(cont. from prot. 87) Circular and toxic-free economy (cont. MJU12)

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to start by really thanking Lars Johnsson for coming here a day after the debate to answer my reply.

It actually concerns a question that I really wonder about. The Moderates put forward a new political program last year. The Moderates' party secretary then went out and stated that the Moderates proposed a lower tax on repair and second-hand sales to encourage more reuse and less waste. The proposal was to be a supporting part of the party's action program, which was to be adopted at the Moderates' party congress during the autumn.

One of the earliest measures that the Tidö parties took after the change of power in 2022 was to increase the VAT on repairs from 6 to 12 percent. This applies to bicycles, shoes, leather goods, clothing, and household linen. The reason, according to the government, was to increase the uniformity in the tax system.

Last year, I heard the Moderates raise the proposal to lower the repair VAT again, but what I can see is that nothing has entered the budget. I would therefore like to hear what has happened with the proposal. Could it be that the lowered VAT on repairs will now appear in the spring budget – in the best of worlds?

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much for the question, Katarina Luhr!

It was good that I came here to be able to satisfy my curiosity. I have been thinking about what the member was wondering about since eleven o'clock last night!

It is true that we made a decision at our party assembly that it could be an alternative to have tax reliefs to facilitate repair services and increase the circular economy. To some extent, we already have that today when it comes to the deduction for the repair of household appliances. It is, therefore, built into the system.

Instead of another VAT clause, one could imagine expanding the rut deduction to include more products. So it could also be that way. There is nothing in the pipeline right now, but it is something that has been discussed at the Government Offices. I ask to be allowed to return to the question.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

I think it is a bit strange when one first says that the proposal is about lowering the tax on the various products and then instead talks about an expanded rut deduction. It is interesting in itself.

I have now participated in some different panels, including with the Moderaternas party secretary Karin Enström before the program was to be developed, and talked about the importance of circularity.

I have found an article in Dagens industri from 2025, where the Moderate working group writes: In the new ideas program, one of the most important points is that reuse is promoted and that we take more steps towards a more circular economy.

I have tried to find the policy program to see which different proposals for increasing the circular economy that Moderaterna put forward and drive. But I have not succeeded in finding anything.

I therefore wonder if there are any other proposals that the Moderaterna are now propagating specifically to increase the circular policy.

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

Lars Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Tax relief for repair services and second-hand sales are important reforms to promote reuse. That is how it is formulated in our proposal. Tax relief can be a VAT reduction, but it can also be implemented as a standard deduction. Both of these paths are available.

A well-functioning infrastructure for the reuse of waste products is needed throughout the EU. This is work that is ongoing, and I know that the government is pushing in the EU for these issues.

It is also about ensuring that things are manufactured, as far as possible, in a way that allows them to be repaired and that consumers can be ensured to receive clear and correct information regarding the products' environmental footprint.

I know that the European Commission will present a new legal act in 2026 on the circular economy, and it will be implemented in Sweden when it is ready.

I also know that the Delegation for Circular Economy submitted its report to the government last week. There are four recommendations in that report.

It is about updating the national strategy for circular economy into a concrete action plan.

It also concerns the use of public procurement to accelerate the transition to the circular economy. The public sector purchases for 1,000 billion per year.

It is desired that an investigation be appointed to ensure that Swedish legislation fully supports a competitive and circular economy, as today there are legislations that collide and which act in different directions.

An investigation shall also be appointed on how our incineration capacity can be adapted to strengthen the circular economy. Today we incinerate 60 percent of all waste and all plastic, and that is too much. We must reduce the quantity and use this as raw material instead.

The government has now received these proposals, and they will work with them and return with exactly how this will look going forward.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! According to the UN's international resource panel, inefficient resource use is the cause of half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and 90 percent of the loss of biodiversity. Resource consumption is unevenly distributed both globally and nationally. A more equitable distribution of resources is a prerequisite for a significantly reduced total resource use to be able to be combined with a good material standard for all. The transition to a sustainable society must be felt most among those who today have the greatest climate impact and who consume the most resources.

In 2022, a mapping of how circular Sweden's economy is was presented for the first time. This analysis of how Sweden consumes material resources shows that Sweden is only circular to 3.4 percent. The global average is approximately double that.

Regarding resource use per capita, it turns out that Sweden is among the worst countries in the world. Our material footprint needs to decrease by 70–80 percent for us to be able to stay within the planetary boundaries.

It is the responsibility of politics to introduce regulations and steering measures to achieve a more resource-efficient society. Initiatives from the market and consumers can take us in the right direction, but it will be insufficient for us to reach a sustainable circular economy. Unfortunately, this is a policy area where, from the government's side, one says that they think it is important but in practice do very little.

In a circular economy, the lifespan of materials and products is longer and the extraction of natural resources is less. This requires environmentally adapted, toxin-free production and that waste is used as a resource. It is about reusing, repairing, recycling, renting, and sharing goods to an increased extent.

For it to work, it is required that consumers receive the correct information and that systems are created that enable people to share and reuse goods in everyday life. It should in all cases be the simplest and cheapest option, but unfortunately, that is not the case at all today.

Vänsterpartiet has long worked for measures that extend the lifespan of what we produce. We want to introduce a ban on planned obsolescence and forbid retailers from throwing away new goods and edible food. We also want to increase the requirements on producers to facilitate recycling and reuse, and we see that steering instruments are needed to make it more expensive to use newly extracted raw materials than recycled ones.

Madam Speaker! In order for materials to be able to circulate in society, it is also required that they are free from toxins. Unfortunately, we are far from this goal today. It is both frightening and upsetting that there are chemical substances on the market in Sweden and Europe that can cause serious health damage and cause devastating effects in the environment.

According to the UN, humanity on a global level faces three major crises: global warming, loss of biodiversity, and pollution. Our use of chemicals contributes to all three of these crises. The chemical industry ranks third on the list of industrial sectors that emit the most greenhouse gases globally.

A large part of the chemicals produced are harmful to human health and to other species and thus contribute to the loss of biodiversity. One example is that the number of insects has decreased dramatically in recent decades as a result of the use of pesticides.

A large majority of EU citizens are concerned about how their health is affected by chemicals in everyday products. They do not do so without reason. The use of endocrine-disrupting substances and PFAS has been calculated to cost EU countries billions of euros every year in healthcare costs and reduced productivity. A research project that has collected samples from thousands of people across Europe shows a widespread prevalence of harmful chemicals in our bodies, in many cases at levels that are known to pose risks to health.

When assessing chemicals, the precautionary principle should apply. This means that preventive measures should be taken when there are concerns about threats to health or the environment, even if there is uncertainty. No new chemicals should be put into use before their effects have been investigated.

In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in the amount of goods privately imported from Chinese companies whose products do not meet Swedish requirements for product safety regarding, for example, chemical content. The government has announced measures to curb this import, and I hope that we see rapid results. While waiting for that to happen, it is however of the utmost importance that the Swedish Chemicals Agency ramps up its supervision of these products to protect the public and increase awareness of the risks.

Madam Speaker! In 2020, the EU Commission adopted a chemicals strategy aimed at improving protection for health and the environment and promoting innovation of safe and sustainable chemicals. It is important that the high level of ambition in the chemicals strategy is translated into legislation.

Above all, the EU's chemical legislation Reach is in great need of improvements. An update of Reach has been announced for a long time but has been postponed following pressure from the chemical industry. There is an imminent risk that these lobbyists will succeed in not only delaying but also weakening the chemical legislation that really needs to be tightened.

A number of chemicals used today must be restricted or banned. This concerns, for example, bisphenols, phthalates and brominated flame retardants, but not least it concerns PFAS. PFAS is found today almost everywhere in the environment. The substances are present in a wide range of products and have spread across the entire globe. Today we know that they are harmful to health.

Within the chemical industry, this has been known for a long time, but the choice has been made not to make the information public. Instead, these substances have continued to be manufactured in ever-increasing quantities, which have consequently been able to spread in the environment and to people through the water we drink, the food we eat, and the things we surround ourselves with. That this has been able to happen is proof that today's chemical legislation does not work and must be tightened.

Those who have been hit hardest by PFAS contamination are the residents of Kallinge in Blekinge. Due to the Armed Forces' use of firefighting foam containing PFAS, their water source was contaminated, and they now have the world's highest levels in their blood. Despite having been poisoned due to state activities, they have received no help or compensation from the state.

This is one of the biggest chemical scandals in Sweden's history. 5,000 people have been poisoned and have fought for over ten years for redress, but the state has done nothing to help them. This is not how things should be allowed to happen in Sweden. Those affected must be given access to preventive health checks.

Madam Speaker! It is of the utmost importance that we ban PFAS as quickly as possible. The Swedish Chemicals Agency, together with authorities in four other European countries, has developed a proposal that would significantly restrict the use of the substances within the EU. But now, worrying signals are coming from the moderate Swedish EU Commissioner that she only wants to ban the substances in consumer products and not within all areas of application. That makes me very concerned.

From the Left Party's side, however, we welcome the Swedish Chemicals Agency's proposal and want it to be implemented as soon as possible without being watered down. I expect the Swedish government to stand up for the Swedish Chemicals Agency's proposal and fight for it in the EU.

We in Vänsterpartiet also want the government to present an action plan for how Sweden can accelerate the phasing out of PFAS through national measures and curb the spread of the substances through remediation of soil and water. In its government statement, the Prime Minister announced a national plan to prevent the spread of PFAS. It is very welcome, but we have not seen any results so far. There is no time to lose.

Madam Speaker! Experience from recent decades teaches us that it is not enough to ban individual substances in individual products. It is also not enough to ensure that consumers receive better information; instead, the chemical legislation must be strengthened at its core. The industry must be able to prove that substances are needed and that they are not harmful before they are allowed to be used. Let us avoid more scandals with toxic substances that harm people and the environment!

I move for approval of reservation 27.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! If I and the Center Party had been allowed to decide, we would have taken better care of our resources than is being done today. Everything that is produced and consumed should be in a cycle and used again and again.

Today, I and my party leader Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist were on an exciting visit to Sorteras facility here in Stockholm. They handle building materials, among other things. They describe several major challenges with recycling: the amounts of PFAS, batteries that risk catching fire, environmental permits that take too long, and all the different types of plastics that are very difficult to recycle. There are great challenges here.

It still looks bright. If society takes greater responsibility and it becomes more and more profitable, I believe that in the future we will become more careful with nature's resources. With new technology and green transition, emissions will go down and jobs will increase.

Fundamentally, it is simple. It is about moving from the linear model, which we use in many places – to extract, produce, use, and then discard – to a circular model, where we design products to last a long time, where we repair and reuse, and where the materials can ultimately be recycled and become new products. It is about seeing waste as a resource.

For us in Centerpartiet, this is an absolute heart issue. It is here we see the obvious combination of environment and economy, of ecological sustainability and economic growth. It is a central part of the green transition that our entire society must make.

Madam Speaker! A circular economy is good for the climate, because it reduces the need for new raw materials and energy-intensive production, which also means that emissions are reduced. But it is also – and this is important to remember – good for the environment from a much broader perspective. It reduces the pressure on the earth's ecosystems, reduces the spread of environmental toxins, and preserves biodiversity. It creates new green jobs and strengthens Swedish companies' competitiveness in a world that is placing ever higher demands on sustainability.

What does it look like in reality? One would think that Sweden, the country that is world champion at recycling cans and that constantly talks about waste sorting and property-proximate collection, would be a pioneer. But the truth is quite different. According to the latest measurements, Sweden's economy is circular by only between 3 and 4 percent, depending on how you calculate it. It is a vanishingly small part. Our consumption still devours resources equivalent to more than four planets, and the vast majority becomes waste. It is a failing grade.

Madam Speaker! What are we to do then? We in the Center Party have not been idle. We see the problems, but above all, we see the solutions. During this parliamentary term, we have submitted over 150 proposals to accelerate the transition to a more circular economy. These are proposals on everything from producer responsibility and reuse to public procurement and new business models.

What has happened with these proposals? The vast majority have been rejected by the government and its supporting party. Time and again, our motions have been met with nods, but then they have referred to investigations, to EU legislation, or to the fact that something is in the works. It is a sign that the issue is not being taken seriously enough.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, many beat their chests and consider themselves pioneers. If you ask politicians and parties here in the Riksdag in surveys and polls, you get the answer that everyone is for a circular economy. It could be about procurement, new business models, or how to spread knowledge. But when it actually becomes a sharp situation, many back down.

What shall we do then? Just a few weeks ago, the Delegation for Circular Economy released a new report that confirms exactly what we in Centerpartiet have said. They highlight several points, two of which are crucial for Sweden to be able to gear up.

First of all, we must update the national strategy for circular economy. It must be supplemented with a concrete action plan and clear, quantifiable, and time-bound goals. We need sub-goals and a systematic follow-up to ensure that we are actually moving in the right direction. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. Let us be inspired by other countries, such as the Netherlands, which have come significantly further and which also have a goal of being 50 percent circular by 2030.

Secondly, we shall use the power of public procurement. The state, the regions and the municipalities purchase goods and services for almost 900 billion kronor every year. This represents an enormous market power. The delegation proposes that we set tougher requirements for all types of purchases. It can no longer be voluntary, but we must set binding requirements on recycled material, reuse and repair possibilities.

Madam Speaker! These are excellent proposals. They are proposals that we in the Center Party have previously submitted in motions, but which the government and its supporting party have consistently voted down. But now the proposals come from the government's own expert delegation. Now there are no more excuses.

Madam Speaker! Let me return to textiles, one of the government's failures in recent times. That we first urge citizens to sort, only to stand helpless when the collection leads to the clothes being thrown away anyway, undermines confidence in the entire system. Sort to then throw away – it is the opposite of a circular economy.

We need a real initiative. Therefore, we in the Center Party propose that a textile step be introduced, a special initiative to support innovation and investments in fiber-to-fiber recycling. We must build up the infrastructure that is currently lacking in Sweden. We must also become more aware of what the flows of clothes actually look like. We must invest in monitoring and a national producer responsibility to be able to find out where old clothes go and how the financing should be handled. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 12, which concerns textiles.

When we talk about keeping materials clean and toxin-free in circular flows, we must also talk about PFAS. These forever chemicals are everywhere in our surroundings and in products we use daily. It is a threat to our health and our environment. Dealing with them one by one is futile. The Center Party has long pushed for a broad group ban at the EU level, and it is pleasing that that work is now moving forward. We in the Center Party also have an initiative in our budget for the purification of drinking water with a focus on PFAS. We cannot have a functioning circular economy if we constantly have toxins in the system.

Madam Speaker! The green transition does not wait. Climate change is here, and the loss of biodiversity is acute. Transitioning to a circular economy is not a choice but a necessity. It is also a fantastic opportunity for us in Sweden to reduce our climate and environmental footprint while creating jobs and prosperity across the entire country.

It takes courage to make decisions that challenge old structures. It requires a government that does not just act with short-term measures ahead of an election but has a long-term, coherent and ambitious plan. But it requires political leadership. We in Centerpartiet are ready to take the leadership that is required.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are talking about circularity and freedom from toxins. Like previous speakers, I will stick to two important topics. The first concerns how Miljöpartiet wants us to increase the circular economy in Sweden. The second concerns the management of the toxic chemical PFAS.

I want to start with how Miljöpartiet envisions how we should make Sweden more circular. In less than four weeks, we in Sweden will have exhausted our share of this year's allocation of the earth's resources. On April 4 this year, Sweden's overshoot day falls, which once again shows that we would need more than four earth planets if everyone lived as we do in Sweden. To correct that figure, more than a handful of political proposals are obviously needed.

When we in Miljöpartiet developed new policy for circularity last year, we landed on 153 proposals for improved circular policy. But we see at the same time that much more needs to be done. What is very clear regarding the circular economy is that the work needs to be done on many different levels. Products need to last and be used longer. We need to share more things. We need to reuse and recycle. We need to improve the chains for material recycling. We need to strengthen the research and development of secondary extraction of materials such as waste products from the mining industry and others.

As we have heard here today: When researchers calculate how circular Sweden is today, we end up at embarrassingly low levels. It is only 3–4 percent according to some studies. In the Netherlands, they are at almost 25 percent today. The government has been criticized several times by the EU Commission because we are at such low recycling levels. In 2024, Swedish taxpayers paid 2.7 billion in fines to the EU because we sort and recycle so damn little plastic.

Our low level of circular economy is problematic for very many different reasons, but first and foremost because our large use of newly produced materials leads to environmental problems and goal conflicts. Our raw material production needs energy and water and creates emissions, while the places where the raw materials we need are extracted do not always suffice. And not only that – we simultaneously create large amounts of waste, which need to be handled in a completely different way than what happens today.

Circular economy and resource efficiency are also an important piece of the puzzle to move us forward in the climate work. Right now, we have a shaky global situation, and supply chains no longer function as they did previously. This means that we have even stronger reasons to become more self-sufficient in different types of raw materials – everything from fertilizers to metals. This is something that has been realized throughout Europe. During the year, new EU legislation came through the new Circular Economy Act, much based on the fact that we need to increase our self-sufficiency.

But as usual, the work needs to be done locally. As is often the case when it comes to climate and environment, there is very much to be gained by doing the right things from the start. This applies in particular to the circular economy. When one starts digging into the circular economy properly, one sees quite quickly that the challenges are both that it is difficult today to get economics in the circular economy and that it is difficult to get circularity in the circular economy. We are therefore lacking today both the circularity and the economics in the circular economy.

But what can be pleasing when one starts at a low level is that there are very many things to do. What does Miljöpartiet want to do to strengthen the circular economy? Well, of course, lots of things.

At the EU level, we want the government to take strong leadership and push for a strong Circular Economy Act that makes a real difference.

We believe that Sweden in particular should push for future proposals to focus on resource efficiency, reduced total consumption of primary raw materials, circular design, a ban on planned obsolescence, and chemical-smart and toxin-free resource flows.

If products are designed from the very beginning to be recyclable, reuse and material recycling will be significantly facilitated. We therefore particularly want to see a strengthened producer responsibility where the producer is responsible for ensuring that the products placed on the market can be taken care of when their lifespan is reached.

Products that are produced need to last and be designed to be repairable. It is also important that spare parts and information are available. We would also like to see manufacturers and retailers state how long they expect a consumer product to last.

Planned obsolescence, meaning that products are made to become unusable prematurely, and so-called fast fashion, where fashion changes monthly and therefore is not made to last longer than that, must be countered.

As it stands today, flawless but returned clothes and electronics worth 200 billion kronor are destroyed annually in Europe. I think that is a figure people should take to heart. It is new items worth 200 billion that go up in smoke every year. These are things that have required raw materials, mining, land use, chemicals, and energy.

This year, the EU is prohibiting, through new legislation, that unsold clothes and shoes can be destroyed. It is a very important and positive reform that Miljöpartiet believes could cover many more products than just clothes and shoes.

For effective governance, ambitious, concrete, measurable and long-term goals are required. Sweden needs to work to lead the way and set national goals while simultaneously pushing for stricter goals at the EU level. We see that we need clear goals for both increased circularity and reduced resource use at the national level.

We also want us to build upon Sweden's national strategy for circular economy. We want to see increased governance of circularity for the six identified priority streams, which are plastics, textiles, food, renewable and bio-based raw materials, construction materials, and innovation-critical metals and minerals.

Today we see a great need for more metal and minerals. I therefore want to specifically highlight the Miljöpartiets proposal for a national coordinator who, just like within Fossilfritt Sverige, can work systematically and long-term to improve the management and recycling of critical metals and minerals.

At the same time, we want to develop a new national support, a recycling step, in order to be able to expand the infrastructure for recycling in Sweden. Right now, many pilot projects are underway that demonstrate an enormous potential for reuse and recycling. But it is high time that we get a broad and strong effort started at all levels.

Here we really need political steering so that all actors can pull in the same direction and know where we are going. A very important steering measure that politics can work with is to introduce a quota obligation where a certain proportion of recycled material is mixed into new production. In this way, one can create both supply and demand in the long term, which is one of the bigger challenges for the circular economy today. The EU's battery regulation is an example of such legislation.

Miljöpartiet wants a quota obligation to be introduced on many more material streams such as plastic, textiles and construction materials. We believe that the level of the quota obligations needs to be set for each individual material separately with requirements that the proportion of recycled material successively increases over time.

We also want to investigate whether there are materials and products that should be banned based on their content if the content makes it impossible to recycle them. It could be about plastic consisting of different layers with different compositions or products containing harmful substances that should not end up in future recycled materials.

Madam Speaker! My list is long. It is clear that we need to step up the work with circular economy and that the linear economy needs to be turned upside down.

I was in on harmful substances in materials. I want to move on to the enormous problems we see with the harmful PFAS substances that are now beginning to appear in more and more places. They are there where they are searched for – in rivers, streams, groundwater reserves, fish, game meat and people's private wells.

The PFAS issue has now come up on the table. We have all spoken about it in our speeches. I still believe that many underestimate the problem of a toxin that does not break down continuing to be used and spread in our environment.

We need to map where PFAS is located. We need to remediate areas that are leaking PFAS. We need new regulations that support those affected by PFAS. This applies to everyone, from the residents of Kallinge with record levels of PFAS in their blood to those who have had their wells ruined by PFAS contamination.

We need a broad ban on PFAS at the EU level and globally. PFAS needs to be removed and must not be allowed to be built into various systems so that others will have to remediate PFAS later. We must not use PFAS in pesticides on our fields.

When the chemical industry emphasizes that phasing out costs money, we need to consider what a large-scale poisoning of our food and our water will cost us in the long run, if it is even possible to calculate the health effects.

Madam Speaker! The Green Party has a large number of proposals in the report. I would like to move for approval of the Green Party's reservation 8, which, among other things, concerns the quota obligation, and reservation 29 regarding a broad ban on PFAS within the EU.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 18 March.)

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