Climate policy

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now it is time for climate policy debate here in the Riksdag again. It is pleasant. I assume it will sound roughly as usual from the messy opposition to the left: the SD government has made a catastrophe of the climate policy. They are failures. The incorrectly set, unrealistic, and socio-economically inefficient climate goals are not being reached. On one hand, they have lowered fuel prices so that emissions have increased. On the other hand, they have not lowered the prices, because the world market has done so.

Mr. Speaker! If one zooms out a little, one can observe that a great deal of things have happened. Sweden has received a climate action plan that goes in a new direction. Now, in Sweden, it is a prerequisite with popular anchoring for climate policy to be sustainable and successful.

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have themselves described the failed Social Democratic policy in their post-election work in the following way, and I now quote Anna-Caren Sätherberg: ”We have not pursued a policy that has helped ordinary people.”

The Social Democrats themselves describe their climate policy as something that has been a whip for ordinary people. I quote here once again the very clear-sighted Anna-Caren Sätherberg: ”It has been a policy with carrots for the rich and whips for the others.”

Mr. Speaker! Has this then meant that Sweden's ambitions in the climate area have been shattered when we have succeeded in lowering fuel prices and abandoned the policy of carrots for the rich and whips for the others? Can we make a closing balance of what has happened? We can try to do that. We can look at electricity production and how it has gone.

During this mandate period, Sweden set a record with over 99 percent fossil-free electricity production. It is practically the best in the world. We can look at the transition to electric power in the private car sector. It is moving fast. There, we in Sweden are not the best in the world, but we are in fourth place in the entire world since 60 percent of new sales consist of rechargeable passenger cars. It is perhaps not a catastrophic figure to be fourth best in the world, even if one can always aim higher. It is perhaps not a failure in any case.

On a per capita basis, Swedish emissions are almost the best in the EU. Only Malta is somewhat lower, but it is questionable whether one should count that country. There, there are mostly banks and online casinos, and they do not produce that many things.

We can also look at the greenhouse gas emissions. They have increased significantly during this parliamentary term. They were 54.3 million tons in 2024, which means that Sweden actually contributed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the world by 6.8 million tons. Thank you, the SD government, or however one puts it.

No, Mr. Speaker, that was a bit of a joke. The uptake and emissions of greenhouse gases vary. They depend partly on the economic cycle, and partly on what happens in our global environment. They depend on how much the forests burn and how big the problems are with different types of pests and other things.

Some things we can state. Sweden is a fantastic example when it comes to contributing to the global climate work. The black-painting that the messy opposition is engaged in lacks contact with reality.

Mr. Speaker! Climate policy in Sweden and in the world is beginning to sober up. I mentioned the important work with Sweden's climate action plan earlier, where popular anchoring has finally been given a central place. In Sweden, this has resulted, among other things, in downward pressure on fuel prices as a result of the reduction obligation being significantly lowered and the fuel tax also being lowered.

When one now sees how oil prices make parabolic movements up and down, one understands why this is important. When the Sweden Democrats are given something to say about, people are not left in the lurch. We do not intend to repeat the climate policy that the Social Democrats pursued – the one that, to quote the Social Democrats, "has been a policy of carrots for the rich and whips for the others." Even though we today find ourselves in something that risks becoming a full-blown energy crisis, we can at least consider ourselves lucky that we no longer suffer from a Social Democratic energy minister.

Mr. Speaker! It may be appropriate to go back a bit. During 2021 and 2022, Sweden and Europe were in an energy crisis. Oil, natural gas, and refined products suddenly disappeared from the market as a result of Russia's war. Diesel prices rose sharply. How did the Social Democratic energy minister act then? That is something one should remind oneself of, I think.

On 6 January 2022, the then Minister for Energy, Farmanbar, said that the shock-increased diesel prices were "an important signal." Unfortunately, he did not mean that it was an important signal for politics to act by, for example, lowering the reduction obligation and lowering taxes. No, it was an important signal to people that they should have bought an electric car. They should have switched to more expensive biofuels. So, Madam Speaker, that is what it looks like when one conducts Social Democratic policy without contact with ordinary people.

Madam Speaker! We also see a sobering up at the EU level. We see a review of a long series of climate-related legislative acts, which includes ETS and ETS2, LULUCF, the ban on internal combustion engines, the EU's carbon border adjustment mechanism CBAM, and so on. Add to that that climate investments outside of Europe are now to be part of the EU's climate policy. We see simplification work, that things are postponed, that flexibility is increased, and so on. Exactly what will happen with these legislative acts is largely not clear, but with small ant steps, the EU's climate policy is in any case becoming less hostile to growth. However, there is more to be done, and Sweden's voice must become stronger.

We see, for example, a chemical industry in Europe that completely crashes as a result of strict environmental regulations, increased prices on emissions, and generally expensive energy. This production moves, in principle, daily directly to China and contributes to significantly increased emissions in the world. It is a bad climate policy. It is a policy that makes Europe's inhabitants poorer, and it makes us more vulnerable to crises. It is not always good to have to transport things from Asia and the Middle East.

Agriculture in Europe is being pressured by increased prices for fertilizers and plant protection products, while agricultural subsidies may decrease. The Nature Restoration Law steers towards reduced production of food and more planting of flowers. The EU's carbon tariffs and high energy costs make inputs more expensive, while food from other continents is not affected by increased tariffs. They are to be reduced instead.

We have a forestry sector that is threatened by both the nature restoration law and the LULUCF regulation.

This is a selection of areas where Sweden must continue to point out deficiencies in the work within the framework of the EU cooperation. We cannot have a climate and environmental policy in Europe that drives industries to China, reduces our food supply, and undermines forestry. It is not a good policy, neither for prosperity nor for global climate work.

(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! The Sweden Democrats pushed to weaken the EU's climate requirements for cars. We just heard that put forward here from the rostrum. It was something that leading Swedish companies, such as Volvo Cars, clearly opposed. But the Sweden Democrats chose instead to accommodate companies in other countries that are lagging behind in the transition. The Christian Democrats did the same, and the government is doing it now.

This of course creates concern, not least for the Swedish companies that invest in new technology and climate solutions and in jobs here in Sweden.

Therefore, I want to ask the Sweden Democrats again: What do you say to all the people who work at Volvo Cars – over 20,000 in Gothenburg, for example – who have already seen how you chose to favor the automotive industries in other countries that are lagging behind instead of standing up for Swedish industry and its jobs here in Sweden? And what do you in the Sweden Democrats say to all the employees in other Swedish companies that are at the forefront of the climate transition? These are many large Swedish industries and many thousands of wage earners. What do you say to those who are now wondering if the Sweden Democrats will do the same thing to them and betray them in favor of industries in other countries that are lagging behind in the climate transition?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have worked with these issues for some time. I remember when we negotiated Sweden's position regarding internal combustion engines. At that time, there was almost total agreement in the Riksdag that we should not have technology-hostile legislation. We also did not want EU legislation that undermined the bioeconomy.

We have a long row of Swedish companies and also farms that are skilled at producing biogas. Their fuel can, after all, contribute significantly to reducing emissions, but it may no longer be used in newly produced cars. This, I believe, was considered a bad idea by all parties in the Riksdag. We wanted it to be permitted with internal combustion engines.

The Sweden Democrats think the same today as we did then. We do not think that we should have technology-hostile legislation.

Madam Speaker! Volvo Cars' challenges, just like all car manufacturers' challenges, fundamentally stem from one thing: One must try to produce cars that people demand. Volvo Cars' competitiveness will not depend on different types of special solutions in Europe, but rather it will depend on whether they are innovative and skilled at producing cars that people demand. I am convinced that they have that opportunity, and I hope that the new car model that Volvo Cars has presented will be successful.

I also see that in the negotiations there are good opportunities for Sweden to push for solutions that will not hinder Volvo Cars' competitiveness but will take into account that they relied on the fact that the rules that existed would remain unchanged.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! The answer was not very clear to all those wage earners who have now been betrayed by the Sweden Democrats, the Christian Democrats, the Moderates and the Liberals, who are thus pursuing a line that is bad for Swedish jobs when it comes to climate requirements for cars in the EU.

There was also no answer to all the workers who work at other successful Swedish companies that are at the forefront because they believe in this as the most competitive for the future. Now they see how government after government in other countries stands up for their companies – companies that are actually less competitive and that are not as climate-smart and sustainable. They see a Swedish government that stands silent, and they see how the Sverigedemokraterna are driving development and pursuing a policy that is good for industries in other countries.

I really wonder what you in the Sweden Democrats say to all the wage earners who work at these companies all around Sweden. What do you say? That you don't care? That it was wrongly thought a few years ago and therefore you do not intend to listen to them now? Or what do the Sweden Democrats say?

Is it so important to do things that are bad for the climate that these hundreds of thousands of Swedish jobs don't matter to the Sverigedemokraterna?

(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! These claims are, however, ridiculous. They have nothing to do with reality. Volvo Cars' competitiveness does not depend on this legislative act. It depends on whether one manages to manufacture cars that people demand. We must remember that while we in Sweden have only one passenger car manufacturer, we have masses of spare parts manufacturers and companies that manufacture other components in the automotive sector.

What is happening in Europe today – also in the EU and in the United Kingdom – is that the markets are being completely flooded with Chinese cars. China is dumping its vehicles on the European market and succeeds in undermining European manufacturers. This hampers European growth and European competitiveness. It hampers Swedish prosperity and Swedish jobs, and it hampers Swedish companies that are part of the chain that is dependent on the automotive industry. It is not good policy.

We shall also not have a technology-hostile policy. It is technically fully possible to run internal combustion engines with fuel that does not result in any emissions at all. That means that a car powered by an internal combustion engine can cause lower life-cycle emissions than an electric car does. We shall therefore start from technology, and we shall have the best possible technology.

We will, of course, set requirements regarding emissions, but we will not ban technology. We shall hold to the position that the Social Democrats also held when we negotiated this issue in the EU for the first time.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Martin Kinnunen, for a very clear speech!

The Sweden Democrats are very clear that they want to slow down both Sweden's and the EU's climate transition. It is clear now that it is SD's climate policy that has guided the government during these years, and emissions have increased.

The arguments from the Sweden Democrats have often been that Sweden needs to earn money and that there must be an end to the self-mortification – which Martin Kinnunen was touching upon in his speech. However, it is not Sweden that profits from braking the climate transition. Those who profit most from the braked climate transition are the fossil industry and the countries that produce oil. These are, for example, Putin in Russia, the regime in Iran, the oil sheiks in the Middle East, and the USA.

Today we see the effects on Europe when the supply of fossil fuels begins to fluctuate. It is very clear that both Sweden and the Swedes lose out from a shaky supply of fossil fuels when we continue to be dependent on fossil fuels.

One could imagine that with the measures that were previously in place and which have now been removed by the Tidö parties, we would have been a bit safer and more self-sufficient in Sweden. Instead, Jimmie Åkesson went out yesterday and proposed that the reduction obligation should be completely abolished and that one should only refuel with fossil fuels when oil prices go up.

I want to ask Martin Kinnunen: Why are you doing everything to lock Swedish households into a vulnerable oil dependency? Why are you fighting so hard to invest in that which provides record profits to Putin in Russia, the regime in Iran, and the oil sheiks in the Middle East? Why is it better to pump money into the fossil industry than to invest in Swedish production of, for example, biofuels, energy efficiency, and other things that push out the fossil?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the questions!

I want to point out a fundamental fact. Sweden's control over the global economy is limited. Sweden would have been just as vulnerable to a global supply shock on the energy market regardless of whether we had a reduction obligation of 50 percent or 30 percent – or 10 percent, as we have today. The difference is that people are not affected as strongly.

When we look, for example, at biofuels and the spot price of HVO, we see that it co-varies with the crude oil price, because fossil fuels are required to produce the raw materials found in the biofuels. This means that we are not less affected by a global energy crisis if we mix in more biofuels. On the other hand, our population becomes more sensitive to price movements if the tax is higher and the blending is higher, because these biofuels, which co-vary with the crude oil price, will then contribute to significantly stronger price increases.

That is why we can be grateful that the Sweden Democrats have been able to be involved in this and contribute to lowered fuel prices. It means that our population is not as sensitive and that our farmers are not hit as hard. Food transports to our grocery stores do not increase as much in price, which also means that it does not become as expensive to shop for food. This makes us less vulnerable to global crises.

Madam Speaker! We are, however, still dependent on a world economy that is dependent on fossil energy. We cannot change this here in the House. We can, however, ensure that we have a good preparedness in various ways.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Martin Kinnunen, for the answer! It is clear that Miljöpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna have totally different views on climate policy, on the effect of climate policy, and on the possibility of taking action.

Martin Kinnunen begins by saying that Sweden's influence on the world economy is limited, and that is true, but our influence in Sweden to protect ourselves from global political events is much greater. That is why we need to act at home.

We believe that Sweden has everything to gain from a rapid and just climate transition. We can protect our societies from extreme weather, we can influence the EU to increase the pace of the climate transition, and we can secure the Swedish jobs. Our Swedish companies can earn a lot of money by being at the forefront and being able to export the technology of the future. We can simultaneously get rid of the dependence we have on oil and also on the impact of gas that exists throughout Europe. Sweden can profit from the transition away from the fossil.

I will ask again. Martin Kinnunen touched upon the importance of having a completely technology-neutral approach to different fuels and cars and other things. The Sweden Democrats' policy, however, is very clearly directed towards binding oneself to fossil technology. Is there nothing in this that makes you feel that this dependency now affects Sweden and us Swedes, and that you should shift your mindset and actually invest more in renewable, self-produced, locally produced energy in Sweden?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the questions!

It feels like I am being forced to repeat myself a bit, but Sweden is, as said, dependent on a world economy that is dependent on fossil energy, because 80 percent of all energy in the world is fossil. That means we cannot avoid this.

If we have a higher proportion of biofuels here, if we are to have 100 percent biofuels in Sweden, we will have to import massive amounts of raw materials from other countries – raw materials that require fossil energy to be manufactured and produced – for our food and so that we can eat something.

Now we cannot really sustain ourselves on Swedish food products, but even if we could, we would also be dependent on inputs which in turn require fossil energy. Plant protection products and fertilizers are needed. Furthermore, these biofuels in turn are also dependent on fossil energy. We must simply accept that it is so.

We will, however, work purposefully to do our part in the global climate work to reduce the world's dependence on fossil energy. One thing we will not escape, however. If, for example, 20 million barrels of crude oil per day disappear from the market, Sweden will also be affected, regardless of whether the Green Party makes it extremely expensive to be Swedish or not. The difference is only that it will become even more expensive to be Swedish if it is the Green Party that has set the policy instruments beforehand. We will be affected to the same extent in any case.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Martin Kinnunen says that we have obtained a climate policy with popular anchoring. At the same time, seven out of ten are worried about climate change. Eight out of ten want to reduce emissions, and nine out of ten assess that the labor market is affected if nothing is done. Seven out of ten think that the government is not doing enough.

My question is therefore very simple: Which people is Martin Kinnunen referring to when he talks about popular anchoring?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the question.

I refer, of course, to the Swedish people, who have voted in a majority here in the Swedish Riksdag that pursues a different climate policy than previous governments and government bases did.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! That answer is exciting given that the Swedish people say that the government is not doing enough. Seven out of ten do not think that the government takes the climate issue seriously enough and that it is not doing enough to reduce emissions. That is a fact. There is the popular anchoring that Martin Kinnunen talks about, that is to say, in that the government is not doing enough. The people may have voted in this government, but they are not satisfied with its climate policy.

The claim that the government's climate policy has a popular mandate simply is not true. There are no facts that support it. My question is therefore again: Which people is Martin Kinnunen referring to? The Swedish people do not, in fact, think that the government is doing enough.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the question.

Now we will devote ourselves a little bit to opinion analysis, which I think is an exciting topic. I had not intended to go into it, but for example, the Youth Barometer came out quite recently and shows a lower interest in the climate issue among young people than in a very long time. The proportion of young people who are very worried about the climate issue has not been this small in many years. We also saw that the polling station surveys at the last election showed that the climate issue has lost in importance for those who go and vote. We see that the issue is not considered as important as before.

We also see a sobering up at the EU level, which I explained in my speech, and we see a sobering up among a long line of political representatives all over the world. It does not mean that the climate issue is no longer important, but it means that there are more issues that are important. In competition with them, the climate issue does not become as decisive. The competition between issues simply makes it possible to see that there are different interests that must be weighed against each other.

Of course, there are many different surveys, but I think the most important survey is the one that people do every four years. For the time being, we have to rely on the opinion poll that was conducted in 2022 – and then we will see what the 2026 opinion poll shows.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! For a long time, Sweden was a pioneer in climate policy. We showed that it was possible to combine three things: reduced emissions, more jobs, and a growing economy. Today, the situation is different. Sweden's emissions are increasing. This is not a law of nature, but it is a political choice – a choice that this government has made.

Madam Speaker! All government parties promised the Swedish people that Sweden would reach the climate goals. They said they wanted to pursue a more effective climate policy. Now we know how it turned out. The government and the Sweden Democrats had no plan for how the climate goals would be reached, and the result is clear: Sweden's emissions are increasing significantly.

Instead of presenting new policies to reach the goals, the government parties are beginning to question the climate goals themselves. The Christian Democrats want to abolish all Swedish climate goals. The Liberals want to scrap the transport goal. Yesterday, the Minister for Climate and Environment said here in the chamber that the question of scrapping the transport goal is being prepared in the Government Offices.

This is particularly noteworthy because the government has previously emphasized, quite rightly, how important it is that Sweden has broad consensus regarding the climate goals. That consensus has been a strength for Sweden. It has provided stable rules of the game for the industry, and it has made it so that companies have dared to invest. But now, it is the climate minister's own party that is starting to tear up that consensus. It creates uncertainty, and it risks Swedish jobs.

Climate policy is actually not just about reduced climate emissions, it is about jobs, investments, and Sweden's competitiveness. The industry faces historical investments in fossil-free technology, but investments require one thing above all else: predictability. When policy swings heavily, companies hesitate. When the rules of the game change, investments are postponed. When ambitions are lowered, capital moves elsewhere. This is precisely what we see right now: uncertainty is increasing, the pace of the transition is slowing down, and other countries are competing for the investments.

Madam Speaker! The government says quite often that they safeguard Swedish competitiveness, but their policy does the exact opposite. To lower climate ambitions in a world that is transitioning is to weaken Sweden's position. Sweden has companies that are at the absolute forefront of the climate transition. Take Volvo as an example – they have invested billions in electrification, and when the government and the EU now back down from the climate requirements on cars, it hits directly against Volvo and other companies that have led the way. It also creates uncertainty regarding the entire EU's climate policy.

In that situation, Sweden needs a government that stands up for high climate ambitions in Europe, not a Prime Minister who remains silent when other governments try to brake the transition and tear up the long-term perspective in favor of their own – worse and less competitive – companies.

Madam Speaker! The effects of climate change are already here. We see more extreme weather events – storms that fell forests, heatwaves that increase mortality, and floods that destroy roads and fill basements. The price of goods such as coffee, chocolate, and olive oil has risen sharply, and insurance premiums risk increasing outrageously for individuals. Research shows that climate change is already affecting the economy by disrupting supply chains and causing higher costs. This is, therefore, not a distant future problem, but it is a reality here and now.

Madam Speaker! Some say that Sweden's emissions are small in a global perspective, but all emissions matter. Sweden's strength has always been to show that transition is possible. It is by being at the forefront that we have been able to get other countries to follow suit, and it is by being at the forefront that we have been able to create new jobs and new competitive advantages for Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The government promised a more effective climate policy, and the result was, as stated, increased emissions and uncertain investment conditions. It is a major political failure. We Social Democrats choose a different path. We intend to take responsibility for the climate, for the jobs, and for Sweden's competitiveness. In the global climate transition, there are two types of countries – those that lead and those that are forced to follow. Sweden shall be a country that leads.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval only to reservation 4. I naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I do so.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Åsa Westlund for the speech. I take note of what Åsa Westlund said about the Social Democrats wanting to lead. I understand it as that one intends to achieve the various climate goals.

Madam Speaker! It is not difficult to achieve a climate goal. It is quite simple. It is enough to ask a few officials: How should we act to reduce emissions to exactly this level? How should we act to increase the uptake of greenhouse gases in forests and land to exactly this level? It is not at all particularly complicated. One can do it quite simply. The difficult thing, Madam Speaker, is to try to combine different societal goals: increased employment, high prosperity, low poverty, a living countryside, and so on.

My questions to Åsa Westlund are: Is it an election promise from the Socialdemokraterna that the 2030 target for transport will be achieved if they enter government after the election? Do they intend to do this? Is it a promise to the voters? Do they intend to achieve the EU's ESR requirements by 2030? Is it a promise from the Socialdemokraterna? Do they intend to fulfill the requirements in the LULUCF regulation by 2030? Is it a promise from the Socialdemokraterna?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Martin Kinnunen very much for the questions.

Now I know that the Sweden Democrats do not always trust the research being conducted, but there is a great deal of research showing that there is much to be gained from transitioning and reducing climate emissions, and that it is possible to make the trade-offs between different interests in a very smart way if one has enough time.

What the Sweden Democrats and the government have done now is that they have wasted four years in that work. They have postponed all the work that needs to be done for us to meet the climate goals. At the same time, they have exhausted the money, not only for this mandate period but also for the next one. It is an enormous bill that this government and the Sweden Democrats are leaving behind, with unsolved climate problems – even increased emissions – and furthermore a ruined reform space.

Therefore, my message is that it will be very tough to reach these climate goals. It matters that the Sweden Democrats and the sitting government have pushed all problems aside and leave this enormous bill behind. We are, however, prepared to do our utmost to make it happen. That does not mean that all other interests should stand back, but we shall find a solution forward. But now it is going to be much tougher. We would have had good opportunities if the government and the Sweden Democrats had done their part of the job.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Åsa Westlund for the answer. I then take it as that one is not prepared to achieve the climate goals but intends to try to blame previous governments. Then it remains to be seen whether all parties in the messy opposition agree.

Madam Speaker! I want to remind Åsa Westlund of what the Social Democrats' strategy for reaching these climate goals was. It actually consisted of only one thing: the diesel price to the moon. That was the Social Democrats' solution to everything. The diesel price to the moon would protect forestry, because then one could redistribute the emission space to that sector. One would achieve the transport goal and meet the EU's ESR requirements. But the diesel price to the moon would have resulted in a complete catastrophe for Swedish agriculture. We would have had even higher food prices and even more expensive coffee in the stores.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats' strategy is to shift the blame and refer to the fact that there is no plan. But the Social Democratic plan to be able to achieve these goals was, therefore, the diesel price up to the moon.

Madam Speaker! There are actually new, similar Social Democratic proposals in the same area. Now they call it Sweden fuel – it sounds a bit cozier. It means double the reduction obligation for diesel. It also means an uncertainty: It could become even more than a doubling, because this reduction obligation is to be variable. The Social Democrats shall be able to tweak it a little at any time, however it may go. One shall also make use of the Bioeconomy Investigation's proposals, which have been scolded and rejected by a long series of heavy referral bodies. No one knows what this will cost – unless Åsa Westlund knows. Does she know how much more expensive it will become with this Sosse-fuel?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Martin Kinnunen for the question. Something went a bit wrong there at the end with Sweden and social democracy, but it can be easy sometimes to think that it is the same thing. I understand that.

I have sat in this chamber together with other Social Democrats and both paused the reduction obligation and lowered the tax on fuels, because it became too high a price for ordinary consumers to pay in light of the war in Ukraine. On the other side of politics, we see a sobering up today – one sees that the world market plays a role. It is comical: Previously, it was called Magda prices, but now it is not called Jimmie prices, even though it is two wars that have driven up the prices. I wish for a little more honesty in the debate.

We have done our homework. We see that it is not enough to just have a reduction obligation as a direction. Other things must be done. What we have proposed is that this should be procured directly. In the same way that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna want to create conditions for nuclear power, we want to provide reliable conditions for fuel production in Sweden. It was needed.

We do not think it is good to do as the Sweden Democrats and the government have done and thereby increase our oil dependency. We see how vulnerable Sweden is. We need to speed up the electrification, but during these four years it has been braked. We need to do much more to achieve electrification and ensure that Sweden gets a Swedish fuel production.

We will take responsibility to ensure that this can be combined with work and with better finances for ordinary people. It is more than what can be said that this government has done. Despite having increased emissions, they have not taken responsibility for the economy, but instead they have run out of money. Furthermore, they have used the largest part of the money to lower taxes for those who earn the most.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats say today that they are for nuclear power. But it was precisely under Social Democratic rule that political decisions were made that contributed to several reactors being shut down. Furthermore, they sat here in this chamber and applauded when we voted to decommission Ringhals 1 and 2.

Now this government is creating the conditions for new nuclear power in Sweden, something that is crucial for competitiveness, for the climate transition, and for the industry to be able to be electrified. The Social Democrats' best friends, the Green Party, have however been very clear: They will tear up the plans for new nuclear power if they get to decide.

My question has been repeated many times before, but it is worth asking once more. It is quite simple: Will the Social Democrats stand up for the new nuclear power, or will they let the Green Party dictate the terms once again, if it happens that the Social Democrats take over government power?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Helena Storckenfeldt for the question.

It is a bit strange that the Moderaterna are so eager for us to stand by what the government is doing now. If one had been truly eager about that, one would have ensured that an energy agreement was reached. Then we would have had stable conditions, not only for nuclear power in the slightly longer term but also for new electricity production here and now. But apparently, it was not that important for the Moderaterna to get more electricity production in Sweden. It was, after all, more important with short-term party-political points. Standing in the election campaign and questioning what other parties thought about nuclear power was more important than taking responsibility for both long-term electricity production and more electricity production here and now.

In the writing of history, one often forgets the first part. Who were it that ruled Sweden when we expanded nuclear power? That was a rhetorical question.

I also know that the Moderates raised the electricity tax. Helena Storckenfeldt insinuated that it was the Social Democrats who did it and that it led to nuclear power plants being shut down. In that case, you also share that blame, Helena Storckenfeldt.

We all know that the owners of the nuclear power plants made the decisions regarding decommissioning on market-based grounds. It became very much more expensive with the safety after the accidents that had occurred.

The Social Democrats are clear: We want more of all types of energy. We are prepared to stand behind such an energy agreement. We are very disappointed that the government and the Sweden Democrats are prioritizing short-term party-political points over ensuring that Sweden has more electricity power here and now and also in the future.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! There are many parts of this to address. We can take them in turn and order.

We already have the answer to what such an energy agreement would look like because Miljöpartiet has been so clear. It is therefore totally uninteresting for us to enter into such an agreement. That is why I am now posing the question to the Socialdemokratern and not to the other parties. I pose the question to Åsa Westlund from Socialdemokratern on how one stands regarding nuclear power.

We also know that there were plans for new nuclear power in the Ringhals area until 2014. I was there as recently as yesterday and received the entire history description – not from any political party but directly from Ringhals. It was very clear that at the change of government in 2014, those plans were abandoned due to the political outlook with a Social Democratic and Green Party government in power.

That is how reality looks. It is also the reality that we need to contend with. That is why this question continues to be important.

Åsa Westlund highlights in her speech the risks of changing the rules of the game. I think we should be honest about what determines where investments land or do not. I believe we can be quite clear and say that companies do not move from Sweden because of a potential transport goal or an electrification goal. They move if they cannot be sure that there is enough electricity on site, if the taxes are too high, or if the rules are too complicated. It is simply if one has too many Social Democratic whips on the table.

That is exactly why we have changed the energy policy. I ask the question once more: Are the Social Democrats prepared to prioritize the electricity production that is needed?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question again.

I answer very simply: Yes! I already answered last time, and I answer once more: Yes! We are ready to do it.

I also heard the Minister for Energy and Industry say that she would have gladly continued negotiating with the Social Democrats just to reach a long-term energy agreement. Unfortunately, she did not get that, but it was other parties – the Moderates, the Sweden Democrats, the Liberals, what do I know – who put party-political interests before the country's interests. These are not my words, but it is your own Energy Minister who says this, Helena Storckenfeldt.

I do not understand how one can then try to pretend that it is we who have not wanted it. We want that agreement. But it is not enough to get more electricity production very far into the future. We see that the industry we have in Sweden needs electricity production much faster than that for the investments that one is prepared to make in Sweden.

Unfortunately, you are not sufficiently interested in getting that type of investment in place. I deeply regret that. But no one needs to doubt that we are prepared to support all types of energy.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The climate transition is one of the greatest challenges of our time. But if we are to succeed, we must dare to speak plainly about what actually works.

The Moderates' starting point is simple: climate policy must deliver results in the long term, sustainably and globally. The solution, however, is not as simple. It requires a competitive business sector, much more fossil-free electricity, and a climate policy that people and companies accept and want to be a part of.

There is, in fact, a crucial insight that is sometimes missing in the Swedish climate debate: Economic growth is not an obstacle to the climate transition. Economic growth is a climate strategy, and that is for two reasons.

Firstly, it is about the EU's role in the world. The EU is the region in the world that has the highest climate ambitions. That is important. But it only matters if Europe is also strong enough to set the norm globally.

When European industry grows, our climate requirements spread through value chains, investments, and technological development. Our standards become standards for others as well. But when European industry is weakened instead, something else happens. Then investments, production, and jobs often move to countries with lower climate requirements and higher emissions. The result is that Europe's emissions decrease, but global emissions do not.

In other words: When European companies take market shares, emissions decrease globally. That is why competitiveness is a climate issue. Climate policy that makes Europe poorer also makes the world dirtier. It may be a political strategy that wins the debate at home, but one must realize that the climate loses.

Madam Speaker! Secondly, it is about the power of example. When we look out over the world, it looks very different than in Sweden. That means we also must broaden our perspectives in order to honestly understand how an effective transition can be carried out on a global level.

It is not enough that a few countries go first. Most of the world's countries must also want to follow. Then we must be able to show that the transition actually works. We must be able to show that it is possible to reduce emissions and at the same time create jobs, investments, and prosperity.

Sweden is a fantastic example of exactly this. 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. It is also proof that growth and climate responsibility can not only coexist – they can reinforce each other.

Our entrepreneurs are burdened by unnecessary bureaucracy, activists in authorities implement regulations beyond the intentions of politics, and landowners are being viewed with suspicion. It is not an order that benefits either the climate or competitiveness.

During this parliamentary term, therefore, much time and energy has been spent on streamlining and electrifying and on strengthening the economy. This is done precisely for the purpose of creating the right conditions for, not least, the transition. Sweden now faces a crossroads. Should this work be allowed to continue, or should it be rolled back? The truth is, however, that no country in the world will want to follow an example that involves lower growth, higher costs and a poorer standard of living.

Unfortunately, there is no quick fix. But it is crucial that we do what we can to create the best possible conditions for effective global climate work.

There are those who argue that the climate transition requires us to make ourselves poorer. I argue that it is precisely the opposite.

Madam Speaker! I do not believe in scaring people into change. I believe in engaging people and in building climate policy on people's everyday lives, not above their heads. Without people's trust in the policy, we will never reach our goals. In the large as well as in the small, climate policy must be rooted in reality.

It is about ensuring that investments are realized, that forests are cultivated, that electricity is available when and where it is needed, and that politics removes obstacles – does not create new ones.

We all have a responsibility for the future. But that responsibility is not carried by prohibitions and symbolic politics. It is carried by reforms, by determination, and by trust in the ability of hard-working people to contribute to a goal that is so much greater than what happens within Sweden's borders.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! In the Tidö Agreement, the following is stated in the section on climate: ”Policy must be aligned with research and be based on facts.”

What research and facts does the government lean on when increasing emissions, contrary to the recommendations from the Climate Policy Council, which consists of researchers? What research and facts does the government lean on when doing exactly what the researchers at the Swedish Defence University warn us against and thereby make us more vulnerable?

The government's policy threatens not only new but also existing jobs, according to reports from both the Industrirådet and Västra Götalandsregionen. The government is worsening our air quality, with an increased risk of heart and lung diseases, according to both SMHI and Karolinska institutet.

My question to the Tidö parties is: What is the actual research and facts you lean on when you increase the fossil emissions so significantly, Helena Storckenfeldt?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Rickard Nordin and I have now debated climate policy for four years, and I always appreciate our exchanges.

However, I think this is a bit too strong, because he makes it sound as if the government has made a concrete decision that we are now going to worsen the air quality, increase emissions and do all the other of those terrible things that Rickard Nordin enumerates.

We have not done that. We have changed the course for climate policy, prioritized electrification and prioritized increased electricity production so that we can do all these other things.

The government ensures that we receive investments to Sweden, that investments in new green technology make this possible and competitive, and that it becomes interesting for companies to remain in Sweden and the EU under our high climate requirements and not move anywhere else. The government also ensures that our households are with us on the track so that it becomes interesting for them to, for example, buy an electric car.

It is these things that we choose to prioritize. We do not do it according to the Center Party's policy or in the order that the Center Party would have desired. But, Madam Speaker, to claim that the government is making decisions to worsen the air quality, I think is quite a stretch.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. These are direct consequences of the government's policy.

I asked the member if she could say what research and facts she bases her policy on when the Climate Policy Council, researchers from the Swedish Defence University, SMHI and the Industry Council all say that this is the wrong way to go. Solid research and facts say that the government's policy will have these consequences.

What research and facts has the policy been based on then? It is stated in the Tidö Agreement that one should base their policy on research and facts.

Let us look at the facts. Helena Storckenfeldt says that one should prioritize electrification. The share of electric cars sold is lower now than it was during last year. In Denmark, they have doubled their electric car sales during the same period of this mandate. But the Swedish one has stood still. We started at the same level, and now the Danish one is twice as large as the Swedish one. In what way is that prioritizing electrification?

The facts are crystal clear: Swedish emissions have increased when research says they must decrease. The facts say that electric car sales are not increasing but on the contrary have collapsed on the private side, despite the fact that we know they would need to increase and despite the fact that the government says it prioritizes electrification.

What is the actual research and facts that Helena Storckenfeldt and the government are leaning on? That is what is said in the Tidö Agreement that one should do, but I received no answer on what research and facts the government is leaning on in its climate policy.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! It is also a direct consequence of the government's policy that we now have plans for new nuclear power, which is a very large part of making the transition a reality.

Remember that Sweden is a northern country with a lot of heavy industry! If we are to succeed in electrifying the entire industry, it will require much more clean electricity. Wind power will not be enough. The solutions that exist here and now will not be enough, but we must think more long-term. We must think about how we are going to get both industry and transport electrified in the long term.

Then it is not enough to increase the figures for the sale of new electric cars just for last year or this year, it is about tomorrow or in 5–10 years. Is there electricity to charge with or not?

It is there that I would say the government's policy differs quite significantly from Rickard Nordin's. We focus on which reality we want to take a stand on and which reality we want to see in 10, 20, or 30 years. How do we best create the conditions to ensure that reality becomes possible?

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by giving the Moderates some praise for not having fallen into the climate populism that many other right-wing parties engage in. The Moderates are still making a bit of an effort to see the needs that exist in Swedish business regarding the climate transition and to see that we need to solve this together.

Unfortunately, this sense is not followed in the rhetoric in politics; there, they unfortunately let the Sverigedemokraterna decide far too much, with the result that emissions increase significantly.

I thought I would bring up the EU and what is happening at the EU level right now. We see how other heads of state and government are out there propagating what is good for the industry in their countries. It is all too often industries that have neglected to invest in new renewable or fossil-free technology and which are therefore lagging behind.

Sweden also needs to have a clear voice in this. It is Sweden that must stand up for and protect the Swedish companies that are at the forefront. Instead, we hear that both the Moderaterna as a party and the government are noticeably silent in the debate, even though other countries' heads of state and government are very active – against Swedish interests, moreover.

My question is, of course: Why do the Moderates not stand more clearly up for the Swedish companies that are at the forefront of the transition and ensure that the entire EU rewards those who are at the forefront and not those who lag behind?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! It is important that we protect Swedish companies, but I see it as equally important, or perhaps even more important, that we ensure we safeguard the EU's competitiveness. I believe it is extremely important to take that with us.

We want to strengthen Swedish competitiveness within the EU but also the EU's competitiveness in the world. It is a key to achieving the global effect we want in the climate transition.

The question regarding the reason for the silence from Moderate representatives or from government representatives, I can only answer by saying that the negotiations are ongoing. If one is a serious negotiator, one does not go out and negotiate outside the negotiation room.

I know that our representatives who are currently involved in these processes in Brussels take this very seriously and have presented several proposals on how to strengthen Swedish companies in this situation. At the same time, we are listening to what the industry needs and safeguarding EU's competitiveness and the climate transition as a whole.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Helena Storckenfeldt!

What is important for competitiveness is to have stable, long-term rules of the game. That is why Svenskt Näringsliv is so critical of the erratic climate policy that this government has pursued. There is now extreme uncertainty as to whether it will endure. The goals are being questioned, and different parties are out there pushing their own lines. This creates enormous uncertainty for Swedish industry and for those who are going to invest here, which risks affecting our competitiveness.

We see the same process at the EU level, where we now risk getting a situation where one backs away from previous long-term rules of the game and thereby undermines the most competitive companies, which in many cases happen to be Swedish companies that are at the forefront.

When other heads of state and government are out and propagating and arguing for their own industries, I truly miss the Swedish voice that stands up for what is Sweden's line, both that which is good for Swedish jobs and the Swedish economy and that which is good for the climate.

There is an excellent opportunity to stand up for this. Instead, the government chooses to say nothing. I think that is unfortunate. Unfortunately, it is probably a sign that the Sweden Democrats will have the last word even in the upcoming negotiations in the EU. We have already seen it when it came to the climate requirements on cars, and we will see it more times.

Please feel free to prove me wrong, but that is definitely how many others I meet in Företagarsverige see the development: Here we risk that Sverigedemokraterna will set the agenda again. Please say something that makes me and others believe that Moderaterna and the government stand up for Swedish interests in this issue!

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! If I remember correctly, it was the industry that went first. I think that was very good. The industry went first and said that they wanted to phase out the internal combustion engine, and then the politics followed.

As Martin Kinnunen previously mentioned, one was from the Swedish side against being against a specific type of technology, which I think was sound. But at that time, everything looked very positive as stated because it was the industry that took the lead and said: This is what we want to do.

Since then, the conditions have changed. There, I think it is important that we from a political standpoint have the flexibility to be able to see and change our decisions based on the conditions that exist today.

Of course we shall safeguard the interests of Swedish companies and the EU's competitiveness. We shall do these things together. I know that our Moderate representatives, just as I mentioned in my previous speech, have several proposals on the table precisely for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of Swedish companies.

I believe, however, that it is important, again, that we do not do as other countries do and interfere in political negotiations. I believe it is very important that they are allowed to proceed where they should proceed and not out in the media, because it only tends to get worse.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I cannot help but reflect a little on the previous exchange.

It is very strange to think that the EU and Sweden can become leaders in exporting fossil technology. I do not understand how this is the case. What we need to do where we have the chance, both in Sweden and in the EU, is to be leaders in the fossil-free. I do not think the member is advocating for that.

But I had another question. We in Vänsterpartiet work for a just climate transition. This means that it should be easy for people to do the right thing. One example is that the monthly pass in public transport should cost 450 kronor.

A just climate transition also means that those who emit the most must reduce their emissions the most. In Sweden, billionaires have extremely high climate emissions, so high that it would take an average earner 30 years to emit as much as the richest do in a year.

My question to the Moderates is: What is the government doing to ensure that the billionaires reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, what can one say? We are doing exactly what we do to get the rest of society to transition. I think it is a rather strangely framed question – that we should target a certain group of people and say that they should act in a certain way while the rest of the country should act in another way.

I do not think we should conduct politics in that way. I do not believe that is how we win acceptance for a climate policy that holds long-term. I do not believe that is how we win acceptance for a policy that holds globally.

Madam Speaker! I think it is a rather unserious way to handle the climate issue, if I am to be completely honest.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I note, therefore, that those who emit the most – the richest, the billionaires – are not to do their part of the climate transition. That is apparently what the Moderaterna think.

It becomes very strange to reason in that way. We have a limited carbon space to work with. The Moderates therefore think that that space should be used for the most part by those who emit the most. That is not a sign of a fair climate policy.

Again: I give the Moderates the chance to provide a more sensible answer. What is the government doing to ensure that the billionaires reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and take their share of the climate transition?

We believe, for example, that one could well ban the billionaires' luxury yachts and private jet travel, which emit very much. Or do the Moderaterna believe that it is instead Sweden's welfare recipients who should take the hit?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! As I mentioned earlier, this group of people shall transition in exactly the same way as both Kajsa Fredholm and I. I do not think we should make a distinction between how much Kajsa Fredholm shall exert herself and how much I shall exert myself in our climate work. I envision that Sweden as a country shall transition, that the EU as a region shall transition, and that we all globally shall transition.

If one wants to talk about percentages, it works in exactly the way Kajsa Fredholm describes: If a group of people emits the largest absolute amount of emissions of the population and one reduces that amount by 20 percent, it becomes de facto a larger reduction in emissions than if anyone else made the same reduction in percent. That is how it works.

I still think, Madam Speaker, that it is a strangely framed question. By definition, that group of people makes a greater contribution when they make exactly the same contribution that we say the entire society should make.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates went to the election on a platform of getting the climate in order. It has gone so-so, and I believe we can all agree on that. The climate work has not gone well under the Moderates' rule, rather it has gone completely in the wrong direction. Emissions have increased explosively, the use of fossil energy has increased, and electric car sales have stalled.

I listened with interest to the previous exchange of remarks. Compared to the other Nordic countries, Sweden has been completely outclassed by both Norway and Denmark over the last four years when it comes to electric car sales. Norway was already ahead of us earlier. There, last year, over 97 percent of the new cars were electric cars. In Denmark, it was 82 percent. At the beginning of this year, the industry released joyful figures showing that Sweden had surpassed 40 percent electric cars in new car sales. This is due to political decisions and a lack of investments.

I would like to ask the member if the Moderaterna are satisfied with the development we see today regarding electric cars. Is it a reasonable development that one continues to sell a large number of fossil-fueled cars in Sweden, or is it something that we should change? If the member Helena Storckenfeldt thinks it is something that should be changed, what is it that we should do? Are there any measures that the Moderaterna propose that we should take right now?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! All countries have different circumstances. We in Sweden, compared to Norway, do not have a large pile of oil money to use on subsidies for electric cars for the very richest. We have instead chosen to turn, to change, that subsidy. Next week, a new electric car premium will be introduced that targets those with lower incomes and who live in rural areas without access to public transport. We believe that is more worth investing in than throwing money at everything and everyone to buy an electric car, which we know the market could have sustained on its own. We have seen that.

Some seem to believe that the most important thing Sweden can do right now is to pick the low-hanging fruit. That is not our position. I am convinced that we need to do the opposite, namely strengthen Sweden's position in the world. We need to focus on competitiveness and increase our export of climate-smart goods and services, all that which we are so fantastically good at in Sweden, into Europe and into the world.

It is this combined with the focus on economic growth that makes our climate strategy look different, but it is what makes other countries want to follow our example, to do something different and transition the economy. It is our highest priority.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that Helena Storckenfeldt still has a positive view of what climate policy can lead to. This was also heard in the speech. We shall reduce emissions, create jobs and welfare, and have a technological development that leads to climate development. Climate work and prosperity shall go hand in hand. Those were expressions I heard.

Unfortunately, it has been quite the opposite this mandate period. Emissions have not decreased. The green industrial transition has stalled. Emissions have increased, and the government has unfortunately put a lien on a large part of the state treasury.

I wonder if Helena Storckenfeldt is satisfied with the climate policy that has been pursued. Does Helena Storckenfeldt think that our climate work and our prosperity actually go hand in hand?

I can join the previous discussion about the electric car premium. Does the member believe that the electric car premium will make a big difference for the new car sales of electric cars?

In conclusion, I want to ask: What is the best that the government's climate work has led to during the mandate period? What are the results that Helena Storckenfeldt wants to show after four years in a government position?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! A politician must not be satisfied. It is an important part that we should all carry with us. What else are we doing here? We are all here because we have committed ourselves politically so that the world will become a better place. One must never become completely satisfied.

Regarding our climate policy during this mandate period, I can nevertheless state that we are on the right track. We have set the right direction with a focus on growth and on ensuring that electrification is possible throughout the entire country. One should be able to charge one's electric car, and the electric car shall become a real alternative to the fossil fuel car. But the best result, Madam Speaker, must nevertheless be our focus on regulatory simplification, permits, and nuclear power.

Of course I mention nuclear power. I visited Ringhals yesterday. It was an inspiring visit. One can observe that they are in full swing over there. It will be exciting to see what happens next.

We can state that we will need much more clean electricity for the transition to be possible in all sectors, in the transport sector and not least to get our heavy industry to transition. This combined with regulatory simplifications for companies, so that they choose to start up and stay in Sweden as well as create growth and prosperity, is the absolute most important thing in the climate work, for our competitiveness and for growth in general.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Think of the fact that you only need to pay 450 kronor for a monthly pass in public transport. If you live in the rural areas, you have received an electric car premium so that you can acquire an electric car. There are more places where you can charge your car. And the electricity is not extremely expensive.

Imagine also that you have a pension you can actually live on and that it only costs 50 kronor for a visit to your health center.

Imagine that you have the means to move out, that school works, and that you can continue your studies or get a job with a decent salary that is livable.

Imagine that you can afford the rent, that you can afford to buy good food for the family at the store, and that you actually have a little money left when the month is over so that you can treat yourselves to that little extra on Friday, that little extra spice in life, that which makes life good to live.

This, Madam Speaker, is not an impossibility. This is not an impossible dream, but this can become a reality after the election with the Left Party's policy.

Madam Speaker! The climate crisis is acute. The extreme heatwaves in southern Europe last summer resulted in a large number of deaths and extensive fires and heavy rainfall.

Even here at home in Sweden, we are affected by the climate crisis. From the heatwave in July in the north to heavy downpours in September in Ångermanland. At the end of the year, this year's strongest storm hit primarily in southeastern Norrland. An example that illustrates the severity is the downpours and floods in Västernorrland where over 40 roads were destroyed, trains derailed, and a man died where a road had been washed away. This shows how vulnerable our society has become due to the changing climate.

Madam Speaker! In a time when the world needs to unite to meet the climate challenge, the government embarrasses Sweden and lowers the Swedish climate ambitions. The government even notes itself that emissions are increasing as a result of climate-damaging policy. This includes, among other things, the reduction of the fuel tax, one of the government's largest reforms, but also the fact that they stopped a comprehensive reform to make the system for travel deductions travel-cost neutral.

Those who placed their trust in the Liberals to safeguard the climate perspective in a right-wing nationalist majority have every reason to feel disappointed. The broken promises have been numerous.

On several occasions, the government has been asked when the proposals to reduce emissions will arrive and what they will look like. The answer has not been a direct answer, but rather that they are waiting for the upcoming investigation. Instead of presenting concrete climate policy – the proposals exist – they have chosen to bury many issues in various investigations. The problem is that we do not have time to wait, and the government has deliberately shortened that time with its policy, as they have increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them.

Madam Speaker! What does the opinion look like then? What does the Swedish people think about climate policy? Tidö Agreement's justification for subsidizing fossil fuels, so that emissions have increased sharply during this mandate period, is that it is what the Swedish people want and that people in general are reluctant towards climate transition. But that is not true. It is made up.

Madam Speaker! Fortunately, there are investigations, comprehensive and serious ones, which show what people actually think about climate and energy issues. Swedes generally express a great concern regarding the consequences of climate change. Most also believe that Sweden should take a global responsibility in the climate issue. To a direct question on whether Sweden should tighten its climate goal, a majority answer yes. Many also see an opportunity in creating a fossil-free society which can lead to many new green jobs.

Now I want to move on to something that should be a bombshell for the Tidö government. A majority of Swedes would rather spend money on the climate transition than on working for low gasoline prices. But – this is important – the transition must be fair. For example, low-income earners and residents in rural areas need to be compensated. The lowest pensions and the child allowance need to be raised. And more well-off men in large cars in our major cities need to take the bus to work.

Madam Speaker! The climate policy that the government is pursuing simply does not reflect the broad will of the people. The climate transition needs more left-wing politics to succeed, a policy for more justice.

Madam Speaker! We in the Left Party have two reservations in the report. The first concerns the net uptake of greenhouse gases. We want the government to promptly present a proposal for a strategy with measures for how Sweden by 2030 can meet our commitments to increase carbon storage by 4 million tons of greenhouse gases more than the average for the period 2016–2018.

The second reservation concerns that Sweden should introduce an emissions budget. The concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is crucial for global warming. In order for set climate goals to be relevant, the frameworks for how large the emissions can be until the target year must be clear. A budget is therefore needed for how large the carbon dioxide emissions can be on an annual basis so that Sweden can fairly stay within the remaining global emissions space.

Madam Speaker! Several municipalities and regions in Sweden have decided on their own emission budgets. But at the national level, such a budget is missing. Vänsterpartiet considers that in the current climate emergency, it is not acceptable that Sweden's climate policy action plan does not live up to either the Climate Act or Sweden's part of the Paris Agreement. We believe that an emission budget is required, which is linked to necessary policy instruments and measures for emission reductions that every government should be required to present before each mandate period.

Sweden should adopt a binding emissions budget in line with the Paris Agreement's temperature goal based on the IPCC's latest assessment report and a global distribution of the emissions space.

I move for approval of reservation 10.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa Fredholm, for the speech!

Madam Speaker! Last week, some of us Members of Parliament participated in a debate at Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund which was broadcast live. It was a pleasant arrangement. The Left Party's representative in that debate is not here in the chamber today. But a question arose there regarding diesel and the reductions of the diesel tax, which Swedish farmers are very pleased to have. Many environmental regulations and animal welfare requirements in Sweden cost money, which hampers the competitiveness of agriculture. But one thing that Swedish farmers have received is that we have some of the lowest diesel prices in Europe. It has been like a cushion for Swedish agriculture. Things are tough because different types of inputs are rising in price, which risks happening as a result of the events in the Middle East right now.

When I read the Left Party's budget motion, I note that they want to remove the reduction of the diesel tax. They also did not want to implement the tax cuts that we made ahead of 2026.

I want to ask Kajsa Fredholm how things stand. The representative for Vänsterpartiet did indeed hold up the green cucumber, as a yes to maintaining the reduction of the diesel tax.

Can Kajsa Fredholm clarify? Do you want to maintain the reduction of the diesel tax, or do you want to raise the tax for Sweden's farmers?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question.

As usual, the Sweden Democrats are only focusing on what concerns fossil fuels, on whether the tax should be raised or lowered. But actually, we are lagging behind on the climate transition in agriculture. The member may perhaps agree. We should have started the climate transition in agriculture a long time ago, for example, by compensating for high diesel prices with other policy instruments that do not affect that price.

There are plenty of other things to do. But those are not things the Sweden Democrats are interested in. The Sweden Democrats only want to talk about gasoline prices, about diesel prices – no public transport – and about nuclear power.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa Fredholm, for the attempt to answer the question!

The Sweden Democrats believe that we are lagging behind in agricultural production. We produce far too little of our own food in this country. That is the absolute most important thing here.

A basic input for agriculture is diesel. My question to Kajsa Fredholm concerns what is stated in Vänsterpartiet's budget motion regarding increased taxes on diesel for Swedish farmers. Is that policy fixed, or has there been any change?

I also want to ask the same question to Kajsa Fredholm that I asked the Social Democrats earlier. Is it a promise to the voters that Vänsterpartiet, if they do well in the election and end up in a government position, intends to present a policy that ensures Sweden reaches all climate goals by 2030?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for a spirited debate!

Regarding the transition of agriculture, we naturally stand by what is stated in our latest motion. But there is also a lack of means to transition agriculture, as I said. You have environmental premiums, and one needs to transition to biofuels. More support is needed that is not related to the diesel price itself. That is how you transition and ensure that farmers can transition, instead of, as the Sverigedemokraterna do, sticking to and being dependent on war, world market prices, and other things. It is not particularly sustainable, I think.

When it comes to promises regarding the climate goals, we will, of course, do everything we can so that we can meet our climate goals by 2030 and also beyond. But I say as previous speakers have done: The government has delayed this. Four years have been thrown into the sea by the fact that emissions of greenhouse gases have been increased. But we will do everything we can to make this possible.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The climate issue is one of our greatest challenges. Ultimately, it is about what kind of society we leave behind for the next generation. But climate policy must also pass a simple test: It must work in reality. It must reduce emissions – not just in Sweden, but globally. It must create conditions for people to live their lives, for companies to invest, and for industry to continue to develop. And it must be long-term.

For the Christian Democrats, the starting point is clear. We proceed from the idea of stewardship: that we have a responsibility to manage creation and hand it over to the next generation in good condition.

But responsibility also requires realism. Sweden today accounts for a very small part of the world's emissions. If Sweden were to cease to exist tomorrow, global emissions would hardly change. This does not mean that we lack responsibility, but it means that our responsibility must be about making a real difference.

That is why the Christian Democrats want to pursue a climate policy that focuses on what actually reduces emissions globally: innovation, technology, and competitiveness. Swedish industry is already at the world's forefront when it comes to climate-smart production. Here, fossil-free steel production, advanced materials, and new energy technology are being developed. When these solutions are spread to other countries, emissions can be reduced on a completely different scale than what national measures alone can achieve.

Therefore, Sweden needs a climate policy that strengthens our competitiveness – not a policy that drives away investments. If industry moves from Sweden to countries with lower climate requirements, emissions do not decrease; they increase. This is what is usually called carbon leakage, and it is one of the greatest threats to an effective climate policy. Therefore, the Christian Democrats want Europe to stand up for its climate ambitions also in trade policy. Companies that produce climate-smartly should not be competed out by production in countries with lower requirements.

Madam Speaker! Another decisive issue for the climate transition is energy. Industry is being electrified, the transport sector is transitioning, and new technology is emerging. All of this requires large amounts of fossil-free electricity. This means that energy policy is not just an energy issue. It is also a climate issue, an industrial policy issue, and a welfare issue.

Sweden therefore needs a robust energy system with large amounts of fossil-free electricity and stable delivery. Without sufficient energy, the transition stops. The Christian Democrats therefore want to see an energy policy that enables investments in new fossil-free production and that ensures that industry has the electricity it needs to transition.

Madam Speaker! Climate policy must also have support. If people perceive that climate policy only entails increased costs, higher taxes, and reduced opportunities to live the life they want, the entire climate work risks losing its legitimacy. This applies not least in a country like Sweden – a large country with long distances, where the car is often a necessity and where industry is the backbone of our economy. The climate transition must therefore be possible to implement in the entire country. It must create opportunities, not just impose demands.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has good conditions to be a leading nation in the climate transition. We have a strong industry, technical expertise, and natural resources that can contribute to the green transition, not least the Swedish forest with all the climate benefits it provides. But it requires that sustainable Swedish forestry continues, precisely to deliver raw materials for the transition, and not just stand as a carbon sink, as several organizations and parties wish. If we are not to use raw materials from the forest, what shall we switch to instead?

To succeed, a policy is required that combines high ambitions with economic realism. A policy is required that ensures investments happen here – not anywhere else. And a policy is required that reduces emissions where it actually makes the biggest difference.

The Christian Democrats' climate policy is therefore based on a few basic principles that I want to repeat before I go in for landing.

First of all, Madam Speaker: global climate benefit. Policy must reduce emissions in the world, not just move them between countries.

Secondly: technological development and innovation. It is through new technology and a competitive industry that the large emission reductions can occur.

Thirdly: take advantage of the forest's full potential. The forest should be seen as both a carbon sink and a gold mine for producing raw materials to push out CO2-intensive materials such as steel and concrete.

And for the fourth: We need a transition that works for people in everyday life and for companies across the entire country.

Madam Speaker! The climate challenge is great. But it is also an opportunity – an opportunity to develop new technology, to strengthen Swedish industry, and to show that climate transition and economic development can go hand in hand. With a policy based on responsibility, innovation, and long-term thinking, Sweden can continue to be part of the solution to the climate challenge. That is the path the Christian Democrats want to take.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Recently, we have once again seen how oil and gas prices have fluctuated sharply. In a short time, the costs for transport, materials, and production can skyrocket. For households, companies, and farms, this is yet another reminder of something that should be obvious: It is foolish to make oneself dependent on oil. It is not only bad for the climate, but it is also bad security policy and bad economic policy.

When oil prices soar, the entire economy is affected. Companies find it harder to plan their costs. Transport becomes more expensive. Households have to pay more at the pump or through higher prices on goods and services. It is foolish to be dependent on fossil oil. Nevertheless, the government has made us more dependent on oil during this mandate period.

The problem is not only economic; it is also geopolitical. Large parts of the world's oil production are located in regions where conflicts, authoritarian regimes, and political instability affect supply. This has been shown very clearly in recent weeks. When we are dependent on imported fossil energy, we also make ourselves vulnerable to crises and power games far beyond our own borders.

The climate transition is not only necessary – it is absolutely crucial for Sweden's competitiveness, our rural development, our security, and our health. When more electric and biogas vehicles roll on our streets, particulate emissions decrease and children's lungs develop better, while fewer people die from heart and cardiovascular diseases caused by poor air. When the green carbon atoms from soil and forest replace their fossil counterparts in plastics, paints, fabrics, and fuels, the money stays in the Swedish countryside instead of financing Putin's war machinery.

When the raw materials that drive our transport are routed via Hofors instead of through the Strait of Hormuz and when Swedish innovative companies get a strong domestic market, conditions are created for export when the rest of the world eventually transitions, and we create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in Sweden.

When we produce more electricity, fuels, and raw materials for industry on our own, the vulnerability in global supply chains decreases. We avoid sending money to rogue states such as Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. The USA is also not so very fun these days. Perhaps Norway remains, but Norway accounts for 2 percent of the world's oil production. No, it is therefore not enough with Norway.

Those who consider all the fantastic opportunities in the climate transition see that this is something worth fighting for. But the government, with full confidence, makes decisions that make us more dependent on rogue states and fossil fuels. Money is sent abroad instead of letting it stay here at home, where it can do good. It creates worse air, which harms people and makes us more vulnerable.

All this is established science and facts – that which the government itself says it bases its policy on. But in an exchange of remarks with the Moderaterna, I could not get a single example of research and facts that they base their policy on. It is therefore about deliberate actions that harm the Swedish population.

For the Center Party, it is incredibly simple: The best way forward is to reduce the dependence on oil as quickly as possible. It is good for the climate. It strengthens our security. It makes our economy more robust.

With our policy, households will have more money left over. According to a recent report where we had the Riksdag's investigation service calculate our policy, a household in, for example, Boden gets around 7,000 kronor more in their wallet every month. It is about simple things such as a lower electricity bill, reduced costs for driving one's car, and lower water consumption at home.

With our policy, the climate-smart solution becomes the profitable solution for ordinary people. The money stays with the citizens. That is exactly what we must do.

The state shall not profit from the climate transition. When the EU's new emissions trading enters into force in 2028, the money shall not remain with the state, but it shall go back to the citizens. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 20 in this report.

Sweden has all the prerequisites to succeed with this transition. We have plenty of fossil-free electricity. We are breaking electricity export records. Contrary to what we heard from the rostrum earlier, we have a surplus of electricity. We could almost electrify the entire vehicle fleet several times over. That there would be a shortage of electricity does not work as an excuse for not driving the electrification. It is a matter of a lack of political will.

We have strong industrial competence. We have innovation, entrepreneurship and companies that want to be part of the transition. They are inspired to reach the climate goals and want to keep them, because it drives their development and strengthens them competitively.

But the government wants otherwise. The electrification of the transport sector is a clear example. Every electric car that replaces a fossil fuel car reduces emissions and makes us less dependent on oil. But the government has stopped and slowed down the development of electric cars.

When Denmark has doubled its share of electric cars over the last three years, from the same level that Sweden was at, the government's policy has ensured that we remain stationary. We are even reducing the share of electric cars in new sales this year. It is a perverse policy, and it comes from a government that said it would get the climate policy in order and prioritize electrification.

The same applies to industry. Industry wants to electrify its processes and transition to fossil-free fuels. But the government is doing nothing. The transition does not happen by itself – it requires political decisions that make it easy to choose the right path. When we have, for large parts of this mandate period, had a taxation that has made it more expensive with pure electricity than with fossil diesel, that is something that is not right.

We in the Center Party will continue to push for more fossil-free electricity production, faster permit processes, better charging infrastructure, and strong incentives for electrification and renewable fuels. We also want to take advantage of the resources that exist all around the country. It is about ensuring that money is returned from the establishment of wind power, hydropower, and other power production, and that we get more bioenergy for innovations in the industry.

We want to let the family in Boden receive a substantial environmental car premium. They are excluded from the government's support today, because Boden is not considered to be rural enough. We want to let the mother in Valdemarsvik be able to install geothermal heating. We want to support the young couple on Gotland who want to take responsibility and reduce their water consumption.

This is not about making life harder for people, on the contrary: It is about building a society that is stable, competitive, and sustainable. It is about a Sweden that produces more of its own energy – a Sweden that is not dependent on the fluctuations of the oil market or, for that matter, the mood swings of authoritarian leaders. It is a Sweden that shows that climate transition and economic development go hand in hand.

What we did during the Alliance was that we lowered emissions and increased growth. Today, we are increasing emissions and have record-low growth.

Climate policy very often concerns emission curves and temperature goals, but fundamentally it is about freedom – the freedom not to be dependent on fossil energy and the freedom to build a society that stands stronger in the face of future crises. It is about the freedom for current and future generations to live a good life.

That is why the climate transition is not just an environmental issue. It is a question of security, economy, and faith in the future. With our policy, there will be more jobs and emissions will go down. It is time for a new government.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! Climate legislation is not just any legislation, and it cannot be treated as such. What we do in Sweden affects the entire world, just as the emissions occurring in the USA, China, or India affect us.

In recent weeks, we have once again had to be reminded of how we are affected economically when we become dependent on the import of fossil fuels. When fossil gas does not reach Germany, our electricity prices in Sweden rise. When we have not implemented measures that save electricity, it becomes expensive for many when electricity prices skyrocket. And when we have not phased out gasoline and diesel in our transport systems and agricultural machinery, it becomes expensive and uncertain when oil tankers burn or can no longer transport oil where it was intended. This causes the market to shake when the supply of oil and gas becomes uncertain.

The government says that they have taken control of inflation, but when it is the oil market that governs the world economy, it becomes difficult to take control as long as we all suffer from fossil fuel dependency. At the same time, our use of fossil fuels and the climate emissions lead to extremely serious effects for us all.

Already today we have climate refugees affected by drought, by water shortages, by food shortages and by conflicts in the wake of what is being lost. People need to move because of rising sea levels as glaciers melt. Species are being wiped out on an assembly line when their living conditions change faster than they can adapt.

In Sweden, we see increasing forest fires, heavy rainfalls, landslides, and heatwaves in the wake of the changing climate. The Sweden that existed when my parents grew up no longer remains. And there are many of us who no longer recognize ourselves when the winters alternate with snow, rain, and storms every other day.

Just a few days ago, a new research report was also released showing that warming is now occurring faster than ever, faster than anyone had expected. It is not a bright picture that is painted when it becomes increasingly clear that politics is not capable of transitioning at the pace that is needed. We are now rapidly heading towards 3 degrees of warming at the end of this century.

Climate work can sound very difficult and complicated, but at its core, it is about stopping the use of fossil fuels. That is the fundamental cornerstone. With the current world situation, it becomes incredibly clear how important it is that we phase out the fossil fuels now and not later.

There are extremely many different reasons to get rid of our oil dependency. First and foremost, it is so that we can keep the earth as a good place to live. But there are also, as we see today, other, more short-term reasons. When we do not get rid of the fossil, we become strongly dependent on countries that do not always wish us well. When deliveries of fossil fuels cannot be relied upon, the economy shakes for everyone who has tied themselves to a fossil dependency.

We know that the most effective way to reduce emissions is to raise the prices on emissions while simultaneously supporting those where it is hardest to transition. The Tidö parties have, however, done exactly the opposite. They pay the emitter and withdraw the support for those who want to contribute to the transition.

The Tidö government has, during the mandate period, removed or significantly weakened a long series of climate supports and climate steering measures, created great uncertainty for the business sector and simultaneously spent an unthinkable 57 billion on making fossil fuels cheaper. It has also yielded a clear result. When the Tidö parties' policy has dismantled large parts of Sweden's climate policy, emissions and the use of fossil fuels have increased sharply during the mandate period. It has also made it much, much harder to reach the climate goals. But that is not the only problem. When the climate work in Sweden has stalled, the Swedish people are subjected to electricity price shocks and unexpected increases in gasoline prices.

Miljöpartiet knows that we can make Sweden and Europe more resilient against price shocks regarding electricity and fuels. But then we need to work on getting rid of fossil fuels, and action is needed, not just talk.

To reduce the fluctuations in electricity prices, we need to expand more renewable electricity in combination with green base load, but we also need to improve energy efficiency. In Sweden alone, we could free up energy equivalent to an entire nuclear power plant through profitable energy efficiency measures in housing and industries. The government has removed support for energy efficiency. We want to invest heavily.

To make the transport sector more resilient to skyrocketing fuel prices, we need to accelerate electrification, strengthen public transport, including the rail networks, and invest in domestic fuel production. Sweden has, as everyone knows, no oil of its own, but we have many other resources that we can utilize.

When it comes to supporting agriculture, we want to see a clear plan for the agricultural climate transition where support that today binds farmers to fossil fuels is replaced by support that can be used for the transition to biofuels. We therefore want to introduce both an agricultural deduction and a bio-premium that can support the agricultural transition and reduce the need for imported fossil energy.

We also want all public authorities, by setting requirements in procurement, to phase out the fossil in favor of renewable and sustainable services. We want to support the new and phase out the old. It will make us safer and more resilient in the unstable global situation we stand in today.

Madam Speaker! I also, of course, want to highlight our climate goals. The climate goals that we set are of fundamental importance so that everyone knows and understands where we are headed. When large investments are to be made, the business community, in particular, needs to know where the policy is headed, where it is steering, and within what timeframes it occurs. One simply needs to be warned in good time if one needs to change their operations.

I and most of my opposition and majority colleagues sitting here today were tasked during the past year with reviewing Sweden's climate goals for 2030. We came to the conclusion together that the climate goals for 2030 should remain in place. Several parties have since backed away from the goals. The Christian Democrats backed away after only a few weeks. The Climate Minister and the Liberals did so very recently. But the climate goals still stand, and they need to be maintained. It would create enormous uncertainty if the goals were scrapped with only a few years left until the target fulfillment.

But the goals also need to be reached, which we have also talked about today. Miljöpartiet is so far the only party that has shown how the climate goals for 2030 can be reached. The Finance Minister has also said this, after her department calculated the opposition parties' shadow budgets. We want the goals to be reachable through a just climate transition.

We want to see a national emissions trading system within the framework of the climate goals, where the revenues are returned to households through a green rebate. We want to see a national electric vehicle offensive with an expanded electric vehicle bonus that can be used by more than today. We want to see a leasing support that makes it possible to lease an electric car for 1,500 kronor a month. We want to see reduced tax on charging. And during a transition period, we need to raise the reduction obligation back to a level that reduces emissions sufficiently.

We want to see a significantly increased support for Klimatklivet and Industriklivet, and we want to reintroduce green credit guarantees. We want to introduce a Sweden card where all of Sweden's public transport becomes accessible for 500 kronor a month.

At the same time, we need to invest in our forests and our nature so that it can help us with all its ecosystem services, for example increased biodiversity and increased carbon sequestration. Here, we need to steer towards a forestry that provides greater climate benefit by paying forest owners for increased climate and environmental benefit and supporting the transition from clear-cutting to a forestry with greater diversity and better carbon sequestration.

In addition to the fact that we need a real climate action plan with measures that reduce climate emissions at a sufficient pace, we need a plan for how we are to strengthen the uptake of carbon in forests and land and how we are to create the negative emissions that we need.

Miljöpartiet has proposed solutions. The goals can still be reached, but it is starting to become very tight on time.

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the parties' various proposals for a new climate policy. I think one can read the committee's response with a certain amount of humor, as all motions are rejected with reference to ongoing work. The motions concern, among other things, international climate work, climate work within the EU, Swedish climate policy, negative emissions, the transport sector's climate transition, and climate adaptation. What is the ongoing work? That is what one wants to ask. What is the government doing right now?

Miljöpartiet has only submitted about 80 proposals regarding this report. I naturally stand behind all of them, but to save some time, I want to move for approval only for Miljöpartiets reservation 17 and Miljöpartiets reservation 23.

There is an enormous need for climate measures, measures that the Tidöregeringen has chosen not to implement despite the climate crisis that we are all aware of.

Does it feel tough and difficult now? Yes! Does it feel hopeless? No, absolutely not!

Sweden has everything to gain from a fast and fair climate transition. We can secure the jobs of the future. Our Swedish companies can earn large sums of money by exporting green technology. We can push other countries to increase the pace of climate work, and we can protect households and companies from price shocks regarding fossil fuels. There is a lot to do, and we can win a huge amount from it.

Today, we only have one party that has proposals for the various solutions available to reach the climate goals, and that is Miljöpartiet. Solutions exist, and many can stand behind them. We have the solutions. We have the technology. There is money, and there is a popular will. What is missing is leadership and action, and we can change that in September.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on March 11.)

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