transition. We must achieve an acceptance for the transition. If we show that, we will get the rest of the world with us. That is our biggest job: to lead the way in such a way that we get other countries, even large emitting countries, to follow suit. That is when we have done our job.

We must really remember that climate policy is global. It does not stop at Sweden's borders. We have no high embankments or walls that stop emissions from coming either out of or into Sweden. Therefore, it is very important that we are global in our way of working and get other countries on board. It is absolutely crucial if we are to manage the transition. I believe that Jytte Guteland and the undersigned are in complete agreement that we must do it. But as said: Do not forget that it must hold together economically, ecologically, and socially! Otherwise, it will not go all the way. Acceptance is absolutely crucial.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I am reminded of a debate where Kjell-Arne Ottosson invited me to his party. I would like to return the ball and gladly invite Ottosson to our party, because very much of this speech felt absolutely as if it could belong in the perspective that we have as a party. It is about pursuing a modern policy for green transition, taking the lead in the EU and globally and showing on home soil where we are headed in Sweden, so that the business community receives clear rules of the game. The emphasis on the importance of the social transition also seemed to truly permeate Ottosson's presentation.

This is, however, not quite the stance that the Swedish government has in this area, which perhaps is a problem. The Swedish government signals, on the contrary, ambiguity towards the rest of the world, towards the business community and towards industry when it comes to climate policy.

Furthermore, the distribution policy seems to be a mere memory in Sweden, this in a time when households are being pressured harder than in a very long time by a harsh winter, energy prices of historical proportions, and high food prices. These are tough times and a situation that Swedish households are truly suffering under. But in the government that Ottosson supports with his mandate in the Riksdag, a distribution profile is lacking.

Therefore, I want to invite Member Ottosson to the Social Democrats. Otherwise, I think it needs to be a bit tougher actions from him against his own government.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jytte Guteland for the invitation. I believe that I will remain in Kristdemokraterna, but perhaps it is instead that we should sit down and have a coffee and talk about these important issues to see how we can move forward. That might be more productive.

The clarity that Jytte Guteland calls for, I think shines through quite significantly. We are very clear that electrification is absolutely crucial if we are to manage the transition. Changes in permit processes are absolutely crucial. We must help the business sector, because the business sector wants and must lead the way; otherwise, they are not viable. The best way we can help them is access to clean electricity 24/7 and year-round at competitive prices, as well as changed permit processes that reduce the regulatory burden. That is not to say that we should have permit processes that in any way jeopardize climate and environment. But we must facilitate so that we truly help our companies in the transition and do not hinder them, as is the case now.

As I said in the IPCC debate we had a month ago: "If you want to go fast, go alone! If you want to go far, go together with others! What does it help us that we win the race if the rest of the world does not keep up?" Here we must ensure that we all go far. Therefore, we must join forces with other countries and show them how to transition in a sustainable way. That is how we win the fight, not by taking on a role as a hare and running far ahead of the others. If one runs far ahead of the others and loses contact with them, they do not know where to continue. It is therefore a collective task to find the balance. We are truly working to ensure that balance is maintained - no doubt about it.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! In the autumn of 2022, the Swedes went to the polls. They chose not to give the previous Social Democratic government renewed confidence. The climate issue was very important in the election. According to the complete Election Study, which was presented recently, the climate issue was the twelfth most important issue when people chose to vote. It is, therefore, an important issue.

Through the Tidö Agreement, we received a new government constellation with a majority in the chamber and with a new direction for climate policy. Climate policy shall no longer be focused on inefficient investments and policies that do not add up. We have seen billions rolled out to electric bicycles and climate therapy combined with the decommissioning of nuclear power. This policy did not add up. Now there is hope for a new direction in the climate area that shall be ambitious and effective. It shall steer towards reducing emissions, but not at the expense of the countryside, the agricultural industries, or private households.

This work does not happen overnight, but we are already seeing delivery. There is a fair amount of complaining here in the chamber today regarding the delivery concerning permit processes, and I can agree with that. One has had to nag about this for several parliamentary terms here in the chamber. But if one waits a year, I believe one will be able to see that very much is happening even in this area. Things and matters sometimes take a little time. Just during the first year for this government, I believe more will have happened regarding permit processes than what happened during eight years with a Social Democratic government. We can summarize it in the autumn.

Madam Speaker! The most notable part of the new climate policy is that the reduction obligation legislation is now being completely overhauled. Instead of a policy that would have led to shock increases in fuel prices every year until 2030, households, agriculture, forestry, and other companies can now look forward to a significant reduction at the pump next year.

As a representative for the Sweden Democrats, who in opposition have pointed out the unreasonableness of the reduction obligation both for cost reasons and due to lack of environmental benefit, this is of course particularly satisfying. There is no research support that it in any way promotes climate work that a smaller country in Europe should vacuum the world market of all possible fats to manufacture fuel for light transport. This goes completely against the direction that fuel researchers in the world have for biofuels. Biofuels have a smaller role to play, but they do not have a role to play where it is electrification that is the key. Electrification may not be the key for ferry traffic. For aviation, it may be to some extent but not fully.

Madam Speaker! Some facts may be appropriate. The reduction obligation led to Sweden receiving the world's highest price on diesel. It also created a situation where, over several parliamentary terms, we actually saw governments compensate by lowering the tax on diesel. The reduction obligation thus pushed out tax revenues in the billions. The reduction obligation also created a shortage of high-blend HVO 100 and increased costs during the period to amounts in the billions for the country's public transport and other companies that perhaps felt a need to tidy up their sustainability reports and focus on HVO 100 instead of regular diesel.

Then we have the actually increased costs for diesel, which, through some quick mental arithmetic at 5 billion liters of diesel consumption per year, can be summarized as at least several tens of billions since the reduction obligation was introduced. For this, Madam Speaker, we received an attack with prettier national emission calculations, but according to research in the field, it does not lead to reduced emissions. The problem is that the availability of these raw materials is limited. If one consumes a very large amount of these raw materials in Sweden, one will consume less of them in other countries. It is not possible to scale up particularly easily.

I can give a few examples. We use a very large amount of pine tar today to manufacture HVO and produce fuels. But then there is less pine tar left for the chemical industry, which perhaps produces, among other things, packaging, for example chip bags. It also contributes to the manufacture of paint and medicine.

The substitute products for turpentine are fossil-based, or else virgin raw materials are used. They might come from rapeseed. Research there has shown that it is not particularly good, because it results in negative land effects in a global context.

Obtaining larger quantities of pine oil is not possible without increasing the logging. That means there are very small possibilities to quickly increase the availability of that product. Regarding the pine oil. That was just a side point.

For several years, the most important raw material in HVO was palm oil-based raw materials. They have significantly worse values for the climate than fossil oil has. Now we are vacuuming the world market for fats from Asia.

It is fats that the researchers believe are consumed to an extent that can exceed the supply, which may indicate mislabeling. Probably, some of those fats are instead virgin oils. It is impossible to distinguish them.

We have also had a situation where the very worst raw materials for biofuels end up in the highest-blend biofuels. To what benefit is this?

The shortage of raw materials has led to the fact that we receive Swedish ethanol in the reduction obligation. Fuels that contribute to reduced emissions in the calculations are favored. But in E85, for example, it doesn't matter. There we might perhaps get American or South American ethanol.

We receive fats from Asia of unclear quality. They work well in the calculations for the reduction. But we receive palm oil-based products in HVO 100.

Mr. Speaker! The extreme Swedish reduction obligation was harmful in all aspects. It was harmful for jobs and growth, and harmful for the public sector. We saw, for example, that the regions incurred significantly increased costs due to the increased costs for HVO 100.

It was harmful for private households. Together with the companies, they may see increased costs this year due to the reduction obligation of 20 billion because of 5 billion liters of diesel consumed.

It did not contribute to reduced emissions in the world either. Rather, we redirected raw materials from other markets to Sweden. These are raw materials that one cannot scale up just like that.

Mr. Speaker! More needs to be done in the climate area, as can be read in the Sweden Democrats' climate policy motion. We speak there quite a bit about the climate goals. We see now that it has gone very fast in recent years in Europe.

We have received new climate legislation in the EU area. It concerns major changes regarding the emissions trading system. It is about the Effort Sharing Regulation. It is the burden-sharing when distributing the other emissions that lie outside the emissions trading.

It is simply a matter of that climate policy has gone from being something we can decide here in the Riksdag to becoming something that is dictated by the European Union.

It also creates a need to review our climate goals. For that reason, I want to move for approval of reservation 25. It is precisely about the fact that we need to give the existing Environmental Goals Commission new assignments so that we can see how Swedish national climate policy in the future can contribute in a positive way.

Mr. Speaker! It would not be particularly good if we have a policy that only aims at shoveling emissions to other parts of Europe and shoveling jobs and growth along with the emissions to other countries in Europe without the emissions decreasing in total.

We need to review the climate policy goals. It is important that more parties are prepared to acknowledge this. I believe that most see reason to review the national policy when so very much is happening at the European level.

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In which end should we begin?

Initially, I want to say that today we have a climate policy debate because we face extremely large challenges. We must halt climate change to protect the population from climate-related risks. We must also climate-adapt the entire society to protect the population, businesses, and properties from climate-related risks.

In Martin Kinnunen's speech, I hear a long series of arguments against various climate policy proposals and, not least, the reduction obligation. But I do not hear a single word about what the Sweden Democrats want to do to handle the enormous climate challenge we face.

Initially, I ask: Do the Sweden Democrats want to manage the climate crisis and reduce emissions, or do you accept the terrible consequences that climate change brings for people's lives, health, and property?

When it comes to the reduction obligation, it is a factual error that palm oil is used. We have phased that out from the biofuels. It is also a factual error that the research says that the reduction obligation does not lead to any reduced greenhouse gas emissions. It does.

Here, a comparison is also made regarding where these fuels come from, where they are imported from, their displacement effects, and so on. Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that one must compare entire value chains.

It is from the production of fuels to their use in the vehicle. Then one must look at well to wheel and compare biofuels in operation and fossil operation.

What we do today is that we import fossil energy. It is fossil fuels. It is oil fields, pipelines, transport with oil tankers and refining that produce emissions. Then they are used in vehicles that produce emissions. It is that comparison that needs to be made.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to biofuels and the reduction obligation, we must perform the analysis: What does our policy lead to? What difference are we making?

If we now cause costs of 20 billion extra for companies and households in Sweden every year, it will amount to 200 billion kronor over a ten-year period. Then we must find out: What difference do we make?

It is no secret. You can speak with your party colleagues in the rest of Europe, or many of your own party colleagues in the Riksdag. I have spoken with several. There are very many even in your party who are deeply skeptical of the large-scale use of biofuels, even though the Swedish Green Party members have embraced the extreme biofuel direction in politics.

Elin Söderberg says that it is incorrect that we use palm oil in biofuels. In that case, one should listen to what I said. What I said was that at the beginning of the reduction obligation, palm oil-based products were the most important raw material. That is no longer the case.

However, palm oil-based products have moved over to HVO 100, the highest-blend biofuel. Everyone who travels by bus in public transport somewhere in the country will, for example, do so in a bus running on high-blend fuels.

Instead, we have received the palm oil-based products, because there is a shortage of raw materials. The reduction obligation in any case steers towards us getting slightly better raw materials. But those requirements do not exist for the high-blend ones.

We have steered the ugliest, the worst biofuels to the highest blends precisely because the reduction obligation has consumed so much. It is a bad policy.

What the Swedish authorities do when they evaluate the reduction obligation is that they do it based on the calculations. I admit that they look much sleeker and nicer because of the reduction obligation. It is true. But if you look at it from a global perspective, you do not get that picture.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I note that I receive no answer from Martin Kinnunen and the Sverigedemokraterna on whether one accepts the consequences of climate change when one does not present a policy to reduce emissions and adapt society to the climate-related risks.

I also wondered: If the Sweden Democrats are so opposed to the reduction obligation, are they also opposed to the bioenergy heating sector? Do the Sweden Democrats not see the benefits and the opportunities of us building up value chains for the production of biofuels in Sweden?

It strengthens Swedish crisis preparedness if we can produce fuels for the transport sector within the country. Today, we import fossil energy for the entire transport sector from countries that can be questioned. This goes through transport chains that have risky conditions. Every link in the fossil production chain generates massive emissions of greenhouse gases in every country it passes through, and it then becomes fossil emissions here in Sweden when we drive on the fossil fuels.

The Sweden Democrats' policy leads to us increasing our dependence on imports of fossil fuels from other countries. We increase emissions in Sweden and thus also increase emissions in all countries that follow this value chain. Instead, we could have built up a production of domestic fuels that strengthens Swedish crisis preparedness, creates business development here in Sweden and reduces our emissions.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding crisis preparedness, there is no possibility within the foreseeable future - the next 10-15 years - to supply Sweden using only biofuels. Eventually, we will see an electrification of the vehicle sector, and that is what is the future. That is how I say that we shall reduce emissions from transport. We will electrify this.

There is no kind of fantastic shortcut; if one wants more biofuels, one has to pay very much money and drive the land use in the rest of the world with increased emissions as a consequence.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats like biofuels. We are positive about all the biogas subsidies that we have, and we actually have nothing against biofuels. It should be remembered that the Sweden Democrats proposed a reduction obligation of 5 percent during previous parliamentary periods. Today, we naturally stand behind the proposal of 6 percent. This means that we very early on showed that we have nothing against biofuels. But they must be adjusted to a reasonable level - something that more closely resembles that which most countries in the world have.

In Germany, we can see how the Greens are pushing to reduce involvement precisely because they are concerned about how poor biofuels risk driving up greenhouse gas emissions. We do not want such a situation either; my party is also concerned about what such an extreme biofuel policy can lead to. We need to be more moderate in the biofuel area. But the Sweden Democrats have nothing against biofuels - absolutely not. And we have absolutely nothing against us using biomass for our heating in Sweden.

Elin Söderberg mentioned climate adaptation and how we take into account potential risks and such. We actually have a climate adaptation strategy that all parties have stood behind, and authorities, municipalities and the state are working together on these issues. So far, no one has pointed out any enormous need for hundreds of billions to solve some kind of crisis situation, but it is an ongoing work.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Martin Kinnunen for the contribution to the debate! In the debate, I am struck – and I believe most are struck – by that the Sweden Democrats have some kind of feeling related to biofuels. Whether that feeling is warm or cold remains for the Swedish people to judge, but I believe many of us feel that it is not so enormously warm. A large part of the contribution was about exactly biofuels and then often with a problem formulation before or after.

It is difficult to understand how it is possible that one turns away from the government base in this way when it concerns precisely the reduction obligation. It is difficult to understand against the background of what the industry itself says are the reasons for high fuel prices, as they are often related to a weak krona, to geography and to cold, and not at all to the reduction obligation. It is also difficult to understand when one looks at the diesel prices, which have fluctuated between 28 and 21 kronor and have not reacted at all to the reduction obligation.

One can also look at our neighboring country Finland, which has made the journey that the Sverigedemokraterna want to make. There, it has not at all resulted in the price change that the Sverigedemokraterna wanted to give the impression that would occur.

One wonders therefore if the Sweden Democrats want to mislead the Swedish households and mislead economically vulnerable groups. Or what else is it that motivates this fight against the reduction obligation?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now it is the second time I hear Jytte Guteland claim that we will not get lower prices when the reduction obligation is lowered. I do not know if it is due to ignorance or recklessness.

We will see the result quite soon. There are not so many months left until we will have a significantly more reasonable reduction obligation, and then we will gradually see the result. It may turn out during the first half-year, or the first year, where we end up. In the short term, it is difficult to predict exactly what happens in the market with supply and demand.

Mr. Speaker! We have, of course, met with the industry during the months preceding the proposal for a change to the reduction obligation act. We have met, for example, Drivkraft Sverige, which is the major industry organization. They have made submissions stating that they also wanted to lower the reduction obligation, and they have presented a calculation of how much lower the price would become if it were lowered according to their proposal.

Now we have a proposal where we lower significantly more, but I want to say that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that we will get a reduction in the price. If we do not get it, we will have the answer next year, but since all assessors in the industry believe this, I am quite convinced that it will be so.

Then one can discuss exactly how many kronor it will be, and that was indeed the discussion that was presented on DN Debatt. The article in DN Debatt focused on what the price difference would be with our proposal for a new law and with the legislation that already exists. According to the industry's calculation, we would then see a reduction of more than 5 kronor. But it is not 5 kronor against the situation today.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the report from Member Kinnunen! Those who live will see. I believe it will be most unpleasant for the Sverigedemokraterna to experience what will happen with the price level.

Above all, it will be uncomfortable for the Swedish people to see that the government's support base does not allow the government to have an ambitious climate policy. But for the vast majority of the Swedish people, I do not think it will come as a surprise that this is the stance that the Sverigedemokraterna have in climate policy.

On the other hand, I believe there has been an expectation that it should be a policy that drives for social justice, because that is the image that the Sweden Democrats want to give of themselves. Just as the government sits in the lap of the Sweden Democrats when it comes to ambitions in climate policy, it seems that the Sweden Democrats sit in the lap of the government when it comes to social justice.

We Social Democrats see the connection between climate policy and a strong distribution policy with investments in a time that is tough for households. That way, one can ensure that they get through this and can continue with their activities for the children and ensure that it is possible to live the life one deserves in this country. We propose investments such as increased child allowance. Overall, our entire focus right now is to help families with children and others in our long country to cope with the crisis.

It is a prerequisite for a good climate policy that we also have a socially just policy. But here, the Sweden Democrats have completely abdicated in favor of the bourgeois government with the Prime Minister at the helm. I would like to say that it is rather the Sweden Democrats who are sitting in the lap of the Moderates when it comes to this.

I would like to hear how Member Kinnunen views this concern. How can one look the voters in the eye when one has so clearly abdicated when it comes to social justice?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker and Jytte Guteland! We will see next year how it turns out. But I want to remind the member that even our responsible authority has pointed out that the reduction obligation made the fuel more expensive.

The entire system is structured in this way. That is why there is a reduction obligation fee that in some way should be able to contribute to putting a stop to it, and it is the level of the reduction obligation fee that also contributes to how much more expensive it becomes.

Now there has been a lot of talk about who is sitting in whose lap. I don't know if the Social Democrats are also sitting in our lap, because when I compare the budget motions, I cannot see that there is a huge difference. What distinguishes our budget and the Social Democrats' budget is almost calculation errors. It is not many billions of difference.

As I explained in my previous reply, the Social Democrats accept most of the changes in the climate area. Most of the budget items are not wanted to be changed to any significant extent. One had the large initiative on bus cards for school youth, an initiative that already exists in the regions and which reasonably would not change the emission levels in society significantly.

There is no backing in politics for the big words about social injustice and a climate policy that is going completely to hell. It is not backed up by concrete policy. What we see is a tough and harsh rhetoric, but the actual proposals are still conspicuously absent. It is mostly talk and little workshop.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating climate issues.

When we debate climate issues here in the chamber, the focus depends largely on which committee in the Riksdag is handling the matter. The Committee on Industry handles energy issues and corporate issues, the Committee on Transport handles transport issues, and the Committee on Environment and Agriculture has more focus on the climate goals and the more nature-related climate issues such as carbon sinks and biofuels. But when we talk about climate issues, we must see it as an entire system. If we are to reach our goals, we must be able to see the whole, how the different parts interact and where the weak links are.

The Liberals' climate policy is based on five important principles:

The polluter shall pay. All activities shall pay for their climate costs. With our policy instruments, we focus on the emissions. When other parties, for example, want to reduce the number of flights, we want to develop fossil-free aviation and reward electric aviation and fossil-free fuels.

Climate transition must occur in a growing economy. All transition costs money - enormous money - at least initially. Therefore, economic growth is necessary to meet the cost. It is countries with poorer economies that are falling behind in the climate transition. Therefore, companies must earn money to manage the transition.

Trade, technological development, and entrepreneurship are prerequisites for the climate work to succeed. We liberals are technology optimists, not least myself. We believe that the climate goals are achievable if we unleash the innovative power. The greatest impact on climate emissions is the export of Swedish products produced with low climate impact – it generates growth for us and simultaneously lowers emissions globally. Svenskt Näringsliv has conducted a study where it is stated that 26 million tons are saved every year through Swedish exports. That is more than half of the emissions we have in Sweden. To that, one can add that the new methods developed by companies should be exported so that they can be utilized in corresponding operations abroad.

We also see that it is very important to develop international cooperation. Climate emissions are borderless. Sweden needs to work at a global level and primarily through the EU. The EU is the world's most important environmental organization. The Government, as chair in the EU now during the spring, has steered the large climate package Fit for 55 into port. Not least the latest parts are important: AFIR and ReFuelEU Maritime and Aviation. Fit for 55 is an important step so that the same rules shall apply in all of Europe. We shall also use the EU as a lever to drive forward the global climate transition.

It is changes of entire systems that are most important for the climate transition, where the individual decision then follows. The change of the entire system is strongly linked to our companies. As an example, we can look at the transition from fossil-fueled vehicles to rechargeable vehicles. There must be rechargeable vehicles, charging infrastructure, and a stable electricity supply at reasonable prices before the individual chooses a rechargeable vehicle.

With these five principles, it is easy to take a stand in various issues so that we can reach our climate goals. When one looks at the climate transition from a systems perspective, the most important prerequisite for the climate transition is a secure electricity supply. The old government, through its premature decommissioning of 50 percent - six of twelve reactors - of our nuclear power plants, has removed a large part of the prerequisites for the climate transition during the coming decade. It jeopardizes the security of supply of electrical energy and thus, in general terms, puts companies and many thousands of jobs at risk. We get companies that do not expand and companies that do not even dare to establish themselves and create new jobs.

If we are to manage the climate transition, we must have fossil-free alternatives and preferably completely emission-free alternatives, such as electricity. With the decommissioning of the nuclear power plants, the previous government delayed the transition by many years. Our government is now trying to repair the damage and has recently made decisions on two new wind farms off the west coast. That is good. But we must be clear that these two parks only correspond to one of the nuclear power plants that the previous government decommissioned. Instead of being able to get a large addition of electricity to the west coast, we are only partially restoring the situation that existed in 2018 before the previous government decommissioned the two nuclear power plants that were at Ringhals. Had the previous government really been for the climate, the parties would not have decommissioned the nuclear power.

Today we have water, wind, and solar power together with nuclear power. We need to double our electricity production by 2040. If we are to have a stable electricity supply and manage the climate transition by making ourselves independent of fossil energy, nuclear power is needed. I am glad to belong to a government that sees this and invests in all types of energy.

With energy production and fuel production as the platform, the liberal climate policy is aimed at the following areas:

First and foremost, we want to eliminate the emissions of fossil carbon dioxide. Being mentally set on removing all emissions instead of just talking about reducing them provides a different time perspective. All activities must act now. Road transport accounts for over 90 percent of the emissions within the transport area, and here electrification is the answer. What hinders electrification is the availability of charging infrastructure where one lives, works, and travels. Here, the government is investing heavily with 4 billion to increase the pace. Naturally, biofuels were needed for existing vehicles during the transition.

The EU ETS system is important as a steering mechanism towards the climate goals, where shipping and road transport are now included. The new Fit for 55 system with its various parts drives, among other things, the development of new fossil-free fuels and infrastructure for charging and fossil-free fuels.

Companies need to remove their dependence on fossil inputs and fossil energy, where many solutions will be specific to each respective company. We want to reduce emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. Therefore, we want to, among other things, drive biogas production, based on, among other things, manure from livestock, which would otherwise cause methane emissions. There is also interesting research regarding feed for cattle to reduce their methane emissions.

The Liberals want to build up a capacity for negative carbon emissions. By capturing the carbon dioxide that is formed during the combustion of biomass, we can achieve negative emissions. The potential is great in Sweden, as there is a large number of point sources of biogenic carbon dioxide where it would be efficient to capture the gas. We also want to build up a market so that businesses that have more difficulty transitioning can purchase carbon capture during their transition.

The Liberals want to reduce natural emissions and increase natural uptake of greenhouse gases through wise land use. It is rational to carry out extensive net uptake of carbon dioxide in Sweden to meet the EU's goals within ESR. We also want to rewet the peatlands to reduce emissions and phase out peat extraction.

Liberal climate policy contains a number of measures for us to become independent of fossil energy and lower carbon emissions. In this contribution, I have focused on principles and some specific areas that have potential when it comes to significantly reducing emissions.

I am glad to belong to a government that takes a holistic approach to climate policy, a climate policy that goes hand in hand with energy policy.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the floor. The Minister for Environment and Climate has said that climate policy shall rest on three legs. The member here presented five parts. Regardless of this, electrification is a large part of what the government highlights. One must invest in charging stations and charging infrastructure. But I do not see that it is enough. We must ensure that more electric cars get onto the roads and change the emissions from the other trucks and cars. Otherwise, we will not reach the climate goals.

If the Centre Party had been allowed to decide, we would have reintroduced the climate bonus. Many families who want to do the right thing for the climate felt cheated when the government stopped this overnight. And now they can no longer afford climate-smart alternatives. The sudden abolition has been met with strong criticism from many sides. Furthermore, the government is now going to lower the inclusion of biofuels.

I am getting a bit confused. What do the Liberals actually think regarding the reduction obligation? The tones were somewhat different during the election campaign compared to the line that the Liberals and the government are now advocating.

What actually is an effective climate policy? If one does not ensure that more people prioritize electric cars, emissions must decrease in some other way. I am aware of two ways. Either one mixes other fuels into the tank—where the reduction obligation is an important tool—or one simply has to drive slower and reduce the speed.

How specifically should we act to achieve the climate goals by 2030? There is not much time left until then.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question. This is one of my heart's children. I sit on the Committee on Transport, and I have worked within the transport area with passenger cars for 35 years. This very transition is moving very fast - we need to replace the entire vehicle fleet in approximately 15 years. This requires enormous investments for all car companies but also for society to create the conditions. It is about what I mentioned in my speech - enough electricity and distribution networks but also charging infrastructure.

When it comes to, for example, the climate bonus, I pushed for it. I thought it was a very important part when the sales of electric cars were very low. But when the sales of electric cars account for 50 percent or over 50 percent of the sales, the state should not continue to pump in money. We spent 7 billion last year. We are spending 7 billion this year on the previous sales. It is enormous money.

Even with the climate bonus, an electric car cost a lot of money. The important thing is that we ensure we get very many cars onto the market. It is about us getting many used cars out, because it is only when we have a large used car market that we will have electric cars that the vast majority of people can afford to buy. We are following the sales of bonus cars to see: Is it the economic crisis that is reducing the sale of electric cars, or is it straight over? But it is important that we maintain the pace in order to be able to replace the vehicle fleet.

I will have to return with an answer to the second question.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we spoke about electrification, and I hope that the member can return to how the reduction obligation is viewed.

In the presentation, the representative for the Liberals has spoken about the whole. Previously, it has also been spoken about that it should be an effective climate policy. But I do not see this in what the government is delivering today. I do not see that they are investing in, for example, a circular economy. They do not prioritize waste management or the investment in railways. It is a whole in the climate transition.

I can instead state that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has agreed on several points that affect the climate negatively. This with the climate bonus is one example. But it is also about this with the maintenance of railways and investments in infrastructure in other ways. There are, therefore, proposals that instead increase emissions.

Where are the proposals for the green transition, which could ensure that the business sector actually receives the support it needs to be able to take the lead in the green transition? It does do that to some extent. But the politics can do more.

I want to repeat the question regarding the reduction obligation. And how is one to do concretely to reach the emission targets for 2030?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I shall be a bit faster with the answers to the questions.

I was involved in the negotiations regarding the reduction obligation that applied previously. In that negotiation, I was very skeptical of the electrification scenario that was used as a basis – a base scenario was taken. I said that one should go with the highest because it will go very fast in this transition. I believe that within half a year we would have reached the highest scenario. The transition when it comes to electrification is therefore going very fast.

Furthermore, another fear was that the production of biofuels would not be able to occur at the rate at which we wanted to include them. Consequently, the pump price would become much higher. And that would hit very hard for many, perhaps especially out in the countryside, who are very dependent on their cars. That has also happened there. Then the war in Ukraine has caused the price to become even higher.

We are very positive about the reduction obligation, but we would have liked to see a lower curve from the beginning.

The member of Parliament points out that we are cutting back in the matter of the railway. What we have done is that we have said no to new main lines. We are keeping the three parts of the main lines – I believe that is what the member of Parliament means – that fulfill a need. 200 billion goes there. The other 200 billion we want to invest in other sections, for example the Norrland section and the section between Göteborg and Alingsås, so that the port of Göteborg can get its cargo out. There is a long line of investments within the railway that can quickly provide climate reductions instead of the long-term new main line, which might be completed sometime after 2050.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I have a short first question, Helena Gellerman. The Norrland section – is it the Ostkustbanan, Norrbotniabanan, Inlandsbanan or something else? That is what I wonder.

Helena Gellerman mentioned five principles for the Liberals' climate policy. If I understood correctly, it was about the polluter pays, climate transition in a growing economy, innovation, international cooperation, and changes to the entire system.

During the previous parliamentary term, the Liberals cooperated with the Green Party on several points in the January agreement. We worked on all these five areas then. We worked with those principles and with taking steps forward and improving.

The Liberals have chosen to cooperate with the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Sweden Democrats and are now lowering the carbon tax for combined heat and power and the tax on fossil fuels in the transport sector, and changing the travel deduction so that it provides more to fossil car ownership and disadvantages sustainable travel. The list is long regarding how they make it cheaper for the polluter and more expensive and harder for all people in the country who are struggling with the climate transition and who want to do the right thing and contribute to a positive and sustainable societal development.

Against this background, my first question is: Why did the Liberals choose to place themselves in this government constellation and go against the principles that they themselves say they stand for?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for very relevant questions.

I live in Western Sweden and speak a lot with the Port of Gothenburg, and I have also been to Sundsvall, Skellefteå, and Luleå and spoken about their needs. The distance between Göteborg and Alingsås was really needed so that they could get their goods out via railway and then out via the Port of Gothenburg.

The railway sections along the Norrland coast are extremely important for us to meet the climate goals and not have everything transported by truck. For me, this is a matter of course, and we stand behind both sections - Norrbotniabanan and Ostkustbanan - which the member specifically raised.

When it comes to why we chose to join this government, the answer is simple, and I devoted a large part of my speech to it: energy policy. We talk all the time about climate policy and that it is important to get rid of fossil energy, but what are we going to replace it with?

It must be pure electricity production for hydrogen but also direct electricity to different parts, but that policy was voted away by the previous government. They have voted away nuclear power plants, and without nuclear power, we cannot achieve a stable electricity supply. I am for solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power, but that was not the previous government. The important thing is to get the energy supply right.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I completely share the view that the Norrbotniabanan and Ostkustbanan are very important and must be expanded quickly.

It is interesting to receive a clear statement here that one has chosen to accept increased fossil emissions because one wants to enter into cooperation with the Moderates, Christian Democrats and Sweden Democrats and so that nuclear power shall be expanded.

Then my follow-up question is: Do the Liberals think it is better that we have more nuclear power and more fossil emissions? Because that is what the government is driving. It is a policy that actively increases greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden, which increases the dependence on fossil energy in the transport sector, which does not deliver the conditions that the industry needs for its climate transition, which does not promote the expansion of rapid electricity production that can be put in place in the near term and which does not promote energy efficiency that can free up electricity in the near term and contribute to the transition, which is a race against the clock.

Instead, one chooses to invest in nuclear power, which at some point in the future can produce electricity, while completely abandoning climate policy. This will lead to us having more nuclear power in the future, increased emissions, and worsened climate-related risks that the entire population has to deal with. It is clear that the Liberals have made this prioritization because they would like to see nuclear power.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am fascinated when I listen to the debate here today where members from the previous government parties say that the current government is failing to secure a lot of energy, when they themselves during the previous mandate period removed enormous amounts of fossil-free energy in the form of nuclear power plants.

Now the government has made a decision regarding two wind farms, but they only correspond to one of the nuclear power plants that you removed during the last mandate period, Elin Söderberg. Still, you stand together with the Social Democrats and ask why we are not speeding things up. We have to take the consequences of your strange climate policy. If you want to replace fossil energy, you must ensure that there is some other energy. And then you remove that energy! I don't quite understand how that adds up.

I come, as I have said, from Western Sweden. When it comes to the transition, it is electricity that is wanted, but there is an incredible uncertainty in Western Sweden now - in the vehicle cluster in the Port of Gothenburg. Where is the electricity to be obtained from when you have removed the two nuclear reactors in Ringhals?

Northvolt wants to start production of batteries in 2025, but they are very uncertain about whether they will have enough electricity to start their production. It concerns an incredibly large number of jobs.

The Port of Gothenburg does not know if they can proceed with their investment in the climate transition and offer shore power, because they do not have electricity. That is precisely why we have chosen to invest in this government, because we must create a foundation for the climate policy.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are in a climate crisis. The climate issue is both urgent and complicated, and we have approximately seven years to reverse the climate crisis.

The IPCC's latest report shows that many climate effects have worsened in recent years. The warmer climate affects us now more than ever. Last summer was record-warm in Europe with temperatures over 45 degrees, and already now we see signs that this summer could become one of the hottest, with drought and deaths. It will also affect our food production.

In a time when the world needs to unite to meet the climate challenge, Sweden needs to increase its Swedish climate ambitions. Vänsterpartiet strives for countries, regions, and people to stay within a fair environmental space, that is to say the amount of resources that we can use without forcing other people to use a smaller amount of resources.

Mr. Speaker! The idea of a fair environmental space has two components.

The first part is the basic starting point that there is a given environmental space that we humans have to move within. We only have one earth with certain given ecological limits. These frameworks cannot be stretched however one likes, but we must ensure that we live within them. If we live beyond a given environmental space and beyond an ecosystem's carrying capacity, it affects us ourselves but also the inhabitants of other countries and future generations. In the same way, previous generations' exceeding of the frameworks affects us today.

The second part of the just environmental space is the question of justice. If one believes in the equal value of all people, access to money should not be the basis for a distribution of the world's resources.

The earth is our common heritage and should therefore also be managed in that way. But today, it is the people, companies, and countries that have a lot of money that take up a much larger share of the total environmental space than poor people or countries do. It is not fair. Political decisions are needed so that rich countries reduce their environmental and climate impact and so that poor countries get the opportunity to develop.

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party strives for climate justice. This means that we specifically look at climate change from a justice perspective and at who influences and who is affected by climate change.

The situation in the world today can be described as deeply unjust from a climate justice perspective. The capitalist system results in that the earth's resources are distributed extremely unequally between classes, between rich and poor countries, and between women and men. The world's wealthy have caused the climate change and still have the greatest impact on the climate.

According to the global aid organization Oxfam, the richest percent emit twice as much as the poorest half of the world's population. Those who are hit hardest are the world's poor people. From a climate and justice perspective, it is, which is also established in the UN climate convention, the rich countries that have the historical responsibility for climate change and who now also have the greatest responsibility to reduce their emissions. Furthermore, the rich countries must provide support to the poor countries that are affected by climate change.

For Sweden's part, Mr. Speaker, it is low- and middle-income earners who emit the fewest greenhouse gases in Sweden. Those with higher incomes emit more, and the richest percent in Sweden have even increased their emissions dramatically.

Most of the population in Sweden want politics to take responsibility and provide the solutions required to meet the climate goals we have decided upon. And it is proven in research that the climate transition needs to be fair in order to be accepted and implemented. It is the polluter who should pay the most. It is those who emit the most who need to make the largest emission-reducing changes. And for that, a system-changing policy is required.

Vänsterpartiet is ready to step forward and take the responsibility that is required. It is clear that society's commitment in climate policy needs to be strengthened, not diminished. It cannot be avoided that large state investments are required. Electricity production and transmission capacity need to increase dramatically. We need to transition the vehicle fleet. We need to invest much more in public transport and railways. We know that our homes need to become more energy-efficient. And we need to invest heavily in nature-based solutions.

With the Left Party's climate policy, the future will be better for the great majority. It would mean better housing and a more pleasant living environment, cheaper and better public transport, as well as lower prices for electricity. And the transition would also provide more well-paid jobs.

Yes, the list can be long of the lifestyle improvements that our climate policy would entail for the vast majority.

I move for approval of reservation 17.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Just as many have said today in the rostrum, the climate transition is one of our time's greatest challenges. Knowledge and awareness of climate change have never been greater. The message in the UN climate panel's report could not be clearer, namely that the climate cannot wait. Emissions must decrease now.

For me and the Center Party, it is obvious that the development must be reversed and that it is urgent. The measures taken during this decade will be decisive for whether Sweden will be able to participate in and lead the development and share in the gains that the green transition entails. Unfortunately, I believe that this government does not take the climate issue seriously enough.

The sad thing is that a government that calls itself bourgeois acts so contrary to what the business community says. For the business community, this transition is being requested, and the business community knows that the world is transitioning. And if we do not take command and create the innovations, someone else will, and then the Swedish competitiveness will be depleted.

I can state that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, has agreed on several points that affect the climate negatively. They agree to remove the climate bonus for electric cars, they agree to reduce the maintenance of our railways, and they agree to lower the reduction obligation. There are many proposals that increase emissions. Where are the proposals for the green transition? Where is the climate action plan? How is the government going to act to reach the emission targets for 2030? So far, the proposals are conspicuous by their absence.

Mr. Speaker! Political leadership is now required. The Centre Party's climate policy combines an effective pricing of emissions with support for green technology that can break the fossil dependency. We have several good proposals in our budget. Here are three of them.

Firstly, it must become easier for each of us to invest in efficiency and climate-smart energy measures. Therefore, we want to introduce an expanded green deduction for, for example, solar cells or heat pumps.

Secondly, it is about wind power. More needs to be done there. There are investors who want to invest, and there are places that would work well. The technology exists, but nevertheless, there is a standstill in most places. I welcome that yes has been said to offshore wind power on the west coast, but I want to see more. Here we need to review laws and processes to get the wind power started.

Thirdly, it is the question of biogas. The government has pulled the rug out from under those who produce and those who purchase biogas. Action must be taken here.

Mr. Speaker! In this serious situation, we have a government based on a governing base whose largest party does not stand behind the climate goals. There are representatives who have even denied the climate crisis. Just as the Climate Policy Council has stated, the policy that the government has presented so far is not sufficient to reach the 2030 goals. Instead of reducing emissions, the changes announced so far will, on the contrary, increase emissions. In a short time, a number of central climate measures have been scrapped without being replaced by anything else.

It concerns, for example, the emissions from our cars. When the government removed the environmental car bonus, electric car sales collapsed. A car becomes several thousand kronor more expensive per month to lease. It doesn't help to invest in charging stations when electric cars are not being bought. Furthermore, so incredibly much more is needed in the entire chain of "the car, the fuel, and the behavior," that is to say, such as a national network of cycle paths, a travel deduction that actually goes to people who do not have access to the subway and tram, as well as a well-developed public transport system.

Then I must comment on the reduction obligation and the lowering of the biofuel blend. This reduction means, according to experts, a few cents cheaper gasoline for you who drive on gasoline. For you who drive diesel, it might be a few kronor. But for the climate, it means 4 million tons of increased emissions every year. It is an increase of 4 million liters of fossil diesel daily.

There is another way, namely the Center Party's proposal Tank Swedish! With our proposal, everyone can afford to tank Swedish green biofuel. Through our proposal, we can lower the price by 4 kronor per liter at the pump.

I will try to explain. We are lowering the VAT for biofuels, and that corresponds to approximately 1 krona. We are lowering fees and taxes linked to the reduction obligation, and that corresponds to 2 kronor. We are increasing the Swedish production of biofuels, and that corresponds to approximately 1 krona. Altogether, it corresponds to a 4 kronor lower price, and in this way, we can save both the environment and the Swedish wallets. Furthermore, we create jobs in Sweden and reduce our dependence on buying fossil fuels from, for example, Russia. This proposal ensures that biofuels become not only the solution to meet the climate but also the solution to bring down the price.

Mr. Speaker! Climate change knows no national borders, and effective responses to the challenges we face must therefore be international. A strong global climate effort is required, and when other countries waver, Sweden's and the EU's voices need to be clear. By practically demonstrating that economic growth and emission reductions can be reconciled while we create jobs, Sweden and the EU can demonstrate international leadership. Since Sweden's emissions are small in a global perspective, it is important to be proactive both regionally and internationally.

We want Sweden to be a pioneer in the EU and for the EU to be a pioneer in the world by adopting ambitious and bold emission reduction targets. I am proud of the climate package that has now been negotiated in our house, especially the tightening of the trade in emission allowances. But we want to do more in the rest of the world and open up the trade in emission allowances for more countries outside the EU. In this way, we also take a step towards a global price on carbon.

We also want the EU, in its trade agreements with the major emitters China, India, and the USA, to set tougher requirements on climate goals and sustainability. All emissions that we humans contribute to are part of global warming. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 2.

I also want to raise the issue of minus emissions - or negative emissions, as they are more correctly called. This includes technologies that can, in different ways, capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In this way, global warming can be reduced. Examples of negative emission technologies are tree planting, carbon sequestration from biofuels, and methods where carbon dioxide is captured directly from the air. I and C want Sweden to adopt a goal for negative emissions to ensure that it becomes net-zero emissions by 2045.

Mr. Speaker! The climate transition does not only involve challenges and obstacles. It also brings enormous opportunities for Swedish companies and their employees. The business sector wants to and is ready. Through the export of fossil-free goods and services and of technology, we can also generate great climate benefits in other countries. The technology needed to manage the climate transition already exists today, and the support for a transition is great among the Swedish people.

To reach Sweden's and the world's climate goals, the entire society needs to transition. It must be easy to do the right thing. It is about people's ability to commute to work. It is about thinking circularly within all industries - when we build new houses, when we produce clothes and textiles, and when we are to purify our water and extract phosphorus. It must be profitable to choose climate-friendly alternatives. That we introduce a circular economy and use our products longer is absolutely crucial for us to reach the climate goals.

Sweden deserves a climate policy that reduces emissions immediately. To succeed with the climate transition in time, a realistic plan is required that is based on concrete and powerful measures at all levels. The climate transition is not a sacrifice but an opportunity for Sweden, and climate change can be stopped. It is not too late yet.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Stina Larsson, for the speech!

When I try to summarize Stina Larsson's account of the criticism against our budget bill and the direction of the climate policy, what has happened so far, I identify primarily two major changes.

One is the electric bonus cars, which are making an exit now. They still cost quite a few billions this year because all the orders that were made earlier must be paid out. It is about 7 billion this year.

I read the Climate Policy Council's report. They are a bit rigid in the council, because if there is some type of investment or policy measure that reduces emissions, it is always negative according to the council if it is removed. It always becomes one of those red arrows regardless of whether the emissions are reduced by a tiny amount at an incredibly high cost.

When it comes to the bonus cars, we have such a situation. Let's say that we would have kept the bonuses all year this year. If it cost 7 billion to remove them directly, it would have cost say 10 billion to keep them. Had it continued until 2030, we would have had a cost of 10 billion every year. That might be a low estimate. It might have cost even more.

According to the Climate Policy Council, the bonus-malus system contributes to reducing emissions by 1-2 percent every year. Let's say that the bonus cars are half of that. Then it is 1 percent - 1 percent at a cost of, what could it be, closer to 100 billion. Is that a reasonable climate policy? Especially now, when we see that the prices on many electric cars have gone down because the supply has increased. Then the manufacturers lower the prices. We also see that companies continue to buy electric cars without a bonus.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I may not have quite understood the question from the Sverigedemokraterna representative. What I can say is that in order to reach the climate goals, we need to reduce emissions from transport, and even if all new cars sold are electric cars, we still will not reach the goal for 2030.

I know that the Sweden Democrats do not support that goal, so I can understand that one can argue that the electric car bonus is a bad investment. But I believe it is completely crucial for us to move forward in this issue. Sales have actually decreased, and together with the reduced reduction obligation, it means that this goal cannot be achieved.

In our budget or in our proposal, we have coverage for these figures, as far as I can see. Therefore, I absolutely think that this is justifiable, because regardless of where in the country one lives and even if one does not have a lot of money in the account, one then has the opportunity to contribute and buy an electric car. Therefore, we think that the electric car bonus should remain.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The question was therefore whether this is effective or reasonable climate policy, since the Climate Policy Council notes that emissions from passenger car traffic would decrease by approximately 1 percent if we had kept the entire bonus-malus system. It would have cost so many extreme billions and reduced emissions by only 1 percent. Is it a reasonable reform? That is what the evaluation has shown: 1-2 percent for the entire bonus-malus system and likely less for the bonus system. That was my question. Is it reasonable policy to spend so much money on such a small reduction in emissions?

I must say that it honors the Center Party and Stina Larsson that one has presented an own response regarding the reduction obligation. I must say that. My question there becomes what this costs. Lowering the reduction obligation costs practically nothing at all. That allows us to free up money for, among other things, municipalities and regions and invest in welfare, for example. We will see what comes in the next autumn budget. But you are going to lower the VAT. You are going to lower the tax. You are also going to implement the investigation proposal on various forms of production subsidies, which would cost 2 billion.

Then one is to carry out a state procurement. The idea is that it should be cheap, but I assume that those who manufacture biofuels have the right to sell them on the world market. They presumably want a market price. How is one supposed to conjure up a lower price? Companies do have the right to sell on the market.

It is also what Lena Ek notes in her investigation. She cannot guarantee that these fuels will be sold in Sweden. But the Center Party seems to be able to promise something that the investigator does not promise.

My question is what this costs. Lowering the reduction obligation costs practically nothing. The Center Party's proposal should cost, roughly, 10 billion or more.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to the first question is yes; I think it is effective and reasonable. Together with the other proposals, we have an opportunity to reach our climate goals.

We cannot control the cost of the reduction obligation. We believe in the market in this case, just as in all other contexts. But we see that according to the calculations we have made and what we have concluded, it is a reasonable way to reach the climate goals.

For us, the climate goals are prioritized. We see that the government and the Sweden Democrats have no possibility of reaching the climate goals. For example, they are not investing in the circular economy. We have seen that several of the proposals the government has presented so far have been directly counterproductive to reaching the goals.

Therefore, we believe that in this case, the climate must be allowed to cost, because somewhere we must look forward for our children and grandchildren. We must do this now. It cannot be solved by someone else, somewhere else, some other time. Therefore, we believe that it is reasonable.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I listened to Member Stina Larsson's speech. I know that C has many important parts in its climate policy, such as the important role of companies, carbon capture, and circular economy. One is very positive about electric aviation. There are many parts where we have the same view of what needs to be done.

It is said that one wants to drive the development of electric cars, and people talk about climate bonuses and charging infrastructure. The member is very positive about electric cars, and the Center Party wants to provide the vehicle cluster in Sweden with good conditions for the climate transition. But the thing is that what they demand most is more electricity – more energy and more power – and more charging infrastructure. In that regard, I think we have chosen two different paths.

My question is why the Center Party during the previous parliamentary term voted for the decommissioning of the nuclear power plants. It has created this energy crisis, which has created an incredible uncertainty in Western Sweden - which is actually one of the most important engines for welfare in Sweden and also one of the areas where the most is invested in research and development. But now there is an incredible uncertainty in Western Sweden: Will it be possible to produce batteries for cars in a fossil-free way and avoid importing batteries from China?

My question is, therefore, why the Center Party during the previous parliamentary term voted for the decommissioning of nuclear power.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Just as the member began by saying, the Liberals and the Centre Party have many similarities in climate and environmental policy. What I can regret is that they are now not showing their true colors in these issues in the government. They even have the ministerial post, but I experience that the Liberals are locked by their government base and cannot push the issues that they actually talked about during the election campaign.

I agree that we need better charging infrastructure, but it doesn't help to have charging stations if we don't have electric cars and electric vehicles. From what I have understood from those I have been in contact with, it is not the charging itself that is the concern, but rather that too few electric cars are currently coming onto the market.

Regarding nuclear power, which I understand was also an issue, we were part of an energy agreement. Those who have read their history know that it is not quite truthful that anyone voted this down. We adhered to the agreement that the alliance government signed, which was about creating long-term rules of the game on the market, which is exactly what the business community is demanding today. No one at that time, with the electricity prices prevailing then and after the accident in Fukushima, believed in nuclear power at all—not even the Moderaterna.

The members of the board should also know that it is fully permitted to build new nuclear power today and has been for a very long time. But unfortunately, it takes a long time, and it often becomes significantly more expensive than intended. We have the example of Finland very close at hand.

What we want to see is even more wind power. As I have said before, it is very good that those on the west coast have been approved, but we need more offshore wind farms.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer, which I do not actually think points out why the nuclear power plants were shut down.

We in the Liberals stood outside the energy agreement because we already saw when it was created that it would not hold. We looked at the laws of physics and saw that it would not hold in the long run, so the Liberals never joined the energy agreement. And it has turned out that we were right, at least when it comes to getting a majority to drive nuclear power in Sweden now. Party after party has followed the Liberals' line.

The Chairman says that it has been possible to build nuclear power plants. But if there is a goal that all energy production must be renewable after 2040, then no one will start a nuclear power plant. It would have to be decommissioned after 10-15 years, and it goes without saying that there is no economy in that. But we are going to fix this now – we are changing the goal from that everything should be renewable after 2040 to that it should be fossil-free by 2040. Then there will be an interest in building nuclear power plants in Sweden.

When it comes to rechargeable cars, I do not quite see how the member is reasoning. We must have energy to be able to build these cars. As I understand it from how the member is reasoning, it is therefore better that we import batteries from China that are made with very poor fossil energy than that we create production here in Sweden.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Our history is often repeated here in the speaker's chairs. There is talk about what has been said previously and what one government or the other has said. What I want to talk about is what we are going to do now and what we are going to invest in moving forward.

We have the nuclear power plants we have, and they should naturally be operated as long as they are running, functional, and efficient. But we also need more technology and more renewable energy sources, and the Liberals are not particularly proactive and positive when it comes to approving this in the municipalities and allowing it to be built. There are several examples where municipal Liberal representatives have actually voted no and where Moderate-led municipalities say a flat no to new wind power. But we need renewable production - especially in southern Sweden, where I come from. We see that there is a lack of own production there.

So, one says one thing at the national level, but when it actually comes to being implemented and becoming a reality out in the municipalities, something else is done. Somewhere, it is the action that counts.

I think that it is not only electricity production and cars that are important for us to reach the climate goals. As I mentioned earlier, this is also about the circular economy, and there I see that the government must take the lead and find national goals for how we should handle waste. I met the construction industry earlier today, and we talked about how to find ways to be more circular within the construction industry. It also applies to the textile industry and the management of food waste; there are so many things to do within the climate area.

There, the Liberals actually have the opportunity to take command. I truly wish that what the member is talking about here can become a reality and that one shows initiative in this, because there are very great opportunities.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that I naturally support all of the Green Party's motions on climate, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 17 on a national carbon budget, reservation 26 on goals and measures to reduce consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Paris Agreement, reservation 30 on strategically working with nature-based solutions to increase carbon sequestration in forests and land, and reservation 42 on maintaining and developing the reduction obligation.

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves today in a situation where, over the past year, we have read the IPCC's latest synthesis report on climate change at the same time as Sweden has moved from being a country that demonstrates the possibilities of the climate transition to having a government that actively increases greenhouse gas emissions. While our neighboring countries move forward and increase their ambitions, Sweden's government chooses to move forward with policies that increase greenhouse gas emissions. Sweden has moved from being part of the solution to being part of the problem.

The message in the IPCC's latest report is crystal clear: emissions must decrease rapidly, now in the near term, if we are to avoid the most serious consequences of climate change.

In the IPCC's synthesis report, which came out this spring, it states, among other things, that the countries' collective climate goals today lead to a global warming of 2.8 degrees above pre-industrial times by the year 2100. The policies that are implemented in all the world's countries, i.e., the climate measures that were implemented in 2020, lead to a global warming of 3.2 degrees above pre-industrial times by the year 2100. It is also noted that the financial flows are insufficient to reach the climate goals within all sectors and all regions.

The IPCC also emphasizes that climate policy makes a difference, that the policies and economic instruments that have been introduced are useful and that policies in several countries have increased energy efficiency, reduced the rate of deforestation and accelerated the introduction of new technology, which has led to us avoiding greenhouse gas emissions and in some cases also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We also see that in the short term, every region in the world is expected to face further increases in climate risks affecting both people and ecosystems: increase in heat-related human mortality and morbidity, increase in foodborne, waterborne and vector-borne diseases, mental health challenges, floods in coastal and low-lying cities and regions, loss of biodiversity on land, in seas and in lakes, reduction of food production in certain regions.

Every additional step of global warming causes more extremes. The global water cycle is intensifying so that wet weather becomes wetter and dry weather becomes much drier. Areas with ice and snow are decreasing, and the sea level is rising. We are getting increased ocean acidification, which, among other things, affects the coral reefs, and increased oxygen deficiency in the oceans, which, for example, can lead to bottom death and oxygen deficiency that affects large fish.

When I read the IPCC's latest synthesis report, there was one image that particularly stuck with me. I don't know if it will be visible on the camera, but I am placing it here as I am going to talk about it. The bottom map images show days per year where humidity and temperature will pose a danger to human lives. The first map on the far left shows the world in a state with between 1.7 and 2.3 degrees Celsius in global average temperature increase. It is, therefore, in a state where we in large parts find ourselves within the Paris Agreement.

It is against this background that the Liberals, Christian Democrats, Moderates and Sweden Democrats actively choose to increase greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden.

Since the IPCC's report was released, the World Meteorological Organization has also issued an assessment of the temperatures in the coming years in a situation where we have El Niño. What is seen is that we will exceed 1.5 degrees with quite high probability already in the coming years. Then we will hopefully be able to get below it again. But it shows the enormous work we have to do to avoid completely unacceptable consequences of the climate changes.

The maps show the effects and consequences for animals, plant life, and people's lives and health, but the consequences also lead to indirect effects, that people need to relocate and that we need to develop society. It can lead to civil unrest and new conflicts.

Mr. Speaker! Climate change thus entails both direct and indirect risks for us here in Sweden. The direct risks include, among others, heavy rainfall with increased flooding, which can lead to landslides and rockslides, droughts with damaged crops and deteriorated groundwater levels, and heatwaves that affect people's health here in Sweden. We see a great need to, for example, ensure that we can maintain good indoor temperatures in elderly care homes.

We get pests and diseases that affect our livestock and our crops here in Sweden, a reduced snow cover with effects for, for example, the tourism industry, increased zero-crossings, where we go between plus and minus degrees which we see already today affects the reindeer husbandry so that the reindeer cannot reach the pasture, floods that lead to risks that environmental toxins are spread. We have stored environmental toxins in such a way that it has remained sealed, but if we get large floods, the environmental toxins can start to leak out if we do not carry out proper adaptation measures.

We also get more complex conditions for our agriculture which can affect food production and thus also food prices. Indirect risks for Sweden are, for example, when subcontractors or customers of Swedish companies in other countries are affected by floods, droughts or storms due to climate change.

We also see global fish catches decreasing and droughts that damage food production and agriculture in other countries. We have now seen, not least in Europe, how the drought affects agriculture. This can also lead to indirect effects in the form of increased food prices here in Sweden. We also see effects on global economic stability and on security, stability, and geopolitics that affect us in Sweden.

One thing is clear, and it is perhaps the simplest when it comes to climate change: The greater the emissions, the greater the risks. And we also know very well how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Whether we do it or not is a matter of political choices. I choose that we here in Sweden shall reduce emissions as quickly as possible. Sweden shall be an active party in the EU to reduce emissions, and we shall push forward internationally so that every country in the world takes its responsibility to meet the Paris Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, climate policy is not just about avoiding these serious risks. It is also about seizing the opportunities – fantastic opportunities that now exist for us to flourish as a country.

We see that the green industrial transition leads to rapid societal development with new innovations and knowledge dissemination that strengthens Swedish competitiveness. We see that the transport sector's transition provides better air, less noise, and more pleasant urban environments. It is a transition that can result in us having better mobility and better transport conditions throughout the country. A more transport-efficient society can give us better public services in rural areas and social cohesion in residential areas.

The agricultural sector's transition provides higher crisis preparedness and lower food prices. And forestry's climate transition provides a strengthened biodiversity with timber buildings with fine aesthetics and good living environments. The IPCC also highlights in its latest report the positive added values that follow from the climate transition, not least for human health.

Mr. Speaker! When we in Miljöpartiet were in government, we laid the foundation for the green industrial transition that is now putting Sweden on the international map, strengthening Swedish competitiveness, and causing the current government to schedule international visits to Norrbotten. The billion-dollar investments that the industry's climate transition entails can contribute to a strong and positive societal development that will benefit the entire country – added values that can be realized. However, a strong and clear political leadership is needed to create the conditions required along this entire journey of societal development.

Teachers are needed in Kiruna, housing is needed in Gällivare, money is needed for the individual forest owners in Jämtland who want to protect their forest, and more offshore wind power is needed to increase electricity production in Skåne and Västra Götaland. A long-term political leadership is required for the entire country's climate transition.

Then one cannot, as the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna in the government are doing now, leave humanity's greatest challenge behind and hope for the best. If these parties had been in power in Sweden for the last eight years, Sweden would not be the world's leading green industrial nation today. Then Sweden would never become first in the world in producing fossil-free steel. Then Northvolt's batteries or Cementa's emission-free cement would never become a reality.

Since the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals have taken power, it has become painfully clear how harmful their policy is for Swedish competitiveness. In addition to conducting sniping against industrial investments, they also oppose wind power and significantly hinder the supply of skills—two things that the business sector clearly demands. Many are probably wondering what has happened to the Swedish right. Were you not supposed to be the ones who safeguarded the business sector's competitiveness? Obviously not anymore.

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

TALMANNEN

Before I give the floor to Kjell-Arne Ottosson for a reply, I would like to make three pointed observations from the Speaker. Firstly, the speaker exceeded the allotted speaking time by more than 50 percent. Secondly, the speaker used props in the speaker's chair, which is not permitted according to our rules of procedure. One may not show pictures or objects. Thirdly, the Speaker and the group leaders have agreed that the number of reservations one moves for approval per party and consideration should be one to two, this is so that we do not get unmanageably long votings.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We were just sitting in the bench and talking about this with the reservations when it was motioned.

There is no doubt that Miljöpartiet and Kristdemokraterna stand quite far apart on some issues. It is simply a matter of realizing that we have different ideologies and different starting points, and we must respect that – even if we think the other party is wrong.

Actually, there was a certain question I had intended to ask, but given all these reservations, I also want to ask a pure knowledge question. I will take that first. Member Söderberg moved for approval of a reservation regarding an emissions budget. If one does not follow an emissions budget, what happens then? In what way can one be punished or affected? It is a pure knowledge question.

What I actually intended to bring up concerns the issue we have debated the most here today, namely the reduction obligation. I noted that Elin Söderberg - I believe it was in a reply to the Liberal Party's representative - mentioned a number of changes in taxes, VAT and so on that have made it cheaper for ordinary people who do not live so far away that they can make use of public transport.

This is exactly what it is about. The Energy Agency has produced figures that were presented last winter: If we were to break the pause and continue, diesel next year, 2024, would cost approximately 6.90 more per liter and gasoline 4.30 more. By 2030, diesel will cost around 12.50 more per liter and gasoline 8.50 more.

How does Miljöpartiet intend for all of Sweden to be able to keep up with this transition when one does not have public transport?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for very good questions.

When it comes to the carbon budget, the IPCC calculates a global carbon budget for the remaining emission space to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees above pre-industrial times with a certain probability. Using a carbon budget means that we consider it is the sum of emissions over time that determines our climate impact. It plays a huge role whether we, for example, reach net zero by 2050 by reducing emissions first a little and then more and more, or if we do it by reducing emissions significantly in the near term and then maintaining a low level until the final goal in 2050, since it is the emissions over time that are summed and accumulated in the atmosphere and then warm us for hundreds of years ahead.

Adopting a carbon budget perspective and calculating a carbon budget for Sweden gives us a better tool that can lead us toward reaching the Paris Agreement. Instead of starting from target years 2030 or 2050, we must consider what emission space remains in a fair global distribution for us to stay within. It also means that we can better develop climate policy and measures to include actions that reduce emissions in the near term. That is what the budget perspective focuses on.

When it comes to the reduction obligation, we in Miljöpartiet view the situation that households now face with high interest rates, high energy prices, high fuel prices, high food prices, and inflation very seriously. What we want to ensure is that the state and society catch those who are struggling the most financially. We want to see a good distribution policy and at the same time maintain the climate policy.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elin Söderberg, for the answer, at least regarding this matter of the carbon budget. I perceive it perhaps more as some kind of symbol. Elin Söderberg calls it a tool, but it is in no way binding, as I perceive it as a whole. Thus, it becomes yet another in the row of symbolic political measures, as I perceive the answer. It is possible that I misunderstood it, but that is at least how I think.

Regarding the question of the reduction obligation, we are told here that someone else is going to fix it. Now, someone else is everyone else, namely the state. It will therefore cost the state or society enormous sums when we, just as Elin Söderberg mentioned, already have high inflation, high interest rates, and a strained situation. Here, the state is apparently going to somehow provide even more money. How many tax billions will it involve? How will it then be distributed so that it becomes fair, as Elin Söderberg touched upon?

For me, it sounds like the solution on one side is ready. We have the decision that was made in 2019 - I have it in front of me here - with the reduction obligation and how it would increase successively. That is what we are going to go with. But then we have the other side: How does the Green Party think one should gain acceptance for the transition? If we do not get acceptance for the transition, we also do not get the people with us. Then we get yellow vests or something else. Then we get a countryside that is depleted, that countryside which ensures that we have food on the table, that we have, for example, timber products and that we have energy. It is absolutely crucial for Sweden that the countryside can live, otherwise we all stand still.

In what way does Miljöpartiet mean that you should fix this so that everyone can participate?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is very good that you raise the issue of acceptance, Kjell-Arne Ottosson. I have wanted to discuss it many times during the evening.

It is completely central that we achieve broad acceptance among the entire people for the climate policy. It is obvious; if we do not have acceptance among the people, we do not have acceptance in the Riksdag, and then there will be no climate measures. And now we are in a situation where we are increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

I would very much like that more parties present climate policies that allow us to reach the goals and that are believed to gain acceptance from the population. What I have seen so far is the argument that one needs acceptance for the policy when one removes climate measures and increases emissions. I would rather see more of us cooperating to produce climate measures that allow us to reach the goals, avoid the most serious risks, and provide support measures all the way. Then we can achieve broad acceptance among the population, and the entire population can feel secure throughout the entire climate transition.

There is, in fact, no business as usual scenario without climate-related consequences. If we do not take climate actions and if we do not invest in the climate transition, we will be caught off guard by the consequences of climate change. It will cost far more than implementing the measures and supporting households along the way.

It is the same thing with the carbon budget. When it comes to the climate goals we have decided on in the Riksdag and also the fiscal policy goals regarding where we should have a balance and so on, there will not be any legal consequences from above just because of that. It is about which goals and frameworks we in the Riksdag decide that we shall adhere to. It is also about cooperation to maintain the legitimacy of those goals.

Miljöpartiet sees that if we work with a carbon budget perspective, we gain an understanding that it is the sum of emissions over time that affects the climate. Then we can introduce effective measures in the near term to reduce emissions.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 7 June.)

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