Climate policy

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats naturally stand by all our reservations, but I move for approval only to reservation 18, the EU's new emissions trading system for buildings, road transport and additional sectors.

Colleagues, the Swedish people, Madam Speaker! The climate crisis means that we are experiencing more natural disasters with severe storms, droughts, floods, and heat. Extreme weather is increasing. It accelerates species extinction, shakes up agriculture, creates conflicts over scarce resources, and ultimately drives people to flee across the world.

Last year was, according to the Copernicus Climate Service, the warmest year recorded since 1850. According to the climate service, it is now also confirmed that 2024 was the first year with a global average temperature exceeding one and a half degrees compared to pre-industrial levels.

One would think that all the world's leaders would now be fully occupied with fighting to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, but unfortunately, that is not the case at all. Even the issues that are often naturally linked to climate, such as security policy, energy issues, and preparedness policy, are often isolated to be about more quick fixes, which many times are dead ends.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish people, on the other hand, place the climate issue high on the agenda. The climate is also one of the issues that generates the greatest engagement in civic life. At the same time, the government's policy in this area is limited, unclear, and regressive. We have all been surprised and shocked by how climate policy has been reduced and dismantled. But perhaps it is not so strange. The Minister for Climate sits in the lap of the Sverigedemokraterna. The Minister for Climate says one thing and Sverigedemokraterna another, and it is Sverigedemokraterna who decide.

We Social Democrats want to lead the transition instead, and we believe that our role is immensely important here, if not indispensable. For us, the goal is a sustainable Sweden, and it must happen with a climate-just policy. More climate focus is needed in Swedish politics, and there needs to be an insight that this is not about a single-issue policy but about a systemic shift that must permeate all relevant policies – education, housing, transport, industry, and energy. All of this is about transition.

We must make this journey in a climate-just way. Sustainability and equality are linked, because without climate-sustainable solutions, inequality in the world will increase. On the other hand, it applies that without equality, we will not succeed in transitioning to a fossil-free society. Therefore, the climate transition must be just, and a just climate transition is therefore the Social Democrats' answer to the challenges we face.

Madam Speaker! Global warming threatens us all, especially our societies. That is worth saying. We see it already today. The recent years' long periods of heat and an increased number of fires and floods have shown that Sweden is also affected.

I particularly remember the night of August 18, 2021, in Gävleborg. I was in Söderhamn, and it was Gävle that was hit by enormous floods. In the morning, I and all of Sweden were shocked when we saw the images from, in my case, the neighboring town of Gävle.

Friends from Gävle have told how the rain surged along the house walls in a way they had never experienced. First, one thought it was a ten-year rain and then a hundred-year rain, but then one understood that it was a thousand-year rain. It went very fast. There was water everywhere, relentless, and no barriers helped.

Rescued people and desperate residents had to experience this. Since then, we have seen floods affecting many cities during the heavy rains. Flood mapping and preparedness to handle water flows and periods of heat now exist in almost all municipalities, because we know that climate change has an impact on infrastructure but also on agriculture, ecosystems, and people's health.

Sweden is affected today but risks being even more affected by climate change. The increased flood risk affects buildings, roads, railways, and water and sewage systems, which we all depend on. Milder winters will also be a problem for Sweden, as we will have problems with pests and disease carriers that we have not had problems with before. We also know that we have problems with increased coastal erosion in places such as Halland and Skåne and with flood risk especially in the southern parts of Sweden. This is due to the higher sea levels.

Madam Speaker! Climate change, of course, affects the whole world. That is what we often talk about. A few years ago, I met a man from the Marshall Islands, a representative for that country. He said that they now experience as many storms in the spring as they used to experience in the autumn, during the storm season. It was a society that was not prepared for this. Then problems arise: You cannot get ships through. Agriculture is affected. Trade does not function. The economy is disrupted. It becomes an enormous impact.

This island nation also risks being completely submerged underwater. This in itself concerns its entire existence, and it looks that way in several places in the world. People living along coasts risk being affected in an existential way.

Madam Speaker! Climate policy is, unlike global warming, an opportunity. It saves societies from extreme scenarios. It oxygenates society and the business sector with innovative power. Climate policy is the political leadership in the climate crisis. It is crucial to help the business sector and win in the transition. It is half the answer to achieving better air quality. It is a partial answer in the fight against the Russians. And it is helpful in the preparedness work.

Why then is the Tidö government and SD so opposed to it? I wonder why the Moderaterna are opposed to a policy that drives innovations in the business sector. I wonder why SD wants to reduce the conditions for Swedish jobs. I wonder why KD has forgotten its ecological humanism. Above all, I wonder why L is in the government at all. What are they doing there – losing voter support?

Madam Speaker! Climate change is both local and global, but we need each other across borders. The climate transition must take place in all countries. The Paris Agreement must be respected, and the EU is the most important actor in the global work. Our Swedish commitment must be there. It must be about pushing at the EU level but also about ensuring that we get the job done here at home. All signs of a slowdown in the EU work are worrying, but we in Sweden also have a responsibility for our own implementation work and the climate goals we are bound to by existing EU legislation.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats promise to be the driving force in Swedish politics for a climate transition that provides opportunities for the business sector, which is crucial for the planet and which oxygenates our society with new innovation that is better for public health. Sweden needs a green transition, and we want to take the leadership there.

(Applause)

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

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for a fiery speech!

The climate transition is one of the absolute greatest challenges of our time. That is what I believe, and I am quite convinced that we agree on that. That we need much more clean electricity, I am also convinced that both of our parties understand and are well aware of, perhaps especially the Social Democrats, who have been driving the building up of the industrial nation that has helped to build our economy strong. That is one thing I still want to give the Social Democrats.

My question goes back to the roots of the Social Democrats. That is why I choose to highlight the industrial aspect of things, because then we must also talk about nuclear power, which I like. The Social Democrats' party leader was finance minister when S and MP, among others, shock-raised the tax on nuclear power. Four reactors were closed in six years.

We do not have an answer to the question of whether she, as Prime Minister, would stop the nuclear power that the government is now paving the way for. As newly elected party leader, she stood on stage and rejected nuclear power. In the Social Democrats' new party program, it states that electricity shall be renewable.

At the same time, we hear a discussion within the Social Democrats where they are trying to convince the voters that the party has always been in favor of nuclear power. It does not add up, Madam Speaker.

I must therefore continue to ask the same old question that I have asked many times before to Social Democratic representatives: Can the Social Democrats give a long-term answer to those who want to invest in nuclear power in Sweden – will you tear up the financing plan, or will you be able to withstand the growth-hostile influence that is allowed to be involved all too often?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member of Parliament Storckenfeldt, for the question on energy policy!

This is an energy policy issue that can advantageously be taken up in those contexts. But when one is asked, one can of course answer a little bit. It would, however, be nice if the Moderaterna were interested in talking about climate policy at some points as well.

But let me say something about energy policy. We Social Democrats say clearly that we want market-equivalent conditions for the different types of energy. We believe that the types of energy that are most efficient and also cost-effective will carry Sweden's future. We will have to see if nuclear power could be one of them. It doesn't quite look like that now; instead, nuclear power looks to be a very expensive energy source. The Swedish people would have to put significantly more tax money into the state treasury if the state is to pump money into the old technology. The Moderates have historically been cautious with tax money, but in this issue, there seems to be no limit to what the state should be involved in financing when it comes to older technology.

We believe more that other energy solutions are the future. Not least, we believe that offshore wind power will have a very strong position in the future, both in terms of efficiency and for achieving a good energy balance.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Energy policy is climate policy. If you have no energy policy, you also have no climate policy. It is that simple.

If we are to carry out the climate transition, we will need incredible amounts of clean and stable electricity. The needs for electricity production are enormous. I believe we all have a bit of difficulty grasping how enormous the needs actually are.

From Vattenfall, it was clear regarding the question of whether it was market-based decisions that led to nuclear power being phased out in Sweden. It was political decisions, Vattenfall has stated. It was this that caused the nuclear reactors in my home county of Halland to be closed. There, S, MP, C and V bear a great responsibility.

Madam Speaker! We heard that "we will see" if nuclear power has a part in Sweden's future electricity production. It is not enough with answers for those who actually want to invest in nuclear power in Sweden, but we need clearer answers: Will you tear up these plans? Will you stop what we have now laid the foundation for, namely that nuclear power shall become possible? Where do the Social Democrats stand on the nuclear power issue?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Of course, it is important for the Swedish people to know what energy mix Sweden will have in the future. We Social Democrats place a secure energy mix and an energy mix that is necessary in a green transition high on our agenda.

We believe in the technology that is most cost-effective and modern and leads to the Swedish people paying the least in relation to what is received. What the Swedish people need to find out before the election is how much the Moderaterna are willing to open the state treasury in projects to help an old technology: Is it millions or billions?

It is perhaps rather the answers that the Moderaterna owe the Swedish people before the election. But the Swedish people can be completely convinced that we do not give advantages or disadvantages to anyone, but we base it on market grounds. We will always put the Swedish people first so that we in Sweden can meet our own energy needs and the green transition.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I can begin with a tip for Madam Speaker and perhaps also to the previous speakers. Tomorrow at 12:00, we have a debate on energy policy, if one wishes to engage in that.

I thought I would stick more to the climate policy. Jytte Guteland said that the Social Democrats should be the driving actor in the green transition.

I have read the Social Democrats' budget. If you search for the word "miljöbil" (environmentally friendly car), you can see that it is mentioned zero times. The word "elbil" (electric car) is mentioned zero times. If you search for "laddinfrastruktur" (charging infrastructure), you find that it is mentioned once, but that is to repeat the government's initiative. You are raising the electricity tax. You are giving an extra discount for refueling – it is a bit unclear why you need that when the gasoline price is around 15 kronor per liter.

How are we supposed to drive the transition of the transport sector if we don't make any interventions? We see that emissions have increased radically with this government. How can the Social Democrats be a driving actor if they don't make any investments?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Centre Party member for the question! The Centre Party has a newly elected party leader with a climate profile. That is something that bodes well for future cooperation with the Social Democrats. I am convinced of that. But I think we do best by not arguing over who is most ambitious when it comes to transforming transport policy and transport.

We Social Democrats clearly show in our committee motion that we want Sweden to reach the climate goals. It is necessary to take responsibility when it comes to exactly the emissions from transport to meet the transport goal. We have been very clear about this all the time in our budgets. We do this with a mix where we use our proposal on the reduction obligation and Sweden fuel but also lead an electrification.

We want to transition moving forward so that it also becomes possible for those with a thinner wallet to take part in the investments that the state is making. It should not only be those with the thickest wallets who have the opportunity to take part in, for example, environmental bonuses and electric cars.

But we are definitely on the same line as the Center Party. We see that the transport sector has the decisive role for us to meet the 2030 goals. There we will not back down. It is our promise to the voters.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I also do not think there is much point in arguing about who is best, because it is obvious that Centerpartiet is best. We therefore do not need to address that.

But I also share the goal that we must achieve the targets – both the 2030 targets, the transport targets and so on – and that electrification is super important. But then one also has to do something about it!

We see how the sales figures for electric cars have declined under this government. If no changes are made, there will be no changes. The Centre Party presents an environmental car bonus that focuses on those with smaller wallets and on, for example, used cars. We are talking about a conversion premium, so that one can convert their gasoline car into a biogas car.

Such things are missing from the Social Democrats. I see none of this in the budget. It is very nice with committee motions, but it is bang for the buck that matters.

If there is no money, it won't get much better than the current government. The ambition is excellent, but one obviously needs someone to drive it forward.

I would very much like to hear from Jytte Guteland how it is envisioned that we are to achieve electrification. It is not enough with charging stations – they are also needed, but more electric cars will not be sold just because we have charging stations. We can have as many charging stations as we want without it leading to anything.

We also see that the export of electric cars is increasing. The increase in exports is not quite as fast as the new car sales, but it is a huge problem that electric cars are disappearing out of the country.

I want to ask the Social Democrats: How are we going to increase the pace of electrification? You are raising the electricity tax, and you are lowering the costs for fueling fossil fuels. There are no investments at all in your budget for either electric cars or environmentally friendly cars. I would very much like to hear a bit about the thoughts more concretely rather than just about the targets.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! The member is reading our committee motion as if he were reading the Bible, I must say.

If one looks at our entire policy, it is clear that we want to lead the electrification and that we strongly believe in it as one of the decisive factors when it comes to transport.

I do not want to downplay that even the older cars must reduce their emissions. I know that we are in agreement on that. But when it comes to electrification, we have shown in our policy development work what policy we stand for. We point out that we want to see that electric cars become possible to lease for those with lower incomes.

We now face a party congress where climate issues and also these questions will be high on the agenda.

We are also very clear that we want to secure the infrastructure in the entire country.

That is how you should read our budget – you should look at our entire budget and the investments we are making in different areas, where everything from infrastructure to energy efficiencies and transport lays a foundation for meeting the goals by 2030. That sets us apart from the government, and we will not back down from that.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for an interesting speech!

There are many fine words. There are climate goals to be reached. Something I miss is a bit more concreteness.

One of the absolute hottest climate policy issues in recent years has been the reduction obligation. When one looks at the Social Democratic reservations, a clear picture emerges that the Social Democrats wish to hold fast to all the climate goals that currently exist. They shall also be achieved. Among them is the transport goal. The old reduction obligation was to ensure that the transport goal was reached.

Then everyone discovered that it became extremely expensive with this reduction obligation. This single recipe they had to reach the transport goal cost far too much money. The Sweden Democrats took the lead and eventually succeeded in getting many more parties on board that the reduction obligation must be lowered. Even the Social Democrats eventually came to the conclusion that they had been wrong.

When I now take note of what the Social Democrats want, I see that they want twice as high a reduction obligation going forward, with a floor. But the floor shall be movable, and it shall be at the level that the industry wants it to be.

My question to Jytte Guteland is: How much more expensive will fuel be if the Social Democrats are in charge? How much will the cost at the pump go up if taxes and oil prices and raw material prices are at the same level as today?

My second question is: What does this moving floor mean, which the industry is to come to an agreement on as being appropriate? They need a year before the reduction obligation is adjusted. How is this floor to be adjusted, and at what level should it be?

How much more expensive will it be to fuel the car if Jytte Guteland gets to decide after the next election?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Kinnunen! I cannot help but smirk. I know it looks arrogant, so I must try to pull my lips back. But this, learning from the Sweden Democrats that one should provide conditions for the reduction obligation so that it does not jump between years…

You haven't done anything other than jump, the Sweden Democrats and this government. One moment it's supposed to be one way and the next it's the other. There are zero conditions for the industry to have any long-term planning, so it becomes a bit of a mess. Don't throw stones in glass houses!

When it comes to the reduction obligation, we see the importance of ensuring that the older cars are given the conditions to run but with lower emissions. At the same time, we have added a gas discount that provides an opportunity for those with a thinner wallet to manage changes in price.

We are very careful with the Swedish people's wallets – unlike the Tidöregeringen, which you hold or decide over. This government has truly made Sweden into Dyrsverige for real – and a prolonged one at that. I do not believe that the Swedish people have suffered under real wage increases that have decreased in this way in modern times. I believe that we are poorer than ever, so I think one should be a bit careful about talking about who has expensive politics.

We know that there can be a difference when living in the countryside when it comes to needing to use the car for transport. We want to ensure that people feel secure that they can manage with our policy. Therefore, we have added a fuel discount, which is very important.

What we wonder is what the Sweden Democrats are doing for climate policy at all and what it leads to when we do not meet our climate goals by 2030. Who will pay the billion-euro fines that we risk under the EU with the Sweden Democrats' policy? Is it the Swedish people? Yes, then it will become even more expensive to be Swedish in the future.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I noted that my question was not answered. How much more expensive will it become to refuel?

You want to double the reduction obligation. The Social Democrats think that the reduction obligation is too low today and that it must be raised very significantly to double the level. But that will not be enough to reach the 2030 goal for the transport sector, where we are currently judged to achieve a 43 percent reduction in emissions with the current reduction obligation. It should then be up to 70 percent, so at what level do the Social Democrats intend to set this floor? It is supposed to be variable. It will not be able to be 20 percent. Should it be 30 percent or 40 percent?

It is quite important that the voters find out exactly how much more expensive the Social Democrats think it should become, even if one intends to push out a few hundred kronor in grants. I do not think that people want any more grants.

We must also consider whether these subsidies should go to agriculture when it becomes more expensive to produce food. How will the subsidies work for the transport sector, which is to transport food to the grocery stores? How much higher will food prices become? How much more will this contribute to inflation and upcoming interest rate decisions?

All of this is missing in the Social Democratic proposal. It is some kind of napkin sketch that you have come up with on Sveavägen. It is nothing more than a poster. You do not even know what level the reduction obligation should be at.

Jytte Guteland promises here that the Social Democrats will achieve the 2030 goal for the transport sector. But then one must have an idea of how it is to be done and be able to explain to the voters what the price is.

The Sweden Democrats have stepped forward to review our climate goals. We are currently carrying out work in the Environmental Goals Commission, where we are, among other things, reviewing the 2030 goals and will attempt to ensure that climate goal management becomes better.

The transport goal for 2030 should naturally be removed in favor of the EU-decided goals that are in place. Jytte Guteland wants to keep all goals but cannot say how they are to be achieved or what it will cost.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member of Parliament Kinnunen for the interesting presentation!

It is so exciting to see how the Sweden Democrats attack when it is the Sweden Democrats who rule in Sweden during the most expensive time we Swedes have experienced. Trump, who is perhaps the Sweden Democrats' party leader's favorite globally, is shaking the economy so that it becomes completely unpredictable to be Swedish and perhaps even to live on earth at all right now. It is a bit exciting that I am going to set exact prices on fuels at the same time as the entire economy sways when the populists lead the world.

It is you who are essentially leading this government, so it is I who should be asking the questions to you. That is what I am doing. I wonder how Sweden is at all supposed to live up to the climate goals with the Sweden Democrats' policy. I wonder if it is unimportant to you that the world is getting warmer, if it is unimportant to you that the climate policy does not lead to Swedish jobs, and if it is unimportant to you that this government is investing in electric mopeds in Ghana instead of transitioning the technology in Swedish companies.

I also wonder how the transport goals are to be met with the Sweden Democrats' policy since you have no proposals. You do not want to do anything to reduce emissions from Swedish cars. You also do not want it to be electrified. You effectively put a stop to that.

My question to you Sweden Democrats is: Why do you have such a high tail-end [trailing position] when it is you who are leading the most expensive Sweden that we Swedes have experienced in modern times?

(Applause)

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: Since it was the final rebuttal, these questions may be answered at a later time.)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! It was a remarkably high tone we heard here from the Social Democrats' representative. I would like to begin by reminding that we speak through the Speaker.

Madam Speaker! Climate change is the great challenge of our time. It is a challenge that affects every human being, every sector, and every society, both here at home in Sweden and around the world. To succeed with the enormous structural transformation that the climate requires, we must, however, show that it is possible to reduce emissions without sacrificing economic growth. It is not just an economic necessity. It is a climate strategy in itself.

If climate policy is perceived as a threat to jobs, the future of companies, or household finances, we lose the commitment that the transition is entirely dependent on. Instead of building support, we risk creating resistance.

Sweden is a pioneer country precisely because we have shown the opposite: that it is possible. Since the 1990s, we have halved our emissions per GDP-krona while the economy has grown. This is proof that smart investments, technological development, and the business sector's power of transition work. It is something to be proud of and to build upon.

A decisive explanation for Sweden's successes is our fossil-free electricity production. The availability of stable and affordable electricity without emissions has been a key to both our competitiveness and our climate policy. When the UN's climate panel clearly points out that nuclear power is a necessary part of the solution, it is clear that Europe and Sweden need more nuclear power – not less. I wonder what those who do not believe that energy production belongs in the climate policy debate actually have for long-term solutions for the climate at all.

The Moderate-led government has now made a long series of decisions to pave the way for new nuclear power. Furthermore, new steps are being taken to increase the expansion of wind power and increase the capacity in hydropower. This is not done for fun. It is a fundamental prerequisite for a climate policy that holds up all the way, which becomes a competitive advantage and contributes to global emission reductions. To turn a blind eye to the importance of electricity production is irresponsible. If you have no energy policy, you also have no climate policy.

Madam Speaker! Every now and then, the Swedish sustainability debate needs to be reminded of the power of the free market and how consumer demand steers more than political finger-pointing ever could. It is good that Sweden has tough environmental legislation. It has given us a unique position to create sustainable production chains. But let us be clear: the solution is not to turn off growth or to hinder human activity. The solution is to transition.

Sweden should not only be the best at reducing emissions. We must also be the best at creating technology, solutions, and systems that other countries can be inspired by and follow. Those who want to save the climate must also save competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! At the same time as climate change tests our infrastructure, our food production and our water supply, it also fuels conflicts globally and forces people to flee. In many parts of the world, a flood does not just mean material damage, it can mean that families lose their harvest, their home and their future. It also affects Sweden through increased migration and new security policy challenges.

When I studied political science at the University of Gothenburg, we read about "water wars", i.e., wars over the resource water. This is what we see in practice now. Climate policy must therefore also be seen as a clear part of our crisis preparedness. Securing access to fossil-free electricity, clean water, robust transport routes, and society-critical infrastructure is not just a climate issue. It is a question of security and preparedness.

Madam Speaker! We are not at the finish line – far from it – but Sweden's journey shows that climate responsibility and growth are not opposites. They are prerequisites for one another. Now, leadership, courage, and a belief in humanity's ability to solve what seems impossible are required. History has taught us one thing: When it truly matters, humanity rises. Then she builds anew, thinks bigger, and leads the way. That is how we shape a climate policy that not only holds in theory, but also in practice – a climate policy for households, for companies, for freedom, and above all, for the future.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the speech from the Moderaterna. As usual, nuclear power is the only solution to the climate crisis.

I would, however, like to bring up another matter. A global study was recently published regarding the population's view on making greater efforts for the climate. There were 125 countries included in the survey – countries that account for 96 percent of the world's emissions. The survey shows massive support for a stronger climate policy.

If one looks at the study nationally, it shows that over 80 percent of Sweden's population want the state to do more for the climate. This does not align at all with the government's climate policy, which is a kind of reverse policy where greenhouse gas emissions increased sharply last year, instead of the opposite.

My question to the Moderates is: When will the proposals that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near term arrive? It is something that most people living in Sweden actually want to see.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Near-term is important, but it is absolutely not everything. I believe rather that it is even more important to ensure that we actually have a plan to reach all the way to net-zero emissions in 2045 and to ensure that the plan is sustainable all the way there – and beyond. I believe that we all somewhere want to build a society where we have good competitiveness and where we can actually achieve negative emissions and continue to contribute in that way.

I see it as even more important that we ensure we safeguard the Swedish economy and growth so that other countries can also, and want to, follow the Swedish examples that come from here. We focus very much on precisely the fossil-free electricity production, and there we see that nuclear power absolutely is a key. It is not everything, but it is a prerequisite for us to succeed with electrification in general regarding both industries and transport. Then both nuclear power and more wind are needed. As said, nuclear power is a prerequisite to also be able to have more wind in the system.

We also think that the forest should be utilized. It contributes incredibly much to locking in carbon in a very efficient way. It contributes to good products that we can then export, and then we can push out other fossil products in other sectors and in other parts of the world. Sweden can contribute in a very great way, but it is important that we have a systems perspective and that we ensure we reach further than just the short term.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement that this should be seen in a longer perspective – absolutely. We also agree that Sweden should be a good example. But for the time being, Sweden is not a good example; we had large emissions of greenhouse gases last year.

I would like to return to the question of what the Swedish people think. There is also a survey from January where Naturvårdsverket has looked at the Swedes' view on the climate, and it shows that there is broad support in the population to make significantly more efforts to reduce climate change. This also applies to efforts from the state level regarding, for example, public transport, energy supply, and facilities for recycling.

In the survey, questions were also asked about what prevents people from living more climate-consciously, and eight out of ten answered that the main reason is that climate-friendly alternatives are often the most expensive. Therefore, I wonder why the government is so reluctant to invest more in, for example, public transport – something that could actually happen here and now. We in Vänsterpartiet want to see a more expanded public transport system across the entire country, and we are investing in a monthly pass that will cost 450 kronor per month.

I wonder: Is it not better to subsidize climate-smart, fossil-free solutions? What the government has done is to subsidize the fossil, which led to increased emissions last year.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! More money for everything and everyone is the Left Party's proposal regarding most things, and this is no exception. We have a different perspective: We want to maintain good competitiveness and good growth.

We are to reach net-zero emissions, but what I believe Kajsa Fredholm is after are, for example, such proposals as those raised by Vänsterpartiet in a rebuttal exchange here. They want to reduce Swedish meat consumption by 25 percent. In the large whole, that would mean a frontal assault on all of Sweden's meat production. Despite the fact that Swedish meat is among the most climate-smart in the world, they want to replace it with something else. The proposal would, in fact, lead to imports.

It becomes even more absurd when one talks about the consumption of meat specifically, because game meat is then factored in. When it comes to biodiversity, we know that grazing lands are some of our species-richest environments. If one wants good biodiversity – more meadow flowers, insects, and a better bird life – more mouths in the landscape are also required, not fewer.

All of this is important, and that is why I return to a systems perspective. This reservation is, in fact, a very good example of how Vänsterpartiet thinks a bit and stops there, Madam Speaker. It does not hold up all the way. The same applies to the rest of the climate policy: it is the short term that matters, and nothing else plays any role.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Storckenfeldt for the contribution.

We Social Democrats wonder how the Moderates and the member reason when it comes to Swedish industrial policy. We know that the business community today – both in terms of Svenskt Näringsliv and individual companies – is requesting active leadership when it comes to the green transition.

Sweden has historically had an industry that has begun to transition and has become internationally renowned for being at the forefront. In many ways, Swedish industry today takes a leading responsibility in the global conversation about the green transition. The Swedish government? Not so much. It is a Moderate party that leads the government, and there was a former party leader there who spoke about how Swedish industry is "basically gone".

It may not be exactly the approach the current Prime Minister has, but there is very little forward-looking spirit from the political leadership regarding what is wanted from the Swedish industry and the Swedish companies to showcase for the future.

We Social Democrats know that it is not loving old technology, old solutions and old companies that leads to the new jobs. It is instead about pressing the business sector to move forward, and that is also what the Swedish business sector wants broadly in Sweden today. My question to the member is therefore: What is this government and the member actually doing to lead the Swedish transition also when it comes to Swedish companies?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Jytte Guteland for a very good and important question. It is incredibly important that we safeguard Swedish industry. It does not only contribute to our economy, to the fact that we have many jobs and to technological development, but Swedish industry contributes very concretely with climate benefits. With the products that are produced in Sweden and then exported out into the world, one contributes concrete climate benefits equivalent to approximately half of Sweden's emissions.

Some of the things that we, of course, are pushing for is Industriklivet, which is to be addressed in an upcoming debate here. It is incredibly important, and there we support. We think it is good that those investments are happening. But even regulatory simplification is an incredibly important part of the industry's transition and overall of safeguarding the Swedish business sector. Here we have appointed an implementation council, an acceleration office, a simplification council, and so on. It is a lot of investigations that are specifically intended to simplify the regulatory burden for Swedish companies and not least for the industry.

Perhaps the most important thing, however, is that we have enough fossil-free, stable electricity so that the industry can carry out its transition and want to stay in Sweden.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Storckenfeldt for the commitment and for the fact that we share the view that it is green technology and green innovations that are the future. That being said, it is not at all the picture one gets when speaking with Swedish companies today about where the policy is headed.

What is heard in conversations with Swedish companies, both large and small, and with different industries is that they lack a political leadership from the Swedish government today. They experience that the government is slowing down right now. This applies, of course, as much to the budget, which has decreased by 31 percent since 2022, as to the regulatory framework and ambitions at the EU level. Today, ministers are going out and asking for lower ambitions and trying to chip away at everything from climate mechanisms at the external border to legislation and expectations on what goals we should have there after 2030. Now, ministers are going out and chipping away at the climate policy.

Swedish companies today are therefore demanding the leadership that Member Storckenfeldt speaks about, but we see very little action. I would therefore like to ask the Member why there is such a gap between the words in the Riksdag and the actual capacity for action among the ministers and in Rosenbad.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! In my first exchange with Jytte Guteland, I chose to speak about the very concrete things that we invest time, energy, commitment, and not least money in to ensure that Swedish industry both has good conditions, wants to stay in Sweden, and becomes a positive force in the climate transition.

What we heard from industries, from Svenskt Näringsliv, and from Swedish companies before the last election campaign was precisely that the regulatory burden was too great and that there was not enough stable fossil-free electricity. Those things needed to be in place for people to continue wanting to be a part of this transition. I honestly do not know which industries or companies Jytte has spoken with, Madam Speaker, because those I have met think that it is about precisely the things that the government is focusing on.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! We heard that Helena Storckenfeldt in her speech highlighted that the economy has grown and emissions have decreased. That was the case when the Center Party governed together with the Alliance, and that is how Sweden has worked historically. But that is no longer the case; the Tidö government has departed from the historical success recipe. Emissions are increasing – we will have higher emissions in 2026 than we had in 2022. Furthermore, unemployment is at a record high, and growth is slowing down. It is precisely the opposite of the historical success recipe we have had in Sweden.

We see how green projects are falling through, industry is postponing its plans, and investments are ending up in other countries. This is precisely the opposite of the successful policy we have used historically. This government has failed completely.

Centerpartiet has presented a number of different solutions to increase the pace, including implementing the Bioeconomy Investigation's proposals on renewable fuels, investing in conversion premiums for vehicles, increasing aviation fuel production, strengthening the chemical industry's transition, and introducing more circular economy. All these things lower emissions and create new jobs here and now.

What do the Moderates want to do to lower emissions and reduce unemployment? Right now, the development is going in the exact opposite direction.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! It has indeed been a tough economic situation for many, not least for our entrepreneurs.

I believe it is very important that climate policy is effective and has popular support. We have seen that it has not been that so far. Focus has been on one important solution, namely the reduction obligation. It was very effective in lowering emissions quickly, but we saw at the same time that it could not be sustained indefinitely. It is problematic when it comes to reaching the climate goals in the long term, up to 2045, and achieving the systemic transformation that I believe we are all looking for. Then one needs to broaden the perspective and see what else can be done.

It is precisely this that the bourgeois government focuses its time and attention on. We have a climate policy action plan. It is not just about symbols but about practical policy that actually works and – perhaps most importantly – has popular support. If you do not have the people with you, it will not be possible to implement any effective climate policy either.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to say this: If Sweden is to succeed with the climate work, it is important that we all broaden the toolbox. The Government has presented seventy concrete proposals to reduce emissions. I look forward to presenting even more.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! The government's policy has been effective in increasing emissions. If this is what constitutes an effective climate policy, then they have succeeded quite well, because it is a fact that emissions in 2026 will be higher than they were in 2022. How one can then say that they are conducting an effective climate policy, I do not understand, because it is not climate policy. It is possibly some type of coal policy.

It is said that one wants support from the people, but 70 percent want a tougher climate policy. Why is it that one does not listen to them? The Swedish people want us to reach the climate goals – why is it that one does not listen to these people? Politics is also about leadership, and a very clear majority of the Swedish population wants us to do this.

Yes, the prices of fuels were high, but that does not mean that one must scrap the climate ambitions. It would have, for example, been very good to lower the tax on renewables within the reduction obligation; there we have new EU rules. One could have lowered the reduction obligation fee; that would have been very good. There are a number of different things. One could have replaced 20 terawatt-hours of fossil fuels with renewables if one had implemented the proposals from the Bioeconomy Investigation. That would also have cost, I believe, 2 billion per year, which can be compared with the almost 10 billion that the government has spent on fossil fuel reductions.

This is not even difficult! The proposals have been investigated. Helena Storckenfeldt and the government talk about their climate policy action plan, but it pushes all steering measures into the future. The things that have been implemented have not even come close to making up for the emission increases we have had. I believe that it is 1 or 2 percent of the scrapping premium that is utilized. It is a total failure, and that is only talking about the climate side.

The companies want to transition. They want to be at the forefront, but they are moving abroad. It is not strange that unemployment is skyrocketing.

Don't come and say that we are to have both increased growth and reduced emissions when this government is doing exactly the opposite!

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think it becomes clear who is applauding for the Center Party and which side the Center Party is increasingly approaching, especially when the party's representatives choose to place themselves between the Social Democratic members here in the chamber. It is interesting to see which direction the Center Party is heading. I have for a long time had hopes that the Center Party would return to the bourgeois side and to a policy conducted with reason and sense.

It is absolutely possible to be effective in reducing emissions. We could have reduced emissions tomorrow if Rickard Nordin wanted to. We can shut down all industry, ban all gasoline and diesel cars, and abolish all agriculture. We in this chamber can do it, but I do not believe it is something that anyone in this chamber wants to see.

What we mean by an effective and evidence-based climate policy is one that holds all the way. It is not enough with a climate policy that reduces emissions so that we reach the 2030 goals if it stops there, but we must have a climate policy that also reaches the goals for 2045. In that case, it is a matter of involving the people, otherwise it will not happen.

Climate policy is not something we can only look at from what happens within Sweden's borders, but we must lift our gaze and see how we can contribute in the best possible way. If we are to reduce emissions and eliminate all emissions by tomorrow, I do not believe that any other country in the world will choose that way. It is a matter of maintaining good competitiveness and good growth and ensuring that others actually want to follow suit – otherwise, it is game over.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! A global study was recently published regarding the population's view on making greater efforts for the climate. The 125 countries that were part of the survey together account for 96 percent of the world's emissions. This survey shows a massive support for a more powerful climate policy. If one breaks down the study nationally, it shows that over 80 percent of Swedes want the state, or the public sector, to do more for the climate.

This is not the only study either. In the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's investigation from January regarding the Swedes' view on the climate, it is clearly shown that there is broad support in the population for significantly more measures to be taken to reduce climate change. This also applies to measures from the state level, such as financing public transport, energy supply, and facilities for recycling.

In the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's investigation, questions were also asked about what prevents people from living more climate-consciously. Here, a full eight out of ten answered that the biggest reason was that climate-friendly alternatives are often the most expensive.

This is what I think the government should ponder.

Mr. Speaker! The government's climate policy means that Sweden is now a major emitter of greenhouse gases. The government's climate policy seems to consist of saying one thing and then doing the opposite and postponing the completely necessary climate transition to the future – at least until the next mandate period. But for every year we delay in lowering emissions, the costs of dealing with the problems increase. This is not just very bad climate policy; it is also socio-economically irresponsible.

What Prime Minister Kristersson and his friends would rather do is enrich the already wealthiest with large tax cuts so that the wealthiest 1 percent in Sweden can continue to live luxury lives and emit enormous amounts of more greenhouse gases than most of us others.

Where are the investments here and now on solar and wind power? Where are the investments on a functioning and affordable public transport in the whole country? Where are the investments for low- and middle-income earners so that they can transition in a secure way in their everyday lives regardless of where in the country they live? This is what a majority of Sweden's population desires.

Mr. Speaker! The climate threat is both acute and complex. Humanity must quickly and resolutely build an economy that does not rest on the use of fossil fuels. This is a major shift that does not happen by itself but requires major reforms in almost all areas of society. Such is our reality today. In this situation, it is central that climate policy is and is perceived as realistic and positive rather than as a threat.

The Left Party's climate policy does not place the main cost on low- and middle-income earners, on the countryside, or on individual industries. We shall ensure that it is those who emit the most who are to make the biggest changes. We shall ensure that the state takes the responsibility that is absolutely necessary so that a just transition can be implemented that everyone, including low- and middle-income earners and those who live in the countryside, can participate in. The climate issue is prioritized in our work in the Left Party, both in our budget and in our parliamentary motions. We have the policy to kick-start the climate transition.

Mr. Speaker! It is the richest who emit the most greenhouse gases, and it is the richest who need to pay. In our opinion, it is only more left-wing politics that can solve the climate crisis. Sweden, as has been said, has every opportunity to kick-start the climate transition and do so in a way that builds a more just Sweden, creates jobs and wealth, and ensures that ordinary people get it better while the costs of the transition are borne by those who bear the responsibility. With a more equal distribution of resources, reduced resource use can be combined with a higher material standard for everyone, both in Sweden and globally. The transition to a sustainable society must have the greatest consequences for those who have the greatest climate impact and consume the most resources.

Sweden needs to invest in climate infrastructure, water networks, energy-efficient housing, strengthened power grids, and significantly expanded renewable energy.

We propose a Sweden ticket for all regional public transport that shall cost a maximum of 450 kronor per month and be valid across the entire country.

We propose that subsidies for climate-damaging activities be phased out and that the money instead be used to support transition and green investments.

When a larger share of the economy goes toward collective investments instead of favoring the overconsumption of high-income earners, opportunities are created to reduce both the gaps between low-income earners and high-income earners and the gaps between city and country, while at the same time emissions are reduced.

It is good policy for the climate and for ordinary people. Sweden can do better.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I move for the approval of reservation 22, which concerns the government presenting an action plan for how other climate-damaging subsidies can be phased out in the near term.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We cannot read newspapers, watch TV, or listen to the radio without being reached by alarm report after alarm report about the climate and the ever-accelerating climate changes. We are breaking record after record regarding heat, and on a global basis, we have not experienced such high average temperatures since measurements began. This is extremely serious, and it truly points to the importance of making efforts that lead to change. According to the IPCC, there are solutions and measures available globally today to limit climate change in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

According to the Paris Agreement, all countries have a responsibility to take measures regarding their greenhouse gas emissions. We who live in more developed countries have a responsibility to assist developing countries in taking measures regarding both emission reductions and adaptation to a changed climate. We must both help them in the acute phase and point out the changes that can be made and lead by example.

The Paris Agreement establishes that the global temperature increase shall be kept well below 2 degrees Celsius and that efforts shall be made to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the capacity to adapt to negative effects should be increased and the damages and losses resulting from climate change should be managed.

In general, all the world's countries have committed to implementing measures that contribute to the goals in the Paris Agreement. But now we see how the new administration in the USA has decided to once again take the USA out of the Paris Agreement. If Google is not lying to me, the USA will thus become one of only four countries outside the agreement, together with Iran, Yemen, and Libya. This is extremely serious as the USA is one of the larger emitting countries in the world and we really need to include the large emitting countries for several reasons.

The Swedish government's view, which is fully shared by the Christian Democrats, is that the focus of climate policy should be to eliminate emissions that can be removed in a socio-economically efficient manner, reduce emissions that cannot be completely removed, and furthermore create negative emissions through complementary measures. In this way, the government's climate policy leads to net emissions passing zero to be negative after 2045. This is, however, not something that is done easily and simply. But if it is done in the right way, the transition can create more jobs and provide increased growth and strengthened welfare, and it is precisely this that we must strive for. It is about getting as many as possible on this journey – not only in Sweden but also in other countries and not least in the previously mentioned USA. If we turn climate policy into a hostage where we totally shoot both credibility, competitiveness, and profitability into the ground, we will not reach the goal.

The Government emphasizes that there are good reasons to strengthen Sweden's international climate work to support and drive other countries' transition and thereby contribute to increasing the pace of the implementation of the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement's three goals regarding emission reduction, adaptation, and financing should constitute overarching objectives. International climate policy should be developed, and all countries need to reach all the way to net-zero emissions. Therefore, Sweden should work for a raised ambition and to increase the pace in global climate work, among other things through knowledge, technological development, financing solutions, and cooperation. These are measures that promote climate transition. Sweden should show how a climate transition can lead to growth and welfare. Without growth, no effective climate policy.

In November 2024, the government decided to appoint an inquiry to develop and strengthen Sweden's international climate work with the Paris Agreement as the basis. The investigator's mandate includes submitting proposals for measures where expanded or strengthened Swedish efforts can contribute to driving climate work even in other countries.

The climate challenge is global, and the government emphasizes that pricing of greenhouse gases is an important starting point for an effective global climate policy. Sweden should therefore continue to actively work for an increased use of direct pricing on emissions in different parts of the world. Sweden should also support initiatives for a globally harmonized pricing of emissions as an effective way to reduce emissions.

Mr. Speaker! The vision in the European Green Deal is to make the EU the first climate-neutral area in the world by 2050 at the latest. It is about reducing pollution and restoring a healthy balance in nature and ecosystems. The EU's intention is, it is written, to transition to a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy. That sounds good. But unfortunately, the EU's own legislation is not keeping up with this, which we have seen clearly in recent years.

One thing that has been debated extensively lately is LULUCF and the EU's view on forest and land as a carbon sink. The net uptake in the LULUCF sector depends largely on the forest's annual growth in Sweden, which in the short term is strongly influenced by annual precipitation and average temperature. It is therefore difficult to make forecasts. Furthermore, the forest's full potential is not taken into account; instead, the forest is only seen as a carbon sink, eagerly championed by certain parties even in this chamber.

If you want to truly transition, you phase out the fossil and replace it with, for example, products from forest and land. If you do not want that, you have no transition at all. Then, instead, you either want to carry on as if nothing has happened or crawl back into the cave. We Christian Democrats do not want to take either of the latter two paths. We see the forest as one of Sweden's competitive advantages in the transition, and of course, the forest shall be utilized!

To achieve the goals of climate neutrality, it is necessary that policy provides clear incentives for negative emissions. Sweden should work to ensure that regulatory frameworks at the EU level that provide incentives for negative emissions in the form of, among other things, bio-CCS are clarified. All forms of storage will be needed, but bio-CCS has a special status. The Government has introduced operating subsidies for the separation, transport, and geological storage of specifically bio-CCS.

The government is therefore investing multi-billion amounts during the period 2026–2046 to create conditions for large-scale storage through reverse auctions. The Swedish Energy Agency conducted the first auction during the autumn of 2024 and shall, during 2025, evaluate this and propose improvements ahead of any further reverse auctions.

Mr. Speaker! I want to point out once again the importance of the fact that the policy pursued and the measures that governments around the world intend to take are well-considered and that the described policy will be able to gain broad support in different groups. If the transition is to become real, the people must be involved.

We are constantly bombarded with gloomy predictions about climate catastrophes and the end of the world, which can rob anyone of their zest for life. But in panic and depression, the right decisions are rarely made. Yes, the situation is serious – there is no doubt about that. But we must also see all the successes that have been achieved and are being achieved for the climate every day. Not everything is black and gloomy. Let us focus on positive solutions and opportunities! It should be fun to transition!

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the member for the contribution!

I have a question. We Social Democrats are wondering about the Christian Democrats' view on climate policy. If one reads the programs, not least the principle program, one sees very clearly that there is a pathos. It says: To counter climate change, decisive action is required to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Fossil fuels must be phased out from both the energy and transport sectors. Renewable fuels must be favored through taxation, and domestic production shall be stimulated.

It is words and no songs! This pathos for the climate is also found in other places in the Christian Democrats' program.

The Christian Democrats also have the Minister for Enterprise and Energy as the department head at the Ministry of Enterprise and Climate. There is therefore, to the highest degree, an opportunity for the member to realize the Christian Democratic visions in concrete action in the form of the government. They simply hold the ultimate position.

Still, we see how Sweden is losing ground in the climate work today. We see very clearly that the emissions curve has moved in the wrong direction. The trend has been broken. From being a world leader when it comes to the climate transition, the Swedish government has backed down, and emissions are increasing for the first time. This applies not least to the transport sector – the area that the Kristdemokraterna pointed out as important.

My question to the member is therefore: Why is the ultimately responsible head of the department not putting the Christian Democrats' policy into reality?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The short and simple answer to Jytte Guteland is that the Christian Democrats do not have 51 percent in the Riksdag.

It is very pleasing that Jytte Guteland is reading our principle program. Please do read the whole thing! It is good. It is perhaps also possible that Jytte Guteland will even come up with other thoughts. A heartfelt welcome to the Kristdemokraterna in that case!

There is no doubt about what Jytte Guteland mentioned from the principle program; it is a self-evident matter. In the name of honesty, I believe that this is a self-evident matter for all parties in this chamber and something that all parties stand behind.

At the same time, we must make the changes in a sustainable way, because even the transition must be sustainable in the three aspects. It must be sustainable ecologically, economically, and socially. Just as our colleague Helena Storckenfeldt said in a previous speech or exchange of remarks, we could shut everything down today and stop masses of emissions. We can forbid most things in this chamber, if that were the case. But then we would get a country that very few would want to live in. Therefore, we must handle this as wisely as possible.

That was also said when the reduction obligation was changed. It was said that the trend will be broken but that it will change again. The government was very clear that it will be so and that the curve will correct itself again. That is where we all want to go. I believe everyone stands behind the common goals; I cannot see that there is any doubt about that. But then we must make the transition sustainable in all three aspects. It is very important. We cannot just go on in our wool socks.

If the Christian Democrats had had 51 percent in this chamber, the policy would of course have looked different. But we are several parties who agree on the policy when we sit in a government position.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! When one listens to Member Ottosson, one can get the impression that the Christian Democrats have ended up in the wrong company. There can be opportunities for other constellations in a parliament. We Social Democrats have had a very good cooperation with the Christian Democrats at the European level. This ecological humanism – or how you express it – has been guiding for the German Christian Democrats in a completely different and much more credible way than it has been for the Swedish Christian Democrats.

As pleasant as Member Ottosson is, I politely but firmly decline, as I absolutely perceive that there is a large difference between what is stated in the programs and the reality we see in Sweden today.

I must say that we from the Social Democrats feel that this government has slackened on the climate pace and chosen the more unsustainable path forward. The government is not at all taking the path that the Christian Democrats entice with in their principle program and in their various texts on the website, which each person can access.

It is simply a bottomless difference between what the Christian Democrats as a party say about climate policy and the actions that the head of the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation is leading Sweden with.

My question is, of course, whether the Christian Democrats want to change this in this final year before the election or if this is what we should continue to expect. Can we see an increase in the pace when it comes to climate policy?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for the question! It became quite a debate here for a moment, but we will let that ball lie and address the issue at hand.

Jytte Guteland mentions in her speech something where she possesses much more competence than the undersigned because she has sat in the EU Parliament. It concerns the way of working there, which I believe is something that in different ways would revitalize the work also in this chamber. One seeks majorities in substantive issues. At the same time, we have the form of government that we have in Sweden today, which makes it difficult. But it could absolutely happen something very exciting if one had that type of politics to find majorities.

We have presented a climate policy action plan with just over 70 points. All the points will have been completed or started during this mandate period. There are points that, according to the plan, very clearly will hold all the way to 2045 and to net zero. That is what is important.

Mr. Speaker! Many of the proposals that come – it is a real popcorn machine when it comes to different proposals on what should be done – help in the short term. But unfortunately, they certainly do not help in the long term, and then we have come just as far or even moved backward.

It concerns, for example, some proposals regarding the forest, which in the long run will instead lead to greater emissions. It is not served by any of us. It is therefore why we must make well-founded decisions that hold all the way through.

The reduction obligation was one such example. It looked good, but it turned out that it did not hold up all the way through. Then we had to do it over and do it right. We are also doing that with our climate action plan based on the one that the previous government submitted.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Kjell-Arne Ottosson for the presentation.

I became a bit thoughtful. I was pleased when the member acknowledged that the situation is serious and that the government agrees that one should reduce, eliminate, and create negative emissions. But the member also said in their speech that it was done in the wrong way previously and is now being done in the right way. What we see now is that emissions are increasing instead of decreasing, as they did previously. Both the Climate Policy Council and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency also assess that the long-term goal for 2045 will not be reached, nor will the short-term goals for 2030 and 2040.

Then I wonder: What is being done the right way now that was not done the right way before? And is there anything that the member feels is missing in the government's climate policy?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the question!

Politics is something that develops. When Katarina Luhrs' party sat in government during the last period, proposals were made that became reality, such as klimatkliv and industrikliv. These were things that received quite harsh criticism from several agencies and that we had to redo so that they would become better.

I mentioned earlier the reduction obligation, where the Swedish National Audit Office was clear: It will not hold all the way. All the eggs were put in one basket, and it did not hold. Another thing was bonus-malus, where the criticism was also quite harsh in some parts.

So, here we had initiatives that looked good but which then turned out not to hold up all the way.

What is important is that the initiatives we make are initiatives that hold and are long-term. I stood in this chamber and criticized Miljöpartiet quite heavily for initiatives such as Klimatklivet and Industriklivet during the beginning of the previous mandate period, but there Miljöpartiet also took the criticism to heart. Changes were made, and the two programs have since developed increasingly in the right direction.

Politics is about a process. Here we process different things. This means that some parts are changed and some are removed, and then new programs, incentives, or whatever it may be come in instead. This is a constantly living organism.

We politicians really like to misunderstand each other on purpose, which I can find a bit boring. Even though Miljöpartiet initially received quite a lot of criticism for Klimatklivet and Industriklivet, I do not think, however, that it was intended maliciously. It was well-intentioned, but it went wrong. Therefore, one has to do it over and do it right, and that is what we are doing.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

This raised some questions, but I am glad the member thinks that Klimatklivet and Industriklivet – and also the reduction obligation, which the government is now increasing again – were important reforms that the red-green government introduced. Of course, all political reforms need to be reviewed and developed, but it does not have to mean that they were wrong in principle.

What is now problematic with the government's policy is that the results are moving in the wrong direction. The changes that the government has made in the existing climate policy are leading in a completely opposite direction to what they would need to do.

Therefore, I would like to continue to ask the member: Does the member not think that the government's policy has failed in some way when emissions are now increasing? Does the member not think that the government's policy is failing when we are now not expected to reach our climate goals?

I feel a bit confused about whether it is the right policy being pursued when the result is not what one wishes to achieve, namely eliminated or negative emissions.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! According to the climate action plan, it will lead to net zero 2045. It is not as Katarina Luhr says, that it will not hold all the way through.

If you make decisions that go in the wrong direction, the result also becomes wrong, and then you have to do it over and do it right. The reduction obligation, which was the major part of the transition, was a program that we stood behind. Even the Kristdemokraterna were on board with that. Then it turned out that we had made decisions on wrong grounds and that there was no transparency in the underlying data. The Riksrevisionen was very clear about that. We also saw how the prices shot up. Therefore, we had to do it over and do it right.

That is why the reduction obligation was changed. We were very clear: Yes, emissions will increase because of this, but we will provide other parts instead to catch up. Not least, electrification is very important if we are to manage the transition. Not least, the forest is another important part if we are to manage the transition.

But then we are back to what I concluded my previous turn with, and it becomes even clearer here: Miljöpartiet is one of the parties that sees the forest as a carbon sink. It should just stand there. It should not be cultivated. Then it becomes a bit like peeing in your pants: nice for the moment but cold afterwards. In exactly the same way it becomes here. It helps us in the short term, but in the long term, it leads instead to increased emissions. I do not think that either Katarina Luhr or Miljöpartiet want that, but with the policy they are driving in the area of the forest, it is actually this it leads to.

If one wants transition, the fossil must be removed, and then it is replaced with something else – for example, products from the forest.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! "Misleading and lacking in objectivity" – that is the judgment of the government's climate action plan from its own expert council.

The Fiscal Policy Council says: "Decisions or notifications regarding measures to reduce emissions are missing." They also say that "a political leadership is needed that clearly describes why the climate transition is necessary."

Thea Konjunkturinstitutet warns that with the government's policy, we will have fuel prices over 40 kronor per liter as early as the next parliamentary term if the climate goals are to be reached.

The government writes itself in the Tidö Agreement: ”Policy must be aligned with research as well as be based on facts.”

Yes, Kjell-Arne Ottosson – the claims being made that we reach all the way to net zero are not supported by either research or facts.

My big question to the Tidö parties is: What research and what facts should we check against if it is not from the Climate Policy Council, the Fiscal Policy Council, the Konjunkturinstitutet, and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency? They all say that this is not sufficient. We are not reaching the goals. The government's policy is not enough. It is not even close, but it is misleading and lacks objectivity – to quote the Climate Policy Council once again.

Ahead of the 2026 election, the Center Party is crystal clear. Any government that lowers climate ambitions will be brought down by the Center Party. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 10 in the report, which concerns the ambitions in climate work.

To Helena Storckenfeldt, in view of the previous exchange of remarks, I would like to say the following. It was the Social Democrats who surrounded the Centre Party in the chamber, and I have no objection to other parties approaching the Centre Party, whether physically or politically. The Moderates have done so before, and you are welcome to do so again. Then we could lower emissions and increase growth. It would be good if we could cooperate further on those points.

The entire government's climate action plan can unfortunately be summarized as no climate, no action, and no plan. All the government does is "gaslight" the entire Swedish population. It works rather poorly. A failed scrappage premium does not solve the fact that we have increased the use of fossil fuels by 4 million liters of diesel a day. To be a government that speaks so warmly about electrification, it is a massive failure that electric car sales are falling. But then they also removed the environmental car bonus and shock-increased the electricity tax. It is perhaps not so strange.

We cannot account for the origin of 54 percent of the Swedish gasoline and diesel. It is hardly likely to be Norwegian North Sea oil. Despite this, the government is pursuing a policy that increases fossil fuel use, which increases our oil dependency and accelerates emissions on a scale that SCB calls unique. This occurs in a security policy situation where Russia and other rogue states are the last ones we want to send money to. The government's policy plays right into Vladimir Putin's hands. The EU imports fossil fuels from Russia for more money than the combined efforts for Ukraine. It is shameful.

The climate transition is not only necessary for the sake of the climate and the planet, but it is also absolutely crucial for Swedish competitiveness and Swedish security, for rural development, and for health.

When more electric and biogas cars roll on our streets, particle emissions decrease. Children's lungs develop better, and at the same time, fewer people die from cardiovascular diseases. When the green carbon atoms from soil and forest replace their fossil counterparts in plastics, fabrics, paints, and fuels, the money stays in Sweden instead of ending up in Putin's pockets. When Swedish innovative companies, thanks to a strong domestic market, gain new market shares internationally, conditions are created for export when the rest of the world transitions – and hundreds of thousands of jobs are created here. When we produce more electricity, fuels, and raw materials for industry on our own, we also reduce the vulnerability in the global supply chains, and less money is sent to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.

All these opportunities exist in the climate transition, and it is truly something to fight for. But the government says that they base their policy on research and facts. Obviously, they are aware that with increased emissions, we send more money to rogue states and damage children's lungs. This is established research and facts. It is therefore a matter of deliberate actions that harm the Swedish population as well as our competitiveness.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Swedish energy prices for both fuel and electricity skyrocketed. For a decade, I have warned against being dependent on fossil fuels from Russia. Under the slogan of preferring to refuel with renewable fuel in Piteå rather than fossil fuel from Putin, the Center Party has pushed for increased Swedish biofuel production. When prices became unsustainably high, a substantial such production would have been a guarantee to keep prices in check. Furthermore, prices could have been lowered, just as much as happened when the government slaughtered the climate ambitions through other solutions, namely reduced taxes on renewables, adjusted fees, and increased production.

The government apologizes by saying that the voters do not want high fuel prices. No, they do not. But there are other solutions. The voters also do not want increased emissions. The government forgets this every time it says that there is no popular support for the previous climate policy. The voters want a policy that reaches the goals, but they do not believe in the policy because the government has not increased the goals. The voters are not alone in wanting a tough climate policy; a united business community also wants it.

Hitachi has secured the largest industrial order in Swedish history regarding renewable energy. It is a simple logic. When the rest of the world transitions sooner or later, hopefully sooner but probably a little later, someone must deliver the solutions. Either Sweden is at the forefront and gets to deliver to the rest of the world, or we take the minimum possible measures. We settle for the EU's minimum level, but then someone else gets to deliver. Someone else gets the jobs, someone else gets the health benefits, and someone else gets the money.

An ambitious domestic market allows one to test products that can then be sold to the whole world. This is no invention. It is real. A report from Västra Götalandsregionen showed last year that 25,000 jobs are threatened if the electricity demand by 2030 is not met. That is five years away. In Skåne, it looks even worse. Despite this, important decisions are being dragged out in the government's long bench. The talk of shorter permit processes does not seem to apply to the government's own climate work. There, they are pushing things ahead of them. First, they refer to the climate action plan. In the climate action plan, they refer to the Steering Means Inquiry, and the Steering Means Inquiry is not to be carried out until the next mandate period.

Completed proposals are lying around gathering dust. It would have been possible to implement major improvements with the proposals that already exist. We do not need to invent anything new. The climate transition is actually fully possible, but it is not happening. Emissions are increasing. The technology exists. The will exists. The solutions exist. But what is missing is obviously the political leadership.

There must be more action and less talk. Sweden is at the bottom when it comes to circular solutions. A deduction to facilitate sharing services should be implemented immediately. Reusing and repurposing before we recycle must become significantly more profitable and be prioritized higher. Efficiencies can release an enormous potential both for electricity and in material issues. Every fifth kilowatt-hour is wasted completely unnecessarily. We reduce the need for virgin raw materials when we can reuse and recycle more. Furthermore, we would have come far with the climate goals that should have been achieved when it comes to consumption-based and export-based emissions.

There is quite a lot of talk about acceptance. For me, it is about something forced. But most in Sweden want to transition. It is about the will to transition and that the profit of the transition must increase. Here, politics can make a difference.

When the government now introduces national emissions trading, which in many ways is good, fossil fuels will become more expensive. It will affect some. But instead of then deceiving people that it will not happen, which the Fiscal Policy Council practically says the government is doing, one must start making it easier for people to get out of fossil dependency.

Reintroduce an environmental bonus! Support the conversion of vehicles to biogas! Help those who do not have public transport nearby to invest their way out of their problems! That is when you solve this for real.

Centerpartiet has presented proposals so that those with low incomes can also be able to acquire an environmentally friendly car. There are proposals so that one can refuel with renewable instead of fossil, install solar cells on the roof, buy an electric car or do other environmentally smart things with some sensible support. One should be able to invest one's way out of one's problems, even if one does not have the money from the start.

Those who instead continue to refuel with oil of unknown origin or Russian gas should also have to pay for it, especially if there is public transport nearby.

When the public sector makes purchases, they must of course be climate-smart. It is the greatest consumer power we have. Despite this, the government scrapped the requirements that were on the table. In the same way, the travel deduction was scrapped, which had benefited those who travel by public transport and those who live in rural areas.

The government says that things should happen efficiently and promptly. One rushes through legislation on visitation zones because it is urgent to put away those who break the law. But it is obvious that it is not as important to catch the guilty when one breaks the law oneself. One is de facto breaking the Climate Act, which says that one should work to reach the goals. But when one increases emissions, no one can in good conscience say that one is working in the right direction. This is harmful to the climate, to the citizens' health, and to the Swedish companies.

If the Liberals had had some backbone, they would have stood up against petropopulism. If the Moderates had had the best interests of the business sector in mind, they would have met them halfway and made substantial investments to reach the climate goals. If the Christian Democrats had had a Christian perspective, they would have taken care of creation. And if the Sweden Democrats had had Sweden's best interests in mind, they would have made Sweden independent of Russian energy.

Centerpartiet wants to do all of this. We know that the technology exists. We know that the will exists among the population. We know that we can help those who are struggling the most financially. We have a policy that makes it possible to reach the goals, which strengthens Swedish competitiveness and which holds the line against both populists and Russian energy.

For those who want a policy to manage the climate and Swedish competitiveness, there is only one choice. That choice is green, liberal, and conservative. That choice is the Center Party.

(Applause)

(cont. § 16)

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