Climate, environment and nature

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal in its entirety.

Today we are debating expenditure area 20, a fantastic area in the state budget that covers everything from nature conservation, climate and charging stations to watercourses, seas and much more.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government have begun a journey towards an environmental and nature budget where inefficient, misguided investments are disappearing. Despite several billions being saved on such investments, the environmental budget remains at a historically high level. This demonstrates a very high level of ambition from the government's base.

By ineffective investments, I am referring, for example, to the electric car bonus, which the Social Democrats as recently as yesterday self-critically condemned as a major failed investment. We can observe that this failed investment has mostly gone to wealthy city dwellers, companies, and the public sector. Indirectly, the support has also gone to the car dealers, who have been able to increase their margins, as we know always happens in connection with price subsidies. When we sum up the reform, we reach tens of billions that the Swedes have had to spend on a reform which, according to the Social Democrats, contributed to the unfair climate policy during S and MP's time in power.

Madam Speaker! At the same time as the Social Democrats are fully occupied with making amends for their failed and unjust climate policy, the government and the Sweden Democrats are focusing on the political workshop. How can Sweden contribute to a fossil-free global economy? The climate issue is global. This is well known to the vast majority, and we Sweden Democrats have long pointed out that a social-conservative nationalism was needed in all policy areas with one exception, namely climate policy.

Therefore, it is positive that this is clearly established in the Tidö Agreement and repeated in the Tidö Agreement's supplementary agreement on climate policy. It will, of course, also appear in our upcoming climate action plan.

In the red-green messy opposition, they unfortunately think exactly the opposite when they continue to push for a climate-nationalist policy.

Madam Speaker! Let us go through some facts. Sweden has nothing to be ashamed of. Since 1990, emissions have decreased by 40 percent despite a GDP growth of 90 percent. At the same time, emissions have increased sharply globally. Since the 70s, emissions have doubled, and the increase is occurring primarily in formerly poor countries that have become significantly less poor. But in Sweden and Europe, emissions have instead decreased significantly.

In the world, emissions are 4.6 tonnes per capita. In the EU, they are 6.3 tonnes per capita. In China, emissions are 8.7 tonnes per capita. In Sweden, we can boast with 3.8 tonnes per capita. If China had been able to reduce its emissions to the same extent as Sweden and reached the same emission level in relation to its economy, global emissions would have decreased by 18 percent.

Madam Speaker! It thus becomes a matter of lowering the debate to a very low level when Center Party members, Social Democrats, Green Party members, and whatever they are called try to portray Sweden as some kind of global horror example because we are lowering the reduction obligation to a slightly more normal European level and now directing the consumption of the limited biofuels to markets other than just the Swedish road transport sector.

In a global perspective, this will not affect emissions. We will produce the same or a larger amount of biofuels in Sweden next year. This will, of course, have effects on politically decided calculation models regarding territorial emissions, but in a global perspective, there is no researcher who can demonstrate changed emissions during 2024 as a result of the reduction of the Swedish reduction obligation. That the reduction obligation is lowered will benefit Swedish climate policy by increasing the tolerance for climate policy as the injustice decreases. We are therefore addressing the fundamental problem with the Social Democrats' climate policy, which they themselves have acknowledged.

The global climate work is neither positively nor negatively affected if we have the world's highest diesel price in Sweden. Our citizens, who are to transport themselves or purchase previously transported goods in the grocery store, are affected, however. Our farmers who try to put food on our tables are affected, and people who need to take the car to work or for a camping holiday are also affected.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' and the government's climate policy is based on three grounds. It is about the global perspective, which I have spoken about. It is perhaps above all about technological development, where electrification will be the way forward. And it is about something that has been forgotten in Swedish climate policy during all these years: legitimacy among the citizens.

Emissions can only be significantly reduced in an economy that is growing at the same time. Such an economy can inspire other countries. No one will want to follow countries that have low growth or zero growth or deal with Kafkaesque permit processes.

Madam Speaker! Swedish climate policy has been all too one-dimensional, and this has not benefited the work. How one reduces recorded road traffic emissions in Sweden to a politically set year has very little to do with climate work.

Most people know today that the way forward, especially for light road transport, is electrification, and it is actually moving very fast right now. We do not see quite the same rapid development across the entire world, because the challenge is electricity. We can, for example, take part of a news article from Reuters on November 22, where it states that in India, there is now a demand for increased private investment in new coal power. Why is that? Yes, because there is a sharply increased demand for electricity, partly depending on the electric vehicle sector.

Madam Speaker! Sweden will soon see a similar development, partly due to electric cars but perhaps primarily due to hydrogen production. We will manage this through an ambitious effort to establish a functioning power grid, where new nuclear power will become an important fundamental component. The green transition will not be possible in a cost-effective way without new nuclear power.

Madam Speaker! Technological development will, as has been said, be fundamental if we are to be able to combine reduced emissions with growth and public acceptance. One of the biggest challenges in Sweden is our agriculture, and in that case, I am not thinking about the fact that agriculture causes some emissions, but rather that we produce far too little food in Sweden. The emissions for our food are most likely accounted for in entirely other countries today. We need to change this.

From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we look forward to the new food strategy, which this time needs to be filled with content. We also need to become more technology-oriented when it comes to agriculture. Here, unfortunately, the greens are an opponent both in Sweden and in Europe, where it seems incredibly difficult to open up to using more of plant breeding and genetic engineering.

Europe today is a laggard that risks falling far behind in development. By using technology to improve our crops, we can increase productivity, adapt to varying climates, and reduce the need for plant protection products. Taken together, this would be a fantastic win for the environment.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is wonderful to hear that the Sweden Democrats first condemn our climate and environmental policy and then praise what we Social Democrats have done since 1990. We are extra grateful for that!

Mr. Speaker, we Social Democrats believe that our Swedish nature is a national treasure, and it must be managed and cared for. It must be taken care of for us who live in Sweden now and for future generations.

In last year's budget, the SD government brutally cut the funding for the protection of and measures for our valuable nature, and in this year's budget, the resources needed are also not there. A survey that TT conducted among the country's county administrative boards shows clogged toilets, ruined hiking trails, and littered mountain peaks. Next year, the situation is expected to become worse.

An outdoor visitor who emails a picture of a broken path to Länsstyrelsen Västernorrland receives the same answer as so many times before: Unfortunately, there are no resources to rectify the matter.

At the County Administrative Board of Norrbotten, Erik Granerot is concerned that popular hiking trails such as Kungsleden may eventually need to be closed due to a growing maintenance debt. The County Administrative Board of Västerbotten is among those testifying to extensive impacts. All maintenance work there is now focused on sites that could otherwise pose safety risks, for example bridges. In Jämtland County, almost 70 percent of the grant disappeared.

My question, Madam Speaker, is: Do the Sweden Democrats think that the Swedish national treasure that nature is not in need of being addressed and taken care of?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for the questions! I can only agree that these are very important purposes.

I believe that the fundamental problem in Swedish politics in this area is that we have complex environmental goals that perhaps do not align well with reality. This has driven a rapid expansion of protected areas in our country. This naturally creates challenges when it comes to subsequently managing these areas.

From a Sweden Democrat perspective, we see that there are very large funds in the state budget allocated when it comes to both protection and measures for valuable nature. There should be opportunities to direct these funds so that they benefit the citizens and nature in a better way in the future.

Naturally, we hope that this work can become even better in the future, but from a Sverigedemokratiskt perspective, I would see a great benefit in us being able to become more flexible when it comes to how we protect areas. Perhaps we should not have a goal that aims to increase the proportion of protected land ad infinitum all the time. Perhaps we must look at whether we can take land that is currently protected and put it into production when we find more protection-worthy land. I believe that this is somewhat of the basic problem here. It is clear that it will only become more and more expensive the more protected land we claim if we simultaneously want it to be managed.

My question to Anna-Caren Sätherberg is: Can the Social Democrats in the future imagine having a more flexible view on protected land, and can it be imagined to move away from the expansive policy that has primarily taken place during the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet's time in power?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Now the SD government has actually allocated more money to protect more land, and much less money has been allocated to remediate the land that is being protected. Therefore, it is a bit difficult to understand what the member actually means.

18 out of 21 county administrative boards state in their responses to the survey that they have had to cut back on measures for valuable nature as a result of the slashed budget. It concerns the maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities and the maintenance of nature, but it also concerns predator inventory. How are we to know how many wolves we have in Sweden if there are no resources to inventory them?

Even the jobs in the countryside have been affected. Much of the nature management is carried out by small companies in sparsely populated and rural areas. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency says that approximately 1,000 jobs have disappeared due to these cuts. All responding county administrative boards also state that they had to cut so much that the services and companies could no longer fulfill the assignments they usually have.

This is the reason why we Social Democrats are investing 500 million more than the government on the protection of and measures for valuable nature. When the Sweden Democrats are allowed to decide on the budget, their legacy will be trashed toilets, ruined hiking trails, and littered mountain peaks. Is that how it is supposed to be?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that the member brings up the increased budget funds for protection. From the Sverigedemokraternas side, we agree with the government on increasing this budget item, and the money shall not go towards protecting increased areas. There we will hold the government accountable during the year.

Madam Speaker! Anna-Caren Sätherberg paints a picture of that one cannot be in nature without being overwhelmed by litter and that there are no hiking trails to walk. I would like to say that the reality for most citizens appears completely different.

After eight years with the Social Democrats in power, we have enormous societal challenges. As Anna-Caren Sätherberg herself reported, we have a climate policy that has fueled injustices in society and created inequality. We must settle accounts with it. We have a galloping and fearsome development in the area of crime that we must allocate resources to, while at the same time we have had inflation and falling growth as a result of the global economic situation. The money is not enough for everything. One must prioritize.

Very large funds are allocated to measures for the protection of nature in the state budget. The fundamental problem, as we Sverigedemokrater see it, is that the proportion of protected land has been increased too quickly, which also drives up costs. Now we must prioritize, so that we use the money where it does the most good.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Kinnunen, for the speech! I also think it was interesting to hear the praise about how good Swedish climate policy and environmental policy have been and that we have actually succeeded in both reducing emissions and, still, increasing growth. With progressive environmental and climate policy, one reaches that. And this is what we have done previously in government position and even before that, as a cooperation partner to the Social Democrats.

It is interesting to hear that even the Sverigedemokraterna think it has been a good policy. On the other hand, we see clearly that we would not be where we are today if the Sverigedemokraterna had been in power. Then we would have had an even greater task to do.

We see now that emissions are increasing with this budget. There are also other emissions called consumption-based emissions. I heard that Martin Kinnunen previously said that we emit approximately 3.9 tonnes per capita in Sweden. But we can also count our consumption-based emissions. I am thinking, for example, of when we buy a phone. Emissions have been made where the phone was manufactured. And because we are a rich country, we buy a lot from abroad and have outsourced a great deal.

We have had a parliamentary inquiry on this, the Environmental Goals Commission - Martin Kinnunen himself was part of the inquiry. We received a unanimous opinion there that we needed to develop national goals. But after that, it has been silent. My question to the member is: Will anything come of the inquiry? It has been out for consultation. There are goals that we agree on, but will anything come of this?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the questions! Yes, emissions in Sweden have decreased in a positive way over the last decades. This is partly due to political decisions made and the strategy that Sweden has had for a long time regarding how we heat our homes. That is perhaps the absolute most important thing – as well as our great supply of hydropower.

Today, it is primarily European instruments that are driving down emissions. The most effective instrument is the EU Emissions Trading System, which we Sverigedemokrater have always fundamentally considered to be positive. Then one can have opinions on the details.

Madam Speaker! There were questions regarding consumption-based emissions. This is correct. We had a longer exercise in the Environmental Goals Commission, and I believe we arrived at a decent proposal on how the goal could be designed. I note at the same time that it was a rather complex proposal that the Environmental Goals Commission came up with. It is not uncomplicated. It is complicated to measure. It is complicated to design. Several of the referral bodies may not have cheered for it either, even though I know that many in substance want to see a consumption-based goal.

I believe that above all, we must find models for how we can measure both exports and imports in a good way, because in today's statistics, Sweden is disadvantaged by the fact that we have such low emissions from our energy. Since the emissions are low when a car is manufactured in Sweden, the net effect becomes very small. What should be looked at is the indirect effect when a car is manufactured in Sweden instead of being manufactured in China. Even today, there are no such models, but that work is ongoing, because it is something that the government and Sverigedemokraterna have pushed forward.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is interesting that you bring up the heating of our houses as a positive thing, Martin Kinnunen, because it was one of the demands that Miljöpartiet had when we had a cooperation with Socialdemokraterna during the 00s. There were great convulsions at that time, but now there are very few houses that still have an oil boiler. This has benefited us. Sometimes one has to make the difficult decisions so that it will be better later.

I think I hear a positive inclination regarding this matter of consumption-based emissions, but nothing explicit. There were several parts besides the goal that one should be able to move forward with. This concerns, for example, public consumption and several of the different statistical exercises. It was about us giving assignments to Naturvårdsverket and Statistiska centralbyrån so that the figures would become better and so that it would be easier to measure. It was also about working at an international and European level so that we would get approximately the same calculation models.

But I also see no trace of this. Instead, I see that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency says that with this budget, it will be very difficult to produce a basis for many different parts. It is expected that much more would be needed to be able to assist when it comes to permit processes and environmental monitoring and other things that we would need in order to be able to calculate these things.

The question remains: Will we see an investment in this with consumption-based emissions? And if it does not become a goal, I wonder if it will still be possible to move forward so that we can get calculation models.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Emma Nohrén! I do not envision that the energy today should be spent on designing a new climate policy goal. We have very many environmental goals in Sweden. They entail very high costs. There is a great deal of bureaucracy involved just in the work of managing these goals. I believe that we must try to focus a bit more on political workshop rather than on producing even more goals in this situation.

When it comes to the question of calculation models, it is a task that has been given to Statistics Sweden. It will be interesting to see what they can come up with, because the Environmental Goals Commission built its proposal on what was actually a rather untested way of calculating. There were not particularly many researchers who had calculated the indirect export effects – how emissions can be shifted between different markets. It will be interesting to take part in this.

But I do not see today that the Sweden Democrats will push for even more climate policy goals. I believe that we must adjust the goals we have, so that we can optimize the possibilities for an effective climate policy that can contribute to reduced emissions in the world.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would have thought that much of today's debate would be about the climate action plan, but despite it being the penultimate day of the Riksdag before the Christmas break, we have not seen any sign of it. The Minister was in the media a few days ago and said: It might not come at all this year. A few hours later, she had to backtrack and say: Yes, but of course it is going to come, because it is in the law.

That was lucky. But we still haven't seen it. There are twelve days left of the year. Most of them are red. We hope that it comes.

Madam Speaker! Why do I bring this up now when we are debating expenditure area 20? Well, it is precisely in this expenditure area that a great deal of what we hope will be in the climate action plan is to be implemented. If one looks at the budget that we are now debating, one sees that there are not many tools for the government to take to.

Now we are going to say that we do not know what the supplementary budget looks like. It might contain big things. But now this is what exists, and this is what is to be used to implement the climate policy.

In the government's own climate annex to the budget, it states that emissions will increase over the next two years. The total effect of the government's proposals in the budget bill for 2024 is assessed to be that they will increase over the next two years. After that, they will decrease slightly. In 2023, the direct emission reduction is assessed to be 0.6 to 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents.

This is far from what we need to do to achieve our Swedish climate goals but also our European and international commitments. I hope that the climate action plan comes. It is long-awaited.

If we look at the government's track record, we see that they have done exactly the opposite when it comes to the climate. Since the government took office, they have lowered the energy tax for gasoline and diesel, scrapped the reform of the travel deduction, and reduced railway maintenance. The bonus in bonus-malus has been stopped. It is a reduced commitment to energy efficiency for multi-family housing, scrapped support for corporate energy efficiency, abolished tax for waste incineration, increased tax on diesel, increased VAT on repairs, and so on.

Time and again, the government does the opposite and removes things. Of course, one can have different opinions on what is effective, but you have not added anything. This is backward, Madam Speaker.

If we look at traditional environmental policy and move away from the climate, we see that it does not get better. If there is anything that can help us curb the effects of climate change, it is healthy ecosystems - forests, coasts and seas which, when they have good biodiversity and good status, help to bind carbon, prevent erosion, mitigate effects of climate change such as storms, rain and other things, purify water and delay it in the landscape.

Without healthy ecosystems, we are helpless, Madam Speaker. But even there we see that the expenditure items are not as they should be. Take something like environmental monitoring, which is the tool we have to know what is happening out in nature, whether our measures are having an effect, and if something is about to happen, for example, where PFAS and other things are in our nature. One-fifth of the budget item for this disappeared last year.

This year, investments have been made in the same area, Madam Speaker, to be able to implement the climate policy action plan, it says. But it is still much less than what is needed. Approximately 100 million is still missing. This has had the effect that during the year we have seen that long time series that we have had for several decades have had notches in the curve. The various expeditions that, for example, SMHI conducts with the ship Svea have gone from twelve per year to nine per year. In these time series, we now therefore see notches in the curve. It is not worthy. It concerns the backbone of the Swedish environmental work.

Another thing that is often talked about by the government parties is that we must shorten the permit processes. We agree with that. We must ensure that we get fast permit processes so that we get the renewable energy we need so that we can start the investments we need so that we can carry out the new social construction and make the green transition.

Even here, one is dependent on data from environmental monitoring. One is dependent on there being authorities that have the means to carry out this. In the requests from both Naturvårdsverket and Havs- och vattenmyndigheten, a large part of the money they desire is intended precisely to be helpful in permit processes. It does not help to just remove rules, but we must have knowledge and expert authorities that have the means to carry out this. That is where the government is making a mistake. With its budget proposal, the permit processes will take longer because one simply scales off these parts from our authorities.

We can look at what is classic environmental policy: measures for valuable nature, which were raised in a previous exchange here. It is about a grant for the maintenance of our protected areas, nature conservation management, wildlife management, species conservation and so on. Here, they cut it by a third in the previous budget - 1 billion disappeared. This year they add a little bit, but it is still almost 1 billion that is missing compared to before. It stands in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's papers what this will mean: If they do not receive money for species conservation, there is a risk that some species will even become extinct.

Madam Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet want to see a completely different policy. We want these appropriations to increase. In our budget, which should be seen as a whole, we want a historic investment in the green transition and a robust social construction, and that we should meet both the climate crisis and the nature crisis.

We believe that with this situation of a low national debt, one should borrow money - 100 billion per year - for ten years to refurbish Sweden and invest in the railway to achieve climate and environmental effects. The longer we wait, the more expensive the bill will become.

Since we have invested much more money than the government on this area, I cannot today vote in favor of our proposal, but we have a special statement that I hope many will take note of. We show with our budget that it is possible to both meet the environmental goals and the climate goals and strengthen the welfare. It is possible to protect at the same time as we usually do and to have a budget that lives up to national and international commitments and to our Swedish and European climate and environmental goals. We have a budget for a future to long for.

With this, I wish Madam Speaker, the Speaker's Bureau, and all listeners a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for an engaging speech!

I intended to inform Miljöpartiet that there are difficult economic times right now. We live in times of inflation, and then it is about taking responsibility.

Emma Nohrén began her speech by speaking about the climate action plan, and I want to say that it will take time to present such a large overhaul of policy as is now required. Unlike the red-green government's previous, non-existent, very vague and overarching climate action plan, this plan takes a holistic approach. These are major reforms, not some tinkering.

I have understood that the most important thing for Miljöpartiet is to have money in the budget, not what one actually does with it. One is happy to speak warmly about taking climate responsibility while we here clearly see that one cannot even manage to take responsibility for presenting a fully funded budget. A deficit of 220 billion kronor is not something to be proud of, Madam Speaker. It is not taking responsibility, not in these times.

This behavior is, however, expected from Miljöpartiet, who seem to believe that money grows on trees. That one calls this taking responsibility in times of inflation and great economic uncertainty, I think, however, is irresponsible.

We are investing heavily in the climate, and we do not believe in backing into the future. We believe in new technology and new innovation, and we believe that it is possible. As I see it, economic responsibility is a prerequisite for meeting the climate goals. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I ask: How does the Green Party intend to finance its proposals in the long term?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Helena Storckenfeldt, for the question! I am glad that I received it, and I am also pleased with the member's remarks regarding the climate action plan. No one is happier than I if there are good reforms in a climate action plan that make us reduce emissions in a way that actually works. We all need that, but since it has delayed until this year's very last shivering days, I am starting to wonder what is going to come. I see no ambition in the budget.

When it comes to our way of calculating the budget, it is no secret that we believe we should borrow money for this, and we believe that it is an investment for the future. All measures that can be taken now will be cheaper than doing them in the future.

We have a low national debt that we have jointly worked to reduce over many years, and not only Miljöpartiet but also many experts believe that there is time to borrow for the construction of society, to upgrade the railway, and to ensure that we get a climate policy that works. Every ton of carbon dioxide that is not emitted now is a win.

We cannot push this ahead of us. For us, this is a way to invest for the future, and there are many economists who stand behind it.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the answer! At the same time, we know that the path that Miljöpartiet advocates risks leading to an even worse economic development. It leads to poorer growth, and in the long run, it is about what money we will have to invest in the climate in the future. If one chooses Miljöpartiet's path, these funds will not exist. They may exist tomorrow, but not thereafter.

For us, the climate issue must be handled globally in a large and comprehensive way. Then one must also take the economic responsibility, look a bit further than the nose is long, and invest long-term and sustainably.

Another prerequisite for managing the transition is acceptance. I know that the voters of the Green Party buy into the party's politics, but we have seen that acceptance is decreasing in Sweden. The Swedish people have great acceptance for many reforms in the climate area. It is a priority issue for the Swedish people, but there is a limit. One must see effect and results.

Reduced growth, prohibitions, and worse conditions for meeting the transition are what the Green Party's policy leads to. We believe that acceptance is an incredibly important part of actually achieving the climate transition all the way through.

Madam Speaker! How does the Green Party justify its policy not only to its own voters? It is not just about the voters one is accountable to, but also about how one justifies the deficit and the policy to the rest of the Swedish people.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Member of Parliament Helena Storckenfeldt herself said that we might be able to afford this now but not later. But we can afford it now. We have worked to reduce the national debt for many years. It was sky-high ten to twelve years ago, and now the situation is such that it is possible to make the investments for the common social construction. We believe that it is possible to do things now in time so that the costs will be lower, instead of doing something in retrospect. Take something like climate adaptation. Everything we do now is cheaper than if it is done later, partly because it costs less, and partly because the climate is changing.

In my constituency Göteborg, there is a need for gates against the sea. During a normal rain in 2100, the entire rail yard will be underwater. The gates must be built as soon as possible. If one waits until later, it will cost more and become a larger investment.

Borrow now and take climate adaptation measures! Reduce climate emissions so that the effects decrease! At the same time, we can devote ourselves to building society and the welfare system, which makes people feel secure and want to be on board.

There must be an acceptance of the policy being implemented, otherwise one cannot be involved in governing. That is how it is. But the policy being pursued has effects further ahead. Look at the climate bonus for electric cars. It means that there is now a second-hand market for electric cars, and that means those who cannot afford to buy new cars can buy used cars. It is a way to get things moving. We must dare to do new things.

I hope that the climate action plan contains good and worthy proposals. Everyone will benefit. Climate emissions must be reduced. I have a heavy heart over this, but I hope that the government shows that I am wrong.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Nohrén for the speech, which largely concerned increasing the budget.

The government wanted to increase the budget in all areas, which sounds good. But the Green Party seems to habitually prioritize budget increases over actual results. Historically, the Green Party has not directly been known for an effective environmental policy. They have been good at spending money on inefficient environmental measures. It is symbolic politics with inefficient measures that have not benefited the climate or the taxpayers. I mean that we would have been better equipped for the electrification if we had not had the Green Party in the government.

Is there any focus on efficiency at Miljöpartiet, or is the main focus that we should be able to boast about a large budget to spend on climate and environmental measures?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! There is no inherent value in just having a lot of money if it does not do any good, but we see that it has done good. There is more protected forest, and there are more green jobs to manage the forest. Authorities can work on the issues, and climate emissions have decreased.

With the budget that the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, is presenting, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency considers that approximately 100 million is needed to fulfill the mission of shorter processing times for permit processes and to streamline the work with environmental assessments. It is clear that effective environmental work will not be possible with such a cut. If they had received the money they need, it would have resulted in an effective climate and environmental policy.

The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management suffered an acute setback last year when they had to cut work by hundreds of millions due to the budget at that time. Now it is the same low levels, and it is said that it will be difficult to participate in permit processes for, for example, new mines. It is not effective climate policy.

The protection for old-growth forests is decreasing. The referral bodies state that it is at such a low level that it makes effective protection impossible. The valuable forests are being logged at such a high rate that it is not possible to monitor and exercise control. It is also not effective climate policy because the carbon that could have been bound in the forests is now being extracted.

What is effective climate policy? It is not about money at all, but money is an enabler if it is directed in the right way. In the budget that exists now, money is removed or reduced without it producing any effect.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! I agree with the member that money has no intrinsic value if it does not provide any benefit. Here, the member wants to increase the national debt to spend money on, in many cases, symbolic political measures. The National Audit Office has previously criticized the Green Party's environmental policy, particularly in connection with the promotion of environmental cars. There, it has been stated that there is a lack of analysis of socio-economic consequences, and problems have been pointed out regarding the follow-up of the subsidized environmental cars, which are often exported to other countries. This is an example of expensive and inefficient environmental policy.

We want to invest instead in measures that make a real difference. We are investing in electrification, and we are building up nuclear power again - which the Green Party dismantled through political steering.

The situation now is high inflation, and therefore a responsible economic policy must be pursued to take a socio-economic responsibility. Has any review been made of your own environmental policy and have the inefficient environmental measures that you have previously pursued been reviewed?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We can see that emissions decreased and that we would reach the goal for domestic transport with our policy. So there was some efficiency, indeed.

However, we believe that the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy is not effective and is not long-term. They removed the electric car premium overnight and put the entire industry and all car manufacturers on the brink. They removed the reduction of the connection fees for offshore wind power to the connection points on land. Thus, the hope was taken away for many of the industries on the west coast that need electricity to be part of the green transition. Large companies want to move away from the fossil and over to the renewable. They need energy now. Beatrice Timgren's talk about nuclear power might be good later, but we need energy now.

This government talks all the time about electrification with new electric cars. Yes, it would not have rolled so many electric cars on our streets if it had not been for our policy. But how you are going to get electricity to the charging stations without agreeing to renewable energy and building what goes fast, I do not understand.

I believe that our policy was indeed effective. Sure, there were things that could be adjusted. But so far, I have not seen any effectiveness in the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas policy.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Science is clear: the climate crisis is one of the greatest existential issues of our time. Unfortunately, we find it in a multitude of many crises simultaneously. Never have we stood before so many challenges at one and the same time. War, inflation, crime, and global warming - unfortunately, it is not only the December darkness that casts a shadow over our contemporary era.

Mr. Speaker, I represent the Moderaterna, a party that is hopeful and has faith in the future. It is deeply rooted in our DNA to care for what we will one day leave behind. Humanity has faced decisive crises before, and we have emerged from them through research and innovative power. I am convinced that we can do it again. But that requires the right conditions.

Madam Speaker! The forest must be managed in order to provide the greatest climate benefit. Swedish forestry does not only contribute with jobs and growth but is also a crucial part of the work to reduce our emissions. The climate benefit that comes from the forest is achieved both through pure carbon sequestration and by replacing materials and energy that affect the climate negatively.

For example, certain fossil building materials can be replaced with renewable timber. One can produce clothing and fuel and replace plastic packaging. The waste can then be waste-to-energy recovered and, in combination with carbon capture, contribute to negative emissions, i.e., that more carbon dioxide is removed than is added.

Here in Sweden, we have a unique opportunity thanks to our forest. And to accelerate the development of new technology such as carbon capture, the government is now strengthening Industriklivet with an additional 100 million kronor, which means 1.5 billion in total.

It is important that we work on the climate in both the short and long term. Today, approximately 70 percent of Sweden's area is covered by forest. It is forest that in many cases has been managed for generations by families who for a long time have had a sustainable mindset regarding the forest.

The forest requires long time horizons, why it is so important that we do not draw hasty conclusions and rush ahead with bans and reserves. The forest is an incredible resource that we must care for.

Research from SLU also shows that over an 80-year period, there are significant climate gains if we increase our forestry. On the other hand, we lose the climate benefit if we reduce our forest production. It simply becomes worse for the climate the more we, from the state's side, interfere and poke at property rights and forestry. For me, it is clear that the Swedish forest shall continue to be managed.

Madam Speaker! We shall pursue an ambitious and effective climate policy that reduces emissions and reaches the goal of net-zero emissions by 2045. At the same time, we know that if one does not have an energy policy, one also has no climate policy. We want to create the right conditions for all types of power, and of course, that means more nuclear power. The most important thing is that we succeed in rebuilding our stable, fossil-free energy system, which has been the success factor in our ability to reduce emissions since the 70s.

We know that we will double our energy demand by 2045. Whether we manage the transition depends on whether this is what is required. But recently, the united opposition voted no to allowing more nuclear power in more places in Sweden. Fortunately, they do not have a majority in this chamber. But it is obvious which parties understand the extent of our future energy needs and which do not.

International transport accounts for approximately one-third of Sweden's emissions. It is therefore crucial that we accelerate electrification. Klimatklivet is one of the government's most important supports for accelerating the expansion of charging infrastructure in Sweden. Without sufficient charging infrastructure, it becomes difficult for anyone outside of major cities to realistically choose an electric car. Therefore, we are now strengthening Klimatklivet with 800 million kronor in 2024, 2 billion kronor in 2025, and 2.5 billion kronor in 2026. At the same time, we are extending Klimatklivet until 2028.

Greenhouse gases know no national borders. But there are many good examples of Swedish entrepreneurship that provide great global benefit.

Export is one. Today, the global climate benefit of Swedish exports corresponds to approximately half of the total emissions generated in Sweden – approximately 23 million tons of carbon dioxide, a figure that under the right conditions could double as early as 2040. And the right conditions are spelled more clean electricity, simpler and faster permit processes, and a clear political direction.

The Government therefore proposes an investment of 123 million kronor per year between 2024 and 2026 to speed up the permit processes for environmental assessments.

Madam Speaker! Whether we can manage the transition also presupposes an acceptance of the climate policy. Lost confidence in the climate policy leads to resistance, and that is something we cannot afford to risk.

The voters gave us a clear mandate for change. People had grown tired of the feel-good politics that only made it more and more expensive to live somewhere in our elongated country that does not have access to a subway or tram. The Swedish people have a great acceptance of climate measures. The vast majority want to do their part and do the right thing. But the policy must then be able to show clear results, and there must be a balance.

Madam Speaker! Let us be honest with the voters: The largest budget on the climate area ever was the one we presented together with KD and SD in 2022. The second largest was the one we, as a newly formed government, put forward in 2023. Even this budget we manage to keep at the same high level of appropriations - despite the fact that we phased out several expensive, inefficient measures such as the climate bonus. All red-green budgets have therefore been smaller.

Sweden shall be a country that does not only strive to reduce emissions; we shall achieve negative emissions. Unfortunately, left-leaning, populist decisions have been in control for far too long. Everything from expensive electric car premiums to the shutdown of nuclear power has led to diminished trust and a sense of hopelessness among many. Thus, one does not manage the climate crisis. It is not possible to force through individual proposals and hope for the best. The voters gave us a clear mandate for change, and that is what we are now implementing.

Madam Speaker! The short-sightedness in climate policy must come to an end. We are now changing course and ensuring that we safeguard all the good forces we have - such as the forest, our exports, and technological development and innovation.

The market solves much. We see this time and again when the business sector takes the lead and shows the way. But it also requires political courage to invest. It requires that we dare to be clear that high climate ambitions must be reconciled with growth.

The Moderate-led government is moving forward with powerful climate investments. This budget is not the answer to everything, but it is one of the largest budgets ever in the field of climate and environment. The measures do not only reduce emissions for the state but also create conditions for other sectors to be able to transition. We are now taking a much-needed holistic approach to climate policy.

Since it is my last debate for the year, I would like to thank the Chancellery, the committee members, the Chamber Chancellery and the Speaker's Presidium, and wish everyone a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for an engaged speech on climate and environmental policy. It is interesting to hear that the member is hopeful and positive. I do not recognize the member's party in the reasoning, as the Moderaterna have rather painted a bleak picture of the future in many ways. But it is obviously positive that the member is hopeful despite everything.

I agree with much of the member's description of solutions for some of the problems. For example, Industriklivet and Klimatklivet are completely correct.

But there are some clouds of concern. The other day, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency published this year's statistics on greenhouse gas emissions, and they were both good and bad. The leak from Nord Stream affected emissions very negatively, so we must ensure that it was a one-time occurrence. It is good that emissions have decreased overall, even though the trend is downward. Overall, however, this year's decisions by the government will increase emissions, so next year will probably be significantly more concerning. Let me quote the head of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's climate goals unit: "In the transport sector, emissions from gasoline and diesel have decreased thanks to the continued increased blending of biofuels through the reduction obligation." According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the reduction obligation has therefore contributed to keeping greenhouse gases down.

During the year, reference has been made to, among other things, Hassler's investigation. Reference has also been made to the climate action plan, but it has not yet arrived. My question therefore is: How will the Moderaterna and the government act to keep greenhouse gas emissions down when the reduction obligation is lowered next year?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The reduction obligation has been discussed many times in this chamber, but it is of course pleasant to do so once again. We and several others, including the Swedish National Audit Office, saw that the reduction obligation was not long-term sustainable. One could not have run the rope out. The Government is therefore taking a new approach to the entire climate policy. From our perspective, it is not possible to bet everything on a single thing and then hope for the best; instead, a holistic approach to the entire climate policy is needed so that the state and other actors are part of the transition. There must also be an acceptance of the climate policy so that people feel they are a part of it.

Climate policy must be feasible and not just until 2030. The reduction obligation reduces emissions in the short term, but what is the plan after 2030? This is where our focus lies. How do we reduce emissions and succeed in transforming the whole of Sweden totally? We see that as one of the most important aspects, and we look forward to the climate action plan so that the content can be discussed. We know that it will be detailed and content-rich. I look forward to continuing the discussion with Stina Larsson then.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Yes, I also really look forward to the climate action plan. But it has not arrived yet and has been postponed throughout the year. Which date it arrives may not be of such great importance, because the most important thing is the content. That it must be done could hardly have come as a surprise to the government, as it has been in the law for a good while. I believe rather that the government's basis is not in agreement on how to drive the issue forward. The difficult questions, the sub-targets and the indicators, have been pushed off to the Environmental Objectives Council and swept under the carpet. But then, when does one usually care about what the Environmental Objectives Council comes up with? One did not do that when it comes to consumption-based emissions, in any case.

The member also refers to new technology. What is new technology? What investments in energy supply should we have? All around the country, party representatives for the member's own party say no to new wind power plans, for example offshore wind power off the coast of Skåne. Nothing happens there, and a lid is put on it. Is new technology nuclear power? That is often discussed. Must the state intervene so that new nuclear power can be established? Is it moderate policy to subsidize nuclear power with tax money, as colleagues of the member have said? The existence or non-existence of nuclear power is one thing, but it is here and now that we have climate change. The climate crisis is ongoing now, and we cannot wait. Steering measures are needed now to get momentum on this.

What is effective climate policy, and what should the government do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions already now?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The Government is in agreement on what is most important to reduce emissions in a long-term sustainable way. This must hold all the way. It must not only hold until 2030 to then fall back. We shall succeed all the way, and that means building up a stable fossil-free energy system. I know that the Center Party has come with somewhat different messages regarding nuclear power, but here we are clear. Electrification will be a very important part of the transition. It is not just about electric cars but also about industry. Electrification will play a decisive role, and that means having enough energy when it is needed where it is needed. Here, nuclear power plays a very important role.

We Moderates have also been clear that wind power will be needed. We will need all types of power that exist, as long as they are fossil-free. That is the absolute most important thing. And our government said yes to more projects for offshore wind power during its first eight months in power than the red-green one did during its time. I therefore do not share the picture Stina Larsson is trying to paint of how the government acts when it comes to new technology and energy policy. I think the government has been clear that approximately twice as much electricity will be required by 2045, simpler permit processes, all types of energy, and a clear political direction, which we are trying to contribute to.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! In the member's speech, she said that the largest climate and environmental budget ever presented came from M, KD, and SD. Let me just say that the Moderates in that budget made a redistribution of 20 billion from the Social Democratic-led government's budget and none of it ended up on environment and climate. Instead, they removed 2 billion from the forest bill that we had submitted in the Swedish Riksdag, they removed the money for energy efficiency and they lowered the fuel taxes. It was, therefore, no climate-friendly change that they made in that budget.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has now long held the lead when it comes to the climate transition. Industrial emissions account for barely one-third of Sweden's emissions. They had decreased by 26 percent in 2022 compared to 1990. We also have an industry that has gone hand in hand with politics and has created new climate-smart processes and innovations, for example fossil-free steel. Industriklivet has been a contributing factor to the new climate-smart industry.

We Social Democrats are investing 500 million more than the SD government on Industriklivet specifically. I become concerned when I hear Moderate representatives from Stockholm and from southern Sweden who do not think that industrial development in Norrland is something to invest in and who question the development of the basic industries in northern Sweden. What this would mean for our Swedish welfare, I do not even dare to think about.

My question to the member is therefore: What is actually the Moderaternas view on the industrial development that we see in northern Sweden?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The bourgeois government currently in power prioritizes differently. We prioritize much more clean, fossil-free electricity, so that electrification can succeed.

I think it is very good that Anna-Caren Sätherberg highlights the fossil-free steel and the development that we see in the north. We Moderates are convinced that it will be needed. Exactly which project will win, I do not think politics should point to; there, the market makes a much better assessment than we will ever be able to do. But the question of fossil-free steel still boils down to whether Sweden is to be a steel-producing country or not. Shall we continue to have the strong industry in Sweden that we have had for so long and which has built our prosperity or not? From the perspective of Fit for 55, that will not be possible if we do not come up with a change here. There are great risks, but from our perspective, it is clear that the green transition in the north and its large contribution to the climate and the transition with fossil-free steel are incredibly important.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It was very pleasing to hear, because one becomes worried when reading debate articles in the media written by well-known representatives of the Moderaterna about that Industriklivet should not invest in the fantastic green revolution we see in Norrland, but that those investments should instead be made in southern Sweden. But I am glad that we have similar thoughts on this.

Madam Speaker! In the previous exchange, the member also raised the question of the climate action plan, which has been spinning around a bit now. Just as in that exchange, we all wonder when it will arrive. A few days ago, the Minister for Climate and the Environment said that it will arrive when she is satisfied and happy. We hope, of course, that she will be when she submits it, but she also has a law to abide by. Satisfied and happy is what one must hope she becomes on the day the law says she must submit it. But now it is getting close to Christmas, and the Riksdag must also be able to begin its handling of this. Tomorrow we have the final meeting here in the chamber, and then the Riksdag is closed.

How do the Moderaterna and the member propose that we should handle this letter when it eventually, hopefully, arrives? It obviously creates some frustration for the members in the chamber of the Riksdag when the climate action plan that we have heard about for a year and a half has still not landed on the Riksdag's table.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! This is a major project. We are making a new attempt at Swedish climate policy based on the commitments in Fit for 55 and how we in Sweden can contribute on a global level. There are incredibly many aspects to include, not least when it comes to the energy supply and how we ensure that we build up the capacity that is required. This applies in particular to the green transition taking place in northern Sweden with the fossil-free steel.

The previous climate policy action plan, which came from Anna-Caren Sätherberg's party and government, was very general. What we know, and what the climate minister has also been clear about, is that the new action plan will be detailed and very clear. It will chart out a completely new direction, and it will be large. This takes time to work out, and I therefore do not believe it came as a surprise to anyone. As Anna-Caren Sätherberg said, there is a law to adhere to, and that is something we will also do.

I would like to return to the fossil-free steel and ask a question back to Anna-Caren Sätherberg about how one plans to create the conditions for it. We know that energy production in the north through hydropower is incredibly important, and it will also be needed there. How does one plan to put together an energy system that works in all of Sweden and, most importantly, succeeds with the electricity supply in the north?

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: It may be seen as a rhetorical question since this was the closing remark in the exchange of remarks.)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Helena Storckenfeldt for her speech. The member began with the forest, and I thought we would remain with that in this exchange of remarks.

We have international commitments which mean that 30 percent of our various areas shall be protected; this applies to forests, limnic environments, seas and so on. We have an EU condition through an EU regulation which means that the forest in Sweden shall sequester 10 percent more carbon dioxide - 4 million tons - by 2030.

At the same time, we see in the two latest national forest assessments that the logging plus the natural mortality in Svealand and Götaland is actually greater than the growth, which should therefore mean that we actually would not be able to extract any forest products. This is very remarkable. How are we to deal with this? How can we use our forest products if we are already depleting the capital instead of just harvesting the interest?

One thing that often comes up is that we build with wood - we are, for example, now in a room where there are many wooden details. The fact is, however, that according to statistics from 2021, it is barely 25 percent of the forest products in Sweden that become long-lived products. 75 percent become short-lived products - they are, therefore, emissions.

My question to the member and the Moderaterna is: Will we only be able to continue to extract timber in the way the member said here? Will we be able to have freedom with responsibility, or must we actually regulate this in some way? How are we to live up to international conventions and environmental laws and at the same time have a forestry industry?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I become a little worried when I hear Emma Nohrén speak about us moving away from freedom under responsibility. It is this that has built up the carbon sink that we actually have in Sweden. What has contributed to the high nature values is that we have given the forest owners and landowners the opportunity to cultivate, care for, and take care of their forest in the way they know best how to do.

There are many parts to address here, but the figure that Emma Nohrén refers to has very natural explanations. It is a high price for timber right now, and this figure does not refer to the entire forest in Sweden but specifically the southern part, where there are smaller forest owners. It is quite natural that they now, when there is a high price on timber, choose to harvest their forest. That possibility must exist so that they can retain their ownership rights and so that we can show that we trust them and see what benefit Sweden's forest owners contribute when it comes to the climate and also our GDP as a whole.

There is not a single forest owner in Sweden who would choose to produce paper over timber, so Emma Nohrén needs to go back, do her homework, and then return to us.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am happy to look at other figures. The figures I have are from Naturvårdsverket 2021 and state that 75 percent become short-lived products, i.e., with a shorter lifespan than two years. I am happy to take part in other figures, but that is the official statistics.

I did not receive an answer to my question about how we are to achieve the 10 percent higher carbon sequestration that we need in our forests in order to comply with the EU regulation. Freedom with responsibility has served us well, but we also see a downward trend when it comes to biodiversity. We see smaller and less continuous forests with forest cores, and we see that we are exploiting the forest more than we actually can. In the two most recent national forest inventories, we simply see that the extraction is greater than the growth. We have rules for replanting, but it takes time before these trees take up as much.

Again: How are we to get the forest to do what we have actually committed it to do? How does the member want us to achieve the EU regulation regarding a 10 percent higher carbon uptake in the forest? Will it, in that case, affect how the forest is managed, in what way the forest is managed, or will it be resolved with business as usual?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! What we have seen in recent years is that we have had a drought, which means that the forest grows less. From our perspective, it is important that the forest continues to be cultivated so that we can create long-lived products that also push back fossil alternatives. That is the absolute most important thing.

A growing forest is also the one that binds the most carbon dioxide. Therefore, it is so important that the forest continues to be managed and that we show the forest owners that we have confidence in them. We know that it became better for the climate, that the carbon sink increased, that the biodiversity improved, and that we saw high nature values when we gave the forest owners this freedom to take care of their own land. It has been done for generations, and there is a knowledge there that I and Emma Nohrén could never obtain here in the chamber.

They know best, and therefore it is best to let them take care of their forest in the way they know is best.

As I mentioned in my speech, there is very clear research showing that we get large climate gains if we continue to manage the forest. We even get even larger climate gains if we manage the forest even more. If we reduce our forestry, it is therefore a great loss for the climate.

For me, it is very clear: Forestry shall continue, and we shall let the forest owners who know how to manage the forest in the best way do so.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats are presenting our own budget alternative which is to be seen as a whole. Therefore, we abstain from taking a position and instead have a specific statement within the expenditure area.

Madam Speaker! The climate is the great issue of our time. The earth is getting hotter and hotter. This year will likely be the warmest year in the world ever, after eight years of new heat records.

Sea levels rise, glaciers melt. Droughts, floods, fires and other consequences of a changed climate are already today hitting hard against people's opportunities for a good life.

In Italy, Algeria, and Greece, fires have raged. People have lost their lives, and many have been evacuated. In Slovenia, bridges and roads collapsed as a result of flooding. In Beijing, there was a rain record with several dead in the downpours. In France, nuclear power plants were shut down so that the water cooling the reactors would not become too hot. In total, this year became the worst year ever for French nuclear power, and for the first time in decades, more electricity had to be imported than exported.

Sweden is no exception. First, it was heat, heavy rain and rapid snowmelt that hit Småland and caused the Torne river to overflow. The drought in May and June affected agriculture in many places in Sweden, and the harvest became much poorer. Downpours hit my home region Åre as well as Rättvik, Gothenburg, Jönköping and many other places in the country, at great costs to society. Västmanland's farmers have been affected by everything - drought, floods not least in Sala and now the African swine fever.

Ordinary people are affected when basements are flooded, when roads and railways are closed, and when insurance costs more. There is so much we need to do so that our infrastructure, our supply capacity, our homes, and our communities can withstand the climate changes that are occurring.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, we Social Democrats are investing 100 million more than the SD government just on climate adaptation.

To overcome the climate crisis, it is also required that we tackle the challenges and together create good conditions in both the short and long term. The climate transition must occur fairly. For us Social Democrats, the class perspective must be included in the design of climate policy, and there we have a lesson to learn. The climate transition must work for ordinary people throughout the country.

When it came to the industry's transition, the Social Democratic-led government made investments in industrial projects such as biofuels, plastic refineries, hydrogen production, recycling plants and battery production.

They also investigated faster permit processes. These are investigations that have been referred and completed but which have been hidden in the minister's desk drawer for a year.

We invested in Klimatklivet, Industriklivet, bio-CCS, biogas support, wetland support, charging stations and the blending of renewable biofuels when we refuel. We invested in the railway and in night trains home to Jämtland and much more.

It is this way that we create today's and tomorrow's jobs. The green industrial revolution that started in northern Sweden is now spreading across the entire country. Therefore, Madam Speaker, we Social Democrats are allocating 500 million more than the Sverigedemokraternas government to Industriklivet. It is this way that we reduce our vulnerability, take our responsibility for emission reductions, and break our unhealthy dependence on fossil inputs.

Madam Speaker! I and Member Helena Storckenfeldt have just returned from COP 28 in Dubai, where many countries including the EU pushed for the issue of phasing out fossil fuels so that no new investments in fossil fuels shall occur.

Here at home, the SD government does the opposite and ensures that the market for fossil fuels improves by, among other things, significantly lowering the proportion of biofuels that are mixed in when we refuel and by lowering fuel taxes.

Over 4.1 million cars with internal combustion engines are driving on Swedish roads. The largest proportion run on diesel. To believe that these are replaced by electric cars within six years is naive.

The government's decision may also result in that the large-scale planned and announced investments in Swedish biofuels are not completed. We want to see more Swedish in the tank instead - both electrification and biofuels.

It also means that in the commitments that the Swedish government has negotiated with the EU, one can no longer use the reduction obligation without having to ensure that Sweden's conditions are met in other ways.

Will it mean a significantly reduced logging of the Swedish forest? Is it agriculture that is going to take the hit? Or is it all of Sweden's taxpayers who are going to pay many billions of kronor in fines?

On that, we still have not received any answers. What we do get answers to in the SD government's budget is that they prioritize increasing emissions.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the climate goals, one does not forget the Moderate Finance Minister's comment about the government's ambition to reach the climate goals: If we don't do it, then we don't do it.

One also does not forget when a Liberal Member of Parliament wrote: I would have liked to see Sweden reach the climate goals by 2030. But it is actually like believing in Santa Claus.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a fantastic and unique nature that is of great importance for biodiversity, people's health, and jobs. The forest is also Sweden's green gold where jobs and climate benefits are created, both as a carbon sink and for today's and the future's fossil-free products.

It is regrettable that the government also does not invest in the protection of and measures for valuable nature in this year's budget. This has serious consequences for biodiversity, outdoor life, the cultural environment, the tourism industry, and people's opportunity to spend time in nature. The large cuts made last year and this year mean that many forest owners have had to wait and continue to wait for their right to compensation when they preserve nature-valuable forest. And across the country, national parks, nature reserves, and hiking trails receive fewer resources. Already this year, we saw how maintenance and measures did not work. What does the government actually want with our nature?

We Social Democrats want more people to go out and discover Sweden's national treasure, nature, but then hiking trails, protection, and other things must function, both for accessibility and for sustainability, for future generations. Therefore, we Social Democrats are investing 530 million kronor more than the government on protection of and measures for valuable nature, and that includes more resources for that very important environmental monitoring.

Madam Speaker! We live in a restless time. Climate change is here and now and hits hard against people's opportunities for a good life in Sweden and in the whole world. Emissions must decrease. Sweden must take its responsibility. Unfortunately, the government's budget bill for the year 2024 does not meet the situation that Sweden faces. And the climate action plan that the minister has talked about for over a year still shines with its absence on December 19.

We Social Democrats want to modernize and transition to a fossil-free Sweden. That is how we can meet the climate challenges, safeguard our welfare, and ensure that the jobs of the future do not disappear to other countries. Sweden, the elongated country in northern Europe, cannot afford to lose the lead in the climate transition. And, Madam Speaker, the question is why we, who have all the opportunities, would want to.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring, Malin Larsson and Sofia Skönnbrink (all S) concurred.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anna-Caren Sätherberg for this speech.

I also followed the news reporting yesterday. It was exciting. There, Anna-Caren Sätherberg appeared with a slightly different tone than the member usually uses. There was very much self-criticism regarding the climate policy that the Social Democratic government has pursued during the previous eight years.

I noted, for example: "We have not pursued a policy that has helped ordinary people to transition." "Ordinary people have had to pay." "Climate policy reinforced inequality."

Madam Speaker! I also noted that a large part of the responsibility for why things went so badly for the Social Democrats with the climate policy during these years has been placed on the Green Party.

Then my question to Anna-Caren Sätherberg is: How will you ensure that Miljöpartiet does not gain more influence over the government? Are the Socialdemokrater prepared to say: No, there will be no "miljöpartister" in a social democratic government base? Or do you intend to make the same mistake again?

The question also becomes: Has Anna-Caren Sätherberg discussed this with Magdalena Andersson? It was not long ago that Magdalena Andersson described the cooperation with Miljöpartiet as absolutely fantastic. She said that it would not have looked like this if Miljöpartiet had not been in the Riksdag and the government.

How does it stand, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, should one have Miljöpartiet in a future Social Democratic government if it were to go that way, or should one keep them out? It didn't turn out so well during these eight years with increased inequality and with ordinary people who faced problems.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for following my press conferences. I think that feels very nice.

Then I can also tell you what else I said at that press conference. I said that Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna together have ensured a reduction in emissions and initiated the industrial transition taking place in Sweden with climate steps, with industrial steps and other measures.

But as a social democrat, I took responsibility for the fact that we had not ensured that the climate policy for households sufficiently leveled the differences and that it became unequal.

But here stand the Sweden Democrats, who belong to a right-wing government that never ever puts forward proposals to level the inequality and to ensure that we get a more equal Sweden. In the budget that we are now discussing, a part of it lies in the luxury route. Who can take part in it? That is where the luxury route lies. Who can take part in it?

It is a bizarre question coming from the right when the Social Democrats take responsibility for the fact that we do not think the climate policy became completely equal, or actually increased the differences between people. But it is the right's lifeblood to increase the differences between people.

The answer is that together with Miljöpartiet, we have ensured that emissions in Sweden have decreased. Together with Miljöpartiet, we have gotten an industry started that is now gaining momentum. Together with Miljöpartiet, we have ensured that very much has happened. But the Social Democratic and Miljöparti government did not monitor the issue of the unequal distribution of the transition to households.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anna-Caren Sätherberg for the answer. It sounds as if the member thinks much more of Miljöpartiet today than the member thought yesterday. And it is good consumer information for the voters that one can count on Miljöparti influence over a potential Socialdemokratin government in the future if it were to go that way. We must hope that it does not become so.

Madam Speaker! I also noted a few other things. When the member was about to explain something that could create more justice, the proposal regarding the travel deduction was brought up, where the Social Democrats put forward a proposal that would reduce the compensation for everyone who has been entitled to a travel deduction. They would receive less money. Then, other groups would also receive money.

This was condemned by referral bodies such as Företagarna, LRF and Svenskt Näringsliv, and even LO criticized it, because the impact assessment showed that practically everyone who was entitled to a travel deduction would be worse off. It is nothing that I perceive as fair. At the same time, it was something that Anna-Caren Sätherberg highlighted as a reform that could have created more justice.

Is it correctly understood that justice regarding travel to work means that everyone who has received compensation should be worse off? That was, in fact, what the consequence analysis showed.

Madam Speaker! I have one final question: In what way does it create justice that Social Democratic Members of the European Parliament have pushed for forced renovations down in Brussels and gone against both the previous Social Democratic government and the current government when this regulatory framework was negotiated at the EU level? If the Social Democrats in Brussels had gotten what they wanted, this could have cost a half million for an ordinary villa family.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the continuation of the questions, Martin Kinnunen!

I hope that all parties occasionally perform an analysis of their policies to see how they have hit. There, we have different starting values – for a Social Democrat, it is to increase equality, and for a Sweden Democrat, it can be something completely different. For the Social Democrats, however, it is important, and we can see that some of our proposals are about increasing fairness.

Among other things, we want to let more people take part in the fuel discount. Who has the greatest need? Yes, it is people in sparsely populated areas and the countryside, and therefore they received the most money. There was also an income ceiling on the fuel discount, because quite honestly: Even though we are to help those who need the car, we shall do it in a way that hits most correctly geographically, in terms of distance, and economically.

What we also agreed on in the Rural Committee was a distance-based travel deduction. It was the Social Democrats, the Sweden Democrats plus all others who agreed – until the next day, when the Moderates dropped out. We agreed because it is distance and not the time saving that should be measured. In that investigation, the Sweden Democrats were therefore in complete agreement with the Social Democrats, but now they are not anymore. Now it is still those in the big cities who are to receive the largest part of this, according to the Sweden Democrats and the government.

What happens when the nursing assistant who commutes to Östersund from Åre, which is one hundred kilometers, is not allowed to participate in this because she travels by public transport? I actually cannot understand the aversion one has toward making this transport-neutral - or toward ensuring that sparsely populated areas and rural areas, which have the greatest distances, benefit the most. For me, it is a matter of justice, and it is a way for the Social Democrats to increase equality.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The climate transition is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We want a policy to be pursued that is ambitious and that ensures Sweden reaches net-zero emissions by 2045. At the same time, we know that it requires an energy policy. It is important that we create conditions for all types of energy, not least for nuclear power. The most important thing is that we actually succeed in rebuilding the fossil-free energy system that has been our success factor and enabled us to succeed in reducing emissions.

We know that electricity needs will double by 2045, but just a few weeks ago, the Social Democrats voted no to new nuclear power in more locations. At the same time, they raise their hands on the question of whether new nuclear power should be built. It is clear which parties understand the extent of our energy needs and which do not. We see the needs, and we will not stop working for what is best for Sweden just because the opposition has not understood the extent of our future electricity needs.

Many different offers have come from the Social Democrats, so I am now wondering if the Social Democrats are beginning to approach a decision. Is one ready to be clear and take a stand on the nuclear power issue?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question, for it is important. It is about what can happen right now, that is to say that Swedish industry chooses to invest somewhere else if we do not expand more power quickly.

The entire industry is saying to the government, to us, and to everyone else that wind power must be expanded. It is said that we must get the renewables that can be built quickly because one cannot afford to wait for the nuclear power that can be expanded alongside. But it does not seem that anyone from the government side is hearing that appeal, given that they still are not picking up the pace.

Helena Storckenfeldt and I were just down at COP 28 in Dubai, where Sweden signed that by 2030 we shall have tripled the renewable - tripled! It will be exciting to see how it is going to happen, but it is clear that we must have a lot more offshore wind power and a lot more of other things if we are to manage the challenge that it entails to triple the renewable.

When it comes to nuclear power: Yes, we raise our hands. Since 2016, we have had an energy agreement that allows the construction of new nuclear power. So, it is nothing strange for a social democrat. On the other hand, the market has not wanted to invest a single krona in nuclear power – if it had wanted to, it would be standing here. No, it wouldn't, because it doesn't go that fast; the horror stories we see show that it takes enormously much longer than the years between 2016 and today. Naturally, that is the case, Madam Speaker. But all possibilities exist.

What I can be sad about is that we had an energy agreement – which is good, because then industry and households know where we are headed – but that the Moderaterna did not stay and renegotiate it. Why does one leave all the agreements that exist?

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I note that the Social Democrats, on the question of nuclear power, choose to spend the majority of the time discussing other types of power other than nuclear power.

We see that many different types of power sources are being expanded, but what is missing in our energy system is precisely the stability that nuclear power can achieve. It is something that few other types of power can actually contribute. Nuclear power has this unique characteristic, and we believe that it should be compensated for. It is something that should not be penalized out, but it is important that it is part of our energy system.

We know that it was political decisions that caused the shutdown. I believe, not only as a political representative for M but also as a citizen, that it would be good if S could be even clearer and say yes or no to nuclear power. I experience that this issue is discussed incredibly much. There are very many excuses that it is about the market, even though we know that it was political decisions that caused the shutdown. It is therefore something I wish for in the future.

I am a bit curious about the self-authored report that the Social Democrats have submitted just recently, in which it has been realized that climate policy has a legitimacy. The transition presupposes, after all, that there is an acceptance of the climate policy. Such a report could be thought to lead to a bit of responsibility on the part of the Social Democrats - and perhaps a bit of self-reflection. But no, in true social democratic spirit, one naturally blames someone else, for example, the Green Party.

My question to Anna-Caren Sätherberg is: What is required for the Social Democrats to finally take some responsibility?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The first thing required is probably that one reads the report. It does not say a word about Miljöpartiet in it, but it says about the Socialdemokraterna. If one wants, as a member, to have opinions on a report, Madam Speaker, I urge the member to perhaps take the time to actually read the report before commenting on it.

The question, however, was whether we are for nuclear power. I have raised my hand: In 2016, we said yes to an energy agreement. We cannot continue with any game of yes or no to nuclear power. That is not what it is about. Before the election, it sounded as if it was incredibly easy to get nuclear power on the ground – now it was supposed to happen – but now I see the desperation of the member because still nothing has happened.

The fact is that new nuclear power will cost money. That is why many of us already before the election said that the market can build if the market wants to. The market has still not raised its hand, but we have said yes if they do. To be honest, I therefore do not know what the argumentation is or what one wants to achieve.

I still believe that what would be best for Sweden is an agreement that is long-term and that makes the industry know that it can invest, that makes the industry trust that Sweden is not conducting quarterly politics but is taking large investments in port, and that makes the industry ensure that we get jobs with fair wages and a fair working environment. It is about our entire base industry, which actually ensures that we produce GDP in this country.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Our area of expenditure spans quite many parts. I will focus on a few of them and go a little deeper into them.

Our absolute greatest competitive advantage in the transition we are currently in the middle of is the forest. Photosynthesis does its job every day – around the clock and all year round – without us needing to do anything. We must truly take advantage of this service. Therefore, Madam Speaker, we must ensure that our forest owners can continue to manage the forest so that we get as much back as possible. We must ensure that we keep meddlesome authorities and the EU as far away from the forest as possible. We have very many regulations that put spokes in the wheels of our sustainable Swedish forestry.

We hear quite often in the chamber that there is a very great trust in the state and what the state should do with the forest. It is however rather the case that we should have much greater trust in weather and wind. Give us a good year with a moderate amount of sun and a moderate amount of rain – that does incredibly much more for growth than what the state can do. Biology beats ideology every single day.

We must be able to manage our forests. We shall clear ditches. We shall develop new tree varieties. We shall fertilize to further increase growth. There are things to do to achieve an even greater sequestration, Madam Speaker, but we must ensure that our forest owners can manage their forests without them risking that someone will come and put a spoke in the wheel.

If we are serious about the transition, we must have something to transition to and something that we push away. The fossil must go. What shall we have instead? The question is: What shall we take if we are not to take products from the forest?

Swedish forest owners do the job together with photosynthesis. Let them continue to do it! Give them the conditions for it!

Another part, Madam Speaker, which we have heard very much about so far in the debate is electrification. Yes – we need more of everything. However, it is the case that the more intermittent power we feed into the system, the more baseload power is needed to balance it. Even here, the laws of physics prevail over all ideologies.

When it comes to electricity production, the government wants more baseload power in the form of nuclear power to meet the increasing future needs. But nuclear power investments are associated with high risk, and therefore the government wants to provide credit guarantees of 400 billion to reduce the risks for investors.

Another central part of the government's budget is the electrification of the transport sector. This year, more than one billion has been allocated to charging infrastructure, and one billion is also being allocated for this for 2024.

Within the electrification part, there is also a large appropriation to support electric heavy trucks and work machines - a total of 4.5 billion over the next three years. An additional 1.7 billion is allocated to support the market introduction of light trucks until 2026. Furthermore, a review of the tax level for low-emission cars shall be conducted. In addition to this, Madam Speaker, two budget initiatives are made in expenditure area 21 which concern precisely permit processes and electrification.

As we have heard earlier, there are members here who have recently returned home from COP 28. There, agreements were made - again - regarding more baseload and renewable power. These two go hand in hand.

The next part, Madam Speaker, concerns the business sector. The business sector is the new environmental movement. Sweden's industry plays a decisive role in society's climate transition, as it drives the development of fossil-free industrial processes. This means large investments in new environmental technology and new infrastructure that create growth.

Effective and predictable permit processes with a high tempo are crucial in order to ensure, among other things, the connection of new electricity production to the grid, the expansion of infrastructure, increased self-sufficiency of raw materials, and more new establishments of industries and companies. In the budget bill for 2024, the government has submitted a number of proposals that provide a good basis for the further work within these areas.

The permit processes need to be shortened and become more efficient and more predictable. Therefore, the government has initiated work to reduce the regulatory burden and the administrative costs for companies. Among other things, the government proposes funds for a simplification council. Additionally, the government is taking measures to ensure that the authorities' processing becomes more efficient and the processing times shorter.

The Government considers it important that the public administration contributes to an increased pace in the industrial and climate transition, among other things by working towards shorter and more predictable permit processes.

To implement decided changes regarding environmental supervision as well as proposed and upcoming changes to the environmental permit process, the Government proposes that the administrative appropriations be increased for the County Administrative Boards, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and the Swedish Courts. The Government has also appointed a special investigator who shall review and submit proposals on how the permit review according to the Environmental Code can be simplified and shortened by making the review more flexible, efficient, and predictable. This is to be done for the purpose of ensuring the business sector's competitiveness, increasing the willingness to invest, and promoting an efficient industrial climate transition, Madam Speaker, which in turn contributes to the climate and environmental goals being reached.

We have heard about the Industrial Leap. The appropriation for this is proposed to be increased by 100 million kronor for 2024 in order to strengthen the possibilities for interventions. The appropriation is estimated to increase by an additional 100 million for 2025.

Within expenditure area 24, the government further proposes to strengthen the work of defining and removing obstacles for the industry's green transition

Another part that I want to highlight, Madam Speaker, is CCS. Sweden has, as is known, decided to introduce a state support system for the separation, capture, and storage of biogenic carbon dioxide through so-called reverse auctions. A state aid assessment of the support is currently underway. The Swedish Energy Agency has been commissioned by the government to conduct reverse auctions once the support has been approved by the Commission. The Riksdag has decided to authorize the government to enter into financial commitments during 2023 that entail a need for future appropriations of up to 36 billion kronor until 2046.

The Government has tasked SGU with investigating suitable sites for carbon dioxide storage in Sweden. The final result is to be reported on March 15, 2026.

The Swedish Energy Agency has been tasked with investigating and proposing policy instruments for CCS and CCU that can contribute to the achievement of the climate policy goals. This assignment is to be reported during the current year. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, it is being reviewed whether it is possible to achieve a reduced energy tax for electricity to be used for CCS.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report. I would like to wish the Speaker, the Speaker's Presidium, the secretariat here, the secretariat of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, and my colleagues in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I intended to ask a question about the forest to the member. Kjell-Arne mentioned in his speech that we should have faith in weather and wind when it comes to the forest's growth and carbon sequestration. I wish that we could all have faith in weather and wind for a long time to come, but we are in a climate crisis. The fact is that carbon sequestration in the forest has decreased in recent years as a result of both increased logging and poorer growth in the forest.

From the Green Party's side, we want to see increased carbon sequestration in forest and land and a strengthened biodiversity. We also want the forest to be managed in a more sustainable way, so that it is climate-adapted and thus more resilient to the changing climate. This also provides better conditions for managing the forest in the long term.

Sweden now has a binding climate goal for increased carbon sequestration in forest and land, but I have not heard anything from the government parties about how they intend to reach the Swedish goal for increased carbon sequestration in forest and land. I would like to know that.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Söderberg, for the question!

It is always fun to talk about forests. What I said in my speech was that in this issue, we should have more confidence in weather and wind than in the state. Favorable weather and wind conditions can do significantly more for the forest than the decisions we make in this chamber regarding the positive aspects of the forest. Then we can, in this chamber, make decisions that truly put a spoke in the wheel of Swedish forestry, unfortunately.

Regarding LULUCF, it is such that if we get a few years with a moderate amount of sun and a moderate amount of rain, we will most likely be home. Then we will get a growth that lives up to our commitments. That gives very much more than the decisions we can make in this chamber.

The reason we have this dip - and as it appears in the national forest inventory, it is indeed a dip - is that we had a dry summer in 2018 with a stressed forest, which in turn led to us having quite a lot of bark beetle infestations. This has caused the growth to have a temporary dip.

Note that the word is temporary. It looks like we have been down and waiting and that growth is now on its way up again. The forest has recovered after the two events with the dry summer and the subsequent bark beetle infestation.

It looks as if the forest manages itself without us being involved and doing much at all. On the other hand, we are of course to go in and take bark beetle-infested trees. We should do that to a significantly greater extent in the forest that the state owns where one chooses not to do so.

Then I had a bit more to speak about regarding resilience. I will have to take that in the next turn.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are in a climate crisis. Sweden has a binding commitment to increase carbon sequestration in forests and land, and the Christian Democrats are relying on the elements. Instead of presenting policies that ensure increased carbon sequestration in Swedish forests, that Swedish forest owners who want to protect their forests receive compensation for it, that Swedish forest owners are given the conditions to achieve a better economy and more business opportunities by managing the forest more sustainably and strengthening biodiversity, the Christian Democrats choose to passively sit on their hands and rely on the elements. This is extremely serious, Madam Speaker.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! That was not a question but a statement. We are certainly not sitting down passively and waiting. What we are doing is trying to remove the regulations that, among others, the Green Party government was involved in introducing. They put spokes in the wheels of sustainable Swedish forestry. We must ensure that our forest owners can dare to continue managing their forests without the risk of the state coming in and taking them. Otherwise, we will not get the managed forest that we so much need.

Madam Speaker! Regarding resilience, we have truly seen it. We do not need to go back so far. Big Brother the state spoke about it being planted again. Then a very large amount of spruce was planted where spruce was not supposed to stand. Then the state pointed with its whole fist and spoke about all deciduous forest being removed. You aerial sprayed to get rid of deciduous forest.

The landowners who did not listen to the state and thought for themselves have today the most resilient forests where they have the best biodiversity. We must trust our forest owners significantly more than we should trust the state in these matters.

It is exactly as I said. Good weather gives us significantly better conditions to manage it than decisions made in this chamber. If we are to do as Elin Söderberg wants and decommission even more forest just to stand as a carbon sink, we will get a higher carbon sink in a short time. But what happens in 20-30 years? Well, then it is ten times worse, Madam Speaker.

Then we do not have the new growing forest which is the one that absorbs the carbon dioxide. Then we have absolutely shot ourselves in the foot. The researchers are also very clear about that. We cannot go the way that Miljöpartiet and Elin Söderberg want. Still, they propose it, Madam Speaker. It is remarkable.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! In a time when the world needs to unite to meet the climate crisis, the parties in the government base disgrace Sweden by lowering the Swedish climate ambitions. With the current development, Sweden reaches neither the climate goals nor other environmental goals. The government also abdicates from global commitments such as the 1.5-degree goal and promises to preserve biodiversity.

Upon taking office last year, the government initiated a draconian policy of cuts in the environmental area. Since then, it has launched a series of measures that drastically increase Sweden's emissions, which it itself admits in the budget bill. When the Minister for Climate and Environment is asked about this, she constantly answers that it is not so important what happens with the emissions until 2030, but that her focus is to reduce emissions in the longer term until 2045.

I do not know whether I should interpret it as the Minister for Climate and Environment deliberately trying to mislead the entire Swedish people or as her being totally ignorant of the mechanisms of the climate crisis. I can only state that such statements run contrary to the research. The fact is that it is most important to achieve large emission reductions in the coming years, otherwise the carbon budget is exhausted, and we have committed ourselves to a warming of two degrees or more.

In this year's budget bill, the government makes a limited number of investments to reduce emissions, including a strengthening of Klimatklivet and expanded climate premiums. Vänsterpartiet welcomes increased state support for the business sector's transition, but the government's investments are too small. Furthermore, the effect is erased when the tax on gasoline and diesel is simultaneously lowered.

This summer's floods in Västmanland, the forest fires in Norrbotten, storm Hans and the landslide in Stenungsund testify to the increased need for climate adaptation. It is about billions of kronor per year. In this serious situation, the government chooses to cut the appropriations for climate adaptation by a third.

It is also remarkable how cuts in the environmental area are presented as investments. For example, it sounds as if an investment is being made in the budget for the protection of valuable nature when the allocated funds do not even suffice to restore what was cut in last year's budget. The money that is allocated to protect and care for nature is far from sufficient to reverse the depletion of biodiversity.

The lack of investments, reforms, and initiatives to transform society is a historical betrayal of future generations and, at the same time, bad politics for our time. When the business sector, civil society, municipalities, and regions prepare to transition, they do so despite the government's climate policy. The right-wing nationalist parties join the shrinking number of governments that alternately ignore and question the climate threat.

Madam Speaker! With a different policy, Sweden would have good conditions to reach the climate goals. Through joint efforts and an active state, we can realize the climate transition. Through investments of 700 billion kronor, Vänsterpartiet wants to ensure that the climate transition is accelerated over the coming ten years. With these investments, Sweden would take a large step towards becoming the world's first fossil-free welfare state.

We want, among other things, to extend Klimatklivet to 2033 and strengthen it to 7 billion kronor per year. We also want to keep the climate bonus for electric cars but reform it so that it can be utilized by those with lower incomes and provide incentives for price pressure on the market. Only around one-third of the new cars in the last year were electric cars. That is an all too low proportion. It is therefore important to continue to support the purchase of electric cars.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to introduce state support to municipalities for climate-adapted and green cities. We want to promote the preventive work to counteract the effects of extreme weather such as floods and heatwaves.

Madam Speaker! A united research community warns that both climate and biodiversity are acutely threatened and that these threats are interconnected. In the Paris Agreement, the importance of countries protecting and increasing carbon stocks and carbon sinks is emphasized. Healthy ecosystems with great species richness are more resilient to the climate crisis. Protection and restoration of natural ecosystems also provide great opportunities to capture and store carbon dioxide.

Compared to the government's budget, Vänsterpartiet wants to invest 1.8 billion kronor more on measures for valuable nature. The money would, among other things, go towards restoration of wetlands and rewetting of peatlands - measures that provide many benefits for the environment and the climate.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to invest in the protection of valuable nature. We include 2.7 billion kronor more for this in our budget compared to the government. The UN's climate panel IPCC states in its latest report that measures to preserve ecosystems are a relatively inexpensive way to reduce emissions.

To safeguard the forest's importance for biodiversity and the climate, a transition of forestry is required. The development for biodiversity in the forest is negative. Threatened species and habitats are decreasing. Forests with high nature values continue to be harvested instead of being protected.

Steering measures and regulations are required to achieve sustainable forestry. The remaining old-growth forests in Sweden must receive long-term protection, and for that, increased state funds are required. With the insufficient resources that the government allocates, many of these forests risk being harvested instead, and many forest owners who want to have their forest protected risk being left without compensation. Irreplaceable natural values are thus lost.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to invest half a billion kronor in research for climate transition. The purpose is, among other things, to use the research to design climate measures that can gain broad popular acceptance.

In total, I and my party allocate more than 11 billion kronor more than the government to expenditure area 20 for the year 2024. I refer to our specific statement.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was big words we heard here from Member Andersson Tay: Sweden should be ashamed, and Sweden is shaming itself. So says the Member, even though we have one of the largest climate budgets, even if one compares it with red-green governments.

It is fascinating to listen to the Left Party's proposal. One invests large sums of money, 700 billion, in climate initiatives over a ten-year period. Those are impressive sums. But it is of course easy to come up with such proposals when one knows that one's budget will not be able to pass. There is not even support among the other parties in the opposition for such a budget – possibly among the Green Party, which itself has presented a fairy-tale budget.

To propose that we should increase the national debt – for that is actually what the member proposes – and also raise taxes and strive for a deficit target in a time like now with high inflation is not to take responsibility.

Now, here before Christmas, many families are wondering how to make their finances work. In that case, increased inflation, which the Vänsterpartiet's policy would lead to, more expensive fuels, and increased tax hikes are of no help.

There is a great deal written about justice in the Left Party's budget motion. Could the member of Parliament explain in what way one contributes to justice with this environmental policy?

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! The parties in the government support do not think we can afford to transform society to reduce emissions and preserve biodiversity, at least not right now.

Then I ask: Can we afford a sea-level rise of one meter or more? Can we afford heatwaves? Can we afford forest fires and floods? Can we afford to be without drinking water or afford for what exists to be contaminated with chemicals that poison us? Can we afford to pollinate all crops by hand because there are no bees or bumblebees left?

Vänsterpartiet is not alone in having understood that state investments are required to manage the climate transition. The USA is rolling out the Inflation Reduction Act, which combats both inflation and the climate crisis through investments.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! As we have said, we are laying a large budget, and we are making major investments at the same time as we are clearing out many of the inefficient measures that were introduced during the previous parliamentary term.

But we also have inflation, and politics is about priorities. The money should not only suffice for measures for the environment and the climate, even though it is incredibly important, but we also have other societal problems that must be combated.

It is also important to have a general acceptance if one is to pursue an ambitious climate policy. I want to ask the member again how one achieves general acceptance when conducting a policy that leads to an increase in inflation, where tax increases reduce the wage room people have left and make it more expensive to transport oneself to work or drop off children. How then does one create an acceptance for their climate policy?

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! Politics is about prioritizing. The right-wing nationalist parties in the government base prioritize that the rich should become even richer and be allowed to continue to acquire more of our common nature and the small emission space we have left.

We in Vänsterpartiet prioritize that everyone should get what they need to live well now and in the future. For us, it is a top priority that people should not have their lives ruined by the climate crisis. In a time when hopelessness is spreading, we prioritize faith in the future.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate the 2024 budget for expenditure area 20 Climate, environment and nature. Swedish climate policy is aimed at ensuring that net emissions of greenhouse gases from Swedish territory pass zero in 2045. Therefore, it is pleasing that, according to the Swedish National Audit Office, no government has been closer to reaching the 2045 climate goals than the current one.

Beyond 2045, we shall have increasing negative emissions. Parts of the industry and parts of the transport sector will, despite the work having started and being carried out at full speed, not be fossil-free until the beginning of the 2040s. It simply takes too long to get new processes and new infrastructure in place.

All transition costs money, at least initially. Therefore, economic growth is necessary to meet the cost. It is countries with poorer economies that fall behind in the climate transition. Therefore, we liberals insist that the climate transition is only possible in a growing economy.

The year 2023 has been an interesting year from a climate perspective, where major steps forward have been taken. The biggest is perhaps that the EU, during the Swedish presidency, managed to get the majority of Fit for 55 across the finish line. We have a long series of new requirements on emission levels and regulatory frameworks, for example a new emissions trading system for shipping and buildings.

ReFuelEU Aviation and ReFuelEU Maritime simultaneously set tough requirements for these industries to reduce their emissions step by step. As a consequence, we need to increase the pace of electrification in road transport since biofuels and e-fuels are needed in aviation and shipping, which have a harder time transitioning.

At the same time as the EU's new regulations arrived, a reduction of fossil fuels eventually was mentioned in the final version from COP 28. It was a first step, but now we need to continue to turn that wording in order to reach the final goal: a phasing out of fossil fuels.

At home, all parties now stand behind the climate goals, and it is an important message of strength from Sweden. The climate transition is an energy transition. Fossil fuels and raw materials shall be phased out and fossil-free energy production shall take their place.

During the year, a number of decisions have been taken in the Riksdag to enable a sustainable mix of electricity production in the form of solar, wind, water, and nuclear power, which together can create a sustainable energy system that can be doubled by 2040. Nuclear power has an important role with its stabilizing function in the electricity system.

It is ironic that the previous government wonders why new electricity production is delayed when they themselves decommissioned four nuclear power plants during their eight years in power. Several of the obstructive pieces of legislation for new nuclear power have now been removed.

In the budget for 2024, we want to continue driving the transition. The transport sector accounts for one-third of Sweden's emissions. Trafikverket points out that every mode of transport must find its own solutions to reduce its emissions, as the shift between different modes of transport only contributes a few percent to the goal.

Since road transport accounts for over 90 percent of domestic transport emissions, the electrification of road transport is a priority area for the Liberals in order to both quickly reduce emissions and free up fossil-free fuels for aviation and shipping.

We need to quickly expand the charging infrastructure. The Liberals see the lack of charging infrastructure as the biggest risk that companies and private individuals will not choose an electric vehicle at their next purchase and that the climate transition stalls. We also need to support the purchase of electric heavier vehicles.

In the budget for 2024, a whole battery of initiatives is made over a three-year period. It concerns 4.5 billion as support for the purchase of electric trucks and electric construction machinery and a new support of 1.6 billion that has been introduced for the purchase of light trucks. At the same time, 500 million is invested in scrapping premiums if one simultaneously purchases a new electric car. An extra support of 5.3 billion focuses on charging infrastructure, electrofuels, biogas production and waste management through Klimatklivet. In total, an extra 12 billion is invested over a three-year period during this mandate period.

To manage the transition of road transport, the production of biofuels also needs to increase significantly. Most important for road transport, however, is electrification, as biofuels and e-fuels have greater value for other modes of transport that are more difficult to transition, for example aviation.

Aviation has an important function for our international contacts and for holding Sweden together. At the same time, aviation's climate transition is underway with full force. Already today, one can fly fossil-free for approximately 300 SEK per flight hour, and the developments within electric aviation and alternative fuels are taking large steps forward. Swedish Heart Aerospace is developing electric aircraft for production in 2028. Production start for electrofuels for aviation is 2027-2029.

To reduce emissions, we are also increasing the support for wetlands by 765 million over three years. The support will be increased to nearly 600 million per year 2026-2030. The investment in wetlands has several positive effects. It contributes to reduced emissions and improves water quality. Wetlands have many different positive effects for biodiversity while simultaneously reducing the risk of flooding and functioning as water reservoirs during drought and fire.

Madam Speaker! If we are to manage the climate transition within the narrow timeframe to 2045, time plays a decisive role. Therefore, the government is investing 123 million during each of the years 2024-2026 to provide the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the county administrative boards, and the Courts Administration with resources to shorten the lead times in the permitting process, with continued environmental consideration. It is an immensely important task so that battery factories, factories for electrofuels and fossil-free steel production, wind and nuclear power, and new power grids can be built at a rapid pace.

It is the companies that create the change, reduce emissions from production and create products with reduced climate emissions. We politicians are enablers and have an important role in setting up the regulatory frameworks, but it is the companies and the consumers who carry out the climate transition. Then we must, in the long term, be able and want to be involved and contribute.

Madam Speaker! I would like to conclude by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I wonder what the member would say is the reason why, in the year 2023, we are closer to reaching the 2045 goal. Could it be due to what has happened before, or does the member mean that the government has done something specific in a year that makes us approach the goal? In that case, I would like to know what it is.

I also wonder how the Liberals think that the 4.1 million cars that currently have internal combustion engines can be electrified so that we reach the transport goal by 2030.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats invest, as I said in my speech, 100 million more on climate adaptation than the SD government does. The drought and the floods this summer are one of the main reasons, as are the fires several previous summers and the heavy rains that hit my home region Åre but also Rättvik, Göteborg, Jönköping and many other places in the country. They caused great costs and hardships for society.

In the special debate on climate adaptation that we had on September 19 in this chamber, Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari said: "The government will soon present an updated national strategy for climate adaptation. In it, we will account for the challenges that we have identified in the work with climate adaptation." This was, therefore, on September 19. My question, Madam Speaker, therefore becomes: When is "soon"?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the questions! There were many. We shall see if I have time to answer them.

When it comes to whether we are closer to the 2045 goal, I believe a very large reason is that the government has cleared obstacles for investments in nuclear power. In the energy agreement that the Liberals abstained from joining because nuclear power was not included, it was stated that by 2040 all electricity production in Sweden would be renewable. That means that after 2040 there should be no nuclear power. But if you remove nuclear power, you cannot manage the climate transition.

The government has removed many obstacles, including changing the 2040 goal from that electricity production should be renewable to that it should be fossil-free. The government has also ensured that nuclear power plants can be built in more than ten locations in Sweden. I believe that is one of the main reasons why the National Audit Office says that we are closer to reaching the 2045 goal than we have been with any previous government.

Regarding nuclear power, it is still the case that we need all kinds of electricity production. We need solar, wind, water, and nuclear power. We are to double production by 2040, and then we do not have the luxury of choosing one type of power but must have perhaps above all wind and nuclear power.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Then we take the question again, so that we do not forget it. It concerns the climate adaptation for which Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari said on September 19 that the government would "soon" present an updated national strategy. My question was when "soon" is.

I know that Member Helena Gellerman is truly passionate about electrification, and I have all respect for her knowledge in the area. I know that it is exactly the path we must take, but it is a bit winding until we reach the very end. We have, after all, 4.1 million cars rolling around with internal combustion engines. Quite honestly, I do not think that either I or Helena Gellerman want to see 4.1 million new cars produced by 2030 to replace that fleet. Other measures will naturally be needed to meet the goals and the emission reductions. That, of course, is about the amount of biofuels that can be produced, including in Helena Gellerman's local area, to ensure that the cars become more climate-smart.

I am wondering, then, when the climate adaptation action plan will arrive. The member thinks just as I do that all types of power are needed, and we know that it is wind and solar that must be expanded now if the industry is to manage it. But since the obstacles for nuclear power are now removed, I also wonder when nuclear power will be in place, Madam Speaker.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I really push for this regarding electrification. Today, over 50 percent of the cars sold are chargeable, and that proportion is increasing. When the climate bonus was removed a year ago, there were many fears that the entire electric car market would collapse. But just as many chargeable cars and electric cars are being sold as a year ago.

We continue and push this out. One can look at the electric car bonus, for example. The price of electric cars has gone down by more than what the electric car bonus was at. It is probably more the general economic situation that makes it difficult, especially for private individuals, to buy an electric car. But I believe that it will ramp up. We will not solve it by 2030, but perhaps 40-45 percent of all cars will be electric-driven by 2030.

We need a solution for the remaining part, and the reduction obligation is a good solution. I believe everyone knows that the Liberals wanted a higher involvement - however, not as high as in the ramp-up that remains for 14 days; it will be too much and too tough for Sweden's inhabitants.

When it comes to the climate action plan and the climate adaptation plan, it is the case that the member's party submitted the climate action plan on December 18, 2019, on the last day of the Riksdag. In this pursuit of when different plans are submitted, I believe the member's party should hold up a mirror and ask themselves: Why did we not submit the climate action plan in 2019 until the last day of the Riksdag?

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the speech on environment and climate. I must catch the last words in the previous reply - it felt like a promise from the member that the climate action plan will arrive on the Riksdag's last day. We have oceans of time until then, so I look forward to that.

As I see it, there are two major challenges within the environmental area: the climate crisis and biodiversity. International negotiations have taken place and agreements have been reached in both areas. But unfortunately, what concerns biodiversity receives far too little attention, I believe. Too little is talked about robust ecosystems and about how we should manage limited and threatened species.

At the beginning of the year, an evaluation of the environmental goals was presented, and unfortunately, it was a rather gloomy reading. The Government itself makes a similar assessment in the texts in the budget. There is not a bustling life in our wetlands, as we desire, and there are dead bottoms in the Baltic Sea. There are not as many small birds now as before. We will not achieve most of the goals, so now action is required.

My question to the member is: What does the government and your party intend to do to meet the environmental goals and increase biodiversity?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. When it comes to the climate action plan, I want to point out that what I said was that the previous government submitted its climate action plan on the last day of the Riksdag. Of course, we will submit it before the turn of the year, because that is what the law says. We have 14 days. What I pointed out was that since September I have been pushing and asking: Will we see that climate action plan?

I share the concern for biodiversity. There was a seminar here in the Riksdag about insects. From SLU's side, there is great concern about the development of insects in Sweden. We do not have a handle on what insects we have in Sweden, which they actually apologized for during the seminar; much more research is needed in this area. It is just one example of the importance of us having a lot of research, so that we know where we stand. It was an interesting setup, I think. With that type of research, for example, one could find out what clear-cuts have for an impact on biodiversity. I truly share the member's concern for biodiversity.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It is therefore clear that the climate action plan will arrive before the turn of the year. It is reassuring that a Liberal says this.

I also participated in the seminar on pollinators and insects. There is a concern regarding this. But the answer is that we should have the opportunity to monitor our nature and our biodiversity in a better way. Now the government is cutting back on those resources. I see instead that we need to change our entire society.

For example, we cannot raise the VAT on certain repairs or significantly reduce the grants for the maintenance of nature or for surveillance. We must work more towards a circular economy and take care of the resources we have. I think it is good to economically favor landowners who want to create wetlands. But in light of climate change, even more resources were needed for biodiversity, because the species that remain have it even tougher when it becomes warmer and drier.

The member's speech was mostly about energy, nuclear power and electrification and very much about looking in the rearview mirror. I am looking forward for our diversity, nature and environment. There we need to do more. We in Centerpartiet want to invest even more in the management of valuable nature. We are allocating over 200 million more than what the government does.

I ask my question once again: What does the government intend to do within environmental policy so that future generations will have an environment as clean as possible and so that we achieve the overall perspective of the environmental goals, namely the generational goal?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. Time flies when one is speaking. I intended to touch upon this regarding wetlands. It is an incredibly important part, and the government is investing a lot of money there. Previously, before this budget, there were 200 million per year until 2030. Now, this government is increasing that investment to up to 600 million. We are, in principle, tripling that investment. We do this because we see that investments in wetlands have such incredibly large effects on biodiversity, as the member mentions, but also on emissions and in the climate adaptation work, which the previous exchange of replies was about. We shall do what we can to avoid major climate problems, but we must also work with climate adaptation.

I agree with the member that we must work much more with the environmental values. That is why, for example, the Baltic Sea is a very important area for us – to ensure that we have a fish stock that is sustainable over time, that we manage algal blooms, and that the fish can migrate up through the rivers from the Baltic Sea to be able to reproduce. We also see that there is very much that needs to be done regarding invasive species. We need to do more to manage this. The problem becomes larger and larger with each passing year, and we must address that issue in the near term.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! In my speech, Helena Gellerman mentions both electrification and permit processes; I wish to dwell on this.

We need a rapid transition of the transport sector to reach our climate goals, both those established by the Riksdag and our binding climate goals within the EU. The member presents proposals for premiums when purchasing electric trucks, a scrapping premium for those who purchase an electric car, and faster expansion of charging infrastructure. We at Miljöpartiet have championed all these measures and also built up support systems while we were in government together with Socialdemokraterna.

But this is not enough. To manage the transport sector's transition, we need, among other things, to replace vehicles from fossil-fueled to electric-powered. We need to streamline the transport sector so that the total energy requirements decrease. And we need to replace the fuels in the existing vehicle fleet.

Now we proceed with all the proposals that remain. But in addition to that, the government parties choose to increase the involvement of fossil fuels in the Swedish transport sector - to increase our fossil dependency and our dependence on oil to volatile oil prices and thereby make us more vulnerable to price shocks.

I would like to see proposals that actually truly reduce emissions and transition the transport sector. Just keeping a few proposals is not a solution.

When it comes to the permit processes, there are completed proposals that this government has chosen not to proceed with. One allocates more resources to some agencies for permit processes; that is good, but completely insufficient. At the same time, however, support for housing construction is reduced, which means that the support for the green transition lags significantly.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for a number of questions! I shall see if I have time to address them.

I am the first to say that I think Klimatklivet and Industriklivet, which the previous government introduced, were good. I think many parts were very positive.

We have, for example, discussed the electric car bonus here. My party, Liberalerna, is actually not in favor of subsidies and support. But given that there is such a time crisis when it comes to getting measures in place to meet the climate, the state must step in and help. In an initial stage when a technological shift occurs, one can provide funds to push companies forward. Therefore, we thought the electric car bonus was okay given that it was initially paid for by the malus part of the bonus-malus system. But when the sales of rechargeable cars are now over 50 percent and the malus no longer covers the bonus, it should be removed. Instead, as we are doing now, one should invest in large premiums to push forward the sales of electric trucks and electric work machines and get that market started.

When it comes to housing efficiency, there are certain things one can do. But when the price of electricity rose dramatically, we also saw that people started doing things on their own, because then it was profitable. Much of this can, therefore, be done and paid back yourself, and there the state should not step in and help.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! There is a series of policy instruments that are being retained, such as Klimatklivet, Industriklivet, and green credit guarantees. Miljöpartiet introduced these in government together with Socialdemokraterna, and they remain. I do not, of course, oppose this.

But the Liberals say that they want to remove the electric car bonus and significantly lower the reduction obligation but do not provide alternative policies that ensure we reach the climate goals, and that is the problem. The effect will be increased emissions, a worsened climate crisis, and increased risks for Swedish households and companies, which will become more exposed to climate-related risks. And this leads to Sweden not reaching the goals established by the Riksdag and the binding commitments we have towards the EU, which means we risk high fines from the EU or enormous uncertainty; agriculture and forestry do not know today whether they will have to make up for the government's climate failure in the transport sector. Here we need clear answers.

When it comes to the permit processes, it is one of three things needed for the green industrial transition. We need faster permit processes, skills supply, and electricity on site now, in the near term. This is not solved with nuclear power eventually at some point in the future, but it is about improved power allocation, energy efficiencies, and rapid expansion of renewable electricity production.

When it comes to the supply of skills, housing construction is completely central for people to move to the relevant locations, build a home and a future, and take the jobs that arise in connection with the green transition. But the government has, on one hand, significantly reduced the support for energy efficiency in the housing sector, which contributes both to becoming less price-sensitive and to better housing, and on the other hand, reduced the support for housing construction, which is a piece of the puzzle when it comes to the supply of skills. It is this that makes the support from the government's side to the green industrial transition significantly lacking.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for further questions! It is difficult to keep up with them.

One thing that the Liberals were very early with was, for example, CCS and CCU. I did not mention this in my speech, because there is much that needs to be done. But with carbon capture, we can collect a very large amount of the biogenic carbon dioxide and either store it or create new fuels, such as e-fuels.

I agree with the member that we need more fossil-free fuels, and in that regard, both biofuels and e-fuels are very important, not least so that aviation and shipping can transition. This is an area where we are pushing so that we can establish a system and the companies, not least Stockholm Exergi here in Stockholm, will dare to invest in carbon capture.

When it comes to the permit processes, this, as I said in my speech, is incredibly important. The time factor is incredibly important when it comes to the climate. If we cannot speed up and get new battery factories in place, we must produce cars with batteries from China, with much higher climate emissions than if we manufacture them in Sweden. It is about fossil-free steel and fuels for aviation. The permit processes are incredibly important. We must shorten them and create parallel processes.

Then I became a bit thoughtful when the member brought up nuclear power. It was, in fact, the member's party that pushed for us to shut down four nuclear power plants during the time the member's party was in government.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Last week I attended the recycling industries' Christmas party. It was a pleasant event, and we were presented with a new report from Kantar Sifo. The headline was Voters' trust in the government's environmental and climate policy. It was a comparison between three actors – the government, the business community, and the EU – and an analysis of what the Swedish people think about these three parties' views on environmental and climate policy. The highest trust was in the EU, closely followed by the business community. Both were around 50 percent. At the bottom of the list, the government came in with barely 40 percent. Those are surprisingly high figures for the Tidö parties, I would like to say, but then one has also asked their own sympathizers.

I personally do not have much confidence in the government – none at all in these matters, I must admit – even though we think alike in many ways. But instead, I am very proud of the EU's environmental and climate policy. There, positions have truly been moved forward, where we in Sweden now need to sharpen our environmental work.

I am, for example, pleased with the agreements on the trade of emission allowances, the Green Deal, Fit for 55, the waste regulation and the packaging regulation, which were discussed yesterday.

What would we have discussed regarding environmental policy in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture without the EU? What decisions have we taken in the Swedish Riksdag recently for an improvement of the environment and the climate? There are not many, I must say. We have, by all means, decided on the reduction obligation, but that rather increases the emissions.

Instead, we have been waiting for a climate action plan. When will it arrive? I have heard many proposals from the government: at the beginning of 2023, before the summer, by the autumn, before Christmas, and most recently perhaps at some point at the beginning of next year. But someone at the ministry realized that it would be inappropriate to break the law, so the latest bid is now before the turn of the year.

Those who wait for something good often wait for too long. The climate issue and the climate crisis are here and now. This cannot be solved some other time or somewhere else. Measures are needed now.

Why does it then take so long? Are the Tidö parties not in agreement on the priorities? Yes, they probably are, despite there having been a press conference about being in agreement on net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. But what happens with the sub-targets, and the interim targets for 2025, 2030, and 2040 and the indicators? Yes, they are being handed over to the Environmental Objectives Council. It is an all-too-simple way to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

It is a matter of truly caring about what the Environmental Goals Commission comes to, and that is something one has not always done historically.

Madam Speaker! During the year and a half that Ulf Kristersson has been Prime Minister, the government has made decisions that collectively increase climate emissions, and this budget goes in much the same direction. You are cutting back on the expenditure area, and that also affects climate, environment, and nature. It is also visible in the government's own assessments.

You have surely seen the table for the milestone targets. There are many goals there that are not achieved, for example, a long-term emission target for 2045. It is not achieved. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the ESR sector for 2030 and 2040 is not achieved. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport for 2030 is not achieved. Reduction of national emissions of air pollutants for 2025 is not achieved.

There are also several points that are a bit uncertain. What is achieved is, of course, good. It concerns pharmaceuticals in the environment until 2030 and stormwater management in different ways. It is achieved, and it is good.

But, Madam Speaker, how would it have looked if the Centre Party had been allowed to decide? I will first say that we do not stand behind the government's budget. We instead have our own budget proposal to be seen as a whole, and therefore we have no own motion here. I refer instead to our special statement.

Yes, if we had been allowed to decide, it would have looked absolutely different. In our budget proposal and through our environmental policy, a people's movement for the climate, we give everyone an opportunity to participate in the green transition, not least the rural residents who are dependent on the car. To be able to afford to switch to a more climate-friendly car, Centerpartiet wants to introduce a new climate bonus. This applies to electric cars in the lower price range, new and used, and additionally for used hybrid or gas cars. The bonus would be around 50,000 kronor and apply to cars that cost less than 400,000 kronor. Our climate bonus is significantly simpler to apply for, 20 times more extensive and significantly better than the scrappage premium that the government proposes.

We also want to ensure that we accelerate domestic production of biofuel with our proposal "tanka svenskt" (refuel Swedish), a model that lowers the price of biofuel and adjusts fees and taxes linked to the reduction obligation. In this way, greenhouse gases are kept down.

In the report that I mentioned initially, there is great confidence in the business sector. And I can understand and agree with that. Today, Swedish industry is in many ways ahead of politics in the climate transition. This involves, for example, investments in fossil-free steel, battery factories, reduced methane emissions within the meat industry, new protein sources, biofuels, and electric aviation.

Madam Speaker! We would also have invested in even more support for the business sector's green transition. Climate policy must create the conditions to shift up to the next level. This requires that politics does its part when it comes to complementary investments, conditions for a functioning domestic market, incentives, and necessary regulatory simplifications.

We therefore prioritize in our budget proposal to further strengthen the successful Industriklivet, which is the primary instrument for supporting the industry's climate transition. We also welcome that the government, in line with the Centerpartiets previous proposal, now wants to strengthen the charging infrastructure and extend the climate bonus for trucks initiated by Centerpartiet.

Madam Speaker! In the Center Party's proposal, we also invest over 200 million more than the government on the management of valuable nature. Unfortunately, we saw that the government significantly reduced the appropriations last year, and even in the coming years, it looks tough to take care of outdoor life and maintain all nature values around our country.

The county administrative boards of the country responded to a survey in the autumn that there are many work tasks that will not be able to be carried out during the coming year due to the government's deprioritizations. The resources are simply not sufficient to take care of heathlands, meadow hayfields, restoration of nature, nature conservation clearing, and control of invasive alien species. We want to change that.

Part of the work is to maintain living environments and functioning ecosystems, and that requires continuity and long-term perspective. The nature reserves and national parks that exist are valuable for biodiversity and for people's opportunity to get out into the forest and the countryside.

Biological diversity is strongly linked to climate change. For example, we see that certain invasive species increase as it gets warmer. One such example is Canadian goldenrod, which risks threatening native vegetation as it becomes warmer and drier. These species have spread significantly, especially in southern Sweden, during recent years and are a major concern for biodiversity because they crowd out other plants.

Centerpartiet also believes that we should make better use of people's ability to help and contribute to increasing biodiversity. It is about informing and letting people who are out in the forests and fields help with identifying and removing plants that do not belong in our ecosystems.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that this government does not have environmental and climate issues at the top of the agenda. The Centre Party prioritizes differently than the Tidö parties. We are investing in the green transition of the agrarian industries with over 100 million kronor more than the government, we are investing even more in the management of valuable nature, and we have numerous proposals for a circular economy. Our prioritization of environmental issues applies at all levels - in the EU, here in the Riksdag, in the regions, and in the municipalities.

Madam Speaker! My wish list for Christmas and for the government is:

Favor companies that want to invest in the green transition!

Ensure that circularity is promoted, so that there are plenty of sustainable packages under the tree!

Prioritize the environmental and climate policy, so that we can be proud Swedes in the international negotiations!

And dear Santa, the climate crisis is here and now. Therefore, a good climate action plan is needed immediately. Do not let the Easter Bunny be responsible for the delivery!

With this, I wish you all a very Merry Christmas.

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

Beatrice Timgren (SD)

Madam Speaker! Our vision is an ambitious and simultaneously effective climate and environmental policy that benefits all citizens and companies' opportunities to act and conduct business throughout our country. We strive not only to maintain but also to strengthen our efforts for nature conservation, preservation of biodiversity, and strengthening of our ecosystem services at both national and international levels.

An area within this report that I want to highlight concerns our reinforced management of harmful chemicals. The Government has increased the appropriation to Kemikalieinspektionen, which enables intensified supervision of chemical products and pesticides. The increased budget capacity is crucial to ensure a higher level of protection, especially in a time when the growing direct import via e-commerce entails new complex challenges.

An enhanced cooperation between the Swedish Chemicals Agency, the Swedish Customs, and relevant EU authorities has played a central role in this work. Through this cooperation, we can more effectively monitor and regulate the international trade with chemical products, which is crucial for protecting the population against risks.

A thorough review of e-commerce during 2022 revealed that a significant proportion of products in areas such as electronics, jewelry, and toys had serious deficiencies. This insight reinforces our commitment to strict surveillance to protect our citizens from dangerous substances.

Our work to reduce the occurrence of pharmaceuticals and microplastics continues.

We are now actively addressing previous insufficient measures against invasive alien species. According to a report from the Swedish National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen) in 2022, the previous government's actions against these species have not been successful. Invasive species pose a significant threat to our unique biological diversity, and to meet this growing challenge, we have decided to increase our appropriation to combat invasive species. Through the increased funding, we demonstrate our firm commitment to actively preserving Sweden's rich natural heritage and protecting it from negative impacts.

Let me finally underline that we are simultaneously balancing our economic responsibility with an ambitious environmental and climate policy. We are firmly committed to acting economically responsibly - without increasing the national debt or contributing to further inflation. By carefully weighing every investment and expenditure, we ensure that measures within environment and climate are not only effective but also economically sustainable.

I would like to take the opportunity to wish everyone a Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf and Mattias Eriksson Falk (both SD) concurred.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must thank my colleagues for the lozenges and hope that my voice holds.

Today we have a debate on the government's climate budget. In the appendix to this budget, it clearly states that as a result of decisions made between July 1, 2022, and July 1, 2023, emissions are estimated to increase by 5.9 to 9.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents by 2030.

Today I have held a press conference where we from Miljöpartiet clarified that these are seriously misleading figures. The cumulative emissions resulting from the decisions made between these points in time are, in fact, up to 50 million tons. It is the sum of emissions over time that counts.

So, it is calculated that the emissions in 2030 will be approximately 6 to 10 million tons higher than they would have been if the policy that was in place before Miljöpartiet left the government had continued. But as a result of the decisions that the Tidö parties have made, the emissions will therefore increase by nearly 50 million tons until 2030. These are emissions that will warm us for hundreds of years to come.

I expect the government, in its upcoming climate action plan, to both clean up regarding the extremely large emission increases and deliver measures to ensure that Sweden reaches its parliament-ratified climate goals and our binding commitments within the EU.

The climate transition is about avoiding risks to people's lives, health, and property. Climate adaptation work is also an important piece of the puzzle to ensure that we are a robust country and that we are strongly equipped for the changed climate that awaits.

Today, members from the government parties have received questions about when the climate action plan, which according to law is to arrive before the turn of the year, will arrive. We have not yet received clear answers. The government parties have also received questions about when the climate adaptation strategy that the government is to present is expected to arrive. We have not received any proposals there either.

The climate crisis is the defining issue of our time, said the Moderate Party member. But instead of presenting a climate action plan and a climate strategy, one has presented measure after measure that increases greenhouse gas emissions and worsens the climate crisis. And in the budget, funds have been phased out for central authorities' work on climate adaptation to protect society from the consequences of climate change.

From the Green Party's side, we view this with the utmost seriousness. We want to drive a climate transition that ensures we protect the entire country and all activities from the risks of climate change. We also want to seize the opportunities that the climate transition entails. It is about ensuring that there is a strong positive societal development in the entire country thanks to a green transition.

(Applause)

In this speech, Emma Nohrén (MP) agreed.

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! Nature and water are close to the hearts of Sweden and those of us who live here. The vast majority of us have a close relationship with the sea, the lake, or the watercourse. Sweden has one of Europe's longest coasts and many lakes and watercourses. We are neighbors with the land of a thousand lakes. We are spoiled with water in abundance both in the glass and around us. But, as with much else, our water must not be taken for granted.

Madam Speaker! We have goals for the work to improve the quality of our water. One of these goals is the environmental quality objective No eutrophication. Perhaps eutrophication, as we do not want to see it, is most well-known in the Baltic Sea, where the algal blooms are easy to see on a warm summer day. An excess of the nutrients phosphorus and nitrogen in the water in the Baltic Sea causes eutrophication and algal blooms. The extent of oxygen-poor and oxygen-free bottoms is now the largest ever measured.

In Sweden, good and solid work is already being done today to counteract eutrophication, but it is not enough. We need to do more. The government is therefore investing an additional 158 million kronor next year in the protection of the Baltic Sea and other watercourses, which means 1.4 billion in total.

Madam Speaker! The government's investments in the Baltic Sea are in expenditure area 20, which we are debating today. The government sees the challenge of how our waters are developing and thus invests an additional 158 million kronor next year on measures for better quality in seas and waters. These are funds that can be used to restore and protect water and marine environments.

Increased resources for local water care projects with so-called LOVA grants can be mentioned. There, for example, landowners and farmers can receive support and advice on how they should reduce nutrient leakage from their operations and on how phosphorus ponds can be constructed and liming against acidification carried out.

71 million kronor is invested in protecting more marine and water areas, which is an important tool in the work for a good environmental status in seas and waters. 50 million kronor is invested in restoring and improving waters where the environment is negatively affected and 37 million kronor on other measures for the marine environment, including countering eutrophication.

Madam Speaker! Restoration or rewetting of wetlands reduces eutrophication. The Government is therefore investing 155 million kronor in the rewetting of wetlands. The initiative on wetlands shall contribute to reduced emissions, improved water quality, and biodiversity. Wetlands also reduce the risk of flooding and strengthen the landscape's protection against drought and fire.

In summary, Madam Speaker, we see several of the government's initiatives in expenditure area 20: more water areas are protected, more watercourses are restored, and more wetlands are rehabilitated. These are initiatives that together aim to counteract eutrophication in the Baltic Sea to an even greater extent.

Merry Christmas to you all!

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johanna Hornberger, for the speech! This is a subject that we both share an interest in, so I could not help but take the floor.

It is good that the government is investing in these things. At the same time, they removed over 300 million from the appropriation last time. Now it has been restored a bit, but almost 200 million is still missing compared to 2022. But the measures that can be taken should be taken. It is good.

We need to have measures on land and in coastal areas where we will tackle eutrophication and other environmental pollutants. The only other thing I have seen from the government in this area is that the coastal protection is to be reformed or, in many cases, removed, which is one of our absolute best environmental laws and which ensures that we have a protection around the shores, which are growth environments and which buffer when it comes to these things.

In biology, we talk about bottom-up effects and top-down effects. It is about the emissions in a part. We have the algae that can take up the eutrophication, but at the other end, we have the top predators and large fish. A healthy ecosystem has better resilience against this, and if we have large fish in the sea, we also have better resistance against, for example, eutrophication.

This is a scarce resource in the Baltic Sea today. We have seen that the herring stocks are so small and in such poor condition that the commission proposed a zero catch. Despite this, the minister came home with what he thought were happy news that we are to continue fishing, albeit not as much. He said it was to save small-scale fishing. However, the very largest part will be pulled up by the large industrial trawlers.

My question to the member is therefore: How does the government ensure that the fishing quotas that are now coming will go to specifically small-scale fishing for human consumption?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! We debate fishing quite regularly, and I share the Minister's joy that we have managed to reduce the quotas on herring fishing in the Baltic Sea through the negotiations that took place in the autumn.

It is common knowledge that we need to have a negotiating opportunity in the EU in order to be able to influence fishing. If we had not taken the position that we did, we would not have had the opportunity to, as we did now, bring down the quotas in a good and stable way for the future.

At the same time, a proposal was secured that includes a safeguarding of small-scale fishing and the quotas for them. If the Commission's proposal had been hammered through, it would have been the opposite, that they would have been left completely in the shadows.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer! It might have been impossible to come down to a zero quota. The reason the commission chose to proceed with having no fishing at all on herring was that it was seen that the stocks have over a 5 percent risk of crashing even without fishing. The stock is thus in such poor condition now that even without fishing, one is actually not certain that there is a sufficiently large spawning biomass, i.e., enough that can reproduce.

The rule that the Commission hung this on is called Article 4.6. It is very serious. It is a brake. If it turns out that with the multi-annual fishing plans that exist, the goals are not achieved, one might perhaps need to pull the emergency brake because the stocks are in such poor condition. But instead of learning from this, the Commission and the Fisheries Council now instead want to remove the article. It seems to be fast-tracked right now. We found out today that this will be brought up in Coreper on Wednesday.

I have two questions. Will the government work to ensure that the article is not removed in this rapid manner, without any deliberations with others, and fight for it to remain as the safety valve it is? And again: How will the government ensure that the quotas we have negotiated actually go to small-scale fishing and not to the industrial trawlers?

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

Johanna Hornberger (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you again, Member, for two very good questions!

We can start by agreeing that scientific advice is important in the work being done to set quotas for all seas and waters, but above all for the Baltic Sea. The Moderates have worked for the scientific advice and for ICES to be able to have better conditions to provide their advice. Therefore, a process has been started in this direction regarding, for example, the size of the stocks and age structure. We look forward to this continuing.

Regarding the concern and discussion surrounding Article 4.6 that the member brings up today, it has come to my attention that there are different assessments and interpretations of this rule. In light of the negotiations that have taken place, it is perhaps good that this is now being reviewed to see what it will entail. I must refrain from commenting on the outcome of this, as I do not know it yet. We can, however, state that it became an issue during the negotiations and that it is now being addressed.

In my response, I also want to take the opportunity to advocate for science. It is, after all, that which we should base our advice on, and it is based on that we should decide on our quotas.

Then I received a question about small-scale fishing, which has long been close to the Moderaterna's hearts. I can only state that securing the conditions for small-scale fishers has been one of the pillars in the government's quota negotiations in the EU during the autumn.

I thank the member again for the questions.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker, members of the Riksdag, the Swedish people! We are experiencing a climate crisis right now, with more natural disasters as a consequence. We see storms, droughts, and overheating, but also extreme weather, which leads to people being hit very hard. In the summer of 2023, we saw record-high temperatures. In the EU, Spain and Portugal experienced scorching heat. The Nordic countries also experienced extensive extreme weather this year, especially the storm Hans which swept through southeastern Sweden in August, floods in several places in the country, and landslides that have reminded us of the extreme weather and climate changes that are hitting the world right now.

This year's climate summit, the outcome of which my group leader Anna-Caren Sätherberg creditably described, became once again a testimony of the most vulnerable countries in the world. These are countries that risk perishing as a consequence of global warming.

Climate is therefore rightly one of the political areas that evokes the greatest engagement in Sweden, not least in rural Sweden, and which worries many in the Swedish people. For ordinary people, it is questions concerning how everyday life is disrupted that cause worry. It is about floods – what happens to my basement or apartment if the house is affected. It is about turbulent prices for fossil energy. It is about heat, avalanches, climate anxiety, and a cost crisis.

At the same time, there is a great willingness to transition among the Swedish people. 86 percent are prepared to change their own lifestyle, shows an opinion poll that TV4 has commissioned. That is good, but it is also a call to politics to help and make the transition fair.

Contrary to what would be needed, the government's policy in this area is lamentably limited, unclear, and regressive. Climate tools such as the reduction obligation are being weakened. Support for climate adaptation is being reduced. Climate goals for 2030 are being questioned. At the same time, researchers point out that the coming years up to 2030 are the most important if we want to meet the Paris Agreement.

But the government is currently most interested in reducing the ambition. They also want to chatter about how efficient they are. Finding catchy slogans seems more important than getting the job done. It is about efficient climate policy, we are constantly told by the Minister for Climate and Environment. But it is difficult to understand what is efficient about postponing the work. It becomes, on the contrary, very inefficient. It is also a great betrayal when the politics gives walkover in our time's great transition.

The climate action plan is an important tool to concretize, coordinate, and clarify how Sweden will succeed with its climate policy goals. The latest climate action plan that the social democratically led government decided on in 2019 contained descriptions of measures that the government at that time considered necessary to succeed. It concerned a cross-sectoral level and various emission sectors with a particular focus on the transport sector. But now we hear nothing. What is the climate action plan actually supposed to contain, and when will it be presented? Will it be on Christmas Eve? Then we must hope that there will be good Christmas presents in the climate action plan because they will be needed.

Merry Christmas!

(Applause)

Climate, environment and nature

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

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

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