Climate, environment and nature

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Before I begin the debate itself, I would like to say thank you for the flexibility in the speaking list and thank my colleague Martin Kinnunen, who let me switch places with him. Sometimes things get tangled up.

Expenditure area 20 Climate, environment and nature is perhaps the most important expenditure area, at least in my opinion. I am therefore very happy that I was given the opportunity to debate and perhaps also answer any potential replies.

The area is therefore called Climate, Environment and Nature. That includes, of course, also biodiversity, the ocean, and everything around us that constitutes the prerequisites for life on Earth. We know that, and we know at the same time that all these parts are currently being destroyed by us humans.

I enjoyed myself, Mr. Speaker, earlier today by looking at NOAA's site. It is, therefore, the American agency that handles these matters. Their climate page was terrible to see. It showed various phenomena that have occurred this year around the world that can be related to climate change and the impact of us humans. In just the last few months, there have been six different hurricanes and typhoons in the Philippines caused by human impact. Nor here in Europe have we escaped this. In Germany at the end of October, over 220 people lost their lives, and researchers have shown that it was human activity that drove what happened. What we do when we emit greenhouse gases affects everything.

It is often said that this way of talking about climate change fuels a fear and that we are crying that the wolf is coming. It is said that we have time. But, Mr. Speaker, the wolf is already here in many places. We notice it even here in Sweden.

Say that the wolf has not yet come to the Sami who must supplementary feed their reindeer! Say that the wolf has not come to those who have lost their loved ones in Spain! Tell those in the Philippines who have damaged and destroyed houses that the wolf has not come! Tell those people in Namibia who are experiencing the worst drought ever, which has persisted for several years! 48 percent of Namibia's population is dependent on food from FAO due to the drought. So the wolf is here, but we all have the opportunity to make it diminish and ensure that its impact occurs as slowly as possible.

According to our own NOOA, SMHI, the average temperature on Earth last year was 1.48 degrees above the normal. It is very close to 1.5 degrees. The world's oceans are 0.4 degrees warmer than they should be. We have signed a lot of international agreements that we will do everything we can to halt the temperature increases, reduce emissions, and keep the temperature increase as far below 1.5 degrees as possible. We often talk about that we are to reach the 1.5-degree goal, but it is rather that we are to be below it. It seems, however, Mr. Speaker, that we reach it already this year when we summarize in a couple of weeks.

We know this. It is a fact. We know what we have to do. We are to reduce emissions, and we must do it quickly. Every ton of carbon dioxide that has not been emitted helps. This is a global matter; what we do in Sweden affects the seaweed farms in Zanzibar.

Still, we have a government that does exactly the opposite. It steps on the gas. With full confidence, as has been discussed in other matters, the government increases emissions when we should be reducing them.

If one summarizes the government's budget, Mr. Speaker, and adds up what is called climate investments, one sees that it amounts to approximately 0.78 billion. That is good, and it is fine. But the government also has 4.78 billion that go towards directly bad investments for the climate, for example, reduced tax on petrol and diesel, removed malus for motorhomes, abolished aviation tax, and so on. The government simply does the opposite and puts its foot on the gas when it should put it on the brake.

We see the same thing, Mr. Speaker, in other parts that this includes. It concerns biodiversity, ocean policy, and nature policy. When it comes to measures for protected nature, the National Audit Office has issued a report where they actually, for the first time as far as I know, point out that the budget funds are insufficient. The National Audit Office is not supposed to deal with money, but here they could not avoid pointing out that we will not meet the set goals if there is not more money.

When it comes to environmental monitoring, it has been like this every time during this mandate period, and we still see that there is too little money. It is simply the thermometer we have to see which measures work, where interventions were needed, and how things stand in our nature. What we need to be able to make policy, the backbone, as it is often said, the government has broken. We know that several of the research series that have come monthly have been thinned out, which means that we do not have as stable a basis.

In the coming days, the forest investigation will be released. The proposals that have leaked suggest that they want to reduce the time after a logging notification has been made until a forest owner is allowed to log without anyone having conducted an inspection, from six weeks to ten days. Now we will see if this proposal is included. It is said that this is because they want to prevent people from going out and finding species. When it comes to these found species, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that if we do not know what is there, we also do not know whether it is worth preserving or not.

We know that we are heading towards a sixth mass extinction. Biodiversity is declining. We need to protect nature, and we need to do it soon. We should have a better policy for it.

There is an initiative that the government often beats its chest about. Besides the "brave courage," there has been a lot of talk about eggs in baskets. There is at least one basket with this government, and it has been Klimatklivet. It is a Green Party invention that we pushed through together with the Social Democrats when we sat in government.

Now it turns out that although this government has added funds for Klimatklivet, it has reduced the authorization framework. This means that Naturvårdsverket has stopped the tenders that existed and now only has short-term tenders because it is seen that one does not have the funds or the possibility to carry out multi-year projects.

Mr. Speaker! If the Green Party's budget had passed, we would have invested in this, reversed the trend and ensured that there was a policy that provided both hope for the future, inspiration for others, hope for the environmentalists and climate activists out there, and not least hope for future generations.

Unfortunately, that is not the case, and the Green Party, as the Speaker understands, has a budget framework that exceeds the one submitted by the government. That is why we have a separate statement, and those who are more interested in what initiatives we have there can read it.

With that, I would like to take the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas to the Speaker's Presidium and to my colleagues. Thank you for the good cooperation!

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet does not surprise anyone with its budget motion. Very many initiatives are made to introduce restrictions in forestry and to protect more land from the wicked landowner.

Emma Nohrén speaks about a sixth mass extinction. I want to be clear: It does not apply to Swedish forests. The species we find there now are there precisely because of the responsible management of the forest that our landowners have carried out for generations.

My question to Emma Nohrén, Mr. Speaker, is: What does the Green Party actually have for a view of the individual forest owner in Sweden? 70 percent of Sweden's area is covered by forest. We have just over 300,000 forest owners in Sweden. As I mentioned, they have managed their part of nature for several generations. Does the Green Party have any trust at all in the landowners, or do you assume that everyone is a malicious capitalist who does everything to deplete the land one walks on?

I believe we agree that we should protect nature of conservation value. But there are countless cases where landowners have created excessively high nature values, if that is even possible, in their forest in order to subsequently have it more or less confiscated. I wonder if Miljöpartiet sees any problems at all with the fact that we have legislation and administrative practice that allows this.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helena Storckenfeldt, for the question! Now I have the opportunity to elaborate on our policy regarding the forest area.

No, we do not think that forest and land owners are malicious. I am one myself, so in that case, I would probably have horns here. On the other hand, I see that the forest I have inherited has very large problems in many parts because it is marked by clear-cutting. There are one-sided stands in many places, and it is difficult to create these values.

We want to see a transition to more nature-oriented forestry. We still want to extract biomass from the forest. But we also want that which is protected to be protected and that those who have these values on their land shall receive compensation for it. That is one of the problems now: One does not receive compensation. One has set aside their forest, and then the money bag is empty. Here we have an error that the government must rectify. There are very many who have taken their responsibility and want to make these efforts but then do not receive compensation for it. This system must be redesigned.

Even though I have a fairly good overview of my forest and other forests, I do not know exactly what is everywhere. I would be very happy if, for example, a three-toed woodpecker were to appear in my forest, because then I know it is good. As an owner, one has a responsibility according to the Forestry Act to know what is there and to do the best one can with it.

To answer your question: No, we think that one should utilize, but in a sustainable way. We believe that what should be protected should be protected. There must also be measures for valuable nature so that it retains its value. Those who have agreed to voluntary set-asides and other things shall also receive compensation for it so that one does not risk economic values because one has taken care of their forest and created good environmental values.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Emma Nohrén speaks about extracting biomass. However, it is very clear that there is no profitability in the alternative methods that are being discussed. Otherwise, it would have already happened. There is a reason why our forestry looks the way it does today. There is also a reason why it is not in the forest that we have our most endangered species.

In the forest, the biological diversity is just getting better and better right now. There is more and more dead wood and more birds. If Emma had supported herself solely on her forest, she might not have been as happy about that three-toed woodpecker, because it could mean that she would be very limited in how the forest is allowed to be managed and how future generations are allowed to manage it.

There are very many parts I would like to raise in the Green Party's budget motion. One of the parts is about money, of course. As usual, money is raining down on the Green Party that no one really knows where it comes from. My last question to Emma Nohrén and the Green Party is: Which taxes are to be raised to balance this budget? Is it the pensioners, the small business owners, or the midwife who is to pay? Or is it once again placard politics such as the plastic bag tax or more aviation tax that applies?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I believe we could talk for a very long time about the forest, but now I received another question that I also want to answer.

We have the same reform space as the government. However, we see that we need to borrow money to manage the transition here and now. The longer we push it ahead of us, the more expensive it becomes. Therefore, we have a budget where we borrow 100 billion per year. That is what we went out and said in the election, and that is what we still have. A large part of the investments are such as infrastructure for trains, to be able to protect nature, and to do things that provide lasting value. That is what the money goes to. But the reform space is the same.

However, I believe there are quite a few taxes where we would like to adjust things.

I amused myself by looking at DN's spin which showed how much less tax one will have to pay next year thanks to your government. As a high-income earner, I would get almost 2,000 kronor, while my husband who works in the municipality would get barely 280 kronor. I therefore get seven times more because I earn very much more - however, not seven times more. I think this is an unfair distribution and something that this government is doing wrong. If we come into government, we will change it so that it becomes a more just tax system, where the polluter pays in the parts where it concerns the environment.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the speech, even though there was very much in it that I do not agree with. The wolf is coming, Emma Nohrén said several times. Unfortunately, it has arrived a long time ago and in far too large a number.

But it is not wolves I want to discuss today, but something that I had intended to take up in my speech. However, Emma Nohrén will have left the chamber by then, so I choose to take it in a reply.

We often hear about the status of the Swedish forest, just as Helena Storckenfeldt pointed out, and that it is there that we have the great loss of biodiversity. The latest reporting according to the Habitats Directive, however, shows that it is not there that we have the great loss of species, or rather many endangered species. Rather, that is where we are: We have no loss of species, but we have many species that are rare in certain parts. No, it is on meadows and pastures that we have the most endangered species.

Then one can ask why that is. The most likely reason, Mr. Speaker, is probably that so many meadows and pastures are growing over. I can only look at my own municipality. 30 years ago, we had approximately one hundred dairy farmers in Årjäng municipality. Now we have, if I am not completely mistaken, four left. We therefore have significantly fewer farmers and thus very many fewer grazing heads of cattle.

Is it the case that this does not fit into the Green Party's narrative and that is why one continues to fight over the forest? It is the forest that gives rise to emotions. If we are to have and restore grazing lands, we need to have more grazing animals. We need, among other things, to have more cows, and that goes against the Green Party's fight against grazing animals and red meat. Is that how the one-sided focus on the forest should be interpreted?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Kjell-Arne Ottosson!

I believe that Kjell-Arne Ottosson has misunderstood our policy. We want biodiversity both in forests and in pastures thanks to grazing animals. Nature-grazed meat is something we absolutely think we should have more of.

Just the dairy cows, which the member raised here, usually graze closest to the farm. It is the young animals that are perhaps out on nature grazing lands. It is primarily the beef cattle that keep the lands we are talking about now open.

If there is anything that has been seen as a result of this government's budget, it is that the protection of valuable nature and tradition has disappeared. In Västra Götaland, my home region, the Västkuststiftelsen, which receives its money from the County Administrative Board, has gone from receiving 120,000-125,000 kronor to 25,000 kronor per nature reserve with this budget. This means that they have not been able to operate with scythes and have not been able to have animals out on the islands as much as they would need to. They have simply had to terminate certain parts.

This is also connected to climate change, because due to climate change, much of the overgrowth is increasing. We see that moss and other things grow year-round now in many parts of the coastal zone, while grass must have plus five degrees to grow. This means that greater efforts are required now. At the same time, the government is pulling the rug out from under just those pastures that we need to have and for the traditional lands. It is probably the government that needs to do its homework and not Miljöpartiet.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the answer.

We generally do not have a lot of nature reserves and foundations all over Sweden that ensure we have biodiversity. We have individual landowners all over the country who ensure that we have biodiversity. It is they who really do the big job. That is why the government is constantly working to strengthen the individual farmer and make it easier to be a farmer. Work is being done to strengthen profitability and competitiveness so that we can have more farmers and in that way be able to have grazing lands everywhere. That is where the work is done.

The member of the board said in a previous exchange of remarks that she would be happy if a three-toed woodpecker appeared in her forest. That is not a problem to fix, I can inform you. One simply has to go into Artportalen and report it. Whether the three-toed woodpecker is there or not, we do not know. But unfortunately, Madam Speaker, today we see how activists travel around in forests and look for species that they report to Artportalen. This then forms the basis for decisions when the individual landowner submits a logging notification. Here, it is just an individual person who has acted on their own initiative. One has no official mandate. No control is being carried out, for starters.

Does the member believe that it is legally secure for the Swedish forest and Swedish forest owners that activists travel around and report species to Artportalen in forests that they do not own themselves but choose to visit? Is that how we are to handle the Swedish forest and the Swedish forest owners?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would not call knowledgeable people activists if they are good at species and are out doing inventories. It is actually something that the Swedish Forest Agency should really be doing but does not have time to do, especially not with the government's budget where they receive less money. They say themselves that they cannot go out to the forests. If a logging notification is made, there are very few times that they have the opportunity to come out and take a look.

I do not know all the species in the forest. When it comes to species in the sea, I can probably name most in Sweden. In the forest, I know quite a few species but not all. I would be very happy if someone came and helped me there.

However, it must not be the case that one reports species that do not exist, or that one believes they have seen a certain species. There must be evidence that it has been there. But if it is there and is a good biotope, there is also a reason for it to be protected. It is a very good thing. We do need to have more inventories.

We had previous key biotope inventories but which were stopped. When we do not know what we have, we also do not know what we should protect. Then perhaps we protect the wrong species. I would like to see more inventories. We need to know where there are natural forests, old wood and other things, but we do not have an overview everywhere. Therefore, it is probably very good that we actually find out.

I think it is wrong to call those who spend their free time inventorying what actually exists in Sweden's nature activists.

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

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 biodiversity, mosquito control and climate to watercourses, seas and much more.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and the government continue a journey towards an environmental budget where the focus lies on effective measures to improve for real, rather than inefficient and costly poster politics. This is clearly noticeable by billions having disappeared from inefficient investments, for example, the general electric car subsidies that went to large corporations and agencies, to increased margins for vehicle manufacturers and yes, actually to a good number of Norwegians who were given the opportunity to buy used cars at a discount.

Madam Speaker! Harmful symbolic taxes without environmental benefit, such as plastic bag taxes and aviation taxes, also disappear.

An important budget initiative that perhaps is not the very largest in this debate can exemplify the shift in Swedish policy for the environment and biodiversity. I am referring to the Sweden Democrats' and the government's initiative to save the alder and the ash. In plain terms, it is about 26 million that is given to Formas for this work.

We specifically discussed this issue at the Sweden Democrats' national conference in 2017, and in 2021 we saw a motion here in the Riksdag. The Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party voted no at that time. It is pleasing to see that they have changed their minds and no longer oppose this initiative.

One can also go back and look at why they did this. In an interpellation debate between Staffan Eklöf and the then environment minister Isabella Lövin, it was clarified that Lövin did not believe in the specific measures with the help of new technology. It was too costly. Instead, the focus should lie on general policy with significantly increased nature conservation. One would thus attempt to save species by protecting more land, which we know does not work.

Somewhere here, the difference between the Sweden Democrats' view on effective environmental work and what the red-green parties want is clarified. Protecting enormous areas of land is incredibly costly and can never contribute to stopping the elm and ash disease. It can be mentioned here that 62 species are completely dependent on the elm and over 200 species are partially dependent on the elm. After 40 years of struggle, there is now suddenly hope of saving this tree and thus over 50 associated species. The cost is extremely small in this context.

The investigation was handed over to the government in May. It contains several proposals for measures to increase resilience and preserve elm and ash. Among the proposals are, among other things, a program for resistance breeding as well as supporting research for elm and ash that increases resilience.

In forest breeding, selected species and offspring can be tested in different environments in the field. When it comes to specific pests, breeding for resistance can be streamlined and accelerated by exposing the trees to the pest in controlled forms and determining whether resistance exists and is possible to improve through breeding.

Madam Speaker! As I have just pointed out, the policy regarding biodiversity has lost its way, and so has the climate policy. Almost a month ago, ministers from all over the world returned from the climate summit in Azerbaijan. What is telling when one studies the outcome of the meeting is the lack of focus on emission reductions. The very greatest focus has now instead fallen on something that the world's countries have significantly higher on the agenda – money.

Based on a narrative that industrialized countries have destroyed the world because the countries' growth has increased greenhouse gas emissions, these countries are considered to have a debt - a so-called climate debt. This is, of course, a fabrication. There is no climate debt.

What began with the countries agreeing that it is naturally the wealthier countries that have the best opportunities to drive the transition in the near term has now degenerated into ever stronger demands for some kind of socialist redistribution policy that is to proceed practically entirely without conditions. It is no longer solely about countries receiving help with their transition; the money is to be used in significantly more areas than that.

Madam Speaker! This is a worrying development, and it is important that Sweden and Europe hold back so that the focus within global climate work does not continue to be redirected from policies to reduce emissions to money transfers. What is a debt is subjective. The need to reduce emissions is real. Let the focus fall on the right things. Industrial countries that have created great growth and prosperity have nothing to apologize for. It is worth repeating that emissions in recent decades have decreased and continue to decrease in Europe and in North America. Other continents are developing in completely the wrong direction.

Above all, the pressure on China needs to increase. For example, it is not reasonable that Chinese companies should be able, year in and year out, to flood the Swedish and European market with environmentally hazardous junk products that would never be allowed to be sold by a Swedish business operator. It is not reasonable that Chinese companies should be able to send packages to us for practically nothing at all when it costs us large sums of money to send packages to them.

Madam Speaker! The government's and the Sweden Democrats' budget contains many important investments. I have mentioned one so far, but let me mention a few more that we from the Sweden Democrats particularly want to highlight.

The environmental budget is about preserving biodiversity, protecting the environment, and more. But it is also about creating conditions for people to live a bearable life in their cottages, for example, in areas near the lower Dalälven which today are considered some of the mosquito-densest areas in the entire world. Therefore, we now welcome the initiative on mosquito control and that it is significantly strengthened and that the initiative also becomes permanent.

Madam Speaker! A special initiative on pastures and hay meadows is also included in the budget and is strengthened stepwise in 2026 and 2027. It is another example of smart and effective policy for biodiversity. Even though the general debate mostly focuses on species in the forest, it is on meadows and pastures that biodiversity is most threatened in Sweden. Globally, where more agriculture and more irresponsible forestry are seen, the situation is usually the opposite, which is often forgotten in the Swedish debate.

Madam Speaker! In order for the climate transition to take place, more nuclear power is needed. This work is now entering an even more intensive phase, and this is handled in several parts of the budget. I particularly want to highlight the investment that we and the government are enabling to support pilot and demonstration projects within the nuclear power area. This is energy policy, but nuclear power is a fundamental part of climate policy. We have, for example, an industrial step that is to support companies in connection with risky investments in new technology. But it is worth pointing out that it is not the politicians who will fix the investments, the climate transition, new electricity production, economic growth, etc. The problem in Sweden and in Europe at large has rather been that politics has contributed to trying to sabotage this. Nuclear power has been decommissioned, the electricity system has been ruined, and it has been made expensive. Electricity grid bills are skyrocketing every year. When Vattenfall sends this bill to me, it is quite clear about what it is about. Decommissioning of nuclear power has created significantly greater strains on the electricity system, which costs money. This results in the electricity grid bills becoming higher.

Politics has turned environmental permit processes into costly and Kafkaesque procedures with authorities that fight the businesses that are at the forefront of the transition.

My speaking time is about to run out. I would have moved on to speaking about the failure regarding species protection and the forestry industry. But we will surely have reason to return to that at a later occasion in this chamber, though perhaps not this year.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that we are all pleased with the measures for elm and ash, because we Social Democrats believe that Swedish nature is a national treasure.

But, Madam Speaker, in the national parks and in our nature reserves, after years of slaughter in the budget, one sees the lack of maintenance and measures in valuable nature.

In the Social Democratic government's budget for 2022, the appropriation was just over 2 billion. In the napkin sketch where the Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, and Kristdemokraterna made some changes, you actually let the 2 billion remain. One might wonder if it was the Liberalerna in the government who demanded the slaughter of this budget, for it was slaughtered. It began with, in large part, a halving in 2023, from 2 to 1.1 billion. It increased slightly in 2024 to 1.2 billion. Now it is 1.3 billion.

A survey that TT conducted in 2023 among the country's county administrative boards showed that the reduced resources resulted in clogged toilets, damaged hiking trails, and littered mountain peaks, and that the situation is worsening. All county administrative boards that responded have stated that it leads to fewer maintenance measures in protected nature. Maintenance of hiking trails, rest shelters, and footbridges are things that have had to be cut back in many places.

That the shrinking of resources is not noticed immediately but can have major consequences if the resources remain at the same level, the county administrative boards argued in 2023. And now Sweden's government and the Sverigedemokraterna have presented two further budgets with resources at the same level.

My question then is: How do the Sweden Democrats believe that the wonderful Swedish nature that is protected should be managed and cared for?

(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 questions.

Nature conservation issues are incredibly important issues. And we can observe that there are targeted investments for hiking trails in this budget. Reinforcements are being made compared to what had been announced in the previous budget bill. This is being done precisely because this is an important purpose.

Then it can always be discussed what level one should set itself at. We have many problems in Sweden. There are many challenges to deal with. We have people who are insecure on streets and squares. After an irresponsible migration policy that has been ongoing for decades, the issue that is highest on the agenda among people today is that they are afraid to be in public environments late in the evening. They feel insecure in their residential area. We also have a security policy situation in Europe that makes it necessary for us to significantly upgrade the defense.

I think these are measures that today are more important than spending more money on hiking trails. When I talk to people and read the views we receive, it does not emerge that it is a problem in Sweden today to go out into nature to pick mushrooms or that it is a problem to take a leisure trip in our country and visit hiking trails. I cannot see that we have such an acute problem.

On the other hand, the needs in theory are enormous. We have a huge amount of protected land in Sweden, we have very many potential hiking trails, and there are very many places to put up signs. But given the priorities we have, I think these are reasonable trade-offs to make.

Significant amounts are being invested. For example, targeted investments are being made in hiking trails in Jämtland and in other parts up north where a specific need has been identified.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I am still somewhat surprised that the Sweden Democrats, year after year, do not want to protect, rectify and take care of Sweden's cultural heritage, that is to say, the Swedish nature. This is about outdoor facilities, inventory and the jobs in the countryside. About 1,000 jobs in rural and countryside areas have disappeared due to the government's reductions in this budget.

I visited the wonderfully beautiful Tyresta national park a few weeks ago. There, they spoke about the situation when resources have diminished.

I do not know how often the members are out in nature or how often the Sweden Democrats visit Sweden's national parks. But there is probably nothing more Swedish than Sweden's beautiful nature. Therefore, we Social Democrats have invested 500 million kronor more than the government on the protection of and measures for valuable nature.

It is as the member says that the defense needs money. We definitely need to fight the criminal gangs. But the large part of the Sweden Democrats' and the government's budget has still gone towards lowering taxes for high-income earners. Then perhaps they think that is much more important than just Sweden's fantastic nature. At the same time as one cuts the budget, resources are still being spent on establishing new nature reserves. A lot of new nature reserves have been established during this government's mandate period, but no money has been allocated to maintain them. It does not add up, Madam Speaker.

The Member of Parliament may therefore gladly explain to the Swedish people once again why it is so important for the Sweden Democrats to slaughter the budget for the protection of and measures for Sweden's fantastic nature. The Member of Parliament may also gladly answer whether he considers that Sweden will meet the government's negotiated EU climate goals with the policy being pursued.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now I did not quite understand the final question. There are many different types of EU climate targets. Unfortunately, there are far too many climate targets in Europe, and there are perhaps a few too many targets here in Sweden as well.

For all EU legal acts, Sweden does not appear to be meeting the goals today, and the same applies to the vast majority of countries in Europe. This is often due to the legal acts being poorly designed. This will show in the continued work at the European level, where several of the legal acts will reasonably be adjusted because several large countries in Europe have no possibility whatsoever of achieving them.

We also have EU legal acts that directly counteract the transition. For example, we have targets for renewables that mean Sweden cannot build power that is not renewable without violating the targets. We have energy efficiency targets that can lead to us violating the EU targets if we invest in fossil-free steel here in Sweden, for example.

Madam Speaker! We shall definitely invest in the countryside, but I do not believe it is through budget appropriations that we will make the countryside flourish again. It is significantly more important to make it cheaper and easier to work. Lower taxes is, of course, important policy for the countryside. Making it cheaper to transport oneself is incredibly important for the countryside. Making it cheaper for our farmers to produce food is incredibly important for the countryside. Reforming the shore protection, where active work is currently underway, is incredibly important for growth in the countryside.

There are, therefore, many things one can do. I do not believe that the solution lies in transferring large sums of money in the budget. That is not how we get the Swedish countryside started.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

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

When I listen to the member's story here and take in the budget, I get a feeling that the Sweden Democrats don't actually care at all about the environmental and climate issue and that it is not prioritized, but perhaps is even completely ignored, even though we see the consequences of it during every season in our country. It affects our economy and our infrastructure and also our food supply.

Several proposals have been rejected and disparaged by the member, and when it is pointed out to the member what is happening in the EU, it is also wrong regarding the EU's regulations.

An impact is occurring outside our borders, in Europe and in the rest of the world. It is getting warmer; we will have to see if it becomes a heat record this year as well. We must do something about this, and Sweden must contribute.

My question is: What are the Sweden Democrats doing so that we follow the Climate Act and achieve our climate goals for 2030 and 2045?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Stina Larsson, for the questions!

The Sweden Democrats naturally have a very strong commitment to these issues, and I think this is evident in what I just said from the rostrum.

In Sweden, we have climate goals, and of course, we shall try to achieve them. On the other hand, we have difficulty controlling climate and weather, even though we have a lot to say in the Riksdag. What we can realistically do in Sweden, if we directly go down to negative emissions, is that we can delay the warming by perhaps a few weeks.

We should not believe that we can change the weather or the temperature we have here in Sweden, but that does not mean that we should not be an active party in the global climate work or that we should not do our very best - absolutely not.

At the same time, we must have an understanding of what control we have so that we do not promise people that there will be fewer natural disasters or less rain if we get into power. There will not be less drought because a certain party gets into power – naturally not. How people vote in the election will likely not affect how much rain there will be, not even in 100 years. That is how it looks.

Work will be initiated with the Swedish climate goals in the Environmental Goals Commission during the next year. At that time, we will review a part of the goals. The 2045 goal will remain fixed, and I cannot see today that Sweden will not reach that goal. The path there is not straightforward, but I think the long-term development looks positive. The 2030 goal is to be reviewed, so it is nothing that worries me particularly much.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It was still positive to hear that Martin Kinnunen has a strong commitment to the issue, but I would like to say that it requires more action than words. Sweden needs to support the business sector and ensure that there are innovations and even more new green technology. That is how we strengthen our economy and our brand.

Martin Kinnunen mentioned the Environment Goals Preparatory Group's work. There, I would like to say, the Sweden Democrats are perhaps not very constructive and do not contribute with very many proposals on how we should reach the climate goals. But that remains to be seen. We are not quite at the goal.

We will never be able to compete with factories in, for example, China or Taiwan, but we can contribute with technology for the environment and climate from Sweden. In that case, society needs incentives and steering mechanisms for this to become a reality.

We need to ensure that there is a market for, for example, electric cars, a sensible climate bonus and good charging stations even north of Uppsala so that one can buy and drive an electric car regardless of where in the country one lives.

We need to steer towards new business models with circular flows and have an increased focus when it comes to more sustainability, because then we can achieve a faster change instead of locking ourselves into the oil industry's grip.

The chairman mentioned the circular flows and the circular economy, but there are no proposals regarding this. I do not see how the Sweden Democrats want to act to reduce, for example, the import of toxins from China, i.e., those items that are very easy to click home via the internet.

The Chairman mentioned the 2045 climate goal, so I pose the question as follows: Do the Sweden Democrats stand behind the 2030 climate goal even if it is to be reviewed?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, there are far too many targets, so it is not always so easy to know exactly which target is being referred to. For 2030, we have a Swedish target, and then we have a European target. It is often a bit confusing.

The Swedish target will be reviewed, that is, the target for the transport sector. It does not concern me particularly much. Then we have the target for the ESR sector, which unfortunately is linked with another target. It is always a bit messy. For the ESR target itself, it looks quite good. For LULUCF, it looks significantly worse. There, a long-running environmental goal preparation is underway, which I have heard might be finished soon, and we will have to see how it goes with that.

Stina Larsson mentioned the import of poison from China, and the problem there is that Sweden lacks the authority to directly shut down the apps and ban the import. Today, we are part of the EU system, and therefore we must try to take it that way. Here, I believe that from the Swedish side, we should continue to be active in the ongoing discussion.

I think that from the European side, one should take significantly tougher action against this import. Fundamentally, it would be a reasonable measure to ban the shops immediately. They should not be allowed to operate on the European market. There is nothing to suggest that these are any isolated cases of rule-breaking, but rather it happens time and again.

Regarding mail handling from China, I think that one should simply refuse to follow the international agreements that exist today because they are completely horrible. It is completely unreasonable that we should subsidize Chinese postage costs as we do today.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The climate debate is often filled with dystopian images of the future. Many feel hopelessness, anxiety, or even desperation because the task is so large and decisive. There are therefore reasons not only to point out the problems that lie ahead but also at the progress, however insufficient, that has nevertheless been made. Rarely do the good news receive the attention they deserve. Sweden is a country that is at the forefront, and there is reason to be optimistic and hopeful.

The journey Sweden has made is admirable. Sweden's GDP has approximately doubled since the 1990s, while at the same time our greenhouse gas emissions have decreased by more than a third. For every krona of our GDP, only one-sixth as much greenhouse gases are generated as three decades ago. We therefore have reason to point out with pride how Sweden has been able to combine reduced emissions with good economic prosperity.

There are several reasons for Sweden's successes. One of the most important factors has been our largely fossil-free electricity production. Stable access to fossil-free electricity at competitive prices is an important prerequisite for Sweden's competitiveness. When the IPCC, the UN's climate panel, is clear that nuclear power is needed, there is no doubt - more nuclear power in Europe is necessary.

The Moderate-led government has now made a long series of decisions to pave the way for new nuclear power. Furthermore, new steps are being taken to increase the expansion of wind power and increase the capacity in hydropower.

Madam Speaker! Many seem to believe that it is the task of politics to force through the green transition. I question this. Politics sets the framework, the regulatory system, and the direction, but sometimes it is actually better when politics does not interfere.

Every now and then, in the Swedish sustainability debate, one needs to remind people of the power of the free market – how consumer demand steers more than political finger-pointing ever could. It is good that Sweden has had tough environmental legislation. It has given us a unique position when it comes to creating sustainable production chains. We are now, however, seeing a clear shift: the business sector is now the new environmental movement, which is moving at a much faster pace than politics has the possibility to keep up with. This has caused parts of the legislation aimed at protecting the environment to hinder more than they help. We must therefore dare to question when, where, and how politics has the mandate to intervene.

The green transition can be a major competitive advantage for Sweden. It can mean more jobs, good growth, and a strong welfare state. But when we Moderates emphasize the importance of an evidence-based climate policy that delivers results, we are not only referring to which instruments should be introduced but also to which ones are pure populism and absolutely should not be introduced. When it comes to many of the recurring political proposals regarding new taxes, regulations, obligations, and bans, there is not only a lack of evidence that they work – they can also be directly counterproductive. Again, it is sometimes actually better when politics does not interfere.

Madam Speaker! The goal of climate policy must be to both reduce Sweden's emissions and encourage other countries to raise their ambitions. Those who have heard me in previous debates know that I usually emphasize the importance of viewing the climate issue from a global perspective instead of staring blindly at what happens solely on Swedish soil. Emissions, after all, know no national borders. It would therefore be extremely foolish not to see Sweden's role from a global perspective. Sweden is and shall continue to be the green pioneer country, not just because it feels good here and now, for the moment, but to show the world through practical action what is possible and get more countries to follow suit. Here, our companies' competitiveness is absolutely crucial.

Madam Speaker! The Baltic Sea is in a critical situation. During the last century, overfishing, plastic pollution, eutrophication, and climate change have put severe pressure on an already sensitive ecosystem. It is estimated that 20 percent of the Baltic Sea's seabed is oxygen-free. This corresponds to an area comparable to Denmark.

The nitrogen step is therefore an important initiative in the right direction. It is a completely new support aimed at helping farmers transition in order to reduce both climate impact and the eutrophication that harms our watercourses, our lakes, and not least the Baltic Sea.

We are also investing additional funds in local water care projects, so-called LOVA projects. These can, among other things, be used to carry out measures aimed at reducing eutrophication, restoring aquatic environments, preventing the spread of environmentally hazardous substances, or taking care of lost fishing gear. There is much to be done in this area, which my colleague Joanna Lewerentz highlighted, among other things, in the debate on A Living Sea, the most extensive marine environment bill in 15 years.

Madam Speaker! There are few things that irritate me as much as when people litter. Our nature is a part of our heritage, and it is our collective responsibility to take care of it. Unfortunately, we see how serious crime causes devastation not only in our cities but also in our nature. Unscrupulous companies are currently making large sums of money by exploiting loopholes in our legislation and dumping waste in nature. This is unacceptable. Therefore, we are providing extra resources to Naturvårdsverket for measures that shall contribute to countering waste-related crime.

Madam Speaker! It is not, of course, that what we have achieved so far is sufficient. There is still much left to do, not least when it comes to getting other countries to undertake the same journey as Sweden. But doomsday rhetoric does not help. On the contrary, it risks the faith of entire generations in the future. What we need is more people educating themselves to become engineers, not therapy for climate anxiety. Common to many of the environmental problems that humans have encountered so far is that she has also shown herself capable of solving them. It is my great conviction that the same also applies to the climate.

Since this is the last debate for the year, I would, of course, like to thank the secretariat, the committee members, the Chamber Secretariat, and the Speaker's Presidium and wish you all a very Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I agree with much of what the member says. Many great advances have been made, and many good news stories we should tell.

As Social Democrats, we would like to continue telling about progress and good news. We have a wish and a statement that we want to see Sweden become the first fossil-free welfare country, but we also know that a government that wants to reduce emissions, not increase them, was then needed.

In March this year, the government's revised communication National Strategy and the government's action plan for climate adaptation was released. In the first paragraph, The communication's main content, the following is stated: "Sweden shall be climate-adapted, resilient and take advantage of the opportunities that come with a changed climate. During the current mandate period, a number of measures need to be taken to create the conditions for a structured, coordinated and socially efficient work with climate adaptation that leads to reducing the vulnerability to the effects of climate change."

My question to the member is: If one looks at the government's budget for 2025, where can one see which measures are proposed and what resources the government has allocated following the decision on the national strategy and the government's action plan for climate adaptation, which would reduce the vulnerability to the effects of climate change?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Climate adaptation is a very complex area given that there are so many different actors involved. Not least, it is landowners and property owners who bear the heaviest responsibility for the measures that are to be implemented.

The pot of money should be long-term. It is money that goes to MSB and all other agencies involved in the work.

It is simply a matter of having a long-term focus and ensuring that the work continues, that we have the knowledge that is required, and that those who are absolutely closest to the measures are also involved in carrying out the projects.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer!

We Social Democrats invest more than twice as much on climate adaptation as the Kristersson government does in the areas of funding we are talking about. The costs will only increase for a society that does not work preventatively.

We can take some examples. The floods in Gävle in 2021 are estimated to have cost 1.2 billion. Storm Hans is estimated to have cost 1 billion kronor. The forest fire in 2018 is estimated to have cost 1 billion kronor. The total cost for the drought in 2018 was estimated at 6-10 billion kronor. Another example is the socio-economic effects that the landslide at E6 near Stenungsund caused. The reconstruction alone is estimated to cost 1-1.2 billion kronor, but since the trains cannot run and freight and passenger traffic cannot be operated, the socio-economic costs are estimated to amount to 2.4 billion kronor per year.

The Social Democrats' assessment is that it is not possible to wait. As I said, it clearly states in the action plan that a number of measures need to be taken during the current mandate period in order to create the conditions. It is therefore why I mean that the member is welcome to return to the measures and resources that are in the consolidated budget for 2025. The responsibility for this lies with Ulf Kristersson and the government that he has appointed.

The member may also please answer my second question, if the member considers that Sweden can achieve the EU climate goal negotiated by the government with the government's climate policy.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Among other things, in this very budget, we have allocated 1,171 billion to the infrastructure for the period 2026-2036. It is a historic investment in infrastructure so that we can get a bit more order on what has lagged behind regarding railways and roads in Sweden.

It is very nice that the Social Democrats choose to invest twice as much on climate adaptation. After all, the party has put us in a somewhat difficult position when it comes to tackling emissions, which is the fundamental reason why climate adaptation initiatives are even needed.

I wonder a bit how the Social Democrats think about how to produce enough clean electricity to manage the transition. We know that the needs by 2045 are enormous, but they are also enormous by 2030.

If we look at the long-term perspective and the great net-zero goal, we know that it wavers a bit for the Social Democrats when it comes to the nuclear power issue. They have a party leader who, during her time as Finance Minister, shock-raised the tax on nuclear power, and four reactors were closed in six years. Now we don't really know if they intend to stop the plans for upcoming nuclear power. On stage, she has rejected nuclear power, but in debates here in the chamber, we have received somewhat different answers.

I know that the Social Democratic Party is trying to convince the voters that they have always been in favor of nuclear power. But for me, it doesn't really add up. I think the Social Democrats owe the voters an answer.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech!

Now it is the third time during this parliamentary term that the Tidö government beats its chest over an excellent environment and climate budget. We have heard about initiatives and comments that it is the largest budget in several years. We have read about it in the media. But what does it actually look like?

In the first budget, the nature conservation initiatives were slaughtered by almost 1 billion. 1 billion is 1,000 million kronor. Then 30 million was restored in a spring budget in something called an initiative on biodiversity.

In connection with the budget presentation in the autumn, the government parties and SD beat the drum again and announced that 137 million kronor would be returned to the nature conservation budget to, among other things, invest in the maintenance of nature reserves and hiking trails. But the nature conservation initiative is still far from the 2-billion level it was at before this government took office and before the inflation increase.

I can state that there is a difference between words and actions here and that this is not as prioritized as people say. I wonder: If you are not prepared to invest real money in the environmental area, how will we then be able to reach our environmental quality goals?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! That there is not enough money is perhaps something one can say about all expenditure areas and also when it concerns budget items within the expenditure areas.

Nature conservation is incredibly important to prioritize, and we do. But again, it is about prioritizing many different things. We see that it is important to strengthen the green industries. It is important to strengthen the countryside so that as many as possible have the opportunity to live and work in the countryside and engage in the green industries.

We find ourselves in an incredibly difficult security policy situation. This is something we must not forget here. When we discuss these issues, it is about really tough priorities. As my Tidö colleague Martin Kinnunen mentioned earlier, it is also about priorities between the different areas. Here, we choose to chart a path for new nuclear power, new base power in Sweden, to ensure that we have enough electricity to manage the green transition. This is something we are investing just over 1 billion on, to ensure that we actually reduce emissions next year.

We are focusing on reaching the climate goals, ensuring that it becomes long-term sustainable and that the planned production is implemented.

I note, however, that the Center Party unilaterally focuses on weather-dependent power sources. When the world is shaken by geopolitical tensions and markets become increasingly volatile, we know that the need for stable and predictable electricity production is critical.

What are the Center Party's thoughts on this?

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I can state that the member is avoiding answering the question.

Naturally, it is different priorities that determine how we invest our money. The priority that Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch speaks so passionately about, that we should invest enormous sums in nuclear power and pay the premium that it looks like it will become, we absolutely do not stand behind.

We see that investments in offshore wind power, for example, and other technology-neutral investments are needed - instead of only putting the money in one basket.

But I want to return to the environmental quality objectives. We see in the government's own table that several objectives are not being met. A long-term emission objective for 2045 is not met. The objective of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the ESR sector by 2030 is not met. The objective of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 is not met. The objective of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from domestic transport is not met. The objective of an increased proportion of municipal waste that is materially recycled and prepared for reuse by 2025, 2030, and 2035 is not met. We received a report that food waste has not decreased as intended. We also did not achieve the objective for 2023. The objective regarding construction and demolition waste is also not met.

This is, therefore, from the government's own budget.

Sweden is moving backwards in some of these areas. We have also regressed compared to many other countries. We have performed worse when it comes to climate emissions and when it comes to the circular economy.

How can the member, in good conscience, turn a blind eye to this? What does the member say we should do to reverse this development? I see that it cannot continue this way.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate that the member raises the ESR targets, because it is very clear that we reach the ESR targets with our policy. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether the Center Party, which rejects the government's reduction obligation in favor of biofuel procurement, would do so. It is very doubtful whether the Center Party would reach the ESR targets with the budget that is currently in place.

Yes, nuclear power is expensive. But it is much more expensive, Madam Speaker, to dismantle fully functioning reactors and then live with the consequences for both the climate and households.

(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. We have instead a specific statement regarding the expenditure area.

Madam Speaker! The climate is our time's greatest issue of destiny. The Earth is getting hotter and hotter. All figures already point to 2024 becoming the warmest year ever, after nine years of new heat records. The oceans are rising. Ice is melting. The Alps' glaciers are disappearing at record speed. Snowy days are becoming fewer, which we who live in Sweden's fantastic ski resorts also see. But if one wants a white Christmas, Madam Speaker, I still suggest that one makes a visit to my home in Åre.

Madam Speaker! A new report from the European Environment Agency shows that Europe is not ready for the risks of a changed climate. Climate changes threaten energy and food supplies, ecosystems, infrastructure, water resources, financial stability, and human health. According to the European Environment Agency, many of the climate risks have already reached critical levels, and they could become catastrophic.

For Sweden's part, just as for northern Europe in general, an increased amount of precipitation is the major effect of climate change. The number of days with heavy precipitation is increasing in a large part of the country. When it comes to the most intense rains, it is a matter of significant increases.

The increased flood risk primarily affects buildings, roads, railways, and water and sewage systems. The drinking water supply, for example, risks being knocked out through contamination of water bodies or through pipe bursts.

Madam Speaker! The world, Europe and Sweden - from north to south - are being affected by climate change. We Social Democrats therefore allocate more than double, compared to the SD government, in our budget motion on climate adaptation. Ordinary people are affected, for instance, when the cellar is flooded, when roads and railways are closed, and when insurance costs more.

Madam Speaker! Emissions must be reduced here and now, before climate change becomes worse and cannot be stopped.

In Sweden, we have a government that has chosen to increase emissions, which makes joy-calculations and leaves a bill for the next mandate period's government.

Madam Speaker! There have been quite a few rosy calculations during the government's more than two years in power. In the climate report, a scenario is reported where it is stated that the government meets one of the climate goals. I am also thinking of the Minister for Climate and Environment's "golden solution." We can look at the calculation of emissions from fossil fuels for 2024. The government's forecast was met already in September this year. Hands up, those of you who have a fossil fuel car and who have not refueled since September!

Sweden needs a policy that tackles the challenges and creates good conditions in both the short and long term. Sweden needs a policy that increases the circular economy, and Sweden needs a policy that ensures the climate transition works for ordinary people throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats are investing 1,300 million kronor more than the government in this expenditure area in our budget motion.

We are investing in environmental monitoring to be able to provide decision-makers with well-founded foundations and measure whether the pursued environmental policy is having an effect. We are investing 500 million more in Industriklivet, the industry's green transition, which the Social Democratic-led government introduced in 2018. That, Madam Speaker, resulted in, for example, investments in industrial projects—it was about biofuels, plastic refineries, hydrogen production, recycling plants, and battery production. Industriklivet must continue to be developed.

We investigated faster permit processes. This government submitted proposals to the Swedish Riksdag, and it will not be possible to resolve that modification permits for the activity shall be the main rule. I regret that, Madam Speaker.

We are investing 250 million more in Klimatklivet, which has, among other things, provided grants for 180,000 charging points across the country and biogas support, which many Swedish farmers have utilized.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has communicated that no new grants can be issued now. Therefore, more resources are of the utmost importance. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency otherwise has a central role in Sweden's environmental and climate work. We Social Democrats will therefore strengthen the agency with 50 million kronor.

We are also strengthening measures for the marine and water environment with 40 million kronor. This concerns more fisheries controls and camera surveillance on fishing vessels. We must strengthen the fish stocks we have left. That, Madam Speaker, we must do now.

We want the green industrial revolution, which started in northern Sweden, to continue. That is how we reduce our vulnerability, take our responsibility for emission reductions, break our unhealthy dependence on fossil inputs, build our prosperity, and create thousands of new jobs. But, Madam Speaker, then we cannot have a government that invests in fossil fuels from dictatorial states, which causes fewer electrified vehicles to be sold from Swedish companies. We cannot have a government that gives walkover.

This also includes the commitments that the SD government has negotiated with the EU regarding the EU's climate goals, which are not being met with the government's policy. Is it all of Sweden's taxpayers who are to pay many billions of kronor in emission allowances and fines?

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a fantastic and unique nature, which is of great importance for biodiversity, people's health, and jobs. The cuts that the SD government has made over several years regarding the protection of and measures for valuable nature have serious consequences for biodiversity, outdoor life, the cultural environment, the tourism industry, and people's opportunity to spend time in nature.

Madam Speaker! The forest creates climate benefits as a carbon sink and with present and future fossil-free products. But the cuts have also caused many forest owners to have waited - and they continue to wait - for their compensation, which they are entitled to when they preserve forest of conservation value. It is not worthy, Madam Speaker.

Across the country, national parks and nature reserves are receiving fewer resources. It is evident that maintenance and measures are no longer functioning. We Social Democrats want more people to get out and discover Sweden's national treasure – nature. But for that, hiking trails, protection, and other things must function. It is about accessibility and sustainability for us here and now, but also for future generations.

That is why we Social Democrats are investing 500 million more than the SD government on the protection of and measures for valuable nature.

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 both in Sweden and in the world. Emissions must decrease. Sweden must take its responsibility.

Unfortunately, the government's budget bill does not reflect the situation that Sweden faces this year either. We Social Democrats want to modernize and transition to a fossil-free Sweden. That way, we can meet the climate challenges, safeguard our welfare, and ensure that the jobs of the climate transition do not disappear to other countries.

With this, I wish Merry Christmas to Madam Speaker, to all my fine colleagues in the committee and to the office. Thank you for this year!

(Applause)

In this speech, Jytte Guteland, Joakim Järrebring, Björn Petersson and Sofia Skönnbrink (all S) agreed.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg - not least for the invitation to Åre! When does it suit?

(ANNA-CAREN SÄTHERBERG (S): Always.)

It is familiar tones from Anna-Caren Sätherberg in the speaker's chair. There is simply no restraint on the Social Democratic excellence. The Social Democratic self-righteousness is always at its peak. We recognize this very well.

Anna-Caren Sätherberg was correct on many parts of her speech, and there is one thing that I thought I would ask a question about.

We have, for obvious reasons, had a rather substantial energy debate over the last few days. On X, we could see how the former Social Democratic Minister for Climate and Environment wrote as follows: "For a functioning energy supply with a better price picture also in electricity price area 3 and 4, an answer is gas turbines and/or storage during peak load hours."

I want to ask Anna-Caren Sätherberg if the Socialdemokraterna stand behind their former Minister for Climate and Environment and would rather use gas turbines and increase emissions instead of having nuclear power and reducing emissions. What is the Socialdemokraterna's path in this?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! If it is familiar tones from me in the speaker's chair, it is because it is the same old emissions policy from the government, that is to say we do not reach the goals, and we continue to emit instead of reducing emissions. The tones will be such until we have a government that does what is promised before an election.

I have no idea how anyone has expressed themselves, but I can say this: Sweden needs cheap electricity if we are to maintain the competitiveness of our industry and if ordinary people are to be able to afford the electricity bills - it is deplorable in southern Sweden right now.

What Sweden needs is a policy for both the short and long term. One cannot put all the eggs in one and the same basket if they hatch in 40 years. We must be able to do both.

It is well clear that one should use all the new technology that exists to manage this. If it is to be possible, we must expand wind power now. If it is to be possible, we must store the power now. If we are to build nuclear power, it must be cheap electricity that makes it competitive for industry. I do not think that is difficult to understand.

All forces are needed, but what is truly needed is cheap electricity, both in the short and in the long term. On that point, the member is obliged to answer. How much has been built since the government took over? Has a single wind turbine been erected? Do we see an increased energy supply anywhere, or is one still just talking after two years?

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is of course the case that we need more electricity, and what we need are all fossil-free power sources. That does not include gas.

If we do not address this and ensure that we truly get a predictable baseload power that can help balance the renewable power, since it does not blow every day, there is a risk that we end up in the exact same trap as in Germany where they went for 100 percent renewable. In Germany, we can now see how they burn between 10,000 and 13,000 tons of brown coal per hour to meet their energy needs, this because they have shut down predictable baseload power in the form of nuclear power. Brown coal is the most polluting energy source we have, but one must therefore use it because they have destroyed their energy mix.

We do not want to end up in Germany's situation, and therefore we say yes to all fossil-free power sources. We must have more of everything that is fossil-free, and in order for us to hopefully get more to say yes to wind power, new possibilities regarding incentives are now being put forward.

We must ensure that hydropower can continue to provide the supplement that even small-scale hydropower can provide. We must ensure that we have predictable power for the future, and that includes nuclear power as well.

Of course, energy production has increased after we took over. Several thousand megawatts have been added after we took over. Anna-Caren Sätherberg can go in herself and see what has actually been done.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The Speaker does not inform the member that this is not an energy policy debate, but then I can do that. There is indeed very much to discuss in this report that has nothing to do with what the member is currently raising.

For the Social Democrats, it is important that we get electricity here and now. If we are to be able to build the climate-smart industry that creates jobs and fair conditions across the entire country, we must have electricity here and now, otherwise those jobs will disappear to some other country that can offer the energy.

I know that the Christian Democrats actually understand that you cannot just do one single thing. You actually have to do several things. You cannot put all your eggs in one basket where they might hatch in 20 or 40 years, it must happen here and now.

They have just said no to 13 offshore wind farms, even though we have a company in Sweden - Saab - that has adapted the technology and sells it to other countries that manage to have both offshore wind power and defense. But Sweden does not make use of its own company. There is a lot of things that are very strange about this.

If it is an energy policy debate we are to have, Madam Speaker, we can have it. I do, however, think it is worth mentioning what this debate should be about, that is to say Industriklivet, Klimatklivet, nature, biodiversity and the forest.

There is much to talk about. Now we have spent this moment talking about nuclear power.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for the speech! It is also pleasing that the member clarifies that she likes to discuss energy issues here in the chamber and that she wants to discuss nuclear power more in-depth.

I think it is an important topic, especially since we are discussing climate policy. If we are to be able to reduce emissions in the world, it is fundamental that we can supply the industries with electricity and, furthermore, as the member mentioned, cheap electricity.

The Speaker just mentioned that no new power production has been added in Sweden. That is completely incorrect. We can see that during 2023, 3,300 megawatts were added, and for 2024, 2,800 megawatts are projected. It is therefore a historically high increase in installed capacity.

The problem is that the installed capacity that we are achieving right now is weather-dependent, and it is also not being added in the correct electricity areas if one wants to avoid high electricity prices and instead strive for what the member mentions, namely that electricity should be cheap.

We also heard inaccuracies about that Saab is said to have claimed that their system will fix everything that the Armed Forces have complained about. Saab has denied this, and it is irritating that so many inaccuracies are being spread about this even here in the chamber.

I have the following question for Anna-Caren Sätherberg: Why do the Social Democrats not want it to be permitted to build nuclear power where we need cheap electricity, i.e., electricity area 4? Nuclear power is important for climate policy and is also a licensing issue that truly concerns our committee's area.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

Let us not get stuck in a nuclear power debate, but let us at some point come back to climate, environment and nature. It is very fine distinctions because nuclear power also concerns emissions.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! As I said in my speech, it is important for the Social Democrats that we stop increasing emissions. We must pursue a policy that truly reduces emissions so that we do not get the climate changes that the European Environment Agency warns about, which we already see in the country in the form of floods, fires, storms and new biodiversity, that is to say invasive species in the forest. The Social Democrats consider this important.

To manage the industry's transition, it is, quite rightly, necessary to build more electricity and energy. The transition is needed here and now, and it must be both short- and long-term.

How can one, like, not think that we need to plan for both the short and long term? How can one not see the possibilities of offshore wind power right now, when that expansion is moving faster? How can one not see that one needs to do both? Why do the member of parliament and I end up in a discussion about nuclear power? We entered into an energy agreement a long time ago where we said that we would build more nuclear power if the market were to build it, just as everyone in the government basis said before the election. Back then, there were no problems. It was just a few rules that needed to be changed. Now, apparently, it is a problem.

If this is to be an energy debate, Madam Speaker, we must talk about all types of power and what Sweden needs. And what Sweden needs is cheap electricity and more electricity.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Energy production is a central part of all climate policy in the world. It is the absolute most important tool for reducing emissions. We cannot separate climate policy from how we produce energy. It is not possible, and it would be life-threatening if the debate took that path.

I shall inform the member as to why the questions are important to take specifically with the Social Democrats. The Social Democrats do not want it to be permitted to build nuclear power in electricity area 4. It is in electricity area 4 that there is a shortage of electricity, and it is in electricity area 4 where electricity is expensive and we really need cheap electricity.

More electricity production is added every year in Sweden, and it will continue. Solar and wind power are being built. It is already happening. It is permitted to build offshore wind power. Denmark has recently tendered, with even better conditions than in Sweden, the possibility to build offshore wind power. Not a single company wanted to build anything at all. There is no way to get cheap, fast electricity immediately - it will take time. Therefore, the processes must begin now. Otherwise, it will never be finished. That is how we have had it for so many years.

One does not want to make it possible to build nuclear power. Then one can say it or write it on one's website, but if one still does not want it to be permitted to build nuclear power where it is needed most, one does not want it to be built. One does not want to create the conditions to build for the low prices that are needed for the climate transition.

Why should it not be permitted to build nuclear power in electricity area 4 where we need stable delivery as soon as possible? The alternative cannot be gas turbines. It is indeed an expensive way to produce electricity, but it may very well turn out that we need them anyway.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I agree that we need cheap electricity. But then the government must present proposals that actually make electricity cheap. The government has not yet managed to present a proposal to the Swedish Parliament where we can see that development. We must become competitive so that we can transition the industry, so that we can have all the production and all the jobs we need in the country so that the companies do not move abroad.

The member's speech was very much about an investment of 28 million for ash and elm. It was also about what was included in our government bill, namely fighting the mosquitoes in Dalälven – which are terrible for those who live there. That was what the member's speech was largely about. Now it is about an enormous investment where one is prepared to put the Swedish people's wallet on the table.

The initiative is criticized by authorities, by Svenskt Näringsliv, and by the trade union movement. One must come up with a proposal that truly means that Swedish companies and ordinary Swedes can afford to pay the electricity bills and so that investments occur in Sweden. We must truly ensure that Sweden takes its responsibility and stops increasing emissions.

There are climate changes all over the world, but I want to tell the member that they also exist everywhere in this country - from north to south.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are beginning to approach the end of the row of budget debates this autumn, but tonight's debate is no less important for that, even though both Christmas is approaching and the hour is late.

As a kind of foundation for tonight's climate and environment debate lie the Climate Act and the government's climate policy action plan. By 2045 at the latest, Sweden shall have no net emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, to subsequently achieve negative emissions. The government emphasizes that climate policy shall be ambitious and effective and at the same time take into account people's and companies' possibilities to live and operate throughout the country. The focus is therefore on creating conditions to remove the emissions that can be removed in a socio-economically efficient way, reduce the emissions that cannot be completely removed, and furthermore create large volumes of negative emissions.

The measures to achieve this need to be taken broadly across the entire society. The most important prerequisites for the climate transition are secure and cost-effective delivery of fossil-free energy, efficient permitting processes, and access to relevant competence. To get even closer to these important goals, the government is now investing just over 1 billion kronor to take further steps to reduce emissions next year, so that Sweden reaches the climate goals. To achieve this, a powerful expansion of fossil-free electricity production is needed, so that the industry and the transport sector can transition from fossil to fossil-free. Here, the planned production of baseload power plays a large role, and therefore we are working hard to get new nuclear power in place. But all other fossil-free power types also have an important role to play. This year's budget is about increasing the pace of expanding fossil-free electricity production and increasing the acceptance of the climate transition.

In order for the climate transition to be possible, new predictable baseload power is needed. The Government's work to enable the expansion of new nuclear power is now entering a more intensive phase. New innovative solutions will be required both within individual technologies and at the system level. The Government is therefore investing 100 million kronor in 2025 to support pilot and demonstration projects within the nuclear power field.

But, Madam Speaker, more is needed. The proposal to provide incentives to municipalities that decide to say yes to wind power is another crucial part of increasing fossil-free electricity production. One of the obstacles to the expansion of wind power has been the lack of acceptance from the local population, which is not difficult to understand.

We need all forms of fossil-free electricity production, but not all forms fit everywhere. To nevertheless facilitate new construction, incentives in the form of economic compensation and regional funds are two crucial factors. The Government also recently presented that they are moving forward with the expansion of offshore wind farms with an additional two projects, in addition to the three permits that were previously granted.

Madam Speaker! The Government also wants to accelerate the electrification of the vehicle fleet, among other things through a forthcoming electric car premium. Klimatklivet facilitates the green transition for the business sector and is an important support for the expansion of charging infrastructure. The Government therefore strengthens, among other things, the Klimatinvesteringar grant, where Klimatklivet is located. The Government is also implementing investments in charging infrastructure within expenditure area 21 Energy.

At the same time, the reduction obligation is being fundamentally reformed, partly in order to actually be able to implement it but also to achieve Sweden's commitment according to ESR by 2030. The levels for the new reduction obligation are raised. To make the reduction obligation more technology-neutral and to stimulate continued electrification, it will be possible to fulfill the reduction obligation even with electricity from public charging stations. The government's collective proposals mean that the ESR commitment for 2030 is expected to be reached.

Another important initiative is the build-up of capacity for carbon capture that is underway to reach the goal of net-zero emissions by 2045. Technology to capture and store carbon dioxide will be needed for such fossil emissions that cannot be avoided and that are difficult to eliminate, for example within cement production.

The business community is the new environmental movement. They have been very clear in their request that, in addition to fossil-free, secure, and cheap electricity, they need simpler and faster permit processes. This is work that is ongoing in full. It is also important to strengthen Swedish competitiveness. To provide courts and authorities with better conditions to work effectively with environmental permit processes and environmental supervision, the government proposes that the appropriations to Sveriges Domstolar, Naturvårdsverket, and the county administrative boards be increased.

The government has also recently announced that Fossilfritt Sveriges mandate is being extended by two years. A new focus area will be to promote increased demand for fossil-free products and services, which is a prerequisite for the 23 action plans to be able to be implemented. It is another step in the right direction.

The government has also informed the EU Commission that it intends to transfer emission space from the EU emissions trading system to ESR by cancelling emission allowances from Sweden's auction volume. This is a line that the Christian Democrats have pushed for several years. It is a cost-effective way to reduce emissions, provided it is done in the right way and at the right time.

The Government is making a welcome investment in measures that contribute to phasing out the use of fossil plastics. The Government points to the importance of a comprehensive chemical legislation that lives up to the commitments in the EU's chemical strategy, which aims to protect consumers, vulnerable groups, and workers from harmful chemicals.

Today, the majority of the world's chemical production is outside the EU. Therefore, Sweden's continued work on global chemical issues is important. Plastic pollution is a cross-border challenge that requires global solutions. Therefore, it is also urgent to make progress in the ongoing negotiations on a global agreement against plastic pollution. This is being addressed, among other things, at today's environmental council in Brussels.

Madam Speaker! The Government considers it very important to counter waste-related crime. Therefore, an investigation into environmental criminal law is underway. At the same time, new EU rules on waste transport have been decided. The Government is now allocating funds to counter waste-related crime and to stop illegal waste transports to and from Sweden. Effective supervision is important to prevent unscrupulous actors from gaining competitive advantages by not following the law, but also to detect operations with criminal purposes.

During 2025, the government will develop a national strategy and plan for biodiversity in accordance with commitments in national agreements and frameworks. We often hear from certain parties and organizations about how poorly the biodiversity in the Swedish forest is situated. But meadow and pasture lands are the nature types that have the worst status in Sweden's latest reporting, according to the Habitats Directive. Nearly half of the domestic endangered species are linked to precisely these lands. The government therefore proposes an investment in the management and restoration of meadow and pasture lands.

That it is precisely these lands that have the most threatened species is not heard much about, but rather there is a one-sided focus on the status of Swedish forest. One can ask why. Is it because meadow and grazing lands require grazing animals to be maintained in tradition, because this speaks against the interests of these parties and organizations, or because it does not help them in the pursuit of either red meat or grazing animals in general? One can at least ask the question.

The government sees, in line with the stewardship concept, active and engaged forest owners as crucial for strengthening the ecosystems in the forest, safeguarding natural and cultural values, and taking advantage of the forest's decisive role in climate work, including as a carbon sink and a source of renewable raw materials. Therefore, several investigations are currently underway within the forestry area to achieve sense and balance in the issues. Yesterday, the government also announced that it is making investments in a research school and innovation programs within bioeconomy with a focus on circular bioeconomy including forestry.

Madam Speaker! I had intended to continue speaking about both LOVA and Kväveklivet, valuable nature and so on. I had also intended to mention several other additions. But my speaking time has already run out.

I would therefore like to conclude by wishing the Speaker and the Speaker's Presidium, the Chamber Office, the Secretariat of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, and of course my colleagues in the committee, especially colleague Tomas – if he is watching this – a very Merry Christmas and a blessed Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I also hope that Tomas is watching us. Merry Christmas, Tomas!

Thank you for your speech, member!

I truly share the member's opinion that it is very good to have grazing animals and therefore also grazing requirements, of course.

Klimatklivet has been popular and created climate benefits across the entire country. Klimatklivet has, for example, resulted in 180,000 new charging points. It has become hydrogen refueling stations for heavy vehicles, and Klimatklivet has co-financed approximately 80 percent of the biogas production that exists in Sweden today. This is truly important for our farmers, for our supply capacity, and for the climate. It is circularity in its best form.

The application periods for Klimatklivet have now been cancelled due to the government's reduced authorization framework. The next regular application period will not open until the latter half of 2025.

We Social Democrats are investing 250 million kronor more than the government in Klimatklivet. We do not want Sweden to sit on its hands during 2025 and believe that more charging points need to be built and that Sweden needs more biogas, hydrogen, and all other smart climate transition initiatives.

Madam Speaker! My questions then are: What is the Christian Democrats' position on a reduced authorization framework for Klimatklivet? Does the Christian Democrats consider it time to brake development? Do the Christian Democrats want to brake more biogas production or the expansion of more charging points? If the Christian Democrats do not want that, which parties in the government are it then that ensure that the authorization framework is stopped, which means that no new initiatives can be launched?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Anna-Caren Sätherberg!

It is at least pleasing that the EU has finally come to the conclusion in recent days that we can continue to exempt biogas from tax. It was an issue that unfortunately arose because of the Landvärme judgment. We contacted the EU Commission directly, in contrast to the signals that the Social Democrats gave, at least initially; they wanted us to appeal. We considered it much better to speak directly with the EU Commission, because they nevertheless realized that it had been done incorrectly. We thus saved time by doing it over and doing it right instead of going through an appeal.

Unfortunately, an enormous anxiety and distress followed among those who had invested in biogas. I do not know how many meetings we had with stakeholders in the area. Therefore, it is gratifying that the work the government did, with the Minister for Rural Affairs at the forefront, regarding precisely agriculture and biogas has really made a difference. It has been successful.

We wish it could have gone faster, but at the EU level, it has nevertheless been concluded that we shall be allowed to exempt biogas from tax. We can therefore move forward now. It is absolutely crucial. On this point, we are therefore in complete agreement.

Charging infrastructure is something that we Christian Democrats have also invested money in when we have put forward our own budgets. There is no doubt that both biogas and charging infrastructure are issues that are close to our hearts. They are very important for Sweden to manage the transition. We need, again, all these energy sources. If we do not have clean energy, in different ways, we will also not manage the transition. If it then becomes with biogas or something else is up to the market to decide.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I truly share the joy that we will once again receive tax exemption on biogas, even though it has taken two years, which is not particularly good.

The member does not answer my question, Madam Speaker. You have lowered the authorization framework, which means that Klimatklivet has not been able to make any new tenders in November this year, and according to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's website, there will not be any until the end of 2025. It is an entire year during which we will not see any new charging points or farmers applying for biogas support. This support has been enormously popular and very good for the profitability of the farm and for the circularity and climate benefit it provides.

I really want an answer to the question of what the Christian Democrats actually think about the fact that the authorization framework has been lowered so that Klimatklivet will not be able to make any tenders. I find that to be concerning.

In his speech, the member also said that Sweden reaches the ESR target. Does the member have a fossil fuel car? Has the member refueled since September? Does he have it that the forecast is that we do not meet the ESR target, and that only because of the member's refueling?

I also want the member to answer whether he considers that Sweden can achieve the EU climate goals negotiated by the government with the current policy.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anna-Caren Sätherberg for the questions.

I can start with those that are absolutely easiest to answer. Yes, I drive a Skoda Octavia Scout model year 2017, or if it is possibly 2016, and it runs on diesel. And yes, I have refueled since September. But I feel quite secure, Madam Speaker, that Sweden's climate does not depend on whether I refuel my car or not. It is absolutely other parts that lie behind that. I do not take this personally, even though Anna-Caren Sätherberg served it this way.

I am, of course, not involved in the government's budget negotiations. I do not know what happens there. So, I am not involved in the substance. But what I know are the views we Christian Democrats have and what we have pushed for previously. Just as I said before, both charging infrastructure and biogas have been very important issues for us Christian Democrats, and we have pushed for them previously. It would surprise me greatly if we have not pushed for them now as well. But I, as I said, am not in the government and am not involved in the negotiations regarding the budget. On questions about that, I unfortunately do not have the possibility to answer, Anna-Caren Sätherberg.

I do know what we as a party stand for and feel very secure that we stand behind these two parts. Both biogas and charging infrastructure are important issues that must be highlighted. That is why we are investing more in charging infrastructure. There are, after all, investments in the budget on just charging infrastructure. Anna-Caren Sätherberg does not mention them in her question. With surgical precision, she avoids the investments that are nevertheless there.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! In a time when hopelessness spreads before an increasingly insecure world of climate crisis and devastated nature, where the water is poisoned by forever chemicals, what is it then that people need most? Is it broken promises and cuts? Do they want us to desperately cling to outdated technologies that push us even deeper into the crisis? Or do they want a hope that a better world is possible, that we together can solve problems and build a welfare society where everyone gets what they need within the planet's boundaries?

I know what I prefer. But the politics that the parties in the government base pursue will only continue to cultivate pessimism. They offer no faith in the future.

Upon taking office two years ago, they initiated a draconian policy of cuts in the environmental area, and since then they have launched a series of measures that drastically increase Sweden's emissions. Instead of focusing on the most important thing, namely to quickly reduce emissions here and now, the government is pushing climate measures ahead of itself. We have many times been told by the ministers that it is not so important what happens with the emissions by 2030, but that the focus is on reducing emissions in the longer term, by 2045.

I do not know if it is about deliberate attempts to mislead or a lack of knowledge, but it should in any case be made clear to everyone 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.

Compared to last year's budget, the government is cutting 1.5 billion on climate investments. This occurs at the same time as the economic situation causes the availability of private capital for investments to decrease. Without public capital for the transition of structures built around fossil fuels and raw materials, we miss the opportunity to transition.

The parties in the government support are also cutting back on things such as environmental monitoring, remediation of contaminated areas, and protection of valuable nature. With their policy, we will therefore have poorer knowledge of the state of the environment and fewer opportunities to clean up old environmental sins, and more of our shared natural heritage will be lost. Overall, the budget for expenditure area 20 is being cut by over 3 billion compared to last year's already heavily trimmed budget.

It is also remarkable how cuts in the environmental area are presented as investments. For example, the government wants to pretend that they are making an investment in measures for valuable nature, when the supplement only constitutes a fraction of what they have cut since taking office. The money 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 here and now. 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 thus join the ranks of governments around the world that alternately ignore and question the climate threat.

Madam Speaker! With a different policy, Sweden can 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 next ten years. With these investments, Sweden would take a major step toward 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 per year. We also want to reintroduce the climate bonus for electric cars but with a model that allows it to be utilized by people with lower incomes and which provides incentives for price pressure on the market. Only about one-third of the new cars in the last year were electric cars. That is an all too low proportion.

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 high 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 2 billion kronor more on measures for valuable nature. The money would, among other things, go to the restoration of wetlands and the rewetting of peatlands. These are measures that provide many benefits for the environment and the climate.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to invest in the protection of valuable nature. We are adding nearly 3.7 billion kronor more to our budget for this compared to the government. The UN's climate panel IPCC stated in a report from 2022 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 logged instead of being protected. Steering measures and regulations are required to achieve sustainable forestry. The old-growth forests that remain 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 logged instead, and many forest owners who want to have their forest protected risk being left without compensation. Irreplaceable nature values are thus lost.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to see a new appropriation for state co-financing of purification technology in municipalities where the drinking water has levels of PFAS that exceed the EU's guideline value. These chemicals are spread across the entire globe, and almost all people have PFAS in their blood. Research shows that PFAS substances cause negative health effects even at very low levels, which are commonly found in the blood of Sweden's population. At the same time, a number of mappings show that the drinking water in several locations in Sweden contains such high levels of PFAS that the population risks ingesting more than what is considered safe. Action is required here and now to protect our health. Installing carbon filters or investing in other purification technology is very costly for the waterworks. Therefore, the state must support the municipalities to ensure clean drinking water.

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 achieve broad popular acceptance.

In total, I and my party allocate more than 15 billion kronor more than the government to expenditure area 20 for the year 2025. I refer to our specific statement.

(Applause)

In this speech, Andreas Lennkvist Manriquez and Jessica Wetterling (both V) agreed.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Andrea Andersson Tay for the speech. I had actually intended to start by asking about something else, but I must still, Madam Speaker, ask if I heard correctly. If I heard correctly, Andrea Andersson Tay spoke of right-wing nationalist parties in connection with her remarks about the government. Is it the case that the Left Party's representative means that the Christian Democrats, the Liberals and the Moderates are right-wing nationalist parties?

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! I can answer that very quickly. Yes, that is what we believe.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I must say that it is remarkable that a representative in the Swedish Parliament stands in a speaking podium and claims that the Liberals, the Moderates, and the Christian Democrats are right-wing nationalist parties. What is it that the representative lays as the basis for these three parties to be counted as right-wing nationalist?

After the Second World War, the Christian Democrats were formed as a counterweight to Nazism but also to the ideology that Andrea Andersson Tay's own party has its origin in, namely communism. It was because these two movements were large in Europe that my own party was formed as a counterforce. Still, Andrea Andersson Tay has the nerve to stand in the plenary hall of Sweden's Riksdag and call the Christian Democrats a right-wing nationalist party. It is not worthy of this chamber, I think, Madam Speaker. I just want to mark that. The questions that I actually intended to ask in the substantive issue may remain.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind that the subject of the debate is climate, environment and nature.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! I regret that we cannot devote the debate to what it is intended to be about. There may have been noble reasons for the Christian Democrats being formed once upon a time, but it is the Christian Democrats themselves who have chosen to enter government with a party with Nazi roots, the Sweden Democrats. I do not think I need to say much more than that.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the 2025 budget for expenditure area 20 Climate, environment and nature.

We have seen many images during the year of the impact of the changing climate. Therefore, it is fortunate that this government came to power in time, as the climate transition is fundamentally an energy transition so that we can reduce our emissions.

Swedish climate policy is aimed at ensuring that net emissions of greenhouse gases from Swedish territory pass zero in 2045. After 2045, we shall have increasing negative emissions.

The climate transition is, as said, fundamentally an energy transition. Fossil fuels and raw materials are to be phased out and fossil-free energy production is to be established. During this mandate period, a number of decisions have been taken in the Riksdag to enable us to achieve a sustainable mix of electricity production in the form of solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear power. Together, they create a sustainable energy system that can be doubled by 2040.

The alternative, a volatile energy system, we have experienced this week due to the previous government's decommissioning of four nuclear power plants. The lack of predictable electricity production resulted in extreme electricity prices of 8 kronor per kilowatt-hour when the weather-dependent wind power did not deliver. So we cannot continue. We need a secure supply system if we are to succeed with the climate transition.

Madam Speaker! Several of the legislations that have been hindering the new nuclear power have been removed, and the incentives for land-based wind power for municipalities and neighbors shall increase the expansion of wind power. The investigation on the financing of nuclear power, which was recently presented, is now being prepared in the government. At the same time, the government is investing 100 million to support pilot and demonstration projects within the nuclear power area so that the new technologies can be tested.

In January, the investigation for the permit processes will be delivered. It is perhaps the most important investigation, as it affects the construction of both new electricity production and new fossil-free industries. We are taking steps one by one to restore and develop the stable electricity system that the previous government dismantled.

Madam Speaker! At the same time, the collection of carbon dioxide is now starting. The technology exists. The first auction for the collection of biogenic carbon dioxide, bio-CCS, was carried out during the autumn, and now we are evaluating the applications. In the budget for 2026, we have included 1.7 billion as support for bio-CCS. It is an important step in our long-term climate transition.

Madam Speaker! During the Swedish presidency of the EU, we succeeded in getting Fit for 55 across the finish line. During next year, 2025, which this budget concerns, we will receive a number of new EU requirements on emission levels and regulations, for example a new emissions trading system for shipping and buildings. ReFuelEU Aviation and FuelEU Maritime begin to influence these industries to gradually reduce their emissions towards 2050. To meet the requirements for aviation and shipping, we need to increase the pace of the electrification of road transport.

The transport sector accounts for a third of Sweden's emissions. The Swedish Transport Administration points out that every mode of transport must find its own solutions to reduce its emissions, as shifting between different modes of transport only contributes a few percent to the goal. Since road transport accounts for over 90 percent of domestic emissions within transport, the electrification of our road transport is a priority for the Liberals, primarily to quickly lower emissions but also because we need the fossil-free fuels for aviation and shipping instead. We therefore need to quickly expand the charging infrastructure and continue to support the purchase of electric vehicles.

In last year's budget, we laid out a whole battery of initiatives over a three-year period, 2024-2026. We allocated 4.5 billion as support for the purchase of electric trucks and electric construction machinery. A new support of 1.6 billion was introduced for the purchase of light trucks.

We also gave an extra support of 5.3 billion until 2026 which was placed in Klimatklivet, which was to focus on charging infrastructure, electrofuels, biogas production as well as waste management.

We put the 5.3 billion into Klimatklivet. In total, we invested an extra 12 billion over a three-year period to be able to manage the transition of road transport. To that, the government adds an extra 500 million for 2025 for charging infrastructure. It is a substantial investment that we hope will yield results in that more people will see the possibility of purchasing electric vehicles.

The Liberals and the coalition parties also intend to introduce a new electric car premium aimed at groups in need of support, for example in rural areas. It is 75 percent funded by the EU's Social Climate Fund. The planned start for the support is January 1, 2026.

To manage the transition of road transport, the production of biofuels must also increase significantly. It is pleasing that the Liberals and the coalition partners are pushing forward and have secured a decision in the EU that the tax exemptions for biogas apply until 2030. Those who were forced to pay tax during 2023 and 2024 can apply for a refund from Skatteverket.

Aviation has an important function for our international contacts and for holding Sweden together. At the same time, aviation's climate transition is proceeding in full force. With the ever-increasing, competition-neutral requirements for aviation in the EU, the Riksdag has decided to abolish the aviation tax. Double burdens threaten to sink aviation.

Now the focus should instead lie on utilizing the opportunity to fly fossil-free, increasing the production of fossil-free aviation fuel, and planning for how electric aviation can be introduced in the Nordic region with its great opportunities to create new flight routes.

Madam Speaker! Climate and environment are strongly interconnected, not least regarding wetlands. An investment in wetlands has several positive effects. It contributes to reduced emissions, better water quality, provides many positive effects on biodiversity, reduces the risk of flooding, and functions as a water reservoir for the landscape's protection against drought and fire.

To achieve these double effects, an initiative on wetlands is underway with a total of 765 million during 2024-2026. The support will subsequently be scaled up to nearly 600 million per year 2026-2030.

The government is now also introducing a completely new support, Kväveklivet. It aims to help farmers eliminate their emissions of nitrogen compounds, such as ammonia and nitrous oxide. The support can go towards measures such as, for example, covers over manure facilities or tractors that, with the help of sensors, detect how much nitrogen they need to press into the ground. It will reduce agriculture's climate impact and the eutrophication that harms Swedish lakes, watercourses, and not least the Baltic Sea.

The fight against invasive species in the aquatic environment also receives increased support. The invasive species threaten biodiversity and displace other plants and animals. Management of valuable nature is simultaneously increased from 130 to 150 million kronor per year during 2025-2027, in order to strengthen the management of nature reserves and restoration of meadows and pastures.

Finally, the climate transition must be perceived as fair. It is the companies and the consumers who carry out the climate transition through their choices. If people are to have the strength to persevere over several decades, it must be perceived as fair.

One of Sweden's major contributions to the global climate transition is our technological development and the export by companies of precisely processes and products to the rest of the world.

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

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! In November, Ulf Kristersson and Romina Pourmokhtari asserted in a debate article that the rest of the world should follow our path in climate policy. It is ironic given that the government is pursuing a policy that increases emissions.

In the second quarter of this year, Swedish emissions increased by 5.6 percent according to SCB compared to the same period in 2023. If the rest of the world were to follow our path, it would lead to catastrophe.

It is something unique that the government is doing. One is conducting a policy that actively increases emissions through political decisions. One does this with the knowledge that we actually must reduce emissions faster than we have ever done before to avoid the most catastrophic effects of the climate crisis.

There is no room to increase emissions now to reduce more later, as some of the government's ministers seem to believe. My question is: Do Helena Gellerman and the Liberals think it is okay that emissions are increasing while we face the risk of a runaway climate catastrophe?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question!

Climate change is very close to my heart. That is why I began my speech by saying that it is important that we see the climate transition as a system. The climate transition is an energy transition.

During the previous parliamentary term, the member's party voted to shut down four nuclear power plants. They also stopped the new development of two nuclear power plants. Now we are not just going to discuss nuclear power here. But the fact remains that it is the decommissioning that has caused us to have very high prices.

We are not getting the fossil-free industry to establish itself. This applies in particular in my region in Västra Götaland. We are not getting the cheap electricity from Norrland. There are external people who confirm that it is because nuclear power was phased out.

In that way, the electricity price has gone up by at least 40 percent. It would have been lower if we had not shut down the nuclear power plants. One must see it as a whole.

By doing this, we will be able to have an energy system that allows for a continuous transition to 2045. With the energy system that the member stands behind, one only looks to 2030, because one cannot look any further. There is no policy for how we are to reach the goals for 2045.

I am for us having more wind power. It is the fastest we can have in the short term. But we must also solve it in the long term so that it does not become a leap of faith after 2030.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe that several of us here can agree that the debate has focused far too much on nuclear power and far too little on the issues that it should be focusing on.

It is time for someone to say it as it is: The Emperor is naked. That building new nuclear power would have particularly much to do with the climate transition is something that the parties in the government base have made up to have something to bring to the climate debate.

There is one thing in the Prime Minister's and the Climate Minister's debate article that I can actually agree with. I believe Helena Gellerman was on the same point in her speech. Climate work must be long-term and have broad acceptance among the population.

Unfortunately, the government also fails completely on both of those points. Long-term climate work requires powerful investments in the transition, well-functioning railways, electrification of road traffic, and rapid expansion of offshore wind power. Sweden succeeds in none of this under the current government.

For climate work to gain broad acceptance, it is also required that people feel a fundamental security and that society is there when it is needed. It is, therefore, the exact opposite of the welfare crisis that the government's policy creates.

I know that many Swedes today are disappointed with the Liberals for their broken promises. For the Minister for Climate and Environment to apologize by saying that one has been forced into compromises with less ambitious parties rings false. The fact is that the Liberals can choose to leave the government any day and ensure that Sweden gets a new government. It is the Liberals who actively choose to govern together with parties that deny the climate crisis instead of cooperating with those who actually want to solve it.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for further questions from the member.

One of the reasons why we chose to join the government we are in was that we saw that the other path was not viable. The Liberals were the party that did not join the energy agreement, because we already saw when it started that an energy system does not work if one does not have predictable energy. We do not want to expand hydropower, and then it is nuclear power that remains. Therefore, we did not join the energy agreement.

We thought it was positive when the Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna drew the same conclusion. We saw then that if this is to work, and if one is to make a serious climate transition, it is important to have predictable energy with a sensible price level. One cannot just talk about cheap energy, because hydropower and nuclear power also provide a stability in the system. And that is what the companies strive for.

I see, for example, that due to the decommissioning of nuclear power, we will need to use gas turbines so that we can have jobs and so that the companies do not disappear outside of Sweden's borders.

This government has said yes to wind farms and to more offshore wind turbines than the previous government did. But it has still only replaced one of the nuclear power plants that the previous government, with the support of the Left Party, stood behind the decommissioning of.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I am last in tonight's debate on our environmental budget.

Sweden is a fantastic country. We live here, and most of us are doing well. Sweden is often ranked among the best when it comes to standard of living. We have a good innovation climate, and our commitment to the environment and climate is high.

When foreign guests come to us, many are impressed by our waste management and waste sorting, by our public transport, or by the fact that there are nature areas near our cities and also wild animals that live near us in the urban areas. We have much to be proud of, but we must also be honest about the challenges we face.

For us in Centerpartiet, it is clear that Sweden should continue to be a pioneer when it comes to meeting environmental and climate challenges. But we also see a major problem in today's government, where the largest party does not even really stand behind all the milestones for the climate. We see the serious consequences of this policy already now.

We have a responsibility, both here in Sweden and globally, to take action to meet the environmental and climate crisis we face. Right now, the Tidö parties have the greatest responsibility because they are the ones who have the majority in our parliament. If we do not truly address the environmental and climate issue, we risk not only our future from an environmental perspective, but we also lose opportunities to strengthen our economy, our society, and our role as a leading country.

Madam Speaker! In the government's autumn budget, we see that several initiatives that could bring us closer to our environmental and climate goals are missing. It is a deeply serious situation. Every ton of increased emissions worsens the climate crisis, damages the economy, and makes the transition more expensive.

At the same time, we see that the green transition is being delayed and that subsidies for fossil energy continue to increase. It is not only bad for the environment, but it is also a risk to our competitiveness. Companies and innovators who have been driving the transition now feel that the political uncertainty is braking their work. Their investments are delayed, and companies see themselves forced to move their investments to countries that have a clearer and more predictable climate policy. It is not only bad for the climate; we also risk losing jobs and tax revenues here in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! What shall we do then? What is required for Sweden to be able to lead the transition and meet these climate challenges? I want to speak about three important principles: innovation, governance, and long-term perspective.

First and foremost, we must ensure that innovations and new technology are given the right conditions to flourish. Sweden is already one of the world's most innovative countries, and our companies are world leaders in green technology. This is not something we should let go of. There are great business opportunities in the green transition, and we have all the prerequisites to become even better at utilizing them.

By setting clear and ambitious climate goals for companies and by creating the right economic incentives, we can stimulate a rapid transition. But this requires that politics does not brake development, but rather that we facilitate for companies to gear up.

It is also about governance to move step-by-step in the right direction for the environment. In that case, steering mechanisms and incentives are needed that steer people towards a more environmentally friendly behavior, because it should be easy to do the right thing.

One example is the tax on plastic carrier bags, which the government has now abolished. Regardless of how this tax affected economically - in some ways perhaps not correctly - it reduced the total use of plastic, which contributed to reducing the littering of plastic overall.

When the tax is now removed, it risks leading to an increase in consumption again. I have received signals from retailers that now, after one and a half months, more people are buying plastic bags, and this results in more plastic waste in nature. At the same time, the state loses a revenue that could have been used to counteract littering. Today, the municipalities spend large sums on cleaning our cities and urban areas, resources that could be used for something else.

To tackle the problem with plastic waste, the government must wake up, take a holistic approach, and truly prioritize the issue of plastic. For the second year in a row, we are missing the target for the collection of packaging waste for plastic. Therefore, it is required that we, in total, reduce the use of plastic packaging, and when we finally discard a package, it must be recycled.

But the environmental and climate issue is naturally greater than that. To slow down climate change, we must ensure that we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and instead invest in sustainable alternatives. We must create a system where it pays to invest in green technology and where it is no longer cheap to destroy our climate. If we do not do this, if we do not do it now and if we do not dare to make the tough decisions, we will not reach our climate goals. That is why Centerpartiet stands firm that the climate goals must be binding and that they must be followed up with concrete policy.

Madam Speaker! Innovation and governance are not enough. In order for us to be able to make these changes for real, we must think long-term. It is about rebuilding our society from the ground up. We need to replace the linear flows, where we produce, consume, and discard, with circular flows in order to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It is not just for the sake of the climate but also to increase our national security.

By reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, especially those from Russia and other authoritarian regimes, we make Sweden more independent and more secure. And for this to happen, we need to create conditions for both companies and people to participate in the transition.

Centerpartiet proposes, for example, a people's bonus for those who replace their fossil-fueled cars with environmentally friendly cars. This support, which means 50,000 kronor to switch to an environmentally friendly car, will help many households take the step towards a more sustainable future. It is about giving people the opportunity to do the right thing for the climate without it becoming a financial burden.

Here, the government has only managed to produce a scrappage premium that by the end of November managed to reach just over 200 cars. That is not enough. That is not how we transition the vehicle fleet. The climate transition of the transport sector requires measures and political reforms within electrification, a transport-efficient society, and renewable fuels. Until now, the government has removed or weakened several important policy instruments such as the travel deduction, the urban environment agreement, the reduction obligation, the taxation of gasoline and diesel, and the bonus for purchasing electric cars.

Instead, the Centre Party wants to direct the premium towards the purchase of used electric cars, electric bicycles, and public transport passes and reintroduce the bonus for the purchase of new electric cars.

Finally: We have a responsibility to manage and protect our nature. Our ecosystems are invaluable for the climate and for our well-being. Therefore, the Center Party wants to increase support for local nature conservation work and preserve our protected areas. We must also restore and remediate areas that have been contaminated and intensify the work against eutrophication and invasive alien species. Our biodiversity is not only important for nature; it is also a prerequisite for a sustainable future.

Madam Speaker! How would it have looked if the Centre Party had been allowed to decide? Well, not quite like this, at least. I and the Centre Party do not stand behind the government's budget. We have instead our own budget which is to be seen as a whole, and therefore we have no motion here. I refer instead to the Centre Party's special statement.

Now we stand at a crossroads. We have all the prerequisites to be world-leading when it comes to creating a sustainable society, but for this to become a reality, politics must take responsibility.

Centerpartiet wants to be a part of this change. We want to be involved in creating the conditions required for our companies to be able to grow, so that we can meet the climate crisis and so that Sweden can be a pioneering country in sustainable development. We want future foreign guests to also continue to be interested in our environmental work. In order for us to succeed, we must be brave, take responsibility and make the decisions that are required for the future's environment and climate.

With that, I would like to wish everyone here in the chamber who has endured a very good Christmas.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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