Climate, environment and nature

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating expenditure area 20, a fantastic area in the state budget that goes by the name Climate, Environment and Nature. In that way, it covers pretty much most things. This is the last time we are debating the expenditure area during this parliamentary term, and there can therefore be some point in looking back and seeing what has been achieved but also what is to come.

Madam Speaker! When the Tidö parties took over responsibility for the state budget, we had a complete failure in expenditure area 20. The environmental budget came to be completely dominated by an electric car subsidy. One understands how chaotic it was when the Social Democrats tried to set the budget when they first allocated 3.5 billion kronor and were then forced to top up several times so that the budget for the electric car bonus finally landed at 7.4 billion.

It means that the Social Democratic government ended the mandate period by spending approximately one-third of the budget for climate, nature and environment on purchasing cars with taxpayers' money, cars that mostly ended up with companies and the public sector with the result that they later ended up in other countries.

Madam Speaker! From the autumn of 2022, there was an end to the madness and an end to the world's highest fuel prices. If we remove the subsidies for vehicles, we can state that significantly more money is being spent on the environment in 2026 than was the case in 2022, when the focus instead was on buying cars.

Madam Speaker! One can also discuss whether there should be support in the state budget to purchase passenger cars; it could be said to be something that lies outside the state's core mandate. But if one is to have it, it would be reasonable with a well-balanced support that does not spiral so that it costs a good bit over 10 billion, which would have been the forecast for 2023 if no one had come in and put a stop to these follies.

In this budget, there is such a proposal that does not go to large companies and the public sector but aims to hit clear target groups – in other words, the antithesis to the madness during the Socialdemokraternas years in power.

Madam Speaker! We are going through exciting times when it comes to climate policy. We were quite few here in the Riksdag who warned of the consequences when the EU Commission, during the pandemic, without any proper debate, launched the European Green Deal and the Fit for 55 package. This could be said to be the worst phase, when a majority of Europe's and Sweden's politicians got high on various forms of Greta Thunberg campaigns.

But now we have entered the period of sobriety. The twelve-step program has started. Greta Thunberg is now fully occupied with campaigning for Hamas, stopping wind turbines in Norway, and working to stop the defense industry together with Italian communists. Instead of heavy regulatory proposals from the commission, we now get simplification proposals that scale back, in any case, parts of the regulatory burden that fell on European households and companies.

But, Madam Speaker, not everyone has chosen to sober up. We have red-green parties both here in the chamber and in the European Parliament who are worried about every simplification package. They want wording stating that no simplification shall take place if it could be thought to lead to reduced protection in any area. That is, of course, a utopia, because if you remove regulations, you will at least on the margins get a reduced protection. The question is whether the rules are compatible with a reasonable cost-benefit analysis. We would get the very best environmental and climate work if we shut down our industry and make people poor so that they cannot afford to buy anything. That would be the most effective way to reduce emissions as quickly as possible – if that is the only thing one cares about.

Madam Speaker! Politics must, however, be able to weigh different interests against each other and realize that there are fundamental goal conflicts, and that politically formulated climate goals are not something that one can blindly follow and believe that emissions will decrease. We have, for example, the EU's LULUCF regulation which in the long run will contribute to increased emissions in the world and which large parts of the opposition want Sweden to follow. Reduced raw materials from forests lead to more products from fossil raw materials, and longer turnover times also lead to impaired growth and thus reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, one must, of course, expect tens of thousands of lost jobs.

Madam Speaker! Today we can rejoice in the statistics that came from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, which show that the Swedish net emissions are even lower than before. The uptake in forest and land has increased.

Another consequence that a misguided climate policy can have is that it targets Swedish agriculture. Large parts of the opposition want to shock-increase diesel taxes, which would immediately result in cost increases of 700–800 million kronor in Swedish agriculture. The result would be a reduced share of Swedish food and more foreign-produced food, as well as an increase in emissions in the world.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has nothing to be ashamed of in the area of climate. Sweden's fossil share of energy consumption is around 30 percent. The world average is 80 percent. Furthermore, all scenarios regarding Swedish climate emissions are consistent: emissions are decreasing over time.

The problem in the world is that fossil energy use continues to increase. The positive thing in the world is that the increasing fossil energy use is no longer increasing as quickly.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Volvo Cars and Polestar have 23,000 employees in Sweden combined. That is without counting all the employees of the subcontractors. The companies belong to the automakers that are at the forefront. They have everything to gain from the EU standing firm on its ambitious climate legislation, which, among other things, means that newly produced cars in 2035 should have no emissions. They have therefore strongly criticized those who want the EU to back down from this goal.

SD has not listened. Instead, they have joined those who want to benefit the companies that cling to the old technology.

Madam Speaker! My question is, of course, why the Sweden Democrats support a policy that is bad both for the climate and for Swedish jobs.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Åsa Westlund, for the questions!

The EU's current legislation is about the internal combustion engine being banned in 2035. I remember when we negotiated this in the committee once upon a time. At that time, actually all parties in the Riksdag agreed that it was a bad idea to ban a certain technology, especially because we have an important biogas industry in our country. Why should one not be allowed to drive cars on biogas, for example? One should also be able to drive Volvo's cars on biogas.

The reasonable thing is that we have legislation in Europe that aims to phase out emissions. Then, one has to take it step by step. We have plug-in hybrid technology that is increasing in popularity worldwide, and we have the possibility of larger batteries in these cars. There are absolutely possibilities to combine the climate transition with the internal combustion engine.

I have full understanding that some companies lock themselves in and listen to European politicians, but the responsibility naturally lies with those in power who have decided on these regulatory frameworks and are then forced to change their minds when they realize that it does not work – one has been naive again, as Stefan Löfven used to say.

Now we will probably see adjusted legislation. It may not have huge consequences, because I am convinced that we will move towards electric power anyway. The last percentages can, however, be very costly. It could lead to us having old cars that people wait to scrap, which cause greater particulate emissions and, in that respect, also climate emissions. I do not think that is the way forward.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are in power today, and it is clear that they do not intend to take Swedish jobs into account. It is more important for the Sweden Democrats to be against climate policy than to safeguard Swedish jobs and Swedish companies. I think that is a very clear message today from the Sweden Democrats. Not even the threat that this could harm Swedish growth and the Swedish economy and make many Swedes unemployed can get the Sweden Democrats to be for something that is also good for the climate. I thank you for the answer. It was clear.

I want to ask one more question. For nearly an entire parliamentary term, the Sweden Democrats and the government have allocated too few funds for the maintenance of our fantastic Swedish nature. All around Sweden, windbreaks have been blown down and left lying destroyed. Hiking trails have fallen into disrepair. The biodiversity is also at risk because you have not allocated sufficient resources to take care of the cultural heritage that our nature is. Not even this year, when you have a reform space of 80 billion, are you prepared to allocate enough money to prevent this cultural heritage from being destroyed. How do the Sweden Democrats justify the deprioritization of Swedish nature, and how does it relate to your ideology?

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Åsa Westlund, for the questions!

When it comes to Volvo Cars, a compromise was reached that takes into account the company's decisions and investment direction. They will continue to have the opportunity to sell these credits to other car manufacturers. In the long term, however, it is also problematic for Swedish jobs if the European automotive industry goes under. A long line of subcontractors in Sweden deliver to various car manufacturers in Europe and around the world. They do not benefit from an automotive industry going under in, for example, Germany.

Madam Speaker! There were questions about measures for valuable nature and the investments there. I note that in the budget we are presenting, for example, reinforcements of 50 million kronor are made for the upgrading of hiking trails. We from the Sweden Democrats' side consider this an important part of the investment. At the same time, different interests must be weighed against each other.

I do not believe that Swedes' greatest problem in everyday life is difficulties in getting out into the forest and taking part in nature. I believe that it works reasonably well. A bigger problem is people's insecurity in public environments and that people are worried about gang shootings, explosions and so on. People who commit crimes are not imprisoned for long enough. More resources need to be allocated there.

There is no problem today with the fact that one cannot go out into forest and nature. On the other hand, in the long run, a reorganization of the policy in the area is needed. We need to review the environmental goals. We need to move away from a policy where we increase the proportion of protected land and instead focus on protecting the right land, which could be slightly less. Then more resources are also provided to take care of the land that we protect.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The contributions from Member Kinnunen on environmental issues have been relatively similar to one another during these years. We are all more or less predictable – so also in this final budget debate for the parliamentary term.

The Sweden Democrats often emphasize that environmental and climate policy should be effective and cost-effective and have a global perspective. The Member of Parliament also usually criticizes what the SD calls symbol politics and poster politics. At the same time, the Sweden Democrats have expressed an ambition to sit in a government after the next election, or if it is even a requirement – otherwise, the party will go into opposition.

If the Sweden Democrats are included in the next government, will there even be room for concrete national environmental initiatives such as the maintenance of valuable nature, remediation of PFAS, restoration of wetlands, measures against eutrophication, and preservation of biodiversity? Kinnunen mentioned in the previous exchange of remarks that, in the long run, a reorganization of the policy needs to take place.

How much will the environmental budget shrink if the Sweden Democrats are in a government?

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' ambition is not to shrink the environmental budget at all. Then, of course, one must weigh different things against each other.

If we can try to invest in things that people see making a difference, I believe that support for an increased environmental budget can increase among voters. I believe it is a problem if one, for example, reaches a situation such as I spoke of in my speech, where a third of the environmental budget goes to purchasing passenger cars. Then we probably won't get any popular legitimacy for such a large environmental budget.

We believe the budget we have today is well-balanced given the challenges Sweden faces. I definitely see great opportunities to establish a new policy so that we can take care of the areas we protect in a better way. One could perhaps exchange one area for another if a certain area has received increased protection value and another has received decreased protection value. It simply provides increased flexibility. The same applies to investments in our seas.

This is definitely a priority area. I think it is noticeable from the size of the budget item.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! It still sounds reassuring that at least the Member here in the Riksdag sees that environmental issues need to be prioritized moving forward as well. In other assemblies, I have heard the opposite from Martin Kinnunen's party colleagues.

I can compare a little bit. The Sweden Democrats sometimes use the same words as we in the Center Party regarding that climate policy should be efficient and technology-friendly and that the countryside should not be punished. But when I look at the actual proposals, two completely incompatible ambitions within environmental policy emerge.

Centerpartiet advocates for a broad environmental and climate policy based on market incentives. We want to see an ambitious electric car bonus, green tax shifts, and support for renewable energy such as wind and solar power. We are also pushing for a broader agenda that includes a circular economy and new industries within, for example, textile recycling.

The Sweden Democrats' policy is the exact opposite of the Centre Party's, Martin Kinnunen. You often consider environmental policy to be inefficient and costly, you have been driving to abolish or lower the reduction obligation, and you have pushed for a lowered environmental budget for several years. Furthermore, you chose not to even answer questions about circular economy in a survey last autumn from, among others, Avfall Sverige.

At the same time, SD is positive towards opening up for uranium mining in alunschist in Sweden. How do you justify sacrificing the local environment and valuable agricultural land for uranium mining and overriding municipalities while you actively dismantle other national environmental measures?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now the member mentioned the survey from Cradlenet. I was actually quite provoked when I received it. It was a typical survey where the questions were based on the interest organization's own agenda. Then one is to be scored based on how well one's own proposals rhyme with the interest organization's. I am sorry, but I lack tolerance for Cradlenet's surveys. I intend to never answer them again. That is a promise. Cradlenet – if you hear this, do not send any surveys to me!

Madam Speaker! I see a certain problem here. Stina Larsson speaks of market orientation. At the same time, we are to have increased investments in electric cars and in building certain energy production which is also very variable, which exposes our power grid to increased costs and causes even higher bills.

We see increased investments in a certain type of recycling. I believe more that in order to increase textile recycling, one must get a market started, and for that, the regulations that are underway must first be in place. It has not been perfect from the European side.

The fundamental problem with textile recycling is that the material that is recycled is much more expensive than virgin material. Then one has to ask people if they want very much more expensive clothes or not. It will at some point be about that, if the raw material becomes very much more expensive.

One can also hope for technological development. That is what I do.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are here to debate expenditure area 20, which concerns climate, environment and nature. It is a dear subject for Miljöpartiet. Since our budget motion is over 17 pages long, it will be difficult to stay within the time limit, but I will try, Madam Speaker. We have a budget framework that exceeds the set one and will therefore not be able to make any motions. We refer instead to our special statement.

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with a birthday party I attended a few weeks ago. The dot turned 40. The dot is not a person, but it is a dot out in the sea where environmental monitoring is conducted, and has been conducted for over 40 years. The party was at Kristineberg, and almost everyone who had ever been involved during the dot's time was there. I, who had been a student at the aforementioned place, was also invited there. The whole thing was very fun. Odd Lindahl, who was one of those who started taking samples there, told how it went and that one then saw the value of continuing with the monitoring.

The monitoring involves taking different water parameters and examining primary production and zooplankton. This makes it possible to see differences over the year and how it has changed as the algal bloom has arrived earlier and earlier. The water temperature has also been investigated. In the beginning, this was done by enthusiasts who saw the value of this for other research. Since then, some funding has been received to continue.

In the middle of the celebration, while everyone who was there told how they had used data from there during the year, there was also a concern. One sees that cuts are being made in environmental monitoring. Since the Tidö government took office in 2022, environmental monitoring has almost halved. Now the government has injected some money, but the monitoring is still down by 100 million compared to 2022.

Environmental monitoring is so much more than just primary production and zooplankton. It is the backbone of almost all climate policy and also for companies that are going to establish themselves, because the whole thing is based on the research that is conducted. One needs to have knowledge of how it looks in order to know that the measures being implemented are correct or to be able to measure how parameters change over time.

We have had monitoring at sea for many years. SMHI goes out with a boat once a month and takes samples. It is of course expensive because it requires manpower. Now, however, there has been a hitch in the curve, and instead of twelve times, they have been out nine times.

These values can never be recreated. It is not possible to extrapolate backwards. The data that is not collected now does not exist. I do not understand how, as a government party, one can take so much money from these areas when one is sitting there and is supposed to be making a climate and environmental budget and says it prioritizes this. This is the foundation. One can think what one wants, but if we don't even have this, we don't know how it will turn out.

In the Miljöpartiet's budget motion, this is of course included, and we accommodate the various authorities' demands. Under different budget items, one can see that environmental monitoring is included in all parts. We have 162 million more that are to go to, among other things, monitoring of PFAS, climate, soil health, and invasive species. We also have an initiative on new methods.

Environmental monitoring is about doing things in the same way all the time. Let's go back to the birthday party for the dot. There is a company in Denmark that makes a reagent solely for this sampling so that everything remains the same so that nothing can differ. This reagent is not made for anyone else; no one else uses it. But in order to get the same figures and the same results, one continues with the production.

However, new methods are also being developed. For example, AI is being trained to recognize different types of plankton, and various land areas are being monitored with drones. But such things take time and cost money. Then, the whole thing must be calibrated with previous results so that there are no gaps. Some say that one must streamline and that this will displace previous methods. Yes, that may happen, but right now it costs more to ensure that the models overlap and that the new ones become equally accurate.

I think this is one of the most serious parts. One is giving a debt to future generations here. The data we do not have today, we will never get back.

Madam Speaker! Something else we will never get back is the nature that is disappearing today and which we could have protected. There is a comprehensive reduction of the budget for this, and that has been the case throughout the entire period of the Tidö government. We see that the Tidö government has withdrawn a lot of money. But now they add a little – and say that they are making investments despite the total amount being less than it was at the beginning. Within environmental monitoring, they are now investing 20 million, but it is still a total reduction of over 100 million. This is a play on words, and we see it everywhere.

Let us look at the protection of biodiversity and protected nature. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency writes in its assessment that they judge that long-term and stable funding is needed to manage protected areas and make nature accessible. The available funds for the management of the protected areas, that is, grant funds that have not been earmarked for other purposes, are expected to be at the clearly lowest level since 2014 during 2026–2028. We know who took power in 2014.

They further write that the inflation of recent years has also eroded the available funds. To demonstrate the development over time in real terms, their calculations, with 2018 as the base year, show that the amount that can be allocated per protected area with the current funding level appears to be almost halved from 102,000 kronor per area in 2018 to 54,000 kronor per area in 2028. It is a halving in real money.

This continues in area after area.

During the last minutes of my speaking time, I want to say what we want to do. We want to see that one, just as the government is doing now within defense and as we have agreed to, borrows money. One borrows money for defense and for other parts that protect us as a society. Miljöpartiet believes that one must also borrow money to invest in those areas that will cost much more in the future if one does not invest in them today.

We have a large and strong climate budget. We invest in environmental research and the management of protected areas. We also have a large investment in electric cars and in getting electric vehicles out. This does not only apply to private individuals, but we want to take back what applied to, for example, city buses. We also want to ensure that the business sector is involved in this. We are therefore ramping up Industriklivet, which the government has scaled back. We have climate agreements for the forest and a climate step.

We also have a new recycling step. In the committee, it is often discussed that one must utilize the resources that exist, and that is something the different parties often agree on as well. Therefore, we in Miljöpartiet believe that the circular flows must get started, and we have a recycling step for that. Society must not end up in the same situation as we have now with, for example, textiles. They are collected, but there is no destination. State funds are needed to get this started.

My speaking time is now over. I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Speaker's Bureau, the committee and all the listeners a happy new year, but first and foremost, a very Merry Christmas.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the speech. We who know Emma know that she truly burns for, not least, the sea. The beginning of her speech was about exactly this. We in the committee were on a trip in Bohuslän in September. Then it really became clear what a great interest this was for Emma Nohrén, but we also realized what great knowledge she has. I therefore have full understanding for the member's passion for this.

When we look at the Green Party's budget motion, there is no doubt that they are passionate about these issues. And they are not just a little passionate. If we look at the appropriations of the government and the parties in opposition, we see that two parties have more, shall we say, normal deviations in relation to the government's budget. Then we have two parties that deviate significantly, one of which deviates enormously, and that is precisely the Green Party, Madam Speaker. They want to allocate almost 26 billion more than the government in expenditure area 20, i.e., a total of 45.5 billion kronor. That is more than a doubling in this expenditure area.

Then the question is, Madam Speaker: Where does one get the money to manage to make these investments? Well, Emma Nohrén mentioned in her speech that it involves loans, among other things. One wants to borrow the equivalent of 1 percent of GDP and go outside ordinary frameworks. One is trying to find a separate way to get its own money that we others cannot participate in playing with. In what way does the Green Party believe this can lead forward to a policy that can become a reality, when one stands out so enormously regarding both the amount and how the money is to be obtained?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the question! I recall that we discussed the same question in an exchange of remarks last year.

We had an election promise in 2022. We were to invest 100 billion per year to meet future threats – what we do now and what we invest, we will get back. Back then, people laughed at us. Now the playing field has changed, and there is an agreement to actually borrow money, but now for defense – 300 billion, that is to say even more money – because it concerns a common threat and something that needs to be done for society.

We see that the climate and environment area is something that costs money, where one does not meet it with budget funds. Therefore, one needs to ensure to borrow and do these things now so that it will be cheaper in the future. When it comes to natural forests, it takes several hundred years before the forest that is cut down now has grown up again. The things that are not done today when it comes to transport, for example infrastructure and trains, will cost even more to do in the future. We only see from the inflation in recent years that the money is not worth as much today as it was before – we get less for it. Therefore, we want to see these investments.

We know that the climate threat is here and that it is moving faster. The IPCC report, which came out this spring, says that today's generation, those born in the 2000s, will never experience normal weather or a normal situation. The situation will be constantly renewed. We must ensure that we slow down the pace for this accelerating threat.

Then large efforts are required. They are needed for protection, maintenance and environmental monitoring, so that we know what exists, but also to ensure that we transition and continue with a strong industrial step and that private individuals have the opportunity to switch to electric cars and can be part of the transition without, for that reason, sacrificing their welfare.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for at least a partial answer!

Debt to future generations, Emma Nohrén mentioned in her speech. That is certainly what will happen with the substantial loans that Miljöpartiet will take on in this area.

Sweden had an inflation that we have now, thank God, managed to fight so that we are down to practically normal size. But the more money we scatter out again, the greater the risk that inflation will take off again so that Sweden, just as Emma Nohrén mentioned, gets an inflation that means that money becomes worth less – that one gets less.

It is extremely important, Madam Speaker, that we nevertheless try to have some kind of grounding in reality. Emma Nohrén mentioned infrastructure, among other things. That was the expenditure area that was debated before this debate. There we note the investments that Miljöpartiet wants to make, but the authorities say: We cannot manage any more – it doesn't matter how much money you invest. They say: We cannot handle it; the money will only decay. It helps no one to just scatter money if there is no recipient who can handle them at the other end. We must have grounding in reality.

Emma Nohrén mentioned the protection of forests. I have asked Emma Nohrén this question many times before, but I have not received any answer worth mentioning. Here, one is to protect and protect and protect, but if we are to transition from fossil – we are in complete agreement that the fossil must be removed – what shall we then replace it with, if we are not to use, for example, raw materials from the forest? Will it then be that we are to back into the future?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! If Kjell-Arne Ottosson looks at this expenditure area, he sees that we are meeting the requirements for the various institutions and works. There must also be personnel resources for the processing so that it is possible to get these funds out. In some cases, it may perhaps be a bit too much for one year, but that is what is needed when making calculations of what must be done.

I want to remind the members that we actually have an internationally binding agreement that we shall protect 30 percent of our nature. It shall be representative, and it shall hold together. That means we must protect all our different parts of nature.

There was an agreement between the parties – not those on Kjell-Arne Ottsson's side but the others – that we would protect the mountain forest, which was based on an investigation. There was money in the budget – it cost a very lot. But then another budget won, and that was also what broke the government. Then we saw that these funds were needed in order to be able to make that commitment. Even if we had made the large redemption of the mountain forest and protected it, we would not have fulfilled our entire international commitment. We see that other countries are now starting to catch up and make the commitments that we do not make. This applies to all types of nature.

Then, of course, we must also ensure that we use. It is not that everything should just stand and be, but we must also use. That is what the Green Party wants to do. We have several proposals, which we primarily discussed last week when we debated expenditure area 23, on how to achieve sustainable use when it comes to the forest.

But this money shall also go to the sea. We need clean drinking water. We need to protect marine areas. We must also ensure that those who currently work and farm receive transition support. We have included that, for example, for those who are located within the areas where we want to move the trawling limit or in the protected areas, where it will be closed for fishing.

This must be a whole, and then it will cost money. But it will also be that which actually ensures that we get a future.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet is betting on protection, said Emma Nohrén. There are many problems with Miljöpartiet, but I would say that the fundamental problem is a lack of trust. People do not trust the forest owners, even though it is precisely they who, over generations, have built up the high natural values that Sweden is known for today. It is about forests that have been managed with responsibility, knowledge, and long-term perspective and, of course, often with an eye on a period that extends further than the next parliamentary term.

History also shows something else: When the state takes over the detailed management of the forest, the results become worse. There is less engagement, fewer investments, and less accountability. That is not how you build either high natural values or climate benefits.

At the same time, there is an obvious contradiction in the Green Party's policy. They want to build more in wood, but they also want the forest to remain untouched. The forest should be used as a climate solution, but at the same time, those who manage it are being cast into suspicion. It does not add up, Madam Speaker. This is about land that has been inherited for generations and about a responsibility that one carries with heart, knowledge, and faith in the future, for one's children and grandchildren. I wonder how this adds up? How is the Green Party going to succeed in the feat of building more in wood without active forestry?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet wants to see an active but sustainable forestry. The forest has a very long rotation period, and here we are able to see what is commonly called shifting baseline in biological terms. In Bohuslän, where I live – I know the member also lives on the west coast – all the forest disappeared during the 1700s and 1800s because we had tar works during the great herring periods. Before that, there was spruce all the way down there. It is not there today. The forest that has returned is often younger.

We have never had so little forest in Sweden as we had at the beginning of the 1900s. It is often said that we have not had as much forest in Sweden in 100 years as we have now. That is because we had removed so much forest. At the end of the 1900s it was low, and then came laws that one should replant.

Different things have happened in the forest all the time. I have personally inherited forest that my grandfather managed, and I manage it together with some sisters. However, it is not exactly the same trees, because a re-parceling was done in the 90s because they wanted larger plots. But I feel strongly for that forest and have walked in it since I was little.

What we in Miljöpartiet want is that the forest that is usually to be cultivated should be managed in such a way that it does not contribute to increased climate emissions and that one tries to do as much as possible to preserve biodiversity. It is possible to do this in other ways than those that have been prevailing with clear-cutting and shelterwood forestry.

Then we have this with long-lived products. Today, it is 17 percent of the forest that becomes long-lived products and thus remains for over two years. From one tree, one can use approximately 50 percent for long-lived products in a normal sawmill. Thus, 32 percent is missing, which could become building materials, lecterns or other things.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Since freedom under responsibility was introduced, forestry has improved. Nature values have increased, and we have received much more forest here in Sweden. It is precisely those forest owners who broke the law and managed the forest in their own way who made it so that we have the diversity we have today. We have 300,000 forest owners who manage their forest in 300,000 different ways. This is a strength in Swedish forestry.

At the same time, Miljöpartiet is proposing to introduce, for example, a bonus-malus system for the forest, where forest owners who use continuous cover or so-called climate-adapted methods shall be rewarded, while those who use more traditional methods shall be penalized. In practice, this means that politics shall govern how individual forest owners manage their land and which methods are to be considered correct.

The Moderates believe that it is much more important instead to strengthen property rights. We see that it is precisely the 300,000 forest owners who do the work and create high nature values. It is not the state.

My final question to Miljöpartiet is therefore: How does Miljöpartiet view property rights and the role of forest owners? How can one, while wanting to protect more forest, also say that one trusts the landowners and wants to have an active forestry?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Now we see yet another example of shifting baseline. When clear-cutting arrived, it was a modern forestry. So it was during the 50s and 60s when it emerged. One got chainsaws and other things. One was to remove everything, and one was to burn afterwards. Now we talk about it as the traditional forestry. It is a rather short time for something to become a tradition.

We have learned a great deal since then, and clear-cutting forestry has also changed. One no longer cuts down as much. Consideration areas and so on are left. But we also see that biodiversity is decreasing. We have learned much more about climate emissions from clear-cuts. It takes a long time before the forest takes up what it does. Above all, we see that the ground also releases carbon dioxide. The fungal communities are disappearing.

All of this is part of a whole. There are other methods, namely perhaps even older traditional methods with selective logging and nature-oriented forestry. I do not think one can have clear-cut-free forestry everywhere, but one can do it in many different ways. One must ensure to adapt it.

That is what our various proposals regarding forestry aim for – that as a forest owner, one should be able to use the method that is best for oneself and also for the climate and biodiversity. One shall obtain timber products, but one does so in a sustainable way.

The bonus-malus system that we propose is about the large clear-cuts receiving a fee. This existed previously as well, but it was removed in the 90s. The money that is then collected shall go to forest owners who make smaller clear-cuts. If one looks at the statistics, one sees that it would not affect the individual forest owners to a large extent, but primarily the company forest. It is this shift we want to see. We safeguard that the forest owners shall be able to make the efforts they want to make for their forest.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! In the climate debate, tones of doom are often heard. I understand that. Many people feel anxiety. Some feel helplessness. It is not strange, because the task is enormous. But in the midst of the seriousness, we must also speak about that which inspires hope. We must show that change is possible and that Sweden, with the lowest emissions per capita in the EU, has already come a good way.

Since the 1990s, Sweden has doubled its GDP while simultaneously reducing our emissions by more than a third. We now generate only a sixth as many greenhouse gases per krona as we did three decades ago. It is a success to be proud of, and it is proof that growth and climate responsibility can not only coexist but also reinforce each other.

Madam Speaker! I do not believe in scaring people into change. I believe in engaging and in building climate policy on people's everyday lives, not above their heads. Without people's trust in politics, we will never reach our goal.

We see today how the business sector is leading the way in sustainability. It is no longer the environmental movement that is driving it. It is the market, the innovative power, and the companies that are doing the work. Our task as politicians is to remove obstacles and ensure that it pays to be the best in the world at transitioning. Sometimes it is precisely the responsibility of politics to step back when the companies and the consumers are already running ahead.

Madam Speaker! Climate policy should not only reduce emissions here at home; it should also inspire others. Sweden accounts for a fraction of the world's emissions, but we can have an enormous impact if we can get more to follow our example by showing that it is possible to reduce emissions without sacrificing growth, security, or welfare. We can show that the transition can be a path to a stronger society where both people and the environment win.

This is politics for reality – for hard-working people who are already struggling with high costs and doing everything to make everyday life work. It is for them we do this, for their children's future and for the generations that will come after us.

When I stand here in the chamber and speak about climate policy, I do so with them in mind. It is about those who go to work every day, who build our societies and strive so that their children will have it a little better. It is for their future that every remark, every debate, and every decision must be weighed.

Mr. Speaker, companies that are ready to transition are today met by a wall of bureaucracy that hinders rather than enables. It is not just an annoyance – it is a threat to the entire transition. The government has therefore begun extensive reform work to streamline and shorten the permit processes. It is not about compromising on environmental requirements. It is about making decisions in time. Every year we delay the transition costs the climate, the jobs, and the future.

The future is shaped, not least, in our forests. Swedish forestry is one of our greatest climate resources and at the same time an engine for jobs and growth throughout the country. But that presupposes that we actually manage the forest, because it is precisely then, when we use it, that it provides the greatest benefit.

It binds carbon dioxide, provides renewable raw materials, and reduces our dependence on fossil materials. Research clearly shows that in the long term, we achieve the greatest climate gain by utilizing the forest, not just letting it stand as a museum. Still, we hear voices in the debate about wanting to close the door to Swedish forestry. They cast suspicion on forest owners instead of seeing the role they actually play in climate work. Over 70 percent of Sweden's area is covered by forest, and that forest is managed by one of our 300,000 forest owners. The land has often been cultivated for generations of people – with responsibility and care. They are the real climate heroes, and they deserve respect.

Madam Speaker! In order for industry to be able to transition, for transport to be able to be electrified, and for households across the country to be able to feel security, a powerful expansion of fossil-free electricity production is required. Here, nuclear power is absolutely crucial. It is predictable, fossil-free, and robust. It is that, together with hydropower in the north, that carries our electricity system and gives us the conditions to transition. It is not about technological preference. It is about what works at a system level.

Madam Speaker! Since there is an election next year, I want to be clear: If the red-green mess gets the opportunity to form a government again, there will be no new nuclear power. The Green Party has promised to scrap the plans. And the Social Democrats have history against them. They have closed reactors before, and they back down when it counts.

We know that if one has no energy policy, one also has no climate policy. A Sweden that truly transitions, with reduced emissions and a strong economy, requires a leadership that stands firm even when the wind blows.

In the large, as in the small, climate policy must be rooted in reality. It is about ensuring that investments are realized, that forests can be utilized, that electricity is available when and where we need it, and that policy removes obstacles rather than creating new ones.

We all have a responsibility for the future, but that responsibility is not borne by prohibitions or symbolic politics. It is borne by reforms and determination and by trust in the ability of hard-working people to contribute.

(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!

On January 1 of this year, the government introduced a requirement for separate collection of textile waste. It was a good ambition, but it was a reform that was implemented without there being a functioning infrastructure to handle the material.

The result was growing mountains of textiles at the recycling stations, municipalities forced to send textiles to incineration, and a betrayed trust among those citizens who wanted to do the right thing. From different parts of our country came alarms about chaos and mountains of textiles. Then came reports that Swedish clothes were sent to incineration in the Baltics and that other garments were dumped in Ghana.

This was a predictable crisis. The investigation into producer responsibility for textiles was presented as early as 2020. But instead of acting proactively, the government chose to passively wait for the EU. They created a gap between the requirement for collection and the responsibility for handling. Now this autumn, as a testament to the failure, the government has been forced to back down and again allow damaged textiles to be thrown away in household waste.

This is a failing grade for the government's environmental policy.

Madam Speaker! It did not have to turn out like this. What do the member and the government intend to do to resolve the issue of textile recycling?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Stina Larsson for a very good and important question!

This is fundamentally about circular economy, which is fundamentally about our resources and how we choose to take care of them. It is about how we choose to take advantage of natural resources that are virgin and, not least, how we choose to use them in the long term to create a more robust economic sustainability.

We are now moving from a linear economy to a circular one. In that, all these pieces, not least textile recycling, are incredibly important. Producer responsibility, which Stina Larsson brings up, is incredibly important. Just in this budget bill, we have several parts that deal with exactly circular economy.

First and foremost, it is very important that we have a grip on how things actually look. Therefore, we are investing in developing the waste statistics and in ensuring that the statistics being presented are actually correct. Then, we carry out a supervision of the producer responsibility for increased material recycling. Here, we propose that the appropriation be increased by 25 million kronor from 2026 to specifically Naturvårdsverket. This is a part of actually implementing the producer responsibility. It is about ensuring that it is followed up, is correct, and is carried out in the best possible way.

Fundamentally, Swedish legislation is heavily based on what happens at the EU level. Therefore, we are also providing an increased appropriation to Naturvårdsverket for the implementation of precisely this EU legislation, within the area of circular economy. We know that it is when we do this together – and Sweden does not run in one direction while the rest runs in another – that we achieve the greatest impact.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! It is positive to hear about the Moderaternas and the government's ambitions, but I would like to say that the Centerpartiet has long pushed for Sweden to take the lead and promote an infrastructure specifically for industrial textile recycling. There, I see that we must work on two fronts simultaneously.

Here, the government's passivity is striking. It is not enough to introduce a producer responsibility – statistics and supervision be damned. It will take at least another year before we see any reality of the producer responsibility that is now being introduced.

The other day, the news came that the automatic sorting facility in Malmö, Siptex, will be sold off precisely because there is a lack of a market. There is a lack of demand for textiles for recycling. Therefore, we in Centerpartiet have proposed a textile step of at least 50 million kronor annually to act here and now.

Firstly, we must promote innovation for a sustainable Swedish textile production. We have fantastic Swedish initiatives with wool and hemp – raw materials that can become new products. That is where we must invest – in quality and long lifespan. We must combat the throwaway mentality from actors such as Shein and Temu, whose business models are based on producing junk that actually lacks any second-hand value at all.

Secondly, we must scale up textile recycling. It is certainly reasonable that some dirty and damaged garments go to incineration today, but the goal must be to recycle more. We have cutting-edge research in Sweden, such as the Fiber to fiber recycling project at the Textile University in Borås. These initiatives need support to grow and become an industrial reality.

Just waiting for future producer responsibility, which the member gladly refers to, is not the solution. A producer responsibility primarily shifts costs from the municipalities to the producers. It doesn't, as it were, magically build the infrastructure that we lack today.

My follow-up question is: When do the government and the Moderaterna intend to act on both of these fronts? When will we see a national textile step to promote sustainable textile production and build up a real recycling industry instead of passively administering a textile chaos?

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party often says it wants to protect the market, but the majority of the proposals usually land on support or subsidies. I think it is interesting and important to highlight that.

We think, as said, that producer responsibility is important. In my previous exchange of remarks, I raised a number of things that we only carry out in this budget. This is something that cannot be done overnight. Steps are being taken towards a more circular economy, and in that, textiles are a very important part.

At the Moderaterna party congress recently, we made a number of new decisions. Among other things, we want to review the tax on secondhand. It is something that I believe is important to encourage the trend we see in society today – that people want to reuse and recycle old garments, materials, and products. We believe that is very important.

A textile step can be interesting, but I believe it is better if it fits within a larger framework for how we view the circular economy. We believe in innovation, technological development and, not least, regulatory simplifications. That – instead of a mass of support and grants – we believe will be what makes us get a better and more sustainable circular economy in place.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! In the same debate last year, Helena Storckenfeldt said: "We are focusing on reaching the climate goals." Furthermore, she said: "It is very clear that we reach the ESR goals with our policy."

It turned out that this was not true at all, Madam Speaker. In what the government has now reported to the Riksdag, it is clear that the ESR target, which includes transport, is not being met at all. Much more is required.

Still, the government is not presenting any proposals that would make Sweden reach this goal. On the contrary, the government is actually clear that it does not intend to present any such proposals, even though there was a whole year left until the election when this budget was drawn up. At the same time, much less is being spent on Industriklivet, and you have stopped the green credits that the industry can benefit from.

Madam Speaker! Does Helena Storckenfeldt mean that the government still has a focus on meeting the climate goals? Why, in that case, are proposals that would ensure one reaches them not being put forward?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Until very recently, at least we who sat in the Environmental Goals Preparatory Group were in agreement that we would reach our climate goals. It was the goals for 2030 that were addressed in that preparation. There we were in complete agreement, and that was just very recently. I would therefore say: Yes, my focus remains – we shall reach our climate goals, both the long-term and the short-term.

It can also be stated very clearly that with the previous government's policy, one was absolutely on track to perhaps reach the short-term goal, but that there were no proposals whatsoever to reach the long-term goal. I therefore think it is quite remarkable of the Social Democrats to put themselves on such a high horse and look down on the government, given that we are implementing very large reforms to expand electricity production, ensure that permit processes are shortened, and ensure that there is an acceptance for the climate policy being pursued in Sweden. We know, after all, that we will not reach any goals if we do not have the people with us.

For us, it is therefore important to have this holistic perspective – to look at Sweden's role in the world and not just stare blindly at exactly which emissions are generated here on site. Instead, we broaden the perspective and look at where Sweden can do the most good. There, we believe in showing that high climate ambitions and growth go hand in hand – and that is not what is done with the Social Democrats' policy, Madam Speaker.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer.

It is a bit strange to say that one stands behind the climate goal and yet not present policies that ensure one reaches it. Is it due to a lack of political will? No, according to Helena Storckenfeldt. Then only incompetence remains for me, actually. But Helena Storckenfeldt is welcome to have another attempt at explaining why one does not present the policy that is needed when one has an entire year left. Why do you even remain in a government position if you do not intend to achieve this goal, which you say you stand behind?

I think it is a failure that Sweden is in a situation where emissions are increasing despite all the government parties in the election promising their voters to meet the climate goals. I think it shows one thing very clearly, and that is that the Sweden Democrats – the only party in Sweden's Riksdag that does not stand behind the climate goals – have had their way. It is they who dictate the climate policy.

The question is also who dictates the energy policy. Helena Storckenfeldt stood here at the rostrum and spoke about exactly that, so I take the opportunity to ask the question. It became very clear to everyone in Sweden when the Energy Minister went out and said that she, due to a party in the own government constellation, was prevented from concluding an energy agreement with, among others, the Social Democrats.

It has often been interpreted as being the Sweden Democrats, but is it actually the Moderates' party strategists who put their own party interests first – who want to keep nuclear power as a talking point in election debates – instead of doing what would best benefit Swedish companies and Swedish business, namely to reach an energy agreement that provides cheaper electricity both here and now and later?

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats were also not on track to reach the long-term goal, Åsa Westlund, so in that case I assume that was also due to incompetence.

The Moderates stand on the side of hard-working people. That is why, throughout our policy, we return to people's everyday lives and to the fact that decisions made must have legitimacy in the eyes of the population. That was not the case when Åsa Westlund's party was in government.

We see that high fuel prices and unstable electricity production are not the solution to either growth or the climate issue. Nor is it the solution for all the families with children who are struggling financially today. Instead, it is very important that we actually look at the whole: How is our society doing today? How are our households and our companies doing? What investments are needed for us to reach the climate goals while simultaneously maintaining acceptance for climate policy and good conditions for our households and companies?

I think it is interesting that the Social Democrats are bringing up nuclear power, Madam Speaker, because as far as I know, we still have no clear answer from the Social Democrats regarding what they want with nuclear power. If Åsa Westlund is now prepared to stand here and say that one wants to enter into an energy agreement and say yes to nuclear power – and stand firm that one will also want nuclear power after the election – I think that sounds very interesting, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Helena Storckenfeldt for the speech.

We know that there is a difference between Moderate and Green Party environmental and climate policy, and we know that the government misses all climate goals both in the long and short term. We also know that the government misses all environmental goals, even if they perform a different calculation than the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Those differences remain.

There is, however, an area where at least we in the committee often tend to agree, Madam Speaker, and that is chemical policy. There we often think alike, and regardless of the government, Sweden has for a long time had a high ranking in the area. But when one begins to look at the details, one sees that it differs here as well, and that is what my question concerns.

There are an enormous number of areas that are contaminated by both old and new sins. There has been a large budget item for the remediation of contaminated areas, that is, to remove old contaminations and prepare the land so that it becomes free from contamination and can be used. The government has also cut this appropriation previously, but last year and in the current budget, it has been cut by over 200 million per year. The decline also appears to persist moving forward.

My question to the member is: How do you intend for this to be achieved when even our authorities say that years of investigation and preparatory work are lost since appropriation 1:4 is by definition used up and this cannot be implemented?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! This is a very important issue that affects, not least, those who live near these types of contaminated areas. PFAS is something that we need to take very seriously, and that is what we are doing.

When it comes to chemicals, we, just as Emma Nohrén said in her introduction, agree on the big picture. It is about limiting chemicals so that it does not become a toxic situation for people in our society. Chemicals are fantastic where they are needed and should be used, but in other areas, it can become major problems for our population.

In the chemical area specifically, we have in this budget, among other things, increased the appropriation to the Swedish Chemicals Agency. We have also increased the appropriation for remediation by 85 million kronor for 2026 to continue the work to reduce the spread of PFAS in the environment. This is something that is expected to increase in 2027 and 2028.

This is a long-term task that we take very seriously.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to point out to the audience that the investments the member is talking about are shifts in the budget. The Swedish Chemicals Agency does indeed receive more money than last year, but it is still less than what it was three years ago. At the same time, more is to be done. When it comes to remediation of contaminated land – appropriation 1:4 – it is 200 million less.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to read out once more. It concerns what the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency says about the number of large-scale action projects during 2024.

It is written that Naturvårdsverket has already decided on 500 million kronor in state grants and state aid for 2025, which accounts for 68 percent of the appropriation even before this year's new applications have been processed. Furthermore, it is written that current estimates show that the appropriation risks being oversubscribed in 2026 and will not be sufficient under current conditions.

Naturvårdsverket continues as follows: ”Funds are tied up in already decided projects until 2034 and several investigations are being moved into the action phase. The recent years' investments in, among other things, investigations, guidance, and the cooperation of government agencies have yielded results.” Then it is stated that years of investigation and preparatory work are lost due to the reduction, as by definition one has already utilized what exists. Ongoing investigations will come to a standstill.

This doesn't rhyme well. Will the Moderaterna follow through on their words and perhaps change this budget item? If it is something that we actually agree on, one should ensure that the funds needed to remediate the contaminated land are available. This also applies to at sea, to remediate ships and remove other parts.

It is a smaller budget item that has been added. In total, it is 200 million less than last year.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are a number of areas around the country that are suspected to be PFAS-contaminated. That is precisely why the inventory work is so incredibly important – the more knowledge we obtain, the larger the problem turns out to be.

PFAS is a major threat, not least to our drinking water and other food products. Precisely for that reason, the inventory work needs to continue so that we know where PFAS is in the environment and so that we can reduce its spread.

As Emma Nohrén initially pointed out, however, it is not only PFAS that is a problem when it comes to the chemical area, but it is also about which chemicals do not come from here and which threaten consumers in Sweden today. Therefore, we have allocated 25 million kronor per year to the Swedish Chemicals Agency to support market control and other supervision to protect Swedish consumers from being exposed to harmful chemicals coming from unscrupulous companies, not least Temu and Shein.

So there are several parts to this. The work with PFAS remediation continues, and the appropriation to Kemikalieinspektionen is increased so that we can get a handle on which chemicals are harmful to Swedish consumers today.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! The budget we are debating today is the last to be adopted during the mandate period. I will therefore summarize the Sweden Democrats' and the government's cuts in this area during the mandate period.

In the last budget presented by the Social Democratic-led government, the total sum for the expenditure area for climate, environment and nature that we are now debating was 21.9 billion. The first budget that the Sweden Democrats and the government presented involved a substantial reduction of almost 2.5 billion.

In the subsequent budgets, the cuts continued. Last year, the budget for climate, environment, and nature was down to 16.4 billion. In the final budget, which we are now debating, approximately the same amount is proposed as in the Sweden Democrats' and the government's first major budget cut.

If one takes inflation into account, which is the only reasonable thing to do when comparing over time, the cuts are however much larger. To correspond to the budget that the Social Democratic-led government presented in the autumn of 2021 in constant prices, this budget would have needed to be 7 billion larger than it actually is.

Have the government and the Sweden Democrats been forced into these cuts because of tough times? No, hardly. Money for reforms has not been lacking – on the contrary. The money has gone to large tax cuts, and mostly to those who earn the most. Even an extra tax bonus for those who earn the most has been prioritized over maintaining the ambitions in the environmental budget.

What the Sweden Democrats and the government have cut back on the most is the protection of valuable nature, including compensation to forest owners.

These budget cuts are, of course, also noticeable in reality. The remediation of contaminated areas is lagging. The maintenance of the valuable nature in our nature reserves has deteriorated. The government has not managed to resolve either the legalities or the money required to handle the issue of compensation to forest owners. Climate emissions have increased significantly, and the efforts for climate adaptation have decreased.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats' and the government's climate policy will leave behind a substantial bill. Sweden is no longer a pioneer in climate work – on the contrary. Emissions are increasing. Swedish industry, which could have contributed to reducing emissions and creating new jobs, has been betrayed. Swedish taxpayers risk having to pay billions in fines to the EU because of the government's bill. The price in the form of increased climate change we will all have to pay. The situation is simply very serious.

In the election, all government parties promised to pursue an effective climate policy to reduce emissions. They promised that they stood behind the climate goals. After the election, they chose however to cooperate with the only party that did not stand behind Sweden's climate goals. This has had exactly the consequences one could expect.

The government lowered the reduction obligation without simultaneously having any other idea of how the climate goals would be reached. The Minister for Climate and Environment responded to critical questions on this by putting her honor on the line. She promised to resign if emissions increased and Sweden moved further away from the climate goals.

The year 2024 is the last full year for which we have statistics. At that time, climate emissions increased sharply, by a full 7 percent, but despite the fact that climate emissions increased and Sweden moved further away from the climate goals than before, the Minister for Climate chose to stay. Instead of standing by her word, she began to pretend that it was someone other than herself who had said she would resign. It has been and is embarrassing to behold. The only one who is not ashamed is probably the Minister for Climate herself.

Mr. Speaker! For the first time this year, no Swedish minister participated in the negotiations at the international climate summit COP 30. Sweden has previously always been represented by at least one minister in the negotiations. Sweden has often been represented by several ministers, and not infrequently by the Prime Minister, but this government chose not to participate. It is symptomatic of how this government handles climate issues. It is as if one does not understand how serious this is and what responsibility one has for our future.

Mr. Speaker! Since the election to the European Parliament last year, there has been an intense lobbying effort towards the EU Commission from those parts of the industry that are lagging behind in their climate transition.

Today, the European Commission is expected to propose a loosening of climate legislation. This would be bad for those parts of the industry that have done their homework and are at the forefront of the transition. Many times, this industry is Swedish, and therefore the government should engage powerfully against these loosenings. But instead, we have seen how representatives for M, KD, and SD have spoken out in support of reducing climate requirements on passenger cars, even though Volvo Cars and Polestar have warned of the consequences and pleaded with the EU to stick to the climate requirements on passenger cars.

What will this mean in the long run? Yes, Mr. Speaker, what does it usually mean when someone tries to cling to old technology instead of embracing new, smart solutions? Well, one gets outcompeted. Nothing suggests that it would be different now, and therefore I am deeply concerned about the government's passivity in this decisive shift and about the fact that they have significantly cut Industriklivet and paused the green credits.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats want to promote and facilitate both companies' and people's climate transition. We know that it is by being at the forefront that Swedish industry can strengthen its competitiveness, contribute to making Sweden wealthier, create jobs, and finance the welfare. Therefore, we have also throughout the entire mandate period allocated more resources in our budget proposals to transition Sweden than the Sverigedemokraterna and the government have. If our budgets had passed, Sweden would have had, for example, thousands more charging stations, and more companies could have made those costly but wise transitions to climate-smart technology. Sweden would also have had more energy efficiency.

In our budget, we are allocating more to Industriklivet and more to more and cheaper public transport. We are investing in faster expansion of electricity poles and cheap electric car leasing for private individuals. We are allocating more resources to caring for and protecting our Swedish cultural heritage in the form of our fantastic nature, more on railway maintenance, and more on climate adaptation to prevent enormous costs further ahead for private individuals and companies. We are also allocating more to preventing invasive species in our waterways and more on camera surveillance to prevent more fish than what is sustainable from being taken.

Furthermore, we have submitted proposals that would provide Sweden with cheaper electricity here and now to facilitate electrification. We have also submitted proposals that would increase the production of Swedish biofuels, which would be good for strengthening Sweden's resilience and good for the climate. It would also have created jobs and growth in Sweden and made Sweden less dependent on oil-exporting rogue countries.

Sweden can transition and avoid the worst climate changes. We can do it in a way that strengthens our economy and our competitiveness and that is simultaneously fair. If we do it, we can also get more countries to follow suit.

We Social Democrats submitted a budget proposal that involved important steps in this direction, but the Riksdag unfortunately said no to it. Since we see the budget alternatives as wholes, I do not motion for anything but refer to our specific statement.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I wish the Speaker, the audience, and everyone else in our country a Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Åsa Westlund for the speech.

Åsa Westlund mentioned Industriklivet and the credit guarantees in her speech, and it is correct that the credit guarantees are being paused. Statskontoret is commissioned to evaluate them, because it is an enormous risk that taxpayers, future pensioners, other municipal residents, and more are exposed to when these credit guarantees are booked at several tens of billions.

The Social Democrats are concerned, but not for the risk taxpayers are exposed to, but for something else. What is this concern based on? Can it be thought to be due to diminished opportunities for kickbacks for Social Democrats? Can it be due to the fact that even your fellow Social Democrat's investments might not turn out so well? Former Minister for Enterprise Ibrahim Baylan is today a lobbyist for Harald Mix, who has orchestrated the investments in both Stegra and Northvolt. Mikael Lindström, formerly in Stefan Löfven's staff, is today employed in Stegra, and Anna Hallberg, former Minister for Trade, has a cohabitant who owns a part of Stegra. How concerned is Åsa Westlund that Social Democrats are driven by self-interest when it comes to the state investments in the green transition?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats continue their culture war against the climate. Everything that breathes climate policy is by definition bad. Earlier in the debate, we could hear that not even Swedish jobs are a reason to support an ambitious climate policy. It is therefore more important to be against the climate than to save Swedish jobs. Another example of that the Sweden Democrats have had their way in the government's budget for the climate is that they have succeeded in pausing the green credits and cutting back on Industriklivet.

When I look out over the world, I am very concerned that Sweden will lose out on future investments, competitiveness, and jobs. We see how other countries offensively and with large amounts support their industries. I mean that we can neither nor should compete with them, but we should also not be so naive as to believe that only tax cuts and some kind of general faith that a market economy still prevails in the world will save us.

Let us instead do smart things, such as ensuring that companies investing in Sweden can borrow money cheaply. It is a cost-effective investment with the minimum risk that taxpayers can take. Then we at least have a chance in the global competition. I am prepared to take this risk even if it sometimes leads to us losing money. But the greatest risk is to have no steel industry or automotive industry left in Sweden at all because other countries act in a way that is not included in the government's or the Sverigedemokraternas world situation analyses.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Åsa Westlund for the contribution.

However, I did not perceive any answer to my question regarding how concerned Åsa Westlund is about the close connections that exist between these investments and the Social Democratic Party. First, one is a minister in the government or holds a high position in the Prime Minister's staff, and then one is involved in these companies and has direct economic interests in them. Are the Social Democrats driven by a will for transition, or is this a way for them to enrich themselves? It is a question that the Swedes deserve an answer to.

One can also reflect on the strange developments that occurred when the AP funds, during the Social Democrats' time in power, suddenly deviated from their regulations and started strange companies into which they could then funnel more money.

How did the credit guarantees come about? A number of years ago, the company Preem was in the middle of a licensing process, but after meetings with the Social Democratic government, Preem withdrew its application. The government's actions likely contravened the legislation, but it was never tested. Shortly thereafter, the credit guarantees arrived.

So, there are close connections between the Social Democrats and large companies where taxpayers, municipal residents, EU citizens, and others risk tens of billions. How does this happen? Is it just a coincidence, or what is the reason for it?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is fantastic to come from the education policy, where the Sweden Democrats and the government stick together on a policy that holds every private school owner in the country by the back. The owners get paid – billions every year – for something they do not do. It becomes 19 billion in profit instead of support for the children in the classrooms. Owners write "Well done!" to the Prime Minister. It is fascinating to come from that debate to this one.

I believe that many Social Democrats, after a political career, want to do good in society, preferably in the business sector. If this can be combined with doing good for our climate transition, I hope that they do so.

As I said already in my first speech, I am concerned that we will not be able to compete with other countries. Martin Kinnunen should also be. I do not mean that we should compete with other countries to provide the largest state aid; that would be foolish and harmful.

We in Sweden cannot be so naive as to believe that lower taxes and a free market are the answer to everything, not if we are to have a competitive industry in Sweden. Then we need to have a cooperation between government and business and between politics and business to meet the competition.

It is about ensuring that there is an energy agreement. You in the Sverigedemokraterna saw to it that there wasn't, Martin Kinnunen. It is also about ensuring that companies have the opportunity to at least get capital at a good interest rate to make investments right here in our country.

I believe that all Swedish taxpayers appreciate that we ensure Sweden continues to be competitive even in the future.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! For hard-working people, families with children, commuters and entrepreneurs in rural areas, the car is not a luxury but a prerequisite. When fuel prices rise, it hits the household economy directly.

The Social Democrats are now seeking a mandate to form a government together with parties that want to raise the carbon tax on gasoline and diesel. It is a policy that, if implemented, risks making it much more expensive to get to work, drop off at preschool, and make everyday life function, especially for those who are dependent on the car.

In our policy, the starting point is different: Life must add up for those who work, take responsibility, and make society function. This applies to all of Sweden, not just where there is access to the subway, tram, or Voi. Therefore, the question is quite simple, but completely decisive: Will gasoline become more expensive with the Social Democrats' policy or not? This, Mr. Speaker, I believe is a message that the voters deserve to receive before the election.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! The policy that the government and the Sweden Democrats have pursued during this parliamentary term guarantees that there will be a price shock at the pump for everyone who will refuel in the future. The government and the Sweden Democrats have, in fact, missed the opportunity to transition and make us less dependent on the oil that will cost more when the whole world is to transition to becoming fossil-free, something that Helena Storckenfeldt, moreover, says she stands behind.

The EU will introduce a trade system also for fuels, and this means that the price at the pump will go up, regardless of who governs in Sweden. Helena Storckenfeldt joins in this debate all right-wing politicians who pretend as if it is raining. She must somehow have realized that there is a trade system that will drive up prices in Sweden.

Why then have the government and the Sweden Democrats not done more to prevent the price shock at the pump, by for example saying yes to the proposal on Sverigebränsle that we Social Democrats have put forward? It would have meant lower prices at the pump but above all that we would have started a strong production of biofuels in Sweden, which would have made us less dependent on Russia's and other rogue states' oil. It would also have ensured that we can avoid the sharp price shock at the pump.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats are experts at promising everything to everyone, but in the end, it is always someone else who decides in climate policy.

Why should people trust that the Social Democrats will work to keep everyday costs down when they are simultaneously seeking mandates together with parties that want to raise the carbon tax on gasoline and diesel, one of which was the only party that did not run for election on lowering the reduction obligation?

The reduction obligation is now, moreover, on a more long-term sustainable path, not the one that the Social Democrats introduced and punished our households and companies with. A stated purpose of their policy is precisely to make it more expensive to refuel. I do not see, Mr. Speaker, that this aligns with promises of a secure economy for families with children, commuters, and rural entrepreneurs. The result with one of the Social Democrats' coalition parties risks being much higher fuel prices from day one.

I still wonder, Mr. Speaker, if there is a concrete announcement here today. Will the Social Democrats say no to high taxes and increased petrol and diesel prices, or are the voters left to hope that the Social Democrats' coalition partners do not get their policies through?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I hope that everyone noted that Helena Storckenfeldt avoided answering why one has not prepared all consumers for the price shock that will occur at the pump some years into the future and why one has said no to the Social Democrats' proposal to prepare and ensure that we have more biofuels so that we can continue to maintain a reasonable level on the price of gasoline and diesel in Sweden.

I think, of course, that it is important that those who work and who pick up and drop off at leisure activities have the opportunity to do so. We must never return to the situation we had when the war in Ukraine started. That war took us a bit by surprise, we have to admit. I did not experience, in any case, that there were so many who were prepared on the day it happened.

It was also clear that Sweden was hit hard by high fuel prices. Our government lowered the tax on fuels during the time we had left. We paused the reduction obligation. We also have a policy that shall ensure that we both get lower prices at the pump and get more biofuel in the tank and more electric cars in Sweden so that we can meet the climate goals but also the households' economy.

It is not true that we promise everything to everyone. The Moderates do not actually promise everything to everyone either. They can be a little proud of that, I think, because in their budgets, there are some who are always favored. It is not the individual family or the single mother, but it is the absolutely richest in society. The Riksdag's investigation service has shown that nine out of ten households benefit from our policy in comparison with the budget that Helena Storckenfeldt represents.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Welcome to the committee, Åsa Westlund, or perhaps rather welcome back! The member has been a member of the committee previously.

In the speech, there were sometimes quite high chest tones, but that is the opposition's role. It is to scrutinize and criticize – that is part of the job description.

In terms of money, this budget is the second largest for expenditure area 20. If one, as Åsa Westlund mentioned in her speech, adjusted for inflation, it would, according to Åsa Westlund's calculations, require an additional 7 billion kronor. Then one can ask: If it is so incredibly frightening that the budget is so low, why have the Social Democrats not met the inflation and raised the budget by an additional 7 billion?

I mentioned in my previous exchange with Emma Nohrén that there are two parties that fall within more normal deviations and two parties that certainly do not fall within normal deviations regarding the appropriation levels. The Social Democrats are one of the two that fall within the more normal range. But the Social Democrats are imagining some form of government with the Left Party and the Green Party, who are the two parties that really stand out – not least the Green Party, as I mentioned. Then my question is: In a coming government, who is it that will be responsible for steering this particular ship? Whose budget proposal is it that will gain traction? Who is it that will be allowed to steer the climate policy in a red-green government?

We saw during the previous red-green government, when Miljöpartiet was at the helm, how many parts of Swedish forestry and not least Swedish agriculture were totally thrown overboard. It was worth nothing.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! When I took my seat in the committee again, I received many questions from journalists and others about whether Sweden will reach the climate goals if the Social Democrats win the election next year. I answered that I do not know.

To be honest, it is going to be very tough, because now this government and the Sverigedemokraterna have increased Sweden's emissions. They have made drastic reductions of the environmental and climate budget. They have made other choices and other priorities.

We Social Democrats do not live in a dream world, but we start from the world as it is when we take over. That is also why we cannot put back all the money that the members have contributed to withdrawing during the mandate period. It would be neither effective nor good, because the changes have occurred in reality. One cannot suddenly just employ a huge number of people, no matter how much money one puts in. It would also not be responsible in economic terms to handle it in that way.

We take responsibility for the economy, and we have always done so. Unlike this government and the Sverigedemokraterna, we usually respect the budget rules and ensure that we run a surplus. This government and the Sverigedemokraterna have run a deficit every year. We will, of course, continue to take responsibility for the Swedish economy and for Sweden's climate goals.

We have shown several times that we cooperate well with Miljöpartiet. We run for election as a single party but are happy to cooperate with other parties – all except the Sverigedemokraterna, in fact – and hope that other parties are also prepared to have that attitude so that we can together take responsibility for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Åsa Westlund, for the answer!

When Åsa Westlund stood in the main speaker's chair, it was very precise with the figures. Then it was very precise with large investments. But when Åsa Westlund stands in this speaker's chair, it is suddenly not as important. Then it is more important to ensure that one actually manages the economy so that it does not become an over-bidding policy, which I perceive both V and MP stand behind. It was still pleasing.

Furthermore, I hope that the Social Democrats do not take over. Åsa Westlund mentioned in her speech that such would happen. We will have to be two on that matter.

In this budget motion, there are some changes, Åsa Westlund. One of the changes where you add more money is the protection of valuable nature.

The Social Democrats have previously been a party for Swedish welfare and for Swedish industry, for Swedish basic industry, and if there is any industry in Sweden that is basic industry, it is the forest industry.

Unfortunately, we see now, not least up north, that many sawmills are not receiving enough timber to be able to continue their work. This means that the transition cannot continue as it could. We are not getting out enough material to replace CO2-intensive material such as steel and concrete, which I believe both of our parties absolutely want to do, and that is largely due to halted logging.

How do the Social Democrats want to proceed if we are to spend even more money on protecting even more forest? It means that we will get even less material to our sawmills and our paper industries, which are involved in ensuring that we can actually transition. Then the question is: Where should we invest? Should we use the forest in the transition to meet the goals, or should it remain standing?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now, to be honest, I am having quite a hard time following what Kjell-Arne Ottosson is actually saying. I cannot make sense of it.

Before the election, there was a very high level of commitment that everyone whose logging was stopped would receive compensation. Since then, you have neither delivered money nor the legal framework that would make it possible. You have only postponed the question. You have buried a constitutional amendment that actually wouldn't have been needed, as it could have been solved already here and now. And now, it is questioned that the Social Democrats are allocating funds. I actually don't understand. Does Kjell-Arne Ottosson mean that we should have a right to compensation that gives zero kronor?

The Social Democrats take this seriously, and we are allocating funds in our budget so that forest owners who cannot harvest their forest will receive compensation.

Of course, the Swedish forest should be utilized. It is important as a carbon sink. It is important for the economy in Sweden. It is important for biodiversity. It is quite simply the backbone of Sweden. Kjell-Arne Ottosson is completely right about that.

I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for highlighting how important social democracy has been for Swedish basic industry. We promise that we will continue to be that, even for the forest industry.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the proposal in the report.

The Christian Democrats' environmental policy is based on the principle of stewardship. Man has the responsibility to manage the world and its resources.

A fundamental principle of stewardship is not only to preserve but also to develop and refine. Within climate and environmental policy, this means that we strive to hand over the earth and our societies to the next generation in a better condition than the one we ourselves inherited.

In several environmental areas, we have also succeeded well with our management mandate. We do more with less. Environmental problems such as freons have largely been phased out. Landfilling is almost gone as a waste method. Emissions of air pollutants have decreased sharply in recent decades, as has the fallout of acidifying sulfur, i.e., acid rain.

In other areas, we have not come as far. The loss of biodiversity is alarming in many areas. Emissions of chemicals such as microplastics, toxins, and endocrine-disrupting substances have an extensive impact on human health.

Climate change is, however, one of our time's greatest challenges. The climate challenge is in many ways the most difficult to solve because it can only be solved on a global level.

That it is possible to transform society over time stands clear. The concentrations of resources within research and the business sector that have been made during the past decades, when the steering signals have been present, demonstrate the potential of technological development.

Unfortunately, the last few years also show that beyond Europe, the trend towards increased emissions has not turned.

We often hear from the political opposition how the domestic climate policy has almost collapsed in recent years. That is not true, which is also known, but as I said earlier, it is part of the opposition's task to examine and criticize. That is the job description; we must take that in stride. "Too little and too late" is usually the mantra. But regardless of what one tries to bass out, Sweden is a model in climate policy and has been for many decades.

We have the lowest emissions per person in the EU.

We have an almost entirely fossil-free electricity production.

Our total emissions peaked during the 1970s and have since decreased by 63 percent.

We have eliminated over 90 percent of the emissions from own home heating.

We have one of the world's most climate-smart agricultures.

We have one of the world's highest taxes on carbon dioxide.

Our private car fleet has increased by 40 percent since 1990, while the total emissions from vehicles have decreased by 25 percent.

We have the third highest share of electric cars in new car sales within the EU. Two out of three new passenger cars sold now in November were rechargeable.

It is therefore truly time to nuance the opposition's criticism. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, our forests sequester approximately 140 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, and over the last 100 years, the growth in the Swedish forest has meant that the forest's carbon sink has increased by 2 billion tons – or the equivalent of 40 years of Swedish emissions.

If one looks at the substitution effect from the wood and cellulose-based products that Sweden offers the world market every year, it corresponds to approximately 50 million tons of carbon dioxide. If one claims that Sweden does not contribute to the transition, one has a very liberal relationship with the truth.

Mr. Speaker! Something that is difficult to measure but that can truly make a difference is when we share our knowledge and our technology. It is there that we as a nation can make a real difference. We must, however, succeed even better on that front because it must unfortunately be stated that the countries that will determine whether the climate transition succeeds or not today are not part of the journey. If we are to get them on board, we must contribute both knowledge and technology so that they see that the transition is possible without backing into the future.

If one looks at where the larger emission reductions have occurred over the last 20 years, Europe stands out. The world is still characterized by increasing emissions, often on a large scale. This is problematic, as a country like Sweden only accounts for a few per mille of the global emissions and the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions now only correspond to 6 percent of the world's emissions.

Since 2005, Sweden has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 32 percent while our population has increased by 16 percent. The EU has simultaneously reduced its emissions by 33 percent.

On a global level, emissions have instead increased by 28 percent. To understand the extent of the problem, it can be mentioned that the European Union's large reduction in emissions since the signing of the Paris Agreement has been more than nullified by India's emission increase alone during the same period. This, Mr. Speaker, shows in black and white where we must invest, and in what way, if we are to truly manage the transition. We shall do the work at home – there is no doubt – but the great difference is seen when we contribute solutions and expertise to other countries.

The budget we are debating today is, as I mentioned earlier, in pure money the second highest ever within UO 20. We find investments in climate as well as in taking care of our lakes and seas and our forests and land.

The government is investing 1.8 billion kronor over the next three years in pristine nature and a toxin-free environment. This will finance the management of valuable nature and environmental monitoring. It will also stop eutrophication and the spread of PFAS toxins.

Klimatklivet is one of the government's most important supports for investments that contribute to effectively reducing emissions and that facilitate Sweden's entire climate transition. During the last year alone, 1.5 billion SEK in support was granted to approximately 47,000 charging points in Sweden, which was more than any other previous year. In the budget bill for 2026, it is proposed that the appropriation be increased by 1.5 billion SEK, to a total of approximately 4.5 billion. The appropriation is expected to increase by 1.5 billion in the coming years as well.

A question that truly touches upon stewardship, and which I mentioned in the introduction, is the circular economy. It is also an area where I believe the political differences are quite small. To reuse instead of consume and to recycle instead of discard is something that the vast majority can get on board with.

I am therefore extra happy about the various initiatives being made specifically in the area of circular economy. It is about the implementation of EU legislation in the area, it is about producer responsibility, and it is about obtaining reliable statistics so that we can measure that we are doing the right things. It is also about reforming the waste legislation.

That the decision was made at EU level on Friday regarding a tax on packages from Temu and Shein helps to counteract the flow of cheap and low-quality imported goods, which hopefully will help us even more on the circular path.

In September, the committee traveled to Bohuslän, and there we saw, among other things, how they in Sotenäs municipality have done a great job regarding marine litter. Therefore, I am glad that the work with beach cleaning is now receiving additional funding. Our beautiful west coast should not be destroyed by marine litter that is washed in from the sea.

Another thing I want to highlight in the bouquet of initiatives in this year's budget bill is the initiative regarding chemicals – primarily against the spread of PFAS. The Government proposes 25 million kronor for 2026 to strengthen the Swedish Chemicals Agency's work with chemical control. In addition, they propose 85 million for 2026 for continued work to reduce the spread of PFAS. For 2027, the appropriation is expected to increase by 110 million and for 2028 by 135 million kronor.

The government also plans to develop a national plan to prevent PFAS from spreading in our waters and in our nature. PFAS substances are a major challenge in many ways, and we must find ways to phase them out as far as possible.

Simplified and more efficient environmental permit processes have long been eagerly awaited by many. After all the investigations, the government can now finally begin to deliver on this election promise as well. They present eight reforms as an introduction, and a new agency becomes the crowning achievement.

Mr. Speaker! My time is up. I could continue to list both figures and investments, but I have already shortened my speech and wish to conclude by wishing the Speaker, the Speaker's Presidium, the Chamber Office and my good colleagues in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today is December 16. It should be in the middle of winter, but it is seven degrees plus here in Stockholm. December has been unusually warm so far, and we may end up with a heat record for the month. According to SMHI, the mild weather is a clear sign of climate change. Some speak of a new season – ovinter – replacing winter, and many people feel snow sorrow, that is, a sense of loss over the fact that the winter as we remember it no longer exists.

This is the reality that is unfolding outside the Riksdag building, but that reality is not visible in the government's budget. Since they took office three years ago, they have pursued a policy that has drastically increased Sweden's emissions. Instead of focusing on the most important thing, namely to quickly reduce emissions here and now, they are pushing climate measures ahead of them.

We have many times been told by ministers from this government that it is not so important what happens with the emissions by 2030, but that their focus lies on reducing emissions in the longer term, by 2045. Allow me to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. There is always something else that is more pressing here and now for right-wing politicians than tackling common societal problems, not least ensuring that the richest become even richer. That is how it has been in all times, and it will not change by 2040.

Regardless of whether the right-wing parties had been honest in their intention to reduce emissions later – just not right now – it is, however, a strategy that does not work. We know this as those who listen to the climate research. Without large emission reductions in the coming years, the carbon budget will be exhausted, and we can expect more and more winters without snow with new heat records.

Mr. Speaker! With an escalating climate crisis and devastated nature where the water is poisoned by forever chemicals, the present day appears increasingly insecure. In such a situation, we politicians must ask ourselves what people need most. Is it more of the same thing that has created the problems, or is it hope that politics can be different and that it is possible with a better world where we can together solve problems and build a welfare society, where everyone gets what they need within the planet's boundaries?

The parties in the government support are hopelessly stuck in outdated patterns of thought. The policy they pursue will only continue to cultivate pessimism and hopelessness. They offer no faith in the future.

Mr. Speaker! It is remarkable how the government presents cuts in the environmental area as investments. They make a spectacle of investing in measures for valuable nature and on marine environmental monitoring, even though the supplement in reality only constitutes a fraction of what they have cut since they took office. The money allocated to protect and care for nature is far from sufficient to reverse the depletion of biodiversity.

The government also says that they are investing in reducing the spread of PFAS, while at the same time cutting back significantly on the appropriation for the remediation of contaminated areas. If we are truly to prevent further spread of PFAS, we must increase the pace when it comes to the remediation of areas that are already contaminated.

Overall, the government's budget in expenditure area 20 is still significantly lower than it was before their accession, even though the researchers' alarms regarding the climate crisis, nature crisis, and pollution crisis are sounding ever louder. And to make the situation even worse, the government also increases the fossil subsidies within other expenditure areas. The result of this policy is clearly seen in the emissions statistics.

Mr. Speaker! With a different policy, Sweden can reach the climate goals. With joint efforts and an active state, we can realize the climate transition, and through investments of 700 billion kronor over the next ten years, Vänsterpartiet wants the climate transition to be accelerated. With these investments, Sweden would take a major step toward becoming the world's first fossil-free welfare state.

We want to extend Klimatklivet to 2035 and strengthen it to 7 billion per year. We also want 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, for example floods and heatwaves.

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

Compared to the government's budget, Vänsterpartiet wants to invest 1.4 billion more on measures for valuable nature. The money would, among other things, go towards restoration of wetlands and 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 include 1.8 billion more in our budget for this than the government. In addition, we also have an equally large special investment in protecting the forests near the mountains. If the appropriations for forest protection are not significantly increased, irreplaceable natural values risk being lost through logging. Many landowners risk being caught in a bind when they cannot receive compensation for their forests being protected, even though they want formal protection. We know that forest owners' interest in protecting their valuable forests is very great. In the mountain-adjacent area, there is also a great potential for outdoor life and tourism, but no one is particularly interested in traveling to visit a clear-cut.

To stand guard over the forest's importance for biodiversity and the climate, a transition of forestry is required. The development for biodiversity in the forest is negative. Threatened species and habitats are decreasing. Forests with high nature values continue to be harvested instead of being protected. Steering measures and regulations are required to achieve sustainable forestry, and the old-growth forests that remain in Sweden must receive long-term protection. For that, increased state funds are required.

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. These are levels that 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.

Measures are required here and now to protect our health. Installing carbon filters or investing in other purification technology is very costly, and therefore the state must support the municipalities to ensure clean drinking water.

In total, I and my party allocate 10 billion more than the government to expenditure area 20 for the year 2026. I refer to our specific statement.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! For those listening to the debate, it may appear as if we are debating different reports. Time is short, and the questions are many. I choose to focus on a couple of particularly important environmental issues and on the important work that is ongoing linked to species protection, which several before me have already touched upon.

Mr. Speaker! Let us be clear. The Liberals and the government are acting to save our waters, reduce eutrophication, and manage marine litter. In next year's budget, we are allocating 250 million kronor, and just as much in the coming years. These are resources that go straight into reality to municipalities, water councils, and non-profit actors who do the work locally.

Together with previous investments, this represents a clear reinforcement for cleaner lakes, watercourses, and seas. It is part of a broader effort for healthier water. Eutrophication is central, but it does not stand alone for the problems. Environmental toxins, migration barriers, and a heavily pressured ecosystem require long-term solutions. Therefore, we are now strengthening the remedial work along the entire chain, with the goal of improving the living conditions for fish stocks, strengthening biodiversity, and ensuring that it is possible to swim in our waters – to cultivate and leave behind in better condition.

When the government is criticized, the whole picture also needs to be seen. The problems in our seas, not least in the Baltic Sea, we in Sweden do not solve alone. The EU's common regulatory framework and responsibility are crucial. We Liberals have long been clear on this perspective. Environmental problems concerning entire regions or continents require common solutions. It is easy to point fingers here at home, but it is harder to take responsibility for pushing forward where the decisions truly make a difference. Saving our waters requires both national responsibility and strong European cooperation.

Mr. Speaker! A question closely linked to eutrophication is the rewetting of wetlands. Rewetting of our Swedish wetlands is one of the most effective measures we have to reduce climate emissions and strengthen biodiversity.

For a long time, slow processes and unclear incentives have hindered such measures. We have gained momentum on that, and now we are taking action on this. The County Administrative Boards' work with the assessment of wetland measures is being strengthened so that rewetting and restoration can be carried out where they do the most good, for example here in my county, Örebro, which last year was best in Sweden at rewetting. That is something to be proud of for a Närke resident.

Mr. Speaker! Let me move on to the forest. It is truly the finest thing we have in Sweden. When critics say that the government is doing nothing for outdoor life, they are simply wrong. The government is actively investing in renovating hiking trails across the country with resources that continue to increase in the coming years. It is about making nature accessible to more people, strengthening outdoor life, and contributing to people's physical and mental health.

The Liberals have always protected outdoor life as a part of the culture and as a part of the citizens' everyday lives. Our commitment has been clear. Nature experiences shall be accessible to everyone, and the initiatives that the government is now making are completely in line with this. We build upon previous measures and ensure that resources are put into action, not just into visions.

This is concrete politics that makes a difference and ensures that outdoor life can continue to be a cornerstone of public health, nature conservation, and social development, and not least be an important part for the tourism industry across the country.

Alongside this, the work with the management of nature in national parks and nature reserves is strengthened – a nature that can be experienced by everyone. I am particularly proud in this context that we have this year established Sweden's first marine national park in the Baltic Sea. In addition to this, the work to improve aquatic environments and to restore natural environments and ecosystems is strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! One cannot speak about the forest without addressing the problems associated with the species protection rules. Intense work is currently underway within the Government Offices to develop proposals regarding the right to compensation for restrictions on use specifically as a result of species protection. The work is proceeding at full speed, and we will deliver before the election.

This is important. A strong property right is a prerequisite for freedom, democracy, and a market economy. Restrictions on landowners' possibilities to cultivate their land are, in some cases, necessary to protect the environment and ensure sustainable development over generations. The development in the field of environmental law has however entailed, and entails, that landowners in many cases are affected by far-reaching restrictions in their land use without there being any right to compensation and without it really being possible to see any sense or reason in the restrictions that are implemented.

It is not the individual's fault that restrictions are made, but it is precisely the individual forest owner who is currently forced to bear the entire burden. We cannot have it this way.

We need to shape a robust forest policy that views the forest as the resource it is, both for society as a whole and for the individual forest owner. It needs to be carefully delimited when restrictions may occur, and there needs to be a well-balanced right to compensation when the state restricts the possibility of using the land. The system we currently have actually has completely unreasonable consequences.

There is also an important rural perspective in this. We who live and work in the countryside see this every day. The forest is a natural part of life when one lives outside the cities. It is a place where one moves during their free time, a place where one gets their income, a place where one hunts – a natural part of one's existence.

To live close to the forest one owns, to enjoy what it provides and to care for and manage it for future generations, while simultaneously receiving a share of previous generations' work, is a way of life. It is a lifestyle that attracts people to stay or move to the countryside, precisely to be close to their forest. The current species protection rules, however, create a constantly gnawing anxiety for many.

Mr. Speaker! Let me speak plainly: There are those who blame the Liberals for slowing down the work in the Government Offices. That is not true. Mark my words: Property rights are a liberal fundamental principle, and they apply to the highest degree also to the forest and the country's forest owners!

Solving the bureaucratic and political failure that we are now seeing is the single most important issue that remains for us to deliver during this mandate period within our areas of responsibility within the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. And delivery is on the way.

With that, I wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! A documentary about Climate and Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari that SVT produced during the autumn provides an interesting insight into the Liberals' view on climate policy. The Minister considers that Sweden are true "kings," superior to other countries. She also says that we have made great progress, this at the same time as emissions are increasing.

That emissions are increasing in this way due to active political decisions is actually something unique. It is happening at the same time as we actually must reduce emissions faster than ever before to avoid the most catastrophic effects of the climate crisis. There is no room to increase emissions now to reduce them more later.

The best role Sweden could play in international climate work is hardly to lean back and pretend that we are better than others without leading the way and showing that a just transition with maintained welfare is possible and necessary. However, there is nothing in the government's or the Liberals' policy that enables the trend break towards significantly reduced emissions that would be needed. Instead, they seem content to remain at an all too high emission level and think that other countries should do the work. Anyone can understand that this is not a functioning tactic to accelerate global climate work.

What everyone is wondering is, naturally: What do the Liberals actually plan to do to reduce emissions at the speed that is required?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Andrea Andersson Tay, for the interesting speech and for the question!

Sweden is a pioneer country. That is the case. We have low emissions. We have done our homework. We still have a lot left to do, but we are indeed a pioneer country. Sweden is also a clear and important voice in the EU for continued ambitious climate work.

We also conduct a policy here at home that is to have kitchen-table legitimacy. There shall be an acceptance for the policy being conducted, and that is also the case.

One of the most important issues where we have pushed forward during the mandate period is the national work to secure new fossil-free energy where new nuclear power shall be included, but where the energy mix is important.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! When I listen to the speeches from the parties in the government base, I wonder if they have looked a bit too much at this year's Christmas calendar, which is certainly very exciting. It is about time travel, and what is being done from the government's side is that they are taking credit for politics that has been pursued over the last 30 years and which actually has very little to do with this government's policy today.

Elin Nilsson says that Sweden is a clear voice in the EU for a stronger climate policy. I would rather say that Sweden has made itself a clear voice for tearing down regulations in support of the climate and the environment.

Elin Nilsson also speaks about legitimacy. I would rather say that the government, when it backs down in this way, tears down existing climate policy, increases emissions and places the burden on individual individuals. Surveys show that the Swedish population today is deeply concerned about the climate crisis and wants a more powerful climate policy that lowers emissions.

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 required that people feel a fundamental security and that society is there when it is needed. It is the exact opposite of the welfare crisis that the government's policy creates.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the tip to watch this year's Christmas calendar. I actually haven't had time to do that. My calendar has been quite full.

I am happy to stand here and take the credit for that we are now reshaping the energy policy and pushing forward for new fossil-free energy with nuclear power. It is enormously important in the climate work.

Then I do not quite know what the member means. I interpret the question as that it is the government's clear position on the simplification work currently underway at the EU level that the member is critical of. It is a very important work. There are over-regulations in many areas which partly place an incredible burden on the business sector, and partly are directly negative for competitiveness and thus growth.

If we want to achieve a green transition, we must have a competitive industry and a competitive business sector. It is incredibly important, so I actually do not understand the criticism there.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to raise an issue that the government has opened up for during this year and which will entail major environmental consequences in the future. But it is actually no one who has mentioned it during today's debate. It concerns the mining of uranium in alumschist.

The environmental costs of uranium mining in alunschist are not only economic. They are also irreversible and span across generations. We are talking about enormous volumes of waste that is chemically toxic with arsenic and heavy metals such as cadmium. It is also low-radioactive. This waste entails a constant risk of leakage that can poison groundwater and drinking water sources for all time.

The true cost cannot be measured in money. It is about lost agricultural land that could produce food, about destroyed ecosystems, and about the threat to our most important food: clean drinking water. It is an environmental debt that we are passing on to our children and grandchildren, and it is a debt that can never be fully repaid.

Uran mining in alunschist is not like any other mining. To open up for it is like deliberately opening a Pandora's box of environmental toxins.

How can the Liberals and Member Nilsson stand behind such a proposal, to once again allow uranium mining in alunschist in Sweden?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for a very important question, Stina Larsson!

When I take my favorite route in the forest up the fault scarp in Kilsbergen and sit on the top and gaze out over Närkeslätten, I see Kvarntorpshögen outside Kumla, which is a remnant of alum shale mining. There, one sees the environmental consequences of the mining that took place with old techniques until about 50 years ago. The consequences there are significant.

When one now abolishes the ban on uranium mining, one also removes the ban on mining in alunschist. But there is a safety valve. From what I have understood, there are extra safety routines or criteria for obtaining permission to mine alunschist. The company needs to demonstrate that they possess the technical competence required. They must also demonstrate that they are suitable and have sufficient environmental technical competence to be allowed to mine in alunschist specifically.

What I have understood is that it is very difficult to get permission for extraction in alunschist, if someone were to apply for it, because that type of extraction is difficult to carry out without it having unacceptable consequences.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The member refers to the fact that there are extra security routines. But it is nevertheless remarkable that the government and the Liberals have opened up for this.

I see that there are three weighty reasons why uranium mining is an extremely bad idea in Sweden.

Firstly, there is the poison. Alunshiefer can be described as a toxic cocktail. In addition to some uranium, it contains masses of arsenic and heavy metals such as cadmium. When we mine it, we create enormous mountains of waste that are both chemically toxic and radioactive.

Secondly, it is the scale. Because the uranium content is so low, we must, just as the member describes, blast and excavate entire landscapes to extract a small amount. We are forced to sacrifice our best agricultural land in Skåne, Västergötland, and Jämtland. These are lands that we need to produce food and which have high natural values.

Thirdly, there is the leakage. When the waste comes into contact with air and water, the toxins begin to leak out and risk poisoning our drinking water and our lakes for all time.

There is no uranium mining that does not affect the environment. The least harmful uranium mining is that which currently takes place in, among others, Canada and Australia, which have better geological conditions, or through the mining of high-grade ore in countries with strong, independent and well-funded regulatory authorities.

The extraction of low-grade ore in open-pit mines, which would be the case with Swedish alum shale, is considered the most environmentally damaging alternative due to the enormous volumes of waste and the large-scale destruction of the landscape.

I repeat the question: How can you in the Liberals, with your scientific profile, allow uranium mining in alunshiefer? And what do you say to those who live all around in our country who are worried that their drinking water will be destroyed?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Stina Larsson!

Stina Larsson says that uranium mining is not like any other mining. We already mine uranium-bearing ore today, but it cannot be used and ends up in a landfill when it is extracted together with other minerals and metals that are mined. We are now removing that ban. It is a pure waste not to be able to utilize the uranium that comes up during other mining.

Quite frankly, one can say that there is no mining that is completely without environmental impact. All mining has some form of impact on the environment. After all, you are mining bedrock and ore.

When it comes to concerned residents living where there is alunschist, I mentioned in my speech earlier that a specific suitability assessment in the Minerals Act regarding just mining in alunschist was introduced in 2022. There, the requirements are set very high, precisely because mining in alunschist is associated with such risks. To obtain a permit, the company or the mining operator must therefore demonstrate that they can manage the risks. These are, as stated, very high requirements.

(Applause)

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I noticed that Elin Nilsson was a bit irritated by the criticism being voiced regarding the decay occurring in our nature reserves. Windbreaks, boardwalks, and paths are deteriorating because the government does not allocate sufficient resources to maintain them. Even in current prices, the budget that this government allocates is indeed much smaller than when it took over. In constant prices, it is of course drastically much less. The money does not suffice for what it did four years ago.

It is clear that the government is cutting back. Therefore, it is a bit strange and stomach-turning of Elin Nilsson that she becomes irritated by the criticism and says that one is investing. That was not actually why I requested the floor, but I think it is appropriate to speak up when, from a political standpoint, one does not stand for the policy one is actually pursuing.

My question concerns the climate. The Sweden Democrats and the government are leaving a large deficit behind in the climate work. Emissions are increasing, and Swedish industry, which could have contributed to reducing emissions and creating new jobs, has been let down.

Furthermore, Swedish taxpayers risk having to pay billions in EU fines due to the government's lack of accountability. I assume, of course, that the government has conducted an analysis of how large the EU fines will be for Swedish taxpayers if Sweden misses the climate targets. It is an extremely important opportunity cost when looking forward in the budget bill that has now been presented.

In Ireland, the authorities expect a cost of between 90 and 290 billion. This could therefore involve enormously large sums.

How much do the government parties assess that the EU fines for missed climate targets will entail for Sweden?

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Åsa Westlund!

Reacting to criticism or views that are put forward is part of politics. I therefore do not take much notice of it.

The chairman says that the government and the government base are failing Swedish industry. The single message that Swedish industry is most united on, and which one hears when talking with Swedish industry, is that they want a stable energy supply. Stable energy supply and reasonable competitive conditions are probably the most important issues.

There we do a lot. Firstly, we ensure that new nuclear power is built. That work is being driven at a high pace and is incredibly important. Secondly, we stand behind and push for the simplification work that is ongoing at the EU level. It is very important for all of Europe but especially important for Swedish business and Swedish industry.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! What the business community in Sweden says is that they want a stable energy supply and that, in order to be able to rely on this, they want a broad energy agreement. As I have noted earlier in the debate, this government and the Sverigedemokraterna are not delivering that – for purely party-political tactical reasons. The Minister for Energy has been very clear. She wanted to enter into an energy agreement with, among others, the Socialdemokraterna, which would have meant more nuclear power in the long run but also more and cheaper electricity here and now. The government said no to that. The Minister for Energy was clear that there were parties in the government that did not want this agreement and that the reason was that short-term party-strategic interests were being placed before what was best for the country's business community and for the country as a whole.

I did not perceive that I received any answer at all to my question to Elin Nilsson: How large EU fines will Sweden, according to the government's analyses and calculations, have to pay if we miss the climate goals? It surely cannot be that the government does not make such an analysis? Will Swedish voters before the election next year not find out what it will cost Sweden if we do not meet the climate goals? Is it to be hidden from the voters? When else does the government intend to report how large the fines are that await Swedish taxpayers because of the failed climate policy that the government pursues?

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to briefly say two things.

I was not part of the discussions regarding the energy agreement. I do not know what was said in that room. I have, of course, taken note of what the Energy Minister has said. Otherwise, I have no insight, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the matter.

When it comes to how large the EU fines that may be pending are, I can say that I do not work at the Ministry of Finance and do not have any insight into those figures. I also cannot comment on that. But I am completely convinced that there is an overview of various cases where one could potentially risk EU fines. It is, of course, part of the government's work and responsibilities.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Member Elin Nilsson is popular today. That is probably primarily because the member belongs to the same party as our Minister for Climate and Environment. In that case, it is appropriate to ask questions in this area to Elin Nilsson.

I was a bit surprised when I listened to the speech. There were quite deep chest tones regarding how skilled the government is in this area, how important it is, and about all the good things that have been done. We have previously heard an analogy concerning the Advent calendar and time travel. I wonder myself if we are living in parallel realities.

What we have seen is that over a three-year period, the environmental budget has been significantly reduced, Mr. Speaker. Then, a little bit was added when it was seen that deficiencies had arisen. Now we are back at approximately the same level as the budget was when [you] took office. But since then, the money has lost purchasing power due to inflation. Finally, it is approximately the same amount of money in billions as it was in 2022, but they are worth less.

Many of the initiatives that the government speaks about consist of putting money back where it simply turned out that it was not possible to cut. We have heard about outdoor life – boardwalks, wind shelters and other things have deteriorated during these years, and people have been dismissed. Now money is being put back, and one receives as much money as four years ago. But the needs are now much greater, because maintenance was not performed. According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's calculations, approximately 1 billion is also missing for initiatives on biodiversity. Of the money that the government actually invests, 83 million goes to shooting endangered animals, such as wolves.

My question to the member is: Are you really making investments? To me, it feels more like you are patching and repairing something that is leaking.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It took some time, but now the wolf has been mentioned. We shall not enter into that debate, even though it is a bit tempting. There is a lot to discuss there. That I stand behind the policy that the government advocates, I want to have said at least.

When one changes government, certain reprioritizations are naturally made. It has escaped no one that a war is raging in Eastern Europe that demands its due. Defense demands its due. The school system receives a lot of money thanks to the Liberals being in the government. Climate and environment are also important, but certain reprioritizations have been made. Then one sometimes sees that one needs to put money back or reprioritize again, and then that is done.

This is, therefore, a result of changing the government.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for a very clear answer. There is a difference between the government options, and I hope those who are listening here take that to heart. What we have seen is that forest owners are waiting for compensations that they have been granted under current legislation; there is no money to pay them out. What the government is talking about is changing the legislation so that more people will have the opportunity to receive money. But there is not even money for those who have already been granted compensation under existing legislation.

We see a fight against wolves. We do not need to mention so much more about it, but Swedish law says that we should not exterminate endangered animals but protect them. We have seen increased emissions and increased sales of fossil fuels. We have received new legislation that allows us to mine uranium in Sweden again. We had an exchange of remarks earlier regarding the effects of this. We see that outdoor life has received worsened conditions. Civil organizations have also received worsened conditions.

We have received a new national park, but there is no money to maintain the already existing national parks. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency itself says that with the funds they have, they cannot even manage the areas that have already been protected, let alone protect more. When the government removed money for beach cleaning on the west coast, there were major problems with littering. Now they have put the money back, so that the budget item is as large as before but thus worth less. We have finished plans for the remediation of contaminated areas, but there they are removing 200 million.

For me, there is a very clear difference between the government options. If Miljöpartiet is to be involved in governing, it is with just such things as we want to change the trend. This was also what was present when the Tidö government took office.

What will the continuation look like, Elin Nilsson? Will you continue to patch and repair, or do you have any initiatives in your back pocket?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the forest that is protected, I agree that there must also be money to manage it. Otherwise, one loses the very purpose of protecting the forest. It affects the legitimacy of the system negatively.

Then I really hope it is clear to the voters that there is a difference between the different blocs in Swedish politics. My bloc has a stable government base. For three years, soon four, we have delivered what we have said we would deliver. As the member mentions, we live in parallel realities, or at least with parallel cash boxes. When one reads the Green Party's budget in the area we are debating, it seems the cash box lacks a bottom.

It does not do so in the bourgeois alternative and in the Liberals' reality. We have a reality to contend with. To precisely adhere to the economic conditions that prevail is to take responsibility for Sweden. I truly hope that the voters see the difference here, for a long-term, stable and sustainable Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The heading for today's debate is: Debate on the environment. Actually, I would like to say that what we are debating is Sweden's future. For me and the Center Party, it is absolutely crucial that our country moves in the right direction in a time characterized by climate change and deteriorating ecosystems. Right now, a global race for green technology is underway, and there is an urgent need to secure our long-term competitiveness, welfare, and food supply.

Centerpartiet sees the climate transition and green growth as a great opportunity. It is an opportunity to create new jobs across the entire country, to strengthen Swedish companies' competitiveness, and to build a safer and more sustainable society. Our budget motion More jobs and lower emissions shows the right way forward, a way of faith in the future, decisiveness, and responsibility.

Mr. Speaker! Right now, the development is the opposite. Both emissions and unemployment have increased, and we cannot have that. Therefore, we in the Center Party propose an increase in the appropriations within expenditure area 20 by over 4.5 billion kronor for 2026 compared to the government's proposal. These funds are not just figures in a table. They are concrete investments in our common future. Despite this increase, we still have a lower reform space than the government does.

Mr. Speaker! Let me point out some of our most important priorities.

Firstly: We must make it easier and cheaper for ordinary people and companies to transition. The government has scrapped the climate bonus and made it more expensive to choose an environmentally friendly car. We want to reintroduce a substantial bonus for those who opt out of the fossil fuels. We also want to review and strengthen the green deduction to accelerate the expansion of solar cells, battery storage, and charging infrastructure across the entire country. Climate policy must be for everyone, not just for those with the thickest wallets in the big cities.

Secondly: We must accelerate the green transition of industry and the business sector. Industriklivet and Klimatklivet have been enormously successful in reducing emissions and driving innovation. But the government is creating uncertainty and underfunding these important initiatives. We want to see a long-term and powerful reinforcement of these programs. It is by supporting our companies – from the small subcontractor to the large base industries – that we can create the new, green jobs and export successes.

In our climate work, a textile step is also included. The textile industry is today one of the most resource-intensive and polluting industries in the world. The mountain of clothes is growing, and with it the emissions and environmental destruction, often in other parts of the world. At the same time, we face new EU requirements for separate collection and an upcoming producer responsibility for textiles.

Here, the Centre Party sees an enormous opportunity for Sweden. We can become leaders in developing the technology and business models for a circular textile management. But then we must act now, not wait for other countries to overtake us. I would like to say that it is a total failure that we were forced to cancel the textile collection this autumn and again send clothes to incineration. It erodes people's trust in waste management.

In recent days, the government managed to task the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency with developing a national producer responsibility, but it will take at least another year before anything other than what we have today is in place. In the meantime, we lose momentum in the transition and let investments run idle, for example, the sorting facility Siptex in Malmö, which is now to be divested.

In Centerpartiet's textile step, we are allocating 50 million kronor to support innovation and scaling up of precisely textile recycling. It is about investing in new technology for automated sorting and fiber-to-fiber recycling. It is about creating conditions for new, green jobs across all of Sweden, from collection and sorting to redesign and new production. This is modern industrial policy that solves an environmental problem and creates Swedish competitiveness.

Thirdly: We must safeguard our unique nature and biological diversity. Climate and environment go hand in hand. The government's cuts during this mandate period on the protection and management of valuable nature are deeply concerning. The management of our 5,000 nature reserves and 30 national parks must be maintained.

Long-term perspective and continuity are required to ensure the preservation of high nature values and biodiversity. Protecting our forests, seas, and watercourses is not a cost, but rather an investment in ecosystem services, in recreation, and in the quality of life for future generations. Centerpartiet therefore proposes a significant resource supplement to strengthen the work on biodiversity and the restoration of valuable natural environments.

Mr. Speaker! I want to add another perspective to the environmental debate: climate adaptation. It is no longer about whether we will be affected by the effects of climate change, but about how we succeed in managing them. It is about flash floods that drown our cities, about droughts that hit our farmers, and about landslides and avalanches that threaten our roads and our infrastructure. Prevention is always cheaper than repairing afterwards.

Nevertheless, the government has chosen to withdraw the targeted funds for the county administrative boards' extremely important work in coordinating climate adaptation regionally. They are shifting the responsibility and the costs onto municipalities, companies, and individual citizens. It is short-sighted and deeply irresponsible policy. Nevertheless, the Minister for Climate and Environment issues sharp criticism against its own county administrative boards for not doing enough in the climate adaptation work.

Centerpartiet does the opposite. We invest in a robust society. We allocate 50 million kronor to increase the pace of climate adaptation work. We specifically want to direct these funds to the countryside, to help our farmers adapt and to secure critical infrastructure across the country. It is about building ditches and wetlands to manage both drought and floods and to secure roads and bridges. It is about taking responsibility for the whole country, whether it concerns cities or the countryside.

Mr. Speaker! In a debate on the environment, one must mention PFAS. These forever chemicals are some of our time's worst environmental toxins and a threat to our health. They are in our drinking water, in our food, and in our bodies. The stories from Kallinge, Uppsala, and other places are a painful reminder of the consequences. People have had their health and security threatened.

Despite the gravity of the situation, the government is acting far too slowly. They are inventorying and investigating, but the pace of the remediation work is far too low and the funding is insufficient. Municipalities and individuals are often left alone with enormous costs and great anxiety.

We must find faster and cheaper methods to clean our land and our water. It is about protecting our most important food source and the health of future generations. Therefore, in our budget, we propose a specific investment of 25 million kronor annually to drive innovation for PFAS remediation and PFAS purification.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about Håll Sverige Rent. Here, the government has essentially choked off all funds during the mandate period, and over the past year, it has now completely pulled the rug out from under them. It is completely unreasonable, I would like to assert. They do an incredibly important job with litter picking and removing plastic from nature. They engage associations and schools, organize litter-picking days, and are an important part of civil society. Now the government has completely pulled the rug out from under them and instead done the opposite by raising the plastic bag tax. We are doing the opposite. We want to increase the appropriation because this is an important task that we want to continue.

Mr. Speaker! The budget that the government presents is a budget that cements the image of a government that has abdicated from climate leadership. The Centre Party does not accept this irresponsible policy. We present a completely different alternative.

We have a budget that takes responsibility. We invest in the future and see solutions where the government only sees problems. The government's budget is a step backward. Our budget is a step forward where emissions go down and jobs increase.

Since our budget is larger than the government's, I refer to the Centre Party's special statement.

With that, I wish the members, the House, and others a Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 13.)

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