Aviation issues

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall finally debate the report on aviation, that is to say, aviation. I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions. I have divided my speech into several parts, where I highlight aviation's importance for Sweden and future travel, as well as necessary measures for both the present and the future.

Madam Speaker! Let us begin with a historical description. Between 2014 and 2022, aviation was deprioritized by the then Social Democratic government, especially when Miljöpartiet was part of the government. The red-green government showed great creativity when it came to finding proposals that undermined Swedish aviation. It was worrying and, in my opinion, wrong – a directly harmful campaign against a well-functioning mode of transport. Despite the fact that aviation is important in Sweden, MP, among others, fought at all costs to bring aviation down from the air. They succeeded in damaging the industry but, fortunately, not in knocking it out.

Madam Speaker! New winds are blowing. Sweden has a Moderate-led government with the Liberals and Christian Democrats in cooperation with the Sweden Democrats. This creates opportunities for aviation that we shall seize. I am pleased that, for example, the preservation of Bromma is included in the Tidö Agreement and that the transition of aviation is a clear priority.

Last year, both the industry presented an action plan for aviation and Peter Norman presented the major aviation investigation. These parts have formed the basis, together with other parts, for the government's work in the aviation area. Let me give some examples.

In the budget for 2024, there is a doubled investment in the state grant to municipal and private airports, from 103 to 210 million annually. Ronneby airport remains in its current form. This also applies to the airports in Hagfors and Torsby.

A new bill has been drafted to provide 1 billion for airport operators' costs for security checks, this following pandemic years where it was sloppily expressed "run the flights for the actors, but don't fly for the passengers". A debate on exactly this bill will take place at a later time.

Madam Speaker! The importance of aviation for Sweden is great. We live in an elongated country with sparsely populated areas where good aviation accessibility is crucial for growth and prosperity. It strengthens Sweden's competitiveness and also creates a cohesive country.

Aviation has other advantages. It is also a socially important function with emergency airports, air ambulance services, firefighting aircraft, and transport during times of crisis and war. It must be protected and developed in step with how we strengthen the preparedness of the whole of Sweden and society.

Madam Speaker! From some opposition parties, it is drummed up loudly that aviation is a single major climate threat that is destroying our entire world. But I am of a different opinion.

Domestic aviation in Sweden emits approximately 1 percent of our country's domestic emissions. Aviation accounts for just over 2 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Aviation is therefore not a major environmental offender but an important part of the transport sector, which is also reducing its emissions with clear goals such as fossil-free status.

Electric aviation will soon be operating commercial routes, and hydrogen and biofuels contribute to the transition. Research and development will be crucial. Our task is to meet this development with appropriate legislation but also long-term rules of the game. It is a matter of the aviation industry receiving long-term perspective, an opportunity to transition, and security in that work. Aviation is needed for all of Sweden to live.

My appeal to every municipal and regional politician across the country, especially to those of you who operate and own airports, is: Update your travel guidelines. See aviation as part of the transport system, and as an important part of your travel for official purposes. Then you also contribute to the aviation transition.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to highlight the aviation tax. The government has now issued a referral regarding a halving of the aviation tax. It is a tax that the Moderaterna have never liked because it does not target emissions but directly targets the passengers' ticket prices.

Now it is important that the state, the municipalities and the industry continue to work together for more growth, the environment, preparedness and jobs, simply for a safer, greener and freer Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I know that this is a motion report. But I would still like the member Oskar Svärd, who nevertheless represents the Prime Minister's party, not just to speak in sweeping words about the fact that the development is coming now. Now we are to support the green transition, and soon electric aviation will arrive. When are we talking about in terms of time, Oskar Svärd? Is it by autumn, or is it next year that it will arrive?

I believe we are all very aware that aviation has transitions to make. When one looks at research and development, and so on, one would wish for more powerful joint initiatives. There, I would like to hear a little from the member who represents the Prime Minister's party.

I know that aviation is highlighted in so many different contexts. In what way will you create long-term conditions? Oskar Svärd himself said that it is now about doing it together. But words are not enough. It is about how one proceeds in a purely concrete way to create those conditions. I would very much like to have the opportunity to talk more about that. That is why I requested the floor. I think it is very important.

I share the member's view that aviation is very important for all of Sweden and not least for northern Sweden. That is true both for the business community and for the people who live there, and also for the opportunity for the tourism industry and so on to be able to develop in a good way. Therefore, I am curious about this.

The Chairman mentioned that electric aviation is coming soon. When will it be? How do you truly create the long-term conditions that will make it an important part of the green transition for aviation as well?

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

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

I gladly answer them. Now, it is not I who build or fly these electric aircraft myself. We should probably all be happy about that. But if one reads in the newspaper, follows the media, and speaks with the actors who are developing electric aircraft specifically, one knows that they say: We will be able to operate with electric aircraft starting around 2028, 2029. That is the goal. Then it is clear that we will not be able to convert all parts to electric flight lines. But it is a start on a very clear direction and a start on a new era.

For that, more fossil-free electricity is needed. That is why the Moderaterna in government, together with the government, are now pushing for, for example, more nuclear power so that one can also charge the electric planes that we need at the airports.

I want to highlight the commitment that the government has and also the clarity in the EU and what we are talking about together in the EU when it comes to precisely the aviation transition.

It is, for example, the Fit for 55 package. It is the EU's climate law which concerns reducing emissions by 55 percent by 2030 and reaching climate neutrality by 2050. These are goals that the government has adopted. There, electric aviation, other biofuels and hydrogen are also super important.

Madam Speaker! I look forward to us being able to continue on the path we have taken. We have, for example, invested several millions specifically for research and development of electric aviation. We can also follow the industry and sometimes move in step with the industry to reach new heights.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, the member, for the answers!

I share the view that the development of electric aviation is important. Of course, I also read the newspaper and see when it is thought that one can approximately be there. The member mentions 2028, 2029 themselves, and in the next breath, nuclear power is mentioned. It does not take four years to build nuclear power.

Here I hope that the government sees the great need we have to be able to participate very quickly in electrifying through, for example, more renewable wind power. I hope that it comes so that it then does not become the congested sector, so that electric aviation cannot be developed because one is waiting for nuclear power which might take another ten years from the time when electric aviation should actually be ready.

It is with some surprise that I nevertheless do not hear that the government has a unified strategy or a unified plan for the development of domestic aviation. The member says himself that new lines can be opened and so on. Here I believe that many of us have looked very much towards Norway. There, they have a much clearer plan for this.

That is why I am a bit questioning as to why the member is not raising this. Now it is becoming somewhat scattered showers, and people talk about how it will be when electric aviation is ready and when there is nuclear power. People talk about Fit for 55 and the climate goals. But the collective plan and the collective strategy would truly be needed for it to become just those long-term conditions that the member mentions.

Why is the Swedish government not pushing for a unified strategy for the development of electric aviation?

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the follow-up questions! That is exactly what the government is doing. We see that a good and ambitious energy policy is needed to achieve a good and ambitious climate policy. The parts are connected.

As I mentioned in my previous reply, we obviously cannot convert all aircraft immediately. But it is not so many years until 2028-2029, and if we can start then and at the same time now be ambitious about expanding fossil-free nuclear power and bringing in several different mixes when it comes to our energy supply, it is super important. It is a clear strategy from the government's side.

Then I also believe that we will succeed in supplying the airports where electric aviation will operate. This also creates other opportunities with smaller airports. New air bridges are being created between new cities, and we will see an aviation development that we have not seen before.

Madam Speaker! I am completely convinced that with an ambitious climate policy and an ambitious energy policy, we will reach new levels. That is where electric aviation lies, that is where biofuels lie, and there we have hydrogen for aviation. We see the entire transition. The work on this has just begun, and we will continue with it.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Oskar Svärd for the speech, and I have a few questions.

First and foremost, I must nevertheless point out that no one is questioning that aviation has positive attributes. Aviation has many positive attributes, for example that one can travel far in a short time. That is not the problem, but rather how we are to manage the climate transition. I think that is becoming a bit of a straw man.

I must ask some questions, because for me, it is certainly not all Moderate MPs who agree on the climate situation as the IPCC describes it. I must therefore first ask Oskar Svärd if he stands behind the IPCC's conclusions on the need to phase out fossil fuels.

It depends a bit on how one counts, because if you look at the Swedes' flying, you see that it corresponds to the impact from approximately all car traffic. It depends on how you slice it. But in any case, all fossil energy needs to be phased out.

Oskar Svärd mentioned hydrogen. It is absolutely a technology that I believe in. But Oskar Svärd's colleague stood here in the chamber just a few hours ago and condemned hydrogen technology. He does not believe in it at all. I therefore do not understand the Moderaternas position here. Do you believe in hydrogen or not? It would be good to have a clarification.

When it comes to electric aviation, I actually had the same questions as Ulrika Heie. I am positive about that development, but it lies a bit further in the future if it is about converting larger volumes of air traffic. I really hope, however, that it will happen as quickly as possible. But it is hardly the electricity supply that is the problem, as we have a surplus of approximately 30 terawatt-hours of electricity. That becomes completely irrelevant in this debate, so Oskar Svärd should first of all be happy to explain how that relates.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions! I hope and believe that I will be able to answer all of them; otherwise, you will have to raise them once more.

Of course, we see the climate challenges that currently exist. That is why we stand behind Fit for 55, for example, which is about reducing emissions. It is also why I see aviation as something very positive, precisely when it comes to the transition that is taking place within the entire industry. I encounter an eagerness when I meet actors from the industry and travelers. They want the emissions to decrease, and they are doing a great job to ensure that they do.

Madam Speaker! I do not know what the member was referring to when he spoke about what my colleague has said here earlier regarding hydrogen. But when I speak with the industry, I hear that it is seen as a possible alternative for aviation. Hydrogen is seen, biofuels are seen, and electric aviation is seen as important parts.

When we talk about electricity supply, we from the Moderaterna and the government's side point out that nuclear power is incredibly important to ensure that we have a fossil-free electricity production and have electricity so that we can transition not only the airplanes but also freight transport, car transport and other parts.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the figures we are talking about now, domestic aviation in Sweden emits approximately 1 percent of our country's domestic emissions. These are figures that I have just retrieved from the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation's website; it is largely a quote from there. I believe, therefore, that we can rely on the figures. At least the member can.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Oskar Svärd for the answers, which I thought were considerably more positive than what I heard from the Moderaterna earlier here in the chamber when we had the energy debate.

If one only looks at what we call emissions within territorial borders, as I believe it is called, the figure is certainly correct. It is probably completely accurate. It is different when one looks at consumption emissions, where international and long-haul flights are included.

I can only hope that it is Oskar Svärds attitude towards hydrogen that prevails rather than Mats Green's earlier here in the chamber. I believe it is extremely important that we invest in hydrogen, primarily for the industry's transition. But it must be hydrogen production on a large scale that is supplied with cheap electricity. Here, the Moderaterna have a homework assignment to do by calculating what new electricity production costs, but that is another debate. I absolutely believe that there is a great potential in supplying the entire transport sector with its various modes of transport with reasonably cheap hydrogen production further ahead.

I therefore hope that strategies will come from the government to promote a hydrogen economy, for we have not seen anything of the sort at all so far.

I am an engineer and a technology optimist, and I truly hope for these technologies to facilitate the transition. But we do not see any strategy or any incentives from the government for the transition to occur fast enough. The money the government invests goes directly to aviation as it looks today, which is 98 percent fossil-dependent. The money is not directed towards electric aviation, hydrogen, and the technologies that Oskar Svärd speaks so passionately about. It therefore remains a big question mark from my side.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! I have great confidence in the industry. I have great confidence in those who drive technological development and innovations. I believe that they can do this and that they are given the conditions required for them to be able to do so.

I know that there is an eagerness to transition aviation and ensure that we move from emitting fossil fuels to operating fossil-free flights. It is also why the government has made an investment in technology development and an innovation initiative when it comes to, for example, electric aviation. It is why we are investing in nuclear power for fossil-free electricity.

When it comes to hydrogen, which the member raised, I shall not review what my colleague said in another debate earlier today here. I can only state that I believe it is important that we do not lock ourselves into a type of fuel for aviation. Hydrogen could be an alternative there, but it may also turn out that it is not.

The main point is, Madam Speaker, that we have a breadth, that we dare to trust the actors, that we support the actors and that we ensure that we together manage the transition that is required. I am convinced that Sweden will continue to need domestic flights, but we will also need aviation to get to other destinations and other countries. It ties together Sweden, it ties together Europe and it ties together the world.

Then we must, from this chamber and at the EU level, ensure that we also transition.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! We have a number of reservations in this report. I would like to begin by saying that on behalf of the Center Party, I move for approval of reservation number 2, which concerns funding and support for regional airports. We know that aviation is incredibly important for the development of the whole of Sweden, and the regional airports have a very special task both in transporting people to different places and in meeting the needs of the business community, not least the tourism industry. Therefore, I wanted to highlight just reservation number 2 and have it clearly stated in my introduction.

Sweden is a very elongated country. We have long distances, and it is important that people, regardless of where they live, have the opportunity to get where they need to go. Just today, it concerns aviation, but it is of course about all the different modes of transport, regardless of whether one speaks of four or five modes of transport. When I say five, I count broadband as the fifth mode of transport, even if one as an individual perhaps does not travel on it so much. Overall, we need to ensure that the entire infrastructure really hangs together. Therefore, it is important that the government's accessibility goals are evaluated and that they are now formulated with future challenges in mind.

The work on a plan for future infrastructure must begin immediately. Then perhaps a friend of order says: But it is ongoing. There is actually a job underway to produce an infrastructure policy proposition. There, however, I experience that both from the business community and from large parts of the opposition, it is raised how incredibly important it is that we take a new approach when it comes to planning for future development.

I also want to mention in this debate that some kind of infrastructure preparation would be very welcome. We need to look at all modes of transport and types of traffic collectively and see how they are interconnected, so that we can make the right investments for the future.

The business community also demands long-term perspective and stability, while at the same time it must go faster. To manage to do it in a really good way, long-term rules of the game are required, where politics can be united in such a way that one knows what will apply even across potential shifts in the political leadership during the mandates.

When it comes to infrastructure preparedness, there is a model in the Defence Preparedness Board. In these times with a new NATO membership and so on, we know that it is important to co-plan the security policy issues with the infrastructure policy issues. When we ask Infrastructure Minister Andreas Carlson or Defence Minister Pål Jonson here in the chamber, they say that this is something that both departments work very much on together.

So far, we from the opposition side have mostly heard the talk. We are, of course, waiting for there to also be a result of it, so that we can see in what way this will be developed. There, aviation has an important part in creating a setup that is both robust and resilient so that, in a crisis, we can manage to maintain reasonable conditions for aviation's part.

Now I will go into a bit more detail regarding aviation. It is clear that it is an important part of the green transition when it comes to the new fuels that we know must be developed. Sometimes I think the government parties seem to have the impression that it is electrification that is the solution to the entire future fuel discussion, when we know that we need a variety of different types of fuels moving forward to create sustainability. In different forms of crisis, there needs to be a fleet of both airplanes and other vehicles that can be propelled by a variety of different fuels.

What we can see and read in the report is that there is a lack of a plan for a minimum level of transport in times of crisis. I find that very worrying. Hopefully, it is one of the issues that the departments are now working on together. We have war in Europe and see how incredibly important it is that the logistics chains can function sufficiently satisfactorily in times of crisis, and then there needs to be a plan for how it should work.

Flight shame was mentioned in the first speech. I am glad that it is something that is moving forward, now that we see that there are opportunities for aviation to make a transition. From the Center Party's side, we have also been critical of the aviation tax that the member from the Moderates mentioned because it has not contributed to a development that we want to see, but has actually only increased costs.

We need to create increased accessibility. I have already mentioned biofuels, and even the production of biojet fuels needs to increase. The previous speaker spoke about how it is being done now and was happy that so much is being done. From the opposition's side, we would still like to see more clearly what concrete steps are actually being taken and what results that effective policy you claim to have actually leads to. I hope that we will see that.

Even though the government parties point out that a lot is being invested in research and innovation, one sees when making summaries that it becomes very fragmented. It would need to be gathered in a different way. Now a research and innovation bill is coming this autumn, and it is possible that it will provide some answers in this part of this sector.

I mentioned it in the previous exchange and want to say it again: It is an exciting development we are seeing regarding electric aviation. In a number of years, it is believed that the conditions will be in place for new lines and that it can be put into practice. But if it is to become a long-term sustainable development of this, it is required that the government also makes a plan for how it should function.

We look at Norway and see that they have set significantly clearer goals for where one should fly, when one should fly and which investments need to be made. We would like to have that clarity also from the Swedish government.

One part that we know is important regarding aviation is the development of the tourism industry. It is clear that aviation is incredibly important when we see that one can also develop the tourism industry outside of our major urban centers. The train is important, but aviation is at least equally important, not least towards northern Sweden.

The last thing I would like to mention in my speech is something that is partially different but which has nevertheless ended up in this report. If we are to reach the goal of fossil-free transport, result-oriented incentives with a number of technologies and solutions are needed. In that regard, I want to touch upon the wind power area. Why does it come in here? Well, there is something called light pollution from wind turbines, which we are raising as a problem today. Here, actions would need to be taken.

There is a radar technology called Obstacle Collision Avoidance System, which makes it possible for the lights to be turned off. Unfortunately, all 112 exceptions that have been applied for with Transportstyrelsen have been rejected because the Swedish Armed Forces say that sufficient aviation safety cannot be guaranteed. I believe it is important that we learn to see that the different parts of the energy supply must, of course, function together with aviation in a significantly better way than today. This is also something we raise in one of our reservations.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for your speech, member!

Now we are warm in our clothes in the speakers' chairs. The time is twenty minutes to eight, and I have promised my colleagues to keep my remarks relatively short. Therefore, I intend to first ask the straight question: How does the committee want to support aviation in the short and long term? The committee was very focused on what the government should do and what the government is not doing. I would therefore like to hear a bit more.

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that the Moderates and the other government parties agree with the Centre Party on the aviation tax. But with whom do you want to make changes? Which opposition parties can you go hand in hand with?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! How are we to support aviation in the short and long term? When it comes to electric aviation, there needs to be a plan, so that the country Sweden is clear on how we will ensure that electric aviation can be developed in a good way. I believe it is important that there is a plan for it. It is quite urgent that it is developed, so that the business community can have it to refer to.

Another part, which is also partly in the short term, I mentioned in my speech. It concerns the need to have a minimum level for how transport in our country must still function in times of crisis. I mentioned that aviation is an important part of our transport chains. It is required that that part also gets the opportunity to be developed and that those plans are drawn up.

When it comes to the long term, I believe it is important to work with technological development. I mentioned in my speech that it is not only electric aviation we are talking about. Hydrogen has been mentioned here earlier. There are also biofuels and so on. There are opportunities there today.

We also need to clarify the research initiatives in such a way that they contribute to the greatest possible development of what needs to be done. This applies perhaps to both the short and long term.

I think that one should answer the questions one receives, and a question came up about who we are going to do this with. When one develops policy, one does it together with those who want to see the same development. Connected to the aviation tax, I just mentioned that we have the same position as the government parties. That is an example.

I also perceived that Miljöpartiet's Linus Lakso, in the previous exchange of remarks, highlighted the possibilities of seeing aviation as an important part of the green transition and that aviation transport is also needed. I therefore believe that there is a broad view on this.

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

Oskar Svärd (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answers to the questions, the member!

It is pleasing that we are united in many respects regarding how we want to develop and support aviation in both the short and long term and provide aviation with the right conditions to develop and transition.

Madam Speaker! I have two follow-up questions for the member. One concerns how the member sees that we can supply the airports with energy and electricity, which is needed when we are to transition to electric aviation. The Moderates and the government see nuclear power as a very good part, but there are also more types of energy when it comes to that specific purpose.

Madam Speaker! My second question is whether the member can promise that the Center Party, in a situation where they cooperate with, for example, the Social Democrats, the Green Party, and the Left Party, will lower or remove the aviation tax. In the current situation, the Green Party wants to double the aviation tax. C wants to remove the aviation tax. What V wants to do we do not know, because they are not here.

How is the member actually supposed to ensure that it goes through?

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Member Svärd!

When it comes to how we are to supply airports with electricity, it is important to have exactly that plan I was referring to. It is clear that Svenska kraftnät may also need to make certain adjustments linked to how one should ensure that there is also sufficient supply at regional airports to be able to make the transition. For that very reason, it is important to come up with the plan, so that one can see the development of aviation itself but obviously also be able to supply it.

Perhaps one bets on electric aviation in some parts and on other fuels in other parts. I will not anticipate the plans, but they should be developed by those who do it in the best way. But that it is being done, I see as extremely important. I expect that we will hear more from the government parties about how they will truly ensure that it becomes an important part in the future.

The member also wanted me to promise something. If I understood the member's speech correctly, the aviation tax is about to be removed. I therefore cannot see why I should promise whom I will remove it with. The government parties have already signaled that it will be removed. My view of Oskar Svärd's and the government's position is that it should at least be maintained during this parliamentary term. In that case, I think the member himself may have ensured that it is done. That question is almost already redundant.

As a final point, I want to highlight the need for the regional airports. I really appreciate what the member said in their speech. A number of airports became concerned when the airport investigation was released. The member mentioned both Värmland and Blekinge. It is important that those messages have been delivered. Perhaps even more are waiting for a decision. It is important that the regional airports are allowed to develop.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would first like to approve the committee's proposal for a decision.

It is important that we see that all different types of transport in our country are needed for all of Sweden to be able to function.

Aviation in Sweden truly has a bright future. Then someone might think: How can you say that? We have flight shame to consider. We have already talked about that here today. I and the Christian Democrats believe that this should change. We shall move from talking about flight shame to talking about flight joy.

Madam Speaker! The technological development within aviation is enormous. The development means that it will be possible to fly 40-60 miles with electric aviation in the future. But even if it is possible to go further, it will primarily be about shorter distances in the beginning. We will, for example, be able to have a possible flight route between Northvolt's research facility in Västerås and the battery factory in Skellefteå.

There is also a development here that means entirely new lines can become part of the public transport system. It can also become an important complement to transport to places outside the road and rail networks. And there is huge potential for electric aviation between our neighboring countries Norway, Finland and Denmark and our Baltic neighbors.

Is it only on short distances that we can fly in an environmentally friendly way? The answer is no. On all longer distances and for larger and heavier aircraft, biofuels will apply. We in Sweden have great potential to become completely self-sufficient in biofuel made from residues from Swedish forestry and agriculture. The future for Sweden's aviation is truly exciting.

Madam Speaker! Being able to travel from different places in the country is very important, especially for many who live and work in the countryside. I visited the municipalities of Hagfors and Torsby in beautiful Värmland some time ago to have a conversation with the municipal managers. They told me with emphasis how important it is for the municipalities' business life and tourism that the threatened lines remain.

For us Christian Democrats, it is important that all of Sweden functions. Therefore, it was pleasing that the Minister for Infrastructure, Andreas Carlson, was on site in Värmland and announced that the flight route between Arlanda and Hagfors-Torsby will remain. Ronneby airport and the airport in Kramfors-Sollefteå have received the same pleasing news.

In worrying times, it is also important from a preparedness perspective that we keep our airports.

Madam Speaker! The Government has also provided increased operating support to non-state airports. The support has actually doubled by making annual supplements of 107 million kronor permanent. During covid-19, it was very tough times for the country's airports - a very difficult economic time. Therefore, it was proposed in the autumn budget that the costs for the country's airports should be reduced by over 1 billion. It is an incredibly important signal. Another important signal is that the Government now also wants to lower the aviation tax. It is very important.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask about a couple of things that the member said in the beginning of his speech. One was supposed to move from flight shame to flight joy. Then I perceived that there was a lot of dreaming about becoming completely self-sufficient in biofuels and about the development of electric aviation. I just want to know how that is going to happen. What does the strategy look like? What does the plan look like to become completely self-sufficient in biofuels when it comes to aviation, and what does the government have for a strategy and plan for the development of electric aviation?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am very pleased that we have a government that has seen the problem and not just buried itself in it without seeing any solution. It is actually a problem-solving government!

In this case, it has been seen that Trafikverket must be commissioned to come up with proposals for measures to speed up the work. My colleague Oskar Svärd spoke very much about electricity supply and that it is important that we have nuclear power. It was a debate between you two members. I can say the same thing. It is naturally important to have very much electricity production in the country to get this with electric aviation started properly. Here we know that nuclear power is important.

The Leader of the Opposition told Oskar Svärd himself that it takes time, perhaps more than four years, to build nuclear power plants. But we do not give up. Very much has been done from this government's side to really turn the tap and produce more electricity in our country, because that is undoubtedly the future.

It is the same thing with bioenergy. It is incredibly important that we do things that allow us to produce more biofuel in our country, because it is a fantastic resource for our entire countryside that we can actually take products from the forest and agriculture and produce biofuel that is fantastic for the environment.

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

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to return to my questions. My first question was, after all, what we need to do to become completely self-sufficient in biofuels, and the member answered that we must do things that enable us to produce. What is it we should do to support this? What incentives are needed for Sweden to actually become self-sufficient in biofuels? What "things" is it that we must do?

I also asked about electric aviation and the strategy and plan for it. Then the member mentioned electricity production, and I can understand that one does that. I assume it was also about Trafikverket being to develop proposals for measures for electric aviation. Is it therefore a strategy and a plan that Trafikverket has been commissioned by the government to develop for electric aviation? How does that fit together?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to take the questions in order.

The first question the member asked was about what the work looks like in producing biofuels. I am convinced that the market will truly show that it is needed. Everyone is talking about that biofuels are needed, and then naturally those who produce this in our country will see that there is a huge production to be done. Much is already being done today. We have a lot of domestic production, and it can become even more. Support may naturally be needed in different ways, but the market in Sweden also looks very favorable. The answer to that question from the member, I think, is that some form of support may be needed, but above all, now that there is a huge potential in and with the fact that aviation wants fuel made from biogas, it will be very important and large.

I did not write down more of what the member said, but it was surely something about electric aviation. Just as the member said that I said, we really mean that the assignment to Trafikverket is an important beginning. Nothing just happens by itself. This is not just a vision or a dream of flying somewhere with electricity, but this is for real! I believe that the government will execute this in a very good and environmentally friendly way.

(Applause)

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! Tonight we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on aviation issues. We Social Democrats stand by all our reservations, but I only move for approval of reservation 8 under point 3 and reservation 13 under point 7, which concern aviation's climate impact.

Madam Speaker! It is 17,000 kilometers from Treriksröset in Norrland to Smygehuk in Skåne and it is no secret that Sweden is an elongated country. Here in the northern part of Europe, where we have an increasingly globalized economy, aviation is necessary and critical to bind our country together and connect us to the rest of the world. But as the climate challenge becomes increasingly acute, we must transition. Aviation is needed, but we must also enable people to fly in a sustainable way.

We Social Democrats realize how crucial a functioning aviation infrastructure is - not only for exports. The aviation infrastructure is also important from a total defense and societal preparedness perspective. The latter we experienced when Sweden was hit by the covid pandemic.

Madam Speaker! We are all aware of the consequences of the covid pandemic regarding the aviation industry, but the reduction in air travel actually began as early as 2018 due to the increased environmental awareness among people - what is called flight shame - and the opportunities that digitalization created and offered. Many large companies have switched to digital meetings, either fully or partially, and saved a lot of money.

Madam Speaker! It will take many years before aviation reaches the same figures as before 2019. To illustrate the great loss, I would like to give an example. In 1990, domestic aviation in Sweden had its peak at 9 million passengers. Today, Trafikverket makes the assessment that not until 2065 will domestic aviation possibly reach 9 million passengers again. As you understand, there is therefore a long uphill climb for the recovery in the aviation industry.

In order for the aviation industry to attract people back, people must be able to fly sustainably. This must, of course, be accelerated. I know that the aviation industry is doing its part, but here politics must also take up the baton.

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, the Social Democratic government commissioned an airport investigation led by Peter Norman. The investigation submitted its report to the government last year. We have heard from the rostrum here that work has begun on some of the proposals included in the investigation. We welcome some of them from the Social Democrats' side.

But in the investigation, there is a proposal that we Social Democrats think the government has been remarkably silent about. It is the proposal for a fuel commission. We are talking about how aviation should make a climate transition and how policy should provide the industry with the conditions to make that transition. In the investigation, there is a proposal for a fuel commission, and I would have liked to hear how the government parties reason in this matter. Are there any plans to appoint a fuel commission?

Another noteworthy point is the operating grant. We heard from both the Christian Democrats and the Moderates that it has been decided to give the airport municipalities operating grants. That is good, and we welcome it. The decision was made six months ago, but the airport municipalities have still not received this money. They are now so badly forced to take money from core activities in order to be able to keep the airports in operation. I am sure that many municipalities want a notification from the government.

Madam Speaker! It is no secret that the Social Democrats want to close Bromma Airport. After the pandemic, the airport is utilized only to half of its capacity. The operation is stuck in a limbo, weighed down by financial unprofitability and abandoned by the airlines, which have moved to Arlanda. It is an operation that costs taxpayers money and occupies valuable land in Stockholm. There are several investigations showing that it is possible to move the operation to Arlanda, and the move to Arlanda would free up land for up to 22,000 homes. Bromma Airport could have begun being phased out as early as 2025 if the government had not acted with ideological blinkers.

Madam Speaker! This summer, Bromma Airport will be closed for two weeks, and the regular and non-regular air traffic plus the ambulance flights will then be moved to Arlanda. We have heard in many debates that Arlanda does not have the capacity for this, but these two weeks will show that the capacity exists. Swedavia makes the assessment that this can be managed and that the air traffic at Bromma Airport can be handled from Arlanda.

Madam Speaker! We also need to ensure that Arlanda becomes efficient and accessible. According to a report from Region Stockholm, Swedavia, and Visit Sweden, accessibility to Arlanda has decreased by 25 percent since 2018. During the same period, accessibility to Bromma airport has decreased by 57 percent. Right now, a green new industrialization is taking place in northern Sweden which is completely dependent on good communications both nationally and internationally. With fewer direct connections and departures to and from Arlanda, the risk increases that Sweden becomes uninteresting for the workforce and competence that the business sector needs.

In conclusion, I want to say that we Social Democrats like all modes of transport and want to avoid pitting them against each other.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating aviation issues.

Sweden is dependent on aviation to function. We have said it many times, but it bears repeating. We need all four transport modes - road, rail, aviation and shipping - to function and function together for Sweden to be able to continue to maintain a high rate of innovation and increase its competitiveness.

Sweden's fourth place in the OECD's ranking of countries with the highest share of investments in research and development requires access to competence. We need aviation to secure competence for companies, from the metal company Höganäs in Skåne to the space company Esrange in Kiruna and from Western Sweden's vehicle cluster to the steel industry in the north. Labor and expert competence, and being able to meet relatives and friends over a weekend when one has moved, place demands on fast means of transport in our elongated country.

Aviation is needed for companies in Sweden to be able to grow and have the muscles to transition. Aviation is not the exception to the transition but must also transition. But the focus shall be on aviation's emissions, not on the flight journey as such.

Now we have a government that sees all the advantages of aviation and which is taking step by step to stabilize the economy after aviation's tough years during the pandemic. International travel will soon be back to 2019 levels while domestic travel is not yet back. This has a major negative impact, not least for people out in the country and at the regional airports.

The government has now decided on over a billion to compensate for a large lagging cost from the pandemic when the airports were forced to keep the security checks open even though the travelers were virtually absent. The government is also increasing the operating support to the non-state airports to 210 million and is investigating the aviation tax.

By recognizing aviation's important role for Sweden and through cooperation and a great focus on aviation's climate transition, we can soon have a Swedish aviation industry that is once again on firm ground and can test its wings, and which can also contribute to the green transition of aviation in Sweden and globally. It can also strongly facilitate the climate transition of other industries, as I previously mentioned.

Swedavia's ten largest airports and the regional airports will soon be climate neutral, and they are investigating how charging infrastructure and alternative fuels can be provided by the airports. In the aviation industry's roadmap for a fossil-free Sweden, the goal is fossil-free domestic flights by 2030 and fossil-free international flights by 2045.

It is important that aviation in Sweden has competition-neutral conditions for its climate transition. Therefore, it is pleasing that the EU, during the Swedish presidency, and specifically Romina Pourmokhtari, the Liberals' Minister for Climate and Environment, decided on the EU's green transition package, Fit for 55, and a package specifically aimed at aviation, Refuel EU Aviation. The distribution of free emission allowances to aviation will cease in 2026, and we will have a common legislation on the blending of fossil-free fuels in today's aviation fuel. This will drive the transition of aviation throughout Europe. We best handle aviation's emissions at an international level to achieve an effect. Here we must use the EU for global impact.

Madam Speaker! There are a number of technologies for fossil-free aviation. Biofuels, electric aviation, and e-fuels are closest in time. Aircraft running on hydrogen and reduced high-altitude effects are a bit further away. Even today, one can fly fossil-free on biofuel - many do not know that. At the same time, several companies in Sweden are now investing in the production of both biofuels from domestic raw materials and e-fuels.

Sweden is one of the countries in the world that, together with Norway and the rest of the Nordic region, is best suited for an early introduction of electric aviation. Therefore, the government has tasked the Transport Administration with analyzing whether today's rules allow for the procurement of electric aircraft for routes with a public service obligation. I look forward to that assignment, which is to be reported on next week, on May 31. The government has also increased the appropriations for research and innovation in the field of electric aviation.

Electric aviation has the potential to connect smaller, regional airports around the country, without having to constantly travel to Stockholm. This also applies within the Nordic region. The Liberals therefore want to see a developed cooperation in the Nordic region to create a Nordic aviation market for electric flight, where the regulatory frameworks are coordinated. Airlines in the USA see the potential to re-establish a regional flight network, a flight network that has disappeared because, with current aircraft, other requirements have been set to create economic viability for the industry.

Heart Aerospace in Gothenburg is developing an electric aircraft for 30 people with a range of 400 kilometers, which has garnered international interest with orders for several hundred planes, primarily from the USA. The company is an important example of Sweden's innovative power and its importance for the climate transition in Sweden and globally.

Sweden is also prepared for the development of hydrogen aviation, not least based on the competence regarding hydrogen that exists at the company GKN in Trollhättan, which is now expanding significantly.

Interesting new research and technological development regarding the causes of high-altitude effects also has the potential to drastically reduce the impact of high-altitude effects on the climate. We are not quite there yet; more research is required.

Madam Speaker! Bromma Airport shall be preserved; it is an important part of the Tidö Agreement. It is pleasing that Bromma is now seen as a hub for electric aviation in Sweden. This is a development that the Liberals have championed since the last parliamentary term. Since electric aviation has lower noise levels and requires shorter runways, land areas around airports can be released for housing, which simultaneously enables urban airports. Bromma is an interesting airport to start with.

Madam Speaker! The most extensive airport investigation conducted in Sweden in 16 years is now being prepared within the government. The strategic importance of the national and regional airports for connecting the entire country, for future electric aviation, and for the country's preparedness, not least now in the shadow of the war in Ukraine, cannot be overemphasized. The government has therefore decided in a first step that the airports in Ronneby, Torsby, Hagfors, and Höga Kusten Airport shall continue to have procured air traffic.

The Liberals have long demanded here in the Riksdag that regions and municipalities should be allowed to procure and finance air traffic similar to in the rest of the EU. Therefore, it is pleasing that the government now opens up for this by giving Trafikverket the mandate to prepare to give municipal and regional authorities the possibility to open new flight lines with general public service obligation beyond the state supply. This mandate is welcomed by the Liberals. It is completely in line with our policy.

Madam Speaker! It is not through surcharges that we achieve fossil-free aviation, but through technological development and innovations. That is why I and the Liberals, as technology optimists, believe in aviation and believe that we can address aviation's climate impact in Sweden and globally through fossil-free fuels, electric aviation, hydrogen, and research on high-altitude effects.

In the end, it may also require some compensation through carbon capture to reach net zero. We are open to that. We want to support research in all these areas to secure aviation in a fossil-free future.

Madam Speaker! After eight years when the then government opposed and dismantled the aviation sector, Sweden has now finally received a new liberal, bourgeois government where aviation has a positive, fossil-free future in Sweden.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

(Applause)

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on aviation issues, that is to say, aviation matters. We in the Sweden Democrats stand behind all our ten reservations, but to save time, I choose to move for approval of only reservation 9.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a long country, and aviation is of great importance for the entire country. The Sweden Democrats consider that aviation and our airports constitute an important part of our infrastructure. It enables the transport of people and goods between regional parts, cities, and the rest of the world.

Air traffic meets the needs of both citizens and the business community and is crucial for defense and preparedness as well as healthcare and safety, especially now that Sweden is a member of Nato. Aviation creates opportunities for education, social interaction, employment and growth, which in many cases would have been impossible with conventional modes of transport on rail, land or sea.

During 2022, the number of passengers at Swedish airports amounted to approximately 25 million, of which 4 million were domestic and 21 million were international. This represented an increase of a full 133 percent compared to 2021. Despite this, the aviation industry remains in a recovery phase from the corona pandemic in 2019, when the number of passengers amounted to almost 38 million.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's strategy for the aviation industry encompasses not only air transport but also an integrated infrastructure with other modes of transport and digital information transmission. Here, different modes of transport complement each other instead of competing against one another.

The aviation industry is crucial for Sweden's competitiveness as a knowledge and industrial nation, and it contributes approximately 40,000 direct jobs as well as affects companies throughout the entire supply chain. Furthermore, it has close links to high-tech areas such as the space industry.

To maintain its international position, Sweden needs to strengthen work on procurement and international agreements, while over-regulation should be avoided to reduce administrative costs. Important aspects for a sustainable aviation industry include working conditions, reduction of carbon emissions, and safety.

Electric aviation is also on its way, with larger electric aircraft that soon can transport up to 30 passengers. This can change the structure of the flight map, as Arlanda airport may no longer become the central hub for domestic flights. Here, Sweden needs to invest more in research and development, and the preservation of Bromma airport is a key factor in the overall picture.

Madam Speaker! Aviation is crucial for Sweden's growth, tourism, knowledge, and international business, and it is important to safeguard it as an important mode of transport.

Unfortunately, aviation and Swedish airports have had a very tough time for a long time before the current government took office. During nearly eight years of previous red-green governments, aviation has been stigmatized, and unnecessary and meaningless aviation taxes have been introduced.

Together with the corona pandemic, this has dramatically affected the entire aviation industry's economy. Now, however, we can rejoice that the current government has replaced flight shame with flight joy and that we can send the flight shame where it belongs - in the trash can.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats consider the government's actions to help and lift up the aviation industry to have been very satisfactory during the short period since the government took office. Among the most important measures, the following can be mentioned:

Restart of the dialogue with the aviation industry regarding the aviation strategy after years of destructive, environmentally-motivated prohibition in the department. In the government's proposition, an increase of the appropriation to Transportstyrelsen by 1,035,000 kronor is proposed for the airport operators' costs for security checks.

The Government's bill on halved aviation tax.

The Government's decision on an Arlanda Coordinator to identify new measures to increase capacity and improve accessibility to and from Arlanda Airport.

The Government's decision to keep Ronneby Airport under state ownership as well as to preserve the airports in Torsby, Hagfors and Höga kusten.

Decision on doubling the operating support to non-state airports and a mandate to Trafikverket to increase regional influence regarding flight routes with public service obligations.

Research funds via Trafikverket to improve the conditions for electric aviation in Sweden.

Decision on an investment of 70 million kronor per year to reform the system of standby airports.

It is truly pleasing to finally see that aviation is beginning to get its rightful place within our transport infrastructure. We are happy but not satisfied, and more needs to be done. It must also be easy to get to the airport and likewise to the train, the bus, and the boat.

The Sweden Democrats consider civil aviation as part of public transport and the public's mobility needs. Therefore, more focus should be placed on connecting all modes of transport for even better efficiency and accessibility.

Madam Speaker! I conclude my speech by highlighting the importance of Arlanda Airport.

Arlanda has a certain special status and significance as Sweden's largest airport and constitutes a hub for national and international business travel but also for tourism, research, education and diplomatic relations.

Arlanda constitutes a face outward and reflects Sweden, both culturally and as a knowledge nation. In order for Sweden and Arlanda to continue to assert themselves internationally, future traffic volumes and the aviation needs of future generations need to be reviewed.

Arlanda needs to be given the conditions to keep up with the development, not least regarding the communications with surrounding cities. This applies in particular to access to parking and fast connections from Stockholm and Uppsala at a reasonable cost. Our hope is that the new Arlanda Coordinator takes these points into account.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Rashid Farivari! I take this opportunity because the member in his speech said that the previous government has done nothing and has underprioritized aviation. I reacted to that.

When we were in government, we provided credit guarantees for aviation. We provided loan guarantees. We added extraordinary resources to the regional airports. We introduced general public service obligation. We ensured that more airports became emergency airports. We also added resources to and invested in electric aviation in order to develop it.

It is not only the Sweden Democrats and Rashid Farivari who have trumpeted that the previous government did nothing, but the others have also done so.

I want to ask Rashid Farivari about the climate transition, because the Sweden Democrats are part of the government base and several of the government parties, including the Moderates and the Liberals, have claimed that they will honor Fit for 55. Will the Sweden Democrats honor Fit for 55?

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! There are a number of misleading claims and inaccuracies in what Member Kadir Kasirga said.

The first thing is that my name is not Rashid Farivari, but Rashid Farivar.

The second thing is that I never said that the Social Democratic government did nothing. The red-green government certainly did a lot of things, but many were incorrect, including the aviation tax and fake business investigations to shut down Bromma, just to please the Green Party.

The Social Democrats have certainly done certain things to retain the aviation, but they have done a lot of things that have made it more expensive for all ordinary citizens who want to travel. A clear example of this is the aviation tax.

I can ask a question to Member Kadir Kasirga. Now, the Green Party wants to double the aviation tax, and the Green Party wants to ban flights on certain routes. Will the Social Democrats, in a potential cooperation with the Green Party, yield again to the Green Party's unreasonable demands regarding aviation?

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

Madam Speaker! I heard no answer from the Sweden Democrat Rashid Farivar regarding my question. Will the Sweden Democrats honor Fit for 55? The Sweden Democrats' partners – both the Moderates and the Liberals – claim that it is important for them that it becomes part of the government's policy.

The Sweden Democrats are the largest support for the government, so I would very much like to hear whether the Sweden Democrats will ensure that Fit for 55 is implemented in Sweden, i.e., harmonized with the Swedish laws?

The answer to that question about the aviation tax that I received from the member is that I think it is irresponsible to lower the tax in the situation of economic crisis that prevails in Sweden. It is not responsible when healthcare has screaming needs. When 5,000 people within healthcare risk becoming unemployed, you choose to lower the tax, Rashid Farivar.

I can imagine that we can review the aviation tax and direct it towards climate-friendly initiatives, but in the situation we find ourselves in, it is not a responsible procedure to lower the aviation tax.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Member Kadir Kasirga!

The reasoning that Member Kadir Kasirga presents regarding the aviation tax is quite astonishing, I think. First and foremost, the aviation tax is not a tax, but it is a type of fine for those who fly. Removing or lowering unnecessary fines is not giving subsidies to those who fly. The aviation tax was unnecessary and unreasonable from the beginning.

I do not understand how the member can link the aviation tax to a lack of money in healthcare or why he does so. The Social Democrats refused during their time in government to reinvest the money from the aviation tax into aviation, for example in biofuels, electrification, and research and development within aviation. They just want to punish those who fly. They just want people to stop flying. That is something the member can reflect on.

Regarding the member's question on Fit for 55: Fit for 55 is not set in stone. It can be reformed via the EU, and we will do that. It is not just us, but many parties within the EU who want to do it, because these are unreasonable requirements. We have an agreement with the government on net-zero emissions by 2045, and we will honor that agreement. We will, however, do everything we can to reform Europe's climate legislation via the EU.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! Several debaters in this debate have highlighted the positive sides of aviation, for example that it is possible to travel long distances in a short time and so on. That is entirely true. But if one believes that those who have objections to aviation have them because it would physically be a poor means of transport - because it is in the air - then I think one has obviously missed 20 years of intense climate debate and the fact that we already today see the consequences of climate change both all around Sweden and all around the world.

The problem with aviation is, naturally, that it is still 99 percent fossil-dependent, that is to say dependent on an energy source that we need to phase out from all modes of transport, including aviation. One could of course wish that aviation were not dependent on fossil fuels; that would have been great. It would be fantastic if one could fly commercially without fossil fuels already today – no one would have been happier than I. But wishful thinking solves no problems in reality.

I am, however, a technology optimist, as I said earlier. I truly hope that we see a rapid and powerful development of all fossil-free technologies within the transport sector, including aviation. But we must be realists, look at the facts, and see how fast that development can go.

Many other members here have focused more on emotions—whether one should feel shame or joy when flying—but that is a completely irrelevant focus from the politics. Politics should focus on how to reach the climate goals and reduce emissions from all modes of transport, including aviation. Climate policy is, in fact, not something we engage in for the sake of the climate itself, but we do it to protect ordinary people from dangerous climate changes—and not least to make ourselves free from the dependence on oil from rogue states.

Politics must take responsibility and steer away from that which exacerbates the climate threat and invest in what is truly sustainable. Unfortunately, we do not see this government doing that. For the first time in 20 years, we have a government that makes active decisions to significantly increase emissions of climate-damaging gases and risk billion-euro fines from the EU because it conducts such a completely non-functional climate policy. I find that sad.

Aviation does not pay for its emissions today and has tax exemptions corresponding to billions of kronor, even when accounting for today's aviation tax and aircraft fees. Aviation pays no fuel taxes, no energy taxes, and no carbon taxes. There are also certain exemptions from VAT, and flights often depart from state-subsidized airports. In that context, the aviation tax is relevant because, here and now, with aviation being driven by fossil fuels to 99 percent, the amount of flying emissions is directly affected.

We would have liked to see that one could tax the carbon emissions from aviation, but I believe everyone in the Transport Committee is well aware that there are international rules that prevent that today. I would very much like to see a change in that area, because it would naturally have been much better to be able to target a tax so that it became significantly more climate-steering.

I was partially prepared for a flight tax debate, even though it wasn't really part of this committee report. I still included some figures.

The aviation tax has been portrayed as a tax that hits ordinary people and so on, but a Sifo survey shows that 73 percent of Swedes are positive towards an aviation tax if it is used to get functioning trains. I do not think that is so strange, because according to the SOM Institute, the support for an increase in the aviation tax is also greatest in rural areas - probably for the simple reason that it is the city dwellers who fly the most. According to the Stockholm Environment Institute, one flies seven times more in the large city municipality of Danderyd than in, for example, the rural municipality of Ockelbo.

There is, therefore, already today strong support for the aviation tax as it is designed, but as I mentioned, I would have liked to see better climate steering of the entire aviation transition, including the investments in new technology that we were involved in carrying out via, among other things, the Swedish Energy Agency's program for fossil-free aviation. The problem with the aviation transition is, in fact, not the electricity supply, as some have pretended, but rather it is to achieve a sufficiently rapid technological development regarding battery technology and hydrogen propulsion. Furthermore, the aircraft fleet itself has a rather long turnover time.

If one is to be realistic, one must see that it will take time to transition, and in the meantime, it is the flight volumes that determine how large the emissions will be. Then, one cannot escape, for example, that the train has a superior capacity between Stockholm and Gothenburg. Investments in infrastructure should therefore be prioritized toward what is most efficient, for example, trains between Stockholm and Gothenburg, where we have large volumes.

I am positive about electric aviation as soon as possible between, for example, Umeå and Östersund or to Visby, but one must somehow keep the concepts separate and see where different technologies fit best – and how quickly they can actually be phased in. What the government is doing now, most recently in the spring budget amendment, is to invest in and provide subsidies for the aviation as it looks today. Since aviation, as stated, is 99 percent fossil-dependent, the investments involve no steering whatsoever towards what the majority of members from the government base have spoken warmly about, that is to say, a transition to electric aviation and hydrogen. There we see significantly fewer concrete investments from the government, and I think that is a pity.

As noted, a motion has also been submitted regarding obstacle lighting at wind turbines, and I just want to say something briefly about it. There are significantly better rules in our neighboring countries, and there is a good example where one half of a wind turbine is in Norway and the other half is in Sweden. In Sweden, it stands and flashes all night; in Norway, it is turned off. It is only clumsy rules in Sweden that make this happen entirely unnecessarily.

Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 24 on that theme and of reservation 16 regarding reducing aviation's climate impact.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Linus Lakso for the speech!

The Green Party has some reservations, but one has no real policy for aviation in their portfolio other than to raise the tax and reduce and ban aviation and so on, as the member explained in their speech.

My assessment is that the Green Party does not want aviation at all. The Green Party does not want anyone to fly. There is much evidence for that, and I intended to give an example from the Green Party's top name in the EU, Alice Bah Kuhnke.

When the previous government decided to close Bromma Airport, it sounded like this in the Miljöpartiet's TV program: Yes! It finally happened! Bromma Airport is being closed! It is no small victory. No, no, this is such a big victory! Even though the Social Democrats want to make it sound like this is a decision based solely on rational economic thinking, it is not. It is a Miljöparti victory.

My question to Member Linus Lakso and all the Green Party members is: Why do you hate aviation?

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank you for the question, but it was just a row of incorrect or rather false claims. No one has expressed any hatred towards the aviation. I said exactly that we perhaps should put the emotions aside in this debate and stop talking about shame, joy and that type of completely irrelevant input.

To come forward with allegations of hate becomes completely unserious. As I have already explained in my speech, the problem with aviation is that it is dependent on fossil fuels. But it is highly unclear whether the Sverigedemokraterna even acknowledge climate science at all.

In order for this, with my starting points, to become a relevant debate at all, I want to ask if you even acknowledge the IPCC's very clear research results regarding how carbon dioxide emissions actually affect the atmosphere and the fact that we must reduce emissions. I think that is a relevant question to answer first.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Linus Lakso!

I will ask my question once more. But I guess that the hatred that both Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have towards aviation is based on the fact that Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet think it is only the rich who fly. One has a Marxist notion when it comes to doubling the aviation tax and banning aviation and private jets.

People simply want people to stop flying, and as I said, that is based on the Marxist conception that the Green Party and the Left Party have. There are common texts. We all know that the Green Party and the Left Party want to crush the capitalist society.

It is my guess, but I do not know.

I ask my question again: Why does Miljöpartiet hate aviation? With renewable fuel and electrified aviation, we can have fossil-free aviation as well. Aviation's impact on the environment is also tiny. In 2019, Sweden's domestic flights accounted for 0.4 percent of Sweden's total emissions. International flights accounted for less than 2 percent.

Why doesn't the Green Party focus on steel and cement production and other things? Why specifically aviation? Well, because the Green Party hates aviation.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! I think it is completely outrageous to stand here and lie straight out in front of the Swedish people, in the Swedish Riksdag. One guesses and makes things up. Rashid Farivar does not even try to conduct a serious debate but comes with a lot of false claims that I have just said are not true. It is simply ridiculous.

Where do you want to come with such a completely unserious post? You have zero clue about what you are actually talking about. It is completely ridiculous to stand here and make up a lot of accusations completely taken out of thin air.

I actually expect more from someone who is elected to Sweden's Riksdag.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind you of the respectful tone we are to maintain in the debate and that all speakers speak through the Speaker.)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 29 May.)

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