Autumn Budget for 2023
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M believes that the autumn supplementary budget is a customary adjustment where the government takes responsibility for the state's finances by avoiding irresponsible budget policy 1. M claims that the support to municipalities and regions is the largest item in the budget 2. V believes that the government's policy increases climate-damaging emissions and that they use accounting tricks to buy themselves free from national measures 3. V wants the government and SD to invest in public transport, railways, and energy efficiencies 3. MP believes that the government and SD are slowing down the green transition and investing insufficiently in welfare 4. MP wants Sweden to cancel emission allowances entirely 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! After the long budget debate on next year's budget, it remains to handle the autumn supplementary budget for the current year, where the government makes certain changes to the already decided budget for 2023. It is a customary adjustment of revenues and expenditures resulting from updates or current events that could not be foreseen when the budget was adopted a year ago. In the bill, it is proposed that about forty different items be increased or decreased, with a total budget effect of approximately 25 billion, of which the largest part concerns rising interest on the national debt of 22 billion as a result of a higher interest rate environment.
All parties in the Committee on Finance support the bill, with the exception of Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, which reserve themselves on two points. For the first, these two parties want to starve our regional airports by saying no to an increased appropriation of 3.9 million kronor. These 3.9 million are a very small item in the state's total budget, but despite that, they reserve themselves. They truly do everything to make domestic travel more difficult at all costs and to oppose aviation. I am proud to state that Sweden now has a new government basis that stops the left's witch hunt against domestic flights.
Secondly, Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet do not want Sweden to cancel emission allowances in order to achieve the EU requirement for reduced Swedish emissions. They point out that this could result in a loss of revenue of approximately 1 billion per year during the years 2025-2030. It is almost concerning that these two parties suddenly care so much about a reduced revenue of 1 billion per year while they themselves spend unreasonable sums on meaningless so-called climate policy. For example, Miljöpartiet wants in its budget motion for the coming years to increase the costs for climate policy by at least 100 billion per year, i.e., 100 times more than what is now being criticized.
Both parties have also submitted budget motions with enormous budget deficits for the coming years. Vänsterpartiet budgets a deficit of 175 billion for the coming years, and Miljöpartiet tops this with a deficit of 220 billion for the years 2024-2026. The deficits are also expected to become even larger because they budget with revenues from taxes that will impossibly be introduced by the turn of the year.
In the autumn budget we are now debating, one of the large upcoming items is rising interest rates on the national debt, a full 22 billion – this despite the fact that our national debt is one of the lowest in the EU. In many highly indebted EU countries, a significant portion of the state budget in the future will go towards paying interest costs.
I think it is very worrying that two of the Social Democrats' intended government partners, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, are pushing the issue of significantly increasing the Swedish national debt and thereby locking an ever larger part of the state's budget for future interest costs. This is extremely irresponsible. That they, at the same time, with this totally irresponsible budget policy, worry about a single billion per year in lost revenue is nothing other than an attempt to muddy the waters and hide their own total lack of responsibility for the state's finances.
Given that both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have also, over the years, loudly demanded that Sweden should annul surplus emission allowances, the parties' concern for the state's revenues from this area feels rather strained. It is simply about politics and being against the government, regardless of what we propose.
Fortunately, Sweden now has a government that has settled the matter of meaningless or purely socially harmful so-called climate policy and that takes responsibility for the state's finances - this in contrast to Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, who pursue a completely irresponsible economic policy that would significantly increase the national debt, worsen Sweden's economy, and drive up inflation. How the Socialdemokraterna and Centerpartiet together with Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet could put together a common budget is a mystery. So many proposals diverge in completely different directions. Some want to raise taxes while others want to lower them. Some want a balanced budget while others want gigantic budget deficits. The sum of all this would risk becoming a nightmare for Swedish households and companies, and the Swedish people deserve to know.
While the Left Party and the Green Party want to achieve the EU's climate goals through very large levies on Swedish car drivers, the government chooses to lighten the burden for car drivers and the transport industry and instead choose other paths that do not hit households and companies. There is no way back to the irresponsible red-green politics if we want to protect Swedish households, Swedish companies, Swedish jobs, and the Swedish economy.
I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against the reservation.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of our reservation in the report on the autumn budget.
The government's current policy significantly increases the amount of climate-damaging emissions, this at a time when we see that the world's greenhouse gas emissions are not decreasing to an extent that is sufficient for us to reach the Paris Agreement's goal of 1.5 degrees. Then the government and the Sweden Democrats want to ensure, through advanced accounting tricks, that Sweden will be able to use emission space in other countries from the EU's emissions trading system.
This is being done to be able to buy one's way out of implementing national policies that actually reduce emissions in Sweden. The government, therefore, wants a strategy based on other countries doing the right thing and reducing emissions, but not ourselves. It is both a very expensive and a very poor climate policy that could cost us approximately 1 billion kronor per year from 2025 to 2030, i.e., a cost of a total of 6 billion kronor. Wouldn't it be better, Madam Speaker, to instead use these billions for powerful emission-reducing measures in Sweden?
Instead of having a policy that increases emissions, the government and the Sweden Democrats should present proposals that truly reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions. This could, for example, be to invest in ensuring that more people throughout Sweden can use public transport, to invest in energy-efficient solutions for freight transport, for example railways, to invest in sustainable energy solutions that can be expanded quickly, here and now, and to invest in energy efficiency improvements of our multi-family dwellings.
There is a broad palette of real emission-reducing measures that the government and Sverigedemokraterna could implement if they wanted to. Vänsterpartiet wants Sweden to take the lead and lead a just and sustainable green transition with an offensive climate policy.
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! This debate is becoming almost a bit absurd. Now we hear the Left Party criticizing the government's line to cancel emission allowances in order to achieve the EU's climate goals without unnecessarily harming Swedish households and companies. It is, therefore, the same proposal that the Left Party has pushed in this chamber on repeated occasions over the years – exactly the same thing.
People have criticized sitting governments for not having annulled emission rights, but when we now choose to do so instead of squeezing Swedish car owners, the Left Party suddenly thinks it is wrong. I find that a bit fascinating, and it shows that the sole purpose of the Left Party's policy is to be against the government at all costs. It doesn't matter what we do – we are always wrong, and the Left Party always thinks the opposite.
When Kajsa Fredholm speaks about that we should take other strong emission-reduction measures, we know what it is about and what it means. It means that we are to squeeze Swedish motorists, the Swedish countryside, Swedish companies and household finances through completely horrible prices and taxation of fuels. But just as I said before, there is no way back to that policy. The Swedish people have grown tired of it.
The Swedish people want to be able to get to their workplaces. They want to be able to live in the countryside, and the green industries in the countryside actually require that people live there. Otherwise, we will not have any food supply. We will not have any mining. We will not have any companies in the countryside, no tourism and no visitor industry.
All the things that Vänsterpartiet usually talks about are undermined by a completely horrible taxation of fuels. It does not hold up.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Madam Speaker! I heard no question, but only several assertions about the Left Party's policy.
I think it is remarkable that, instead of coming up with concrete proposals for a sensible climate policy in the present, one wants to spend a huge amount of money on potentially needing to solve it by having other EU countries reduce their emissions.
We do not even know if this will work because all countries in the EU are now behind on their emissions. That means it is not even certain that the possibility will exist. It also means that Sweden will probably have to pay heavy fines.
Why is it not better to invest, if one is to speak about the countryside, food supply, municipalities and living in the countryside?
I come from Leksand, and I was at a meeting this morning where we met the municipal council in Kiruna, who said that the biggest problem when it comes to the municipality being able to grow is that they need funds from the state to have a functioning welfare with good and high-quality service for those who live in the countryside. The government does not want this at all. This has been shown in their budget, where they allocate far too little money to municipalities and regions so that they can have a functioning service and countryside.
What do the members think about this? What he stands and claims becomes a bit stomach-turning when too little money is allocated to municipalities and regions.
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! I do not really know if we have the same view on what constitutes a huge amount of money. Vänsterpartiet thinks, therefore, that 1 billion per year in lost revenue for the emission allowances that we want to annul is a huge amount of money. I think it is Vänsterpartiets budget deficit of 175 billion that is a huge amount of money. But perhaps we have different views on that matter of magnitudes – I do not know.
Regarding welfare, I just want to add that the support to municipalities and regions is the largest item in our budget, and yet the Left Party member stands here and says that we are not investing any money in welfare. I do not think it is a serious debate.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Madam Speaker! It may be the largest item in the government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget, and it is probably around 10-11 billion. SKR has, however, stated that at least 30 billion is required to be able to maintain the welfare we have today. We have a crisis within healthcare and so on.
To return to the climate policy, it is required, in order to be able to make a just transition that should occur as quickly as possible, that the state has an offensive economic climate policy. There, we in Vänsterpartiet have presented an investment budget of 700 billion over ten years.
Large investments are required, it is required that we expand public transport, it is required that we expand the electricity infrastructure, it is required that we expand the railway and ensure that it actually works, and it is required that we can improve energy efficiency. We have a green transition that requires large investments. This is what needs to be done, and it also benefits jobs and the green transition. This is also what the companies are asking for.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! The whole country must live. Swedish motorists, the Swedish countryside, and Swedish households were just mentioned here in the speaker's chair. Of course, the whole country must live, and that requires large investments in Sweden. It requires investments in water and sewage systems and railway infrastructure and in the green transition, which is a strong driving force for societal development in the whole country. It is a green transition that the government, together with Sverigedemokraterna, is now slowing down.
The Green Party has, in its budget motion, allocated 100 billion per year for ten years for substantial investments in the climate transition. This means substantial societal investments throughout all of Sweden that benefit Swedish motorists, the Swedish countryside, and Swedish households just as much as the rest of the country.
The government has instead cut back on popular education in its budget, reformed the travel deduction in a way that disadvantages rural areas and the countryside, and slowed down the green transition. They are also investing completely insufficiently in welfare. Welfare is central to a positive development in the entire country.
Madam Speaker! The policy that the government is now implementing leads to significantly increased greenhouse gas emissions and to the fact that Sweden is no longer expected to reach the climate goals we have within the EU's effort sharing regulation, ESR.
To manage the situation they have put themselves in with their climate-hostile policy, the government now wants to use the state budget to utilize flexibility, which means that one can use an emission allowance from the EU's emissions trading system, ETS, to make up for its climate failure within the framework of ESR. A maximum utilization would cost the state 1 billion per year. In the autumn amendment budget, it is proposed that this should be used between 2025 and 2030, which costs the state 6 billion. It is therefore what they are doing already now to try to escape climate policy responsibility.
Madam Speaker! Sweden shall lead the way in the climate transition. We shall have an offensive climate policy. The Riksdag should therefore reject the government's proposal regarding the authorization to cancel emission allowances within the EU's emissions trading system to compensate for increased emissions within the transport sector.
The government also needs to take responsibility for ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions from aviation decrease instead of stimulating increased emissions from the aviation sector. The Riksdag should therefore also reject the government's proposal to increase the grant for compensation regarding non-governmental airports.
Madam Speaker! Flexibilities within the framework of Fit for 55 should be avoided. The EU's climate goals within Fit for 55 are insufficient to fulfill the EU's share of the Paris Agreement. The EU's member states therefore need to overperform on Fit for 55 to drive a societal development that contributes to avoiding global warming becoming dangerous for the EU's population and Sweden's population.
An exploitation of flexibilities also entails several other risks for Sweden, such as that essential social investments are postponed. Swedish actors must also know that their efforts for the climate are not sold out to other countries that do not do what is required to fulfill their commitments.
Madam Speaker! The Paris Agreement establishes that efforts shall be made to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5-2 degrees above pre-industrial levels in a manner that "reflects equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances."
It is unrealistic to assume that all other countries in the world will follow the same emission reduction path as the EU from yesterday onwards, and it also contradicts Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Paris Agreement. To assume such a development, as the government is now doing, means putting us in a scenario with global warming that becomes dangerous.
Madam Speaker! We believe that Sweden should fulfill its commitments regarding increased carbon sequestration in forests and land, i.e., the LULUCF regulation, and our commitments within the transport and agriculture sectors under the ESR regulation, instead of using loopholes and shortcuts. If we have room to spare in the emissions trading system, LULUCF or ESR, we should use it to overperform, not to reduce our commitment in any of the other systems.
Instead of undermining climate goals and reducing the pace of transition in the road transport sector, Sweden should cancel a corresponding amount of emission allowances from the ETS entirely. In that case, we contribute to reducing emissions across the entire EU.
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! Since the previous speaker touched upon some other areas, I thought I would start by stating that it is a bit fascinating to listen to representatives for the opposition in general in these budget debates.
During the opposition parties' time as part of the government or the government base, Sweden failed totally in both migration policy and integration policy. Serious crime increased. The promised lowest unemployment in the EU instead became the fourth highest. We also went from the EU's highest economic growth, before the 2014 election, to one of the EU's lowest when the Social Democrats left government power in 2022. Furthermore, they succeeded in destroying the Swedish electricity supply.
So, these parties now have the nerve to claim that a left-wing government would conduct a better policy than today's government. I think instead that one should apologize to the Swedish people for all the misery they caused.
I move on to speak about the emission allowances. Now we have heard two parties criticize the government's line to cancel emission allowances to achieve climate goals without unnecessarily harming Swedish households and companies. It is thus the same measure that Miljöpartiet defended during their own years in government! On July 2, 2016, Miljöpartiet wrote lyrically on its website that the S-MP government intended to purchase and cancel emission allowances for 300 million per year until 2040. It would have ended with a cost of 7 billion, according to them themselves. Now they criticize the government for a cost of 1 billion per year for the same thing.
This only shows that the left-wing opposition is mostly interested in criticizing the government, quarreling, and trying to mislead the voters. What is reasonable or best for the country and the Swedish people, they stopped caring about a long time ago. Again – what is the difference between canceling one emission right and canceling another emission right? It is the same cost. Why is one thing good when Miljöpartiet is in government and bad when Miljöpartiet is in opposition?
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Jan Ericson! It clarifies that the Moderaterna cannot do climate policy and want to talk about other policy areas. It is already clear that the government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, is doing nothing to improve integration in Sweden.
When it comes to the climate, which is what we are debating now, and the cancellation of emission allowances is Miljöpartiet for what I mentioned at the end of my speech, namely to cancel emission allowances to reduce the total emissions of greenhouse gases from the EU. That is good.
When the Green Party was in government, we made several reforms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden and pushed powerfully to reform the emissions trading in the EU to reduce emissions in the EU. We have also annulled emission allowances to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the EU when we were in government.
What this government is doing now is to significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions and thereby increase the risk of climate-related consequences in Sweden. Swedish households and companies are affected by increased risks of flooding, collapses and landslides, and a sea-level rise which, for example, affects Skåne. We already see problems there today.
What is being done through the proposal in the autumn supplementary budget is to evade climate policy responsibility by moving emission allowances between different sectors instead of actually tackling the problems and creating the conditions that can enable fossil-free, good transport throughout the country. It is a policy for the future, and it creates confidence in the future that we can travel sustainably in all of Sweden. For that to happen, the fossil must become more expensive than the renewable.
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! It is still a bit bold of the Green Party to boast about everything they have done to reduce emissions considering that they led the way in phasing out Swedish nuclear power prematurely, which has increased emissions in Sweden significantly. It caused us to move from a situation where we had completely clean electricity production in Sweden in the form of hydropower and nuclear power to a situation where we no longer have that. One must nevertheless say that the Green Party has succeeded in driving the policy in the wrong direction - unfortunately.
I must also turn to the attempt to mislead once again. Miljöpartiet boasts on its website that they have annulled emission rights for 7 billion. Then they criticize the government for losing revenues of 6 billion by doing the same thing. I actually do not think that really adds up.
I would very much like to hear from the member how 1 billion per year can be a major problem at the same time as Miljöpartiet is breaking all records in modern Swedish budget history with its underfunded budget. It is, therefore, a budget deficit of 220 billion kronor. 220 billion! Those are completely unfathomable sums that are to be paid, and that we are to pay interest on, in the future. It would completely knock the legs out from under the Swedish economy.
This is what the Green Party considers to be some kind of faith in the future, if I use that word that was mentioned here. I do not think that many Swedes see any faith in the future in this form of politics.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! Again: Cancelling emission allowances while reaching Swedish climate goals reduces total emissions. Cancelling emission allowances to make up for a fundamental climate failure does not reduce total emissions. That is the big difference.
When it comes to the investment budget, it is correct that Miljöpartiet wants to make a major investment in Sweden, in Swedish social development, and in the green transition. Just a few days ago, the Deputy Prime Minister from Kristdemokraterna also raised that they want to see an investment budget. They have been inspired by Miljöpartiet, which is very positive. I wonder why Jan Ericson from Moderaterna is critical of this when Ebba Busch has obviously started to eye Miljöpartiet and sees this as a positive thing.
When it comes to Swedish electricity production, it increased significantly with the Green Party in government. Renewable electricity production was expanded powerfully. Sweden is today a large export country of electricity, in contrast to when we took office, and the emissions from electricity production have been next to zero for decades. That was the case when we took office, and that was the case when we left. Greenhouse gas emissions from several other sectors decreased powerfully with the Green Party in government, but since the current government took office, we see that emissions within the transport sector risk increasing by almost 50 percent in the next year alone.
We are not working on climate for the sake of the climate goals. Climate policy is about protecting the population, businesses, and the entire society from climate-related risks. It is extremely serious that the government cannot take responsibility for the climate policy.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.