(cont. from § 5) Road traffic and vehicle issues (cont. TU9)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Jacobsson, for the contribution! I would like to ask a couple of questions related to it.

It is not so strange that one enters into energy issues when one is standing and debating the electrification of the vehicle fleet. Both Member Jacobsson and Member Bergheden did so earlier.

The member mentioned that small-scale hydropower is a simpler solution and that we are not making use of it. There, I would really like to ask the member a question. I have understood that it is a rather difficult legislation linked to being able to continue with small-scale hydropower and that it is that which has caused the issue to have been delayed, but now it sounds like it is a simpler solution that we can make use of quite quickly. I would very much like to hear how the situation stands with that.

I also became curious about what I perceived to be almost a question asked of me as a member of the Centre Party. The member said that he is surprised by the steering measures, which he believes make things more expensive, for example, tax funds that are allocated to various forms of support for the purchase of, for instance, an electric car. I was very surprised by that, because that is precisely what the government does when it allocates a great deal of tax funds, or perhaps borrowed money, to building new nuclear power.

People accuse the Center Party of not being conservative, but at the same time, one promotes old technology with borrowed money. It is actually about a type of energy that could sustain itself.

I would like to pose these two questions about energy to the member.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the large, heavy systems, the debate was more about when one, for example, as the government does regarding the countryside and as the previous government did earlier, provides pure bonuses and support on the electric car side because one wants to favor a specific mode of transport or a specific technology. It tends to be cost-driving.

I have perceived that C also lies a bit in this. I was surprised given that in many other debates I have experienced C as significantly more market-liberal. That was actually the perspective I had.

When it comes to the large systems, such as energy systems, roads and railways, we would probably need to have some form of unified company or unified authority for black fiber, given the situation in Ukraine. It is such things that the state has traditionally been involved in financing. When we built up Sweden, we built railways and energy. It was that which allowed companies to then develop and do well. It is actually about two different issues.

When it comes to small-scale hydropower, it is absolutely no secret that the Christian Democrats have tried in every possible way to push for it to be implemented sooner, with more material, and that more should be done to facilitate it.

In southern Sweden, where we have the absolutely highest costs, small-scale hydropower could contribute to increased production. Here, it is actually more about regulations. The facilities already exist. If we are to build a new nuclear power plant, it will take time, and if we are to build offshore wind power, it will take time. But with small-scale hydropower, it is more a question of changing regulations, which is simpler.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! If it is simpler to solve the regulatory framework when it comes to hydropower, I look forward to seeing when the government takes action on it. It has put it on ice, one could almost say, and so it shall wait for something that comes later. There has been no change, so I really look forward to the upcoming simpler solution that the Member raised.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask another question. The member of parliament expounded on some different motions that the opposition has raised. I perceived that the member of parliament spoke on one hand and on the other hand and about how it is many people's different responsibilities and so on. Then I thought that the member of parliament himself created a dividing line between opportunities for mobility in the countryside versus the city and mobility in the city. And then it was the question of car pools.

One must still be able to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. We must be able to see the car as necessary in one way for rural residents, but there are quite a few cities in Sweden that could very well get a significantly better environment if cars are used in a different way. In those cases, car pools are an exciting approach, so I would very much like the member to elaborate a bit more on why there is such resistance to car pools from the Kristdemokraterna side.

Then I am a bit surprised by the attitude towards electric cars. Isn't it the case that the government also has a fairly recently decided electric car premium that they will be utilizing? That one can buy an environmentally friendly car in the lower price ranges is surely not something that only the Center Party would be for, but also the government?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Now there were several questions at once. There were car-sharing and electric cars, and then I actually missed one question because I did not note it. I apologize for that. I will answer the latter two.

Regarding electric cars, I have already given an answer, namely that it is what the government does. One moves forward with several subsidies even so that one can electrify and facilitate for those who want to. My question to C arose because I was so surprised that one demands more subsidies beyond what is already being done, given how I perceive C's traditional ideological stance, namely that one is quite market-liberal. It was more a surprise as I perceive that it does not completely hang together.

When it comes to car-sharing, it has been tested. Volvo was very early with a system in Gothenburg, but it didn't have a huge level of attraction. One of the problems was probably the simple things, such as that we humans tend to settle in, regardless of whether it is in a home or in our own car. It does not seem to be so simple to get people to feel that they want to use a car-sharing service.

We in the Christian Democrats are not unfamiliar with car-sharing. One can build it up voluntarily and with commitment and have one's own part, but we do not really see it as the state's task to drive forward that type of car-sharing. It is rather a matter for civil society or some company that has a market-oriented idea where they have a car-sharing service. Future self-driving vehicles will likely function as a car-sharing service, but to start blocking a portion of road users by designating certain parking spaces for certain traffic systems, I am simply negative towards.

Again, as I said in my speech: 80–85 percent of all those who enter a medium-sized city to shop or do something come by car. It is actually more rational, especially if one lives outside the city, to own the car oneself. Then there is less environmental impact than if one were to be picked up by a self-driving vehicle.

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! A few weeks ago, we were from the transport committee in Oslo. Despite the short distance between our countries, there are differences, not least regarding transport policy and how it is conducted in each respective country. Norway is an example of what can happen in the transport area when adopted goals and decided policy remain fixed.

In 2015, the decision was made that all new cars in Norway should be electric by 2025. It is a goal that Norway is now very close to reaching. Last year, the share of electric cars in new car sales in Norway was 95.5 percent, while we in Sweden are at 35.9 percent. That is the lowest share in the Nordic countries and far behind both Norway and Denmark.

In Oslo, there is also an ambitious policy for shared mobility and increased public transport travel according to the motto We travel together when we can and alone when we must. To increase travel by public transport, the state provides funding to lower prices in public transport.

In Sweden, we instead have a government that seems to have forgotten that public transport exists. Not a single initiative has been taken by the government during this mandate period to strengthen the conditions for public transport or to facilitate shared mobility. Instead, they have stopped a mode-neutral travel deduction that could have made a real difference. They have abolished the urban environment agreements, and they have said no to introducing a national goal for increased public transport travel. Regarding shared mobility, they have also not taken any initiatives.

The car-sharing investigation from 2020, which previous speakers have highlighted, also had a clear proposal that parking spaces should be able to be reserved for car-sharing. That investigation is lying and gathering dust, while at the same time we know that the interest in car-sharing is increasing. In 2024, for example, one in three car-owning Stockholmers answered that a car-sharing service near their home would be an alternative to their own car – one in three car-owning Stockholmers.

From Vänsterpartiet we therefore say: Pick up the Car Sharing Investigation, implement necessary changes to the parking legislation – it needs to be modernized – and facilitate shared mobility!

Madam Speaker! The difference between Norway and Sweden is spelled by the Tidö parties and the fundamental reluctance that the Tidö parties have shown in working towards adopted goals and actually achieving a transition of the transport sector.

One of the first decisions this government made after taking office in 2022 was to abolish the electric car premium on very short notice. It was said that this was done because it had served its purpose and was no longer needed, which turned out to be a gross misjudgment.

The Tidö parties have also repeatedly toned down the climate goals, not least the national ones. The transport sector's 2030 goals have been so questioned during this parliamentary term that an inquiry has even been commissioned to potentially abolish the goal.

Where Norway sees clear results as an effect of decided policy remaining firm, we in Sweden see instead a lack of results as an effect of decided policy not remaining firm.

According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's forecasts, Sweden will not meet the 2030 goal. One explanation for this is that electrification is proceeding too slowly.

In December last year, Mobility Sweden released its report, which confirms that electrification has lost momentum in Sweden and shows that the gap to the 2030 goal is even larger than the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's forecasts have shown. It also notes that reduced tax on fossil fuels has counteracted electrification and that what is required are ambitious climate goals and long-term, stable rules of the game – something that the Tidö parties have not succeeded in or wanted to put in place.

Madam Speaker! From the Left Party, we are working for a broadened zero vision. This was what I was pointing out when we had the debate on the traffic safety report. It is a zero vision that includes those who die or are injured not only in traffic but also by traffic. Every year, seven times as many people die prematurely from traffic, i.e., due to traffic-related air pollution, as in traffic accidents. A broadened zero vision was truly needed to capture this large group.

As part of this, we also need to increase the environmental requirements for Swedish vehicle inspections. It is an important tool for improving air quality and strengthening public health. Today, we in Sweden are far from good enough. On the contrary, Sweden is among the countries that are worst in the EU at carrying out adequate environmental controls and meeting the requirements for exhaust purification. This means that diesel cars with high emissions are let through. There is reasonably nothing to wait for here. Tighten the environmental requirements for vehicle inspections and introduce particle measurement!

Madam Speaker! The transport sector is one of the most crucial areas for the Swedish climate transition. We need instruments that support and drive the sector's transition. Everything we do or do not do in the transport area affects Sweden's opportunities to meet climate goals, and that it has consequences when instruments and incentives are lacking is shown by these years with the Tidö parties.

But it can be done differently. We see it in Norway, which has come much further in electrification, but also in Denmark, where electric cars today account for 60 percent of new car sales. They can, of course, and so can we, but then the political will must also be there.

I move for approval of reservation number 14.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on road traffic and vehicle issues.

I thought I would start with the seriousness behind the fact that our roads function.

Parts of the Committee on Transport were this morning at a high-level meeting within the EU with all the transport ministers here in Stockholm. The subject was how we can assist Ukraine in maintaining transport in the country during the ongoing war.

That is why the Swedish government, with Andreas Carlson at the helm, together with Lithuania, Canada, and Ukraine, had signed an agreement and launched the Ukraine Transport Support Fund. An additional five countries joined immediately. The purpose is to finance and otherwise support small and medium-sized repair projects so that Ukraine's transport system can continue to function.

A member from every parliamentary party was present at the high-level meeting. This display of Swedish parliamentary unity in support of Ukraine was noted by several EU foreign ministers and also by Ukraine's representative, who thanked for the support – a support that is not self-evident in several countries in Europe. Let us not forget that all parties here in the Riksdag stood behind the support for Ukraine. We should be very proud of that. I wanted to start with that.

Against that background, this debate takes on increased importance. How robust is the Swedish transport system, really? How great is our repair capacity? How easily can we find alternative routes if a road becomes blocked? Here we have much to learn from Ukraine's experiences. At the same time, one of our most important transport measures is to help Ukraine in this vulnerable situation. Ukraine fights for its country but also for Sweden and the rest of Europe.

Road transport accounts for the majority of Sweden's transport. If they do not function, everyday life is affected for all of us, both residents and companies. At the same time, we risk our crisis preparedness. Without road transport, the risks increase dramatically.

Large parts of our road network were built over 60 years ago. Now, the Liberals, together with the coalition partners, have taken on the maintenance debt. In the proposal for the national infrastructure plan, it is stated that the maintenance debt for our roads shall be addressed by 2037, which, against the background of the war in Ukraine, may seem like a very long time. Repairing our roads is the fastest way to increase capacity on the roads. Transport must function all the way from start to destination.

It concerns, not least, the possibility of driving longer and heavier trucks on a larger part of our road network. Longer trucks can be driven on approximately 600 miles of road in Sweden, and heavier trucks over 74 tons can be driven on just over half of our state roads. Being able to drive with longer trucks also provides a large climate effect. The load-bearing capacity of the roads is also of great importance for the mobile load cranes, an important function not least within construction. There, Trafikverket should be able to offer support to the municipalities with the permit processes. The load-bearing capacity of our roads is also an incredibly important factor for the total defense, also with reference to Ukraine.

The infrastructure proposal also states that the state continues to provide significant support to the owners of the private roads so that the road standards can be maintained. This is also important for the forestry industry and also from a total defense perspective.

Another area is snow removal, where Trafikverket is reviewing its procurement with contractors so that it is possible to perform snow removal both for the state and for individual road associations. Winter road maintenance has improved significantly during this mandate period, not least regarding coordination during major snowstorms. At the same time, further measures are required so that our hauliers can feel secure in being able to deliver their goods regardless of the weather.

Madam Speaker! There is a question that dominates the area of roads and vehicles today: the transition of our vehicle fleet and the possibility of charging one's vehicle at home, in depots, and on the road. Road transport accounts for over 90 percent of emissions within the transport sector, so that is where the Liberals' greatest focus lies. Yesterday, several of us members were in Skövde and met with the automotive industry. There we heard how China is now flooding Europe with cheap electric cars, and probably the same will apply to electric trucks. If we do not transition the European automotive industry, it risks being wiped out. This is about the two largest companies in Sweden and furthermore the Volvo companies and Scania, not to mention all the subcontractors. It is therefore extremely important that we work on transitioning the automotive industry and drive these issues in the EU.

In a short time, the vehicle fleet must be replaced with electric vehicles. The challenge for society consists of establishing a charging infrastructure that stays ahead of the increase in the number of chargeable cars. For the vehicle manufacturers, the challenge is to produce cars and trucks powered by electricity that can be sold at reasonable prices so that more people and companies can afford a chargeable vehicle. Both of these challenges are complex and require cooperation, which we also heard in Skövde yesterday. However, we are on the right track; the sales of chargeable cars remain at a continued high share despite a prolonged recession. It is essential that the charging infrastructure keeps pace with the sales development. Here, the biggest challenge regarding passenger cars is how the charging shall take place in multi-family housing. The Government is now looking at the possibility for those who live in multi-family housing to demand the right to charge.

Regarding heavy vehicles, the number of electric vehicles is increasing steadily but too slowly. The truck premium therefore remains, as the proportion of new electric trucks is still low. The Government has introduced and extended the premium for light trucks and, pending the EU directive, introduced an exemption for light trucks up to 4,250 kilos so that they can continue to be driven on a B-license.

We do, however, need to increase the demand for electric trucks, and one way is through requirements in public procurement. The Liberals have, among other things, pushed in the European Parliament to make it possible to set environmental requirements in procurement. I find it particularly interesting to note that the EU only has sanctions against the truck manufacturers and no common requirements for reduced climate emissions for the transport system as a whole with its many actors. They only go after the vehicle manufacturers. It would be interesting if one could develop the pressure to make the transition so that it is not just about the vehicle manufacturers.

The government is now introducing a system for easy-to-understand information where the customer can easily compare different cars based on climate emissions, both from a life cycle perspective and during operation. This also takes into account how, above all, the battery but also, for example, the steel for the car's body has been produced – has the production of the components caused significant climate emissions? This is a question that I have pushed for in the Riksdag for several years, and now it is in the government's climate action plan. The hope is that the car buyer will in the future choose cars without emissions with the support of a clear climate guide.

The Liberals believe in the idea that the polluter should pay. Since the lifespan of a passenger car is over 19 years on average, fossil-free fuels will be needed for a long time to come to reduce emissions from today's gasoline and diesel-powered cars.

The war in Ukraine has simultaneously highlighted the issue of emergency stockpiles so that transport needs can be ensured in the event of a major power outage. In parallel, there is also the issue of our cultural-historical heritage of older cars and ensuring that there will continue to be fuels for these vehicles on the market.

Madam Speaker! Everyone must be able to move in public places, regardless of functional variation. Measures need to be taken to ensure accessibility for persons with visual impairments during transport, not least at bus stops.

Madam Speaker! The day is coming soon when we will have self-driving vehicles on our streets. The technology has been introduced, and Waymo conducts 225,000 trips every week with robotaxis in San Francisco and Arizona. Therefore, it is urgent to review and adapt all relevant legislation so that self-driving cars can be introduced on our roads in a traffic-safe manner. The Transport Agency is now developing a proposal for a regulatory framework that should be ready by 2027. I think it is interesting that precisely Waymo comes to the Transport Committee's part of the research day here and tells about its journey and where they stand today.

In conclusion, the cooperation between universities and the business sector are important pieces of the puzzle for the Swedish automotive industries to continue to be at the forefront. The Swedish automotive industry consists of the largest companies we have in Sweden, and besides being large employers, they are a strong driver for innovation and development. They simultaneously create growth all around Sweden where their new technology is also utilized by other companies for other purposes.

Madam Speaker! With those words, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Gellerman, for the speech!

Just as the member had, I also had the privilege of being in Skövde yesterday, and it is clear that many important issues were raised, not least from a security perspective and regarding how the automotive industry can be part of how we build robustness and security in many different ways.

We also met Mobility Sweden.

I believe the development of electric vehicles concerns the member from the Liberals very much. We can now see that emissions from transport during 2024 increased by 21 percent or, in a later calculation, by 24 percent. At the same time, it states in the committee's position that it is noted that a number of measures have been taken in recent years to accelerate the transition.

The signal from our vehicle companies is that they want long-term solutions. They want to know what applies moving forward. Now, there has been quite a lot of volatility in the politics from the government's side. Wasn't it the case that the support for electric cars was removed somewhat too early, before it had become completely stable on the market? Norway waited a bit longer with that, and now it seems they are over the hump and can begin to remove various forms of subsidies, such as toll charges, tax exemptions, and so on.

I want to ask the member, who belongs to the same party as the Minister for Climate and Environment, who handles the climate action plan and other issues that the member mentioned in his speech: Can one trust that the government maintains long-term conditions? Will you pivot, or can one trust that they remain firm?

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ulrika Heie, for the question! I think it is important that one creates long-term conditions. I was, however, also hesitant about whether one should continue with the electric car bonus. We paid 7 billion last year – I believe it was 2024 – for the electric car bonus. The cost of an electric car is today significantly lower than when one could get 70,000 in support for an electric car. Still, they are sold at the same level, even in a recession.

I agree that we need to do more things. That is, for example, why, as I pointed out in my speech, we make it clearer for electric car buyers what is climatically best from a life cycle perspective. We have just received approval to use the social fund to provide support to car buyers in rural areas, where there is not much public transport and where one has a certain salary. We support light trucks, where we see that it has not paid off. We want to continue that support.

We have also continued the support for electric trucks, because we see that it is very low there. But when more than 50 percent of the vehicles sold are chargeable, I do not think that one should continue with that type of subsidy. Then we move to investing the money in charging infrastructure, because if the individual cannot charge at home, they will not continue to buy electric cars.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Helena Gellerman, for the answers! I must nevertheless clarify my questions: Is the member satisfied with what happened during 2024, that emissions increased by 21 percent? Is the member satisfied that the government says that we will not reach the climate goals by 2030 when it comes to the transport sector? What does the member, as a representative of the climate minister's party, see as something that would need to be done more?

It is clear that there are a number of years left until the goals are to be achieved. Are there other instruments that can be used to, like what is stated in the committee's text, make efforts to accelerate the transition? It is said from the government parties' side that one wants to do so.

I would very much like to know how the member views the fact that the goals for the transport sector are not being reached during 2024 and that there has been such an extreme setback. Up to 24 percent is a very large increase in just a single year. I would like to know how Helena Gellerman and the Liberals view the climate goals, whether you stand behind what we have decided in this chamber, and what you intend to do to reach the goals.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Yes, of course we stand behind the climate goals. We already said in 2024 that emissions will probably increase but that they will then fall again.

We are of course not satisfied and have now presented a number of parts, for example regarding the right to charge for those who live in multi-family dwellings. They shall be able to demand to receive a charging point. They may have to pay for it themselves, but they will be given the opportunity to charge the car at home. It will increase the interest in buying a used electric car.

When it comes to passenger cars, we will see a continued transition. But one of the major concerns concerns trucks. I believe that we must help in the transition in a completely different way through premium support for trucks and, of course, also charging infrastructure.

I just want to comment on Norway, because it is interesting. I worked in this industry from 1984 until I entered the Riksdag. In Norway, a passenger car cost twice as much as in Sweden, because the cost was doubled with the help of tax. What was done next was to remove the tax on those cars. Then they cost as much as in Sweden. Then it was cheaper. Then an electric car cost about the same as a fossil fuel car. That is why Norway got this big shift. They have no industry of their own. One must be careful about why it has become as it has become in Norway. But it is very positive.

Generally speaking, we obviously need to do more. But we have four years left. If we were to change the emissions we have now, based on the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, during these four years, we would reach the goals by 2030.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Tonight we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on road traffic and vehicle issues for the last time this parliamentary term. I am pleased to see the great commitment that exists in the Swedish Riksdag for important issues concerning both Sweden's present and future. This is my fourth consecutive speech in this area during the parliamentary term. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to extend a big thank you to all involved for this opportunity.

Time is short, and I therefore want to focus my speech on vehicle issues within three areas – how it was, how it is, and how it will become in the future.

For me, the car is more than a means of transport. It is a symbol of freedom, entrepreneurship, innovation, economic growth, jobs, and Swedish cultural heritage. For many Swedes, the car means the freedom to get to work, pick up the children, shop for food, and live their lives – regardless of the weather and where in the country one lives. For others, the car is a tool of work and the foundation for entrepreneurship and livelihood. For Swedish engineers, workers, and car companies, the car is an expression of world-class technical expertise, global trade, exports, jobs, and growth opportunities. For hundreds of thousands of Swedish enthusiasts, the car is a part of our mobile cultural heritage.

Madam Speaker! Ahead of the 2022 election, Sweden had some of the world's highest fuel prices. The mindless reduction obligation and the tax policy turned the car into a class issue. For many households, the choice was between fueling the car and buying food. A deceptive bonus-malus system created an inverse Robin Hood effect: economic resources were redistributed from low-income earners and rural residents to high-income earners in large cities for the purchase of expensive and luxurious electric cars.

At the same time, the EU pursued a technology-hostile policy for a ban on the sale of new passenger cars and utility vehicles with internal combustion engines. Competition and technology neutrality were replaced by climate hysteria and technology steering from politicians. The market was replaced by political symbols. On top of this came the European ELV regulation – the abbreviation stands for end-of-life vehicles – which threatened property rights and our mobile cultural heritage.

In short: Before the 2022 election, it was ugly to own and drive a car in Sweden.

How is it today, Madam Speaker? Today the situation looks different. The reduction obligation has been lowered significantly to a more sensible level. Sweden no longer vacuums up the rest of the world's slaughter waste to then fuel cars and trucks with so-called sustainable biofuels. The fuel taxes are at the lowest possible level. The bonus for electric cars is completely abolished. The malus tax for motorhomes has been removed, and my hope is that this unjust penalty tax will soon be abolished entirely. It is no longer a class issue to own and drive a car.

At the EU level, the opposition to the unilateral ban on internal combustion engines has grown, which has led to the EU Commission now backing down and extending the possibility for the sale of new cars with internal combustion engines. In the same way, several European car manufacturers have backed down from their unrealistic electric car goals for 2030. Swedish Volvo Cars has acknowledged its strategic mistakes and adjusted according to democratic decisions and customer demand. The ELV regulation has been adjusted following clear Swedish opposition.

We have shown that policy can be changed in a more sensible direction without it causing the planet's climatic downfall.

So, looking ahead, Madam Speaker. Today we face a larger question than individual taxes and regulations for vehicles. The question is: Does Europe have a future as an industrial continent? The automotive industry has been the backbone of the economy, growth, and jobs since Europe was rebuilt after the Second World War left it in ruins.

The European automotive industry is in a profound crisis, unfortunately, with tariff conflicts between the USA, China and the EU, Chinese dominance regarding battery production and critical raw materials, and an aggressive industrial policy and hyper-competition from both Washington and Beijing. China controls the majority of the world's battery production and raw materials for electric cars. At the same time, the EU is pushing through a policy that in practice forces electrification without securing its own competitiveness. The result risks being electrification, but made in China. We are already seeing the consequences: bankruptcies and factory closures, reduced investments, and growing uncertainty.

This week, at the European Industry Summit 2026, the Belgian Prime Minister warned that Europe risks becoming a museum, a beautiful industrial memory, while the future is being built somewhere else. He reminded of a crucial truth: Without industry, there is no technological leadership; without technology, there is no defense capability; without these, there is no strategic autonomy.

This applies to a great extent to Sweden. Sweden's largest private employer is within the automotive industry and is today Chinese-owned. This is a fact that should give cause for reflection.

We must therefore ensure technology neutrality in policy, restore competitiveness, significantly reduce the regulatory burden, protect our property rights and our cultural heritage, diversify supply chains and trading partners and, last but not least, diversify our energy supply with a more reasonable price per unit of energy. If we do not do this, Sweden's and Europe's decarbonization risks becoming synonymous with deindustrialization and, ultimately, lost independence.

Madam Speaker! The car, whether electric or conventional, is not the problem. The industry is not the problem. Entrepreneurship is not the problem. The problem is a policy that does not stem from the conditions of reality. We must start with what is feasible, not with what is desirable on paper.

Sweden shall be an industrial nation. Europe shall be a competitive continent. And the Swedish people shall have the freedom to own and drive the car they themselves choose. This is our task and our responsibility.

(Applause)

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! This is the speech that Linus Lakso had intended to give for eight or possibly ten minutes, so there will be some shortenings since I only have four minutes. I hope that you will be able to take in some of what I know Linus wanted to say. He had to leave the Riksdag quite quickly this afternoon.

Madam Speaker! We find ourselves in a serious situation regarding the ongoing climate crisis. We already see today how people both in Sweden and around the world are affected by increasing extreme weather with flooded basements, washed-away roads and railways, blown-down forests, hurricanes and dying coral reefs.

Emissions from transport account for approximately one-third of Sweden's total emissions. It is also the area where we can quickly reduce emissions. There are sustainable technologies to switch to already today, for example electrification and sustainable fuels. The government's response to climate issues has also been precisely electrification, but in reality, they may not have succeeded quite as well.

A large majority of the Swedish people are concerned about climate change, we know. There is a broad commitment to an ambitious climate policy. It is 70 percent of Swedes who want us to reach our climate goals.

The government has, among other things, significantly increased the proportion of fossil fuels in fuels, made gigantic tax cuts on fossil fuels, removed the bonus that stimulated electric car sales, and stopped a new and climate-smart travel deduction. In 2024, electric car sales in Sweden fell for the first time, when they instead needed to increase. We are in the absurd situation where the government favors the fossil industry instead of helping Swedish companies and households that want to transition.

The criticism is massive from both the business community, environmental organizations, experts, and researchers. Among others, OECD and the Climate Policy Council have criticized the government's policy. The energy source that has increased the most is therefore fossil fuels. The annual use increased by a corresponding 15 terawatt-hours just between 2022 and 2024.

The Green Party's goal, Madam Speaker, is instead cheap and sustainable transport throughout the country, with the right solution in the right place. Therefore, we want to achieve a national electric car offensive with a number of different supports, including a fair electric car bonus. We have set a cap so that the most expensive cars do not receive any bonus while the cheapest cars receive the largest. In addition to this, we envision an extra bonus of 10,000 SEK for those living in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas. We want an income-tested support of 1,500 SEK for electric car leasing aimed at people in rural areas. Such a support would give those who cannot or do not want to buy an electric car the opportunity to switch to an electric car as early as tomorrow. Such a support could, in terms of driving, correspond to a gasoline price of approximately 5 SEK per liter.

We want to see support for the conversion of fossil fuel cars to, among other things, biogas and electric drive, which has been successful in France.

Conversion to biogas is relatively simple if one starts from a gasoline car. It also needs to be just as simple to inspect a gas vehicle as a gasoline car, at the same cost.

We need a well-developed charging infrastructure throughout the country. More needs to be done here, not least for heavy vehicles and for residents in multi-family housing. There is a list of measures for a rapid and socio-economically efficient expansion of charging infrastructure across the country that the Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish Transport Administration have developed. Additionally, we would like to see a Sweden card for all public transport in Sweden for, as we have proposed, 499 SEK per month.

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 6.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 25 February.)

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