Information on fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in the marketing of new passenger cars
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns information on fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in the marketing of passenger cars. M considers the proposal to be very good as it makes it easier for consumers to choose cars with lower emissions through clearer signage 1. M argues that the government and the Tidö parties are delivering and developing Sweden 2. C considers the proposal to be important for the climate and wants consumers to be able to make environmentally friendly choices more easily 3. C wants a reduction obligation but is not in favor of a kilometer tax. MP wants better consumer information to facilitate the transition to fossil-free transport 4. MP wants sustainable fuels to be cheaper and fossil alternatives more expensive 4. MP stands up for the reduction obligation 5 and wants sustainable and renewable to be cheaper than the fossil 6. MP wants the right solution in the right place so that everyone can be part of the transition 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Lars Beckman (M)
Madam Speaker! This report concerns information on fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions in the marketing of new passenger cars.
Madam Speaker! When we buy a car, we do so for many different reasons. It could be, for example, that I need a minibus because I have a wheelchair, I might want a sports car because I think it is fun, or I might want a mini-SUV or a large SUV because I live in the countryside and want to get around.
Information on fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions when marketing new passenger cars
This matter is about making it even easier for consumers when they choose a vehicle. The new law aims to clarify the implementation of the EU's fuel information directive, which is an old EU directive, in Swedish law. It contains rules on requirements for information regarding fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions when a business operator offers new passenger cars for sale or long-term rental to consumers.
This is a very good proposal, because when I enter a car showroom and am going to buy my car and have made my choices and am standing and weighing between two different cars, maybe I want to choose the car that has the lowest fuel consumption or the lowest carbon emissions. Pleasantly enough, it is so that every time a new car model comes out, the emissions are a bit lower, and there is always a bit lower fuel consumption. This law simply means that when you enter the car showroom, it should be well-signposted. It should be easy to do the right thing.
Just as a colleague from Centerpartiet said here, we shall not prolong tonight's debate, but I would still like to take the opportunity to wish Brynäs luck in the SHL qualification. The Brynäs players, who will be happy SHL players after the qualification, can of course go into the car showroom and buy a good car and get good signage.
Alireza Akhondi (C)
Madam Speaker! We wrote a fantastic motion solely to debate this issue against Lars Beckman!
Jokes aside - this is an important issue on many levels. Partly, it is about the climate crisis in general. We know that we have a government that is actually quite good at pushing the problems onto future governments and onto future generations. When the government then reluctantly introduces the fuels directive, we want to do our part by helping the government to clarify certain things in the directive so that consumers can more easily make environmentally friendly choices.
We have earlier in the report fully supported the government's proposal for a new law on information, but what we want to highlight is that we would like to see a similar development in the vehicle market as, for example, when it comes to the energy labeling on refrigerators, which has indeed been a huge success and driven the transition towards more energy-efficient household appliances.
Emissions may not be the only parameter that is looked at when purchasing a vehicle, but I believe that many of us environmentally conscious consumers would have liked to have received slightly clearer information when we are standing and choosing between two equivalent alternatives. It is regrettable that the government does not take this up and clarify it, but hopes that the Consumer Agency will do that job for them.
Lars Beckman (M)
Madam Speaker! The Fuel Information Directive entered into force on 18 January 2000, and now there is a clarification.
It is pleasing that the government and the Centre Party are in complete agreement on the substantive issue - that we should make it easier for consumers to do the right thing and that it should be simple when one enters the car dealership. I do not personally believe that any consumer primarily chooses a car based on how large the carbon emissions are, but if one has two equivalent cars, perhaps one does.
What I would like to ask the Center Party, since we are now discussing cars, vehicles, and fuels, is that there are requirements from the Green Party, which I understand the Center Party wants to form a government with. I also believe that the Center Party wants to increase the reduction obligation. I would therefore like to ask: How high a fuel price would the Center Party want? It would be reasonable to find out that.
I would also like to find out something else. There is a demand from Miljöpartiet that a mileage tax on passenger cars should be introduced, and I would like to know if Centerpartiet stands behind this demand and how high this mileage tax would be in that case.
Alireza Akhondi (C)
Mr. Speaker! It seems that colleague Lars Beckman is really on the attack and is talking about issues that actually have nothing to do with the committee report.
In the actions the government has in the climate action plan, there is talk of fuel prices around 40 kronor per liter because the problems that arise as a result of abolishing the reduction obligation, which currently stands at the EU's minimum level, shall be handled later.
I would like us to have a reduction obligation. I honestly believe that it is a way to take responsibility for our share of the emissions and for the climate crisis, but it is not I or the Center Party who are in power. Now the question has been decided, and we look forward with pleasure to the government's proposal on how to reduce the transport sector's climate footprint. If the reduction obligation, so to speak, turns out to be wrong, according to the Tidö parties, how will you then solve this issue so that we achieve an effect and reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
When it comes to the kilometer tax, it is nothing that we are for. We have also asked questions about the government's lack of activity when it comes to infrastructure investments, just as in the area of housing policy.
Lars Beckman (M)
Mr. Speaker! As I said in my speech, it is gratifying enough that every time a new model of cars - a new model year - is released, it emits less and consumes less. It is extremely positive.
When I visited Volvo Trucks in Gothenburg, they had a wall showing how much was emitted before and how little a Euro 6 engine emits today – it was a small square centimeter in one corner. It is even to the extent that a Euro 6 engine, according to a study in Oslo, cleans the air. When a truck drove through Oslo, there was therefore cleaner air behind it.
We received a clear message: the Centre Party is not in favor of a kilometer tax. We will have to hear later how they will reach an agreement with the Green Party. We know that it turned out as the Green Party decided during the eight years with a Social Democratic government.
I understand that the Center Party wants to increase the reduction obligation, but it is unclear by how much. The Center Party talks about 40 kronor per liter for diesel. That sounds a bit high for a farmer in Ljusdal. It is very regrettable.
Here is the difference. The Tidö parties and the government deliver. We have a common policy, we work together, we produce good proposals, and we develop and improve Sweden day by day. Opposed to this stands a divided opposition. In the issue of the reduction obligation and the kilometer tax, we can state that unfortunately, they are not in agreement there either.
Alireza Akhondi (C)
Mr. Speaker! I believe that Lars Beckman had left the room when I, in my previous speech, pointed out that it is the government and the Tidö parties themselves who write that if nothing comes instead of the reduction obligation, we will get fuel prices of 40 kronor per liter.
It is not Centerpartiet that wants to raise the prices to 40 kronor, but that is what happens with the government's policy, that is, with Lars Beckman's party. Now I am being crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, because it seems misunderstandings arise when one speaks quickly. It is they who are driving such a development, and it is deeply regrettable.
Now the question is settled, as said, and we look forward with pleasure to the government's proposal on how to reduce the climate footprint from the transport sector, which accounts for a third of the emissions in Sweden today.
We had hoped a lot for the climate action plan and that it would show the direction, but unfortunately, it turned out to be a castle in the air where there was a lot of "let's hope" and "let's see." One appoints a new investigation to look at something, and then one brushes it off the agenda here and now.
I do not remember if Lars Beckman had more questions that were not related to the debate, but I can say this: Lars Beckman took up Volvo's sign, which they displayed with pride. Then I wonder, Lars Beckman, if perhaps we should look at the proposal we have in the report. Signs might actually be good?
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has long worked for us to receive better consumer information so that all of us who are to make different decisions before elections and purchases and who are met with advertising can see what climate impact that which we consume has. We have wanted to see this on both vehicles and fuels. We are therefore positive towards the bill, but we believe that the government should follow up on the new legislation and, if necessary, return with clarifications. I therefore move for approval of our reservation.
It should be easy to do the right thing, Lars Beckman said earlier here in the speaker's chair. This is something that has been said by many parties many times, but it is important that it is then followed by action. For us in Miljöpartiet, it is completely central that it should be easy to do the right thing when it comes to transitioning to fossil-free transport.
We want the sustainable modes of transport and the more sustainable fuels to be cheaper, simpler, and more accessible for all of us residents to use, and that which is fossil and which contributes to increased greenhouse gas emissions, and thereby to worsened climate consequences and thereby also worsened floods, droughts, and all the risks that follow from climate change, should be more expensive. It should not be more expensive to make climate-smart choices, but the renewable and sustainable should be the cheap alternative.
Against this background, it is extremely regrettable that the Tidö parties and the current government are making the fossil [option] cheaper and scrapping the electric car bonus. This counteracts the climate transition and leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions so that Sweden is no longer expected to reach the climate goals. At the same time, it counteracts the electrification that the government claims to want to safeguard.
I also want to mention what Lars Beckman said in his speech about the fact that the cars that come out on the market every year emit less. It is very positive, but it is not something that happens by itself. It follows from the fact that we in the EU have collectively decided that we shall have legislation that constantly tightens the requirements for new vehicles.
I would like to see the same type of broad support and commitment to constantly have steering measures that ensure we move away from the fossil, also in Sweden's Riksdag.
Lars Beckman (M)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Elin Söderberg for the contribution.
First, we can note that all eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag are in favor of this proposal, which is very good. It should be easy to do the right thing.
Then it is, just as I said in my speech, that different families and different companies look different and have different needs. If one lives in some remote village in Ljusdal municipality, one surely has a different need than if one lives in some flashy area in Södermalm in Stockholm. There, perhaps, one has a different need. Everyone is different, after all.
Elin Söderberg requests more measures for electrification. In that case, we can be pleased that the government has presented today that they will invest an extra 100 million in the budget for just charging stations. It is naturally the state's responsibility to ensure that there is electricity – therefore the nuclear power expansion is important – and that there is an infrastructure for charging stations.
The Green Party is an extremist party in this area. Your spokesperson, as I believe it is called with you, went out a couple of weeks ago and demanded a kilometer tax, which the Centre Party admittedly dismissed.
It would be interesting to know how high a kilometer tax you want. What will it cost to drive a car in the Miljöpartiet's Sweden? And when it comes to the reduction obligation, I believe Miljöpartiet is the only party left that wants the high level. We heard Centerpartiet speak earlier about 40 kronor per liter for diesel. It would be interesting to know how high a diesel price you want. And when will you in Miljöpartiet be satisfied?
I and Elin Söderberg agree that consumption drops and emissions decrease every time a new model year of a vehicle is released. This bill will make it easier for consumers to make conscious choices. But when will you be satisfied? How high a diesel price do you want? How high a kilometer tax should you have? Will anyone be able to afford to have a car in the Miljöpartiets Sweden?
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I shall say hello and thank everyone for allowing me to participate in the debate with the Committee on Civil Affairs and to meet new Members of Parliament here in this debate.
When it comes to the transport sector's transition, we need to shift so that we get a completely fossil-free transport sector. All parts of the world, all countries and all sectors need to become fossil-free if we are to stop climate change and avoid the most serious consequences of global warming.
In Sweden, we have made great progress in moving away from fossil fuels in electricity production and to a large extent in the heating sector. But the transport sector and industry must be transformed.
When it comes to the transport sector's transition, work needs to be done in three areas. One is more efficient transport, so that we get lower energy consumption to transport both us humans and goods. The second is that we transition the vehicle fleet, so that we get vehicles that can actually be powered by electricity or other renewable fuels and that we phase out vehicles that can only be powered by fossil fuels. The third is that we need to transition the fuel in the existing vehicle fleet. It is not enough to sit and wait for us to successively get electric planes, electric cars, and other vehicles that are not powered by fuels. Therefore, we also need to work with the phasing in of more renewable fuels in internal combustion engines.
We in Miljöpartiet have presented policies in all these three areas to ensure that we reduce emissions sufficiently fast, so that we reach our binding commitments. That is also why we stand up for the reduction obligation, which seven of the Riksdag's eight parties were involved in introducing. We are also working with a long series of other measures to ensure that fossil-free and sustainable means of transport become cheaper than the fossil ones.
Lars Beckman (M)
Mr. Speaker! For two minutes, Elin Söderberg of the Miljöpartiet spoke about everything except the two simple questions I asked.
One of the questions was how high the kilometer tax, which the Miljöpartiet spokesperson presented last week, should be. Should it be 20, 40, or 100 kronor per kilometer? Where is Miljöpartiet's limit? I believe there are many who see this debate who want to know that.
The second question was how high a diesel price you want. If we had not lowered the reduction obligation to 6 percent, we might have had a diesel price today of over 30 kronor per liter. What does Miljöpartiet want?
I experienced the need for charging stations myself yesterday. I have my overnight apartment in Norra Djurgårdsstaden. When I was going to fast-charge my electric car, it turned out that there is no fast charger there, so I had to go to OK Lidingö. First, I had to stand and wait for half an hour for the person before me to finish charging, because there were only two charging stations there. Then I had to charge for 54 minutes so that I could get home to Gävle tonight. The need for charging stations, we are certainly in complete agreement on.
We are also in complete agreement on electrification. In order to be able to electrify, there must be electricity, so I hope that Miljöpartiet, like the Finnish Green League, stands behind the expansion of nuclear power, so that we truly get fossil-free electricity production.
Sweden's motorists, who number 5.5 million, now want to know how high a diesel price Miljöpartiet wants. Is it 40 kronor per liter, 32 kronor per liter, or how much more expensive? And how high should the kilometer tax be? What will it cost a family with two children in Ljusdal, Bollnäs, Forsbacka, Gävle, or Sveg to drive to and from work? It would be clarifying to find out.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Lars Beckman for the questions.
Yes, we need to transform the entire transport sector, and we all have completely different circumstances across the whole country. In some areas, there is good access to public transport. In some areas, there are good opportunities to walk and cycle to where one needs to go. In some areas, the distances are very long. In some labor market regions, many people drive several kilometers back and forth to work every day.
We in Miljöpartiet want to see that we get the right solution in the right place, so that everyone can be part of the transition and so that everyone is given the conditions to travel more sustainably and ultimately become completely fossil-free.
Therefore, a long series of different measures were also needed, measures that suit different wallets and different conditions. For that reason, Miljöpartiet has, among other things, proposed a leasing check for electric cars for households with lower incomes. We have proposed reduced tax in rural areas to meet the longer distances of transporting oneself in rural areas. We have proposed a type of kilometer tax that differentiates the transport costs depending on what conditions one has. If one has very good access to public transport or can walk and cycle to where one needs to go, for example in urban areas in large cities, the kilometer tax can be higher. In more sparsely populated areas, it can be extremely low.
When it comes to what different households will have for costs for fuels, what I can answer is that we want to ensure that what is sustainable and renewable is cheaper than the fossil. Where there is a great need for the car, one should have the conditions to use it, while where there are plenty of alternatives, one should have to pay something more when using the car.
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.