National strategy and the government's action plan for climate adaptation

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal in its entirety.

We conclude today's parliamentary session by once again debating climate-related issues. It has been an intensive year on the theme: The Government's and the Sweden Democrats' climate action plan has been voted through here in the chamber, and we have received a new focus on climate policy where the foundation is efficiency and popular anchoring rather than inefficient, unrealistic, and symbolic red-green politics.

Madam Speaker! This has been crucial for Sweden to be able to continue to pursue an ambitious environmental and climate policy. We have seen the reduction obligation lowered significantly, which means that we now have lower fuel prices than in our neighboring countries instead of having the highest in the entire world. We have seen a government basis that lays the foundation for the green transition by beginning the work of settling a broken environmental permit system. Not least, we have seen a direction of the energy policy towards once again building up a functioning energy system where new nuclear power is a fundamental part.

Madam Speaker! Today's climate debate is, however, significantly less polarized than usual as the focus today is on climate adaptation. When it is argued that the climate is a matter of fate, it is possibly mostly about climate adaptation issues, at least from the perspective that people can have. Today, we unfortunately have a reality where emissions are indeed decreasing in the Western world – in Sweden, Europe, and the USA – but where emissions are simultaneously increasing in South America, in Asia, in Russia, and in other countries. Taken together, we do not yet see any emission reductions on a global level.

The work to reduce emissions will, judging by everything, continue to be very challenging in those parts of the world. When the transition eventually begins to be seriously noticed in China sometime after 2030, the reality is that this will begin to affect climate and weather phenomena only several decades later. It is therefore that people's perspectives regarding climate adaptation probably cannot extend far enough.

If one wants to reduce the effects of warming, it is climate adaptation measures that are the main focus, even though the long-term work naturally must be achieved by us reducing emissions. Challenges regarding a changed climate are something that societies, villages, cities and nations have dealt with at all times, and that work will become more important moving forward.

Madam Speaker! In 2019, Sweden adopted a national strategy for climate adaptation with the goal to "develop a long-term sustainable and robust society that actively meets climate changes by reducing vulnerabilities and seizing opportunities". This strategy was adopted in the Riksdag with complete unanimity between all parties.

The strategy laid the foundation for the work in a balanced way. It clarified, for example, that one should not establish specific dates for measures or decide on a certain climate scenario. To do so, the government at the time wrote in the strategy, would be counterproductive as one would risk making inefficient investments that might not be needed because science is constantly changing and we do not know how it will be in the future.

Madam Speaker! The government continues on the path taken and builds further on the work that has been done. This is positive, we in the Sweden Democrats think. No dramatic proposals are presented, which is also perfectly in order. The measures to be implemented out in the country must be well-balanced and sufficiently long-term, given that one cannot plan how far into the future as possible.

Madam Speaker! The strategy lays the foundation for the work on climate adaptation during the coming five years. The purpose is to achieve climate adaptation work that is socio-economically efficient, strategic, and action-oriented. The municipalities have the planning monopoly in Sweden and thus have the primary responsibility together with the property owners. The state and its agencies have an incredibly important task to support the work with knowledge and coordination.

Madam Speaker! The proposition states that continued work is required to remove obstacles identified in the climate adaptation work. This shall be addressed in an investigation to be completed in April next year. We think that is positive. Next year, SMHI and Naturvårdsverket will also propose a national system for monitoring and evaluating the climate adaptation work, and the National Expert Council for Climate Adaptation will produce an updated national climate and vulnerability analysis.

In summary, we in the Sweden Democrats believe that this is a balanced and effective way to approach the issues. The work continues, and there is a good state of preparedness in society. There is every reason to look forward to the continued work in the area of climate adaptation with confidence.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is very clear that we will need to adapt our society, and one of the things that is crucial is to have a functioning infrastructure for water and sewage in order to be able to ensure both well-functioning and safe living environments.

Large parts of the Swedish water and sewage networks were laid during the 50s and 60s, and the renovation needs are growing. The financing through the municipal water and sewage tax has largely gone towards managing ongoing operations, which means that investments are pushed into the future. The industry organization Svenskt Vatten speaks of an investment need of 16 billion annually and that the water tax needs to be increased by 50 percent to cover the identified needs.

At the same time, we have large distances and a small population in many municipalities. Calculated in meters of line per inhabitant, it can amount to a 30 times greater line length than in the large cities, and calculated in money, there can be a difference of 10,000 kronor per year between those with the lowest and those with the highest fees.

My question to the Sweden Democrats is therefore: What is the Sweden Democrats doing so that we can manage the renovation needs that exist in the water and sewage system, which is the basis for us to be able to manage all the climate adaptation that needs to be done? This applies primarily to sparsely populated municipalities.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can only agree with the problem picture that Rickard Nordin presents. We have had under-investments for many years, and the competence out in the country has probably been too low. There are also problems with the financing regarding the ongoing operations - I completely agree. We also have even greater problems in the area, for example water management, which have not been addressed. So, things need to be done here.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, we have no formalized cooperation with the government regarding water issues. They are, of course, fundamentally a municipal responsibility, but the municipalities need better conditions to meet the investment needs that exist. We, the Sweden Democrats, fully agree with that, and it is something we are working on to produce proposals for before the next parliamentary meeting. We intend to present the proposals in our committee motions.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Now, I did not ask about the government's policy, but about the Sweden Democrats' policy. The answer was, well, that one intends to see if one can produce something for the next parliamentary meeting. During the next mandate period, one shall consider if this is needed. Martin Kinnunen agreed on the problem description, but there were no proposals whatsoever. It is worrying for everyone who lives in sparsely populated municipalities, but also for those who live in larger cities, where we see a great need.

I can submit some ideas for the Sverigedemokraterna's policy development work.

One can investigate the possibility of amending the Water Services Act so that municipalities can charge a higher water fee in order to also be able to manage investments and not just the ongoing operations.

One can focus on eco-design of water products; this is good, not least in the new European Parliament.

Water-saving measures can be included in the green deduction. It is usually about energy today, but it could also be about water saving, which of course can also lead to energy savings.

One can also consider a climate adaptation fund similar to the one that exists in the Netherlands, which can support the water system's need for renovation. It will be difficult for smaller municipalities to take this on their own, and in that case, it may be wise for the state to help in some way.

These were some small points that Martin Kinnunen would like to read about in our committee motions before his own writing during the next mandate period.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! As said, work needs to be done in this area. There are also several parallel processes ongoing that will be presented next year.

One must remember that water issues are a municipal responsibility. I am not convinced that the solution is to build up a state fund to cover these costs. The question is where we should place the costs for the water issues.

This is still a municipal responsibility. The most important thing for the state and its agencies is to contribute expertise and to coordinate the knowledge that exists. Fundamentally, at the municipal level in Sweden, one has not taken the responsibility that one should have taken.

The conditions regarding the financing, however, need to be addressed; I completely agree with that. This is something that I hope decisions can be made on here in the Riksdag in the near future in order to create better conditions.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Martin Kinnunen mentioned in his speech that the state shall support with knowledge and coordination. In the government's latest budget, which the Sverigedemokraterna were involved in negotiating, the government phased out funds for MSB's work with knowledge building and the county administrative boards' work with coordination. My question to Martin Kinnunen is whether the Sverigedemokraterna in the budget negotiations will work to restore funds to MSB and the county administrative boards specifically for knowledge and coordination.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Söderberg, for the question!

MSB pays out state grants to municipalities to prevent, for example, floods, landslides, avalanches and erosion. One pays at most 60 percent of the cost of the measures, which I think is an acceptable deal.

In the budget bill for 2024, we decided here in the Riksdag that one can apply for support of up to 500 million. I do not agree that there is no money - 500 million is, after all, a lot of money.

There are also agencies that have very extensive appropriations and which definitely still have very good opportunities to continue the supporting and coordinating work in this area.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I know that there are funds to apply for at MSB when it comes to measures. I want to point out that what I am referring to are the funds that were phased out in the budget. It says in the government's budget bill that one is phasing out funds to MSB and to the county administrative boards' coordination work for climate adaptation, which I deeply regret.

And since Martin Kinnunen did not answer this question, I ask that the Sverigedemokraterna look extra closely at this in the budget negotiations, as precisely knowledge building and coordination is extremely important.

The second question I want to address is that the IPCC in its latest report clearly shows that we are on track towards a world that is 3 degrees warmer by the year 2100. As Martin Kinnunen mentioned, Sweden has worked actively to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, but globally we are looking to end up closer to a 3-degree warmer world. The question is what responsibility the state has to account for the risks this entails for Sweden and the Swedish population.

I am interested in the Sweden Democrats' view on what risk appetite the state should have, given that Martin Kinnunen mentioned that in this strategy, one does not take a position on what potential global warming should be accounted for in the country's adaptation measures. What do the Sweden Democrats see as what Sweden should account for in order to protect the country's population against the risks of climate change?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with the first question, which concerned budget funds. In 2023, 482 million kronor were paid out from MSB. The forecast from MSB is that approximately the same amount of money will be used now, so we have no dramatic change. If 482 million kronor were consumed in 2023 and 500 million kronor have been appropriated now, then there cannot have been any reduction; it becomes very difficult to assert such a thing.

Elin Söderberg also asked what temperature increase we should take into account and what risk appetite we should have. What I remember from a number of presentations in the Environmental Goals Commission is that researchers came to visit and said that there could be more rain or less rain in Sweden - it could become warmer in Sweden than globally, but it did not have to become warmer in Sweden than globally.

What we know is that on a global level we will be able to see certain trends. When it comes to what happens regionally, the uncertainty is significantly greater. We must have preparedness for all different scenarios, and therefore we must have a robust system. We must have an agriculture that can handle more rain, an agriculture that can handle less rain, and so on. We must take all possibilities into account.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker, colleagues and the Swedish people! We Social Democrats naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 4 under point 3 regarding a revised action plan for climate adaptation.

It is happening fast now. Glaciers are melting in the Alps, and floods are following one after another. Last year was the warmest ever recorded in many places. The climate crisis means that we experience more natural disasters, such as severe storms, droughts, floods, and heat. The number of extreme weather events is increasing.

The summer of 2023 brought a number of extreme weather events. The floods were many, and they affected many cities. Records fell - it was spoken of as a record year with record floods, record fires, and record drought. Even this year, Copernicus' annual report has shown that Europe's extreme climate continues.

Madam Speaker! The recent years' long periods of heat and an increased number of fires and floods show that the consequences of climate change are already here. Many of the Swedes who have been affected by extreme weather have experienced it firsthand. Basements have flooded. Forests have burned at an increasingly extreme pace. The elderly have been affected by the heat during long periods.

I myself particularly remember August 18, 2021. That night, Gävleborg and Dalarna were hit by severe flooding. I was in beautiful Söderhamn. In the morning, I and everyone with me were shocked by what the neighboring city had experienced. It was astonishing to see the pictures from Gävle, where cars looked like boats and where very many buildings stood in water.

Friends from Gävle have since told how the rain surged along the house walls in a way they had never experienced before and that they still get an adrenaline rush when they hear heavy rain hitting house walls. First, people thought it was a ten-year rain, then they spoke of a hundred-year rain, and then they understood that it was a thousand-year rain. It happened so fast, and it was unreal. There was water everywhere, and no barriers helped. The rescue services naturally had to first secure life and health, and rescue people. At the same time, desperate residents and homeowners saw the water surging in everywhere.

I have also been told how difficult it was for the municipality to get out information in the middle of the night and be ready with communicators who could explain how one secures, for example, housing. It was also difficult to quickly get help from authorities—all the help that society can mobilize. The hours passed, and during that time, more and more residential buildings and other structures were flooded. This led to coordination problems, for instance, and long telephone calls and different types of communication were needed between different authorities such as the municipality, the County Administrative Board, and MSB. There was also an expectation that MSB would be able to provide enormous aid efforts. But that is not the case. Such resources do not exist.

The timing was crucial, and today we know that the cost became enormous. It was about imaginary sums. For you to get a picture of the cost: Today, the insurance companies demand that Gävle pay them 1.2 billion for the damages they believe the sewage systems caused to the properties. Which municipality can handle that financially? None, I would say.

Madam Speaker! In the Swedish debate, there is talk of preparedness. But what preparedness do we actually have for such things? It has already hit us, and more awaits ahead. Sweden is hit by torrential rains that destroy cities and have consequences for years. We need to take this seriously so that Sweden can meet rising sea levels and other consequences of climate change, which are already inevitable. We need to manage the effects of a changed climate, which will also change further, through climate adaptation. Many Swedes have in recent years seen roads washed away, basements filled with water, and forests burn down.

The ability to secure society-critical infrastructure and housing must be strengthened. Better legislation, more coordinated authorities, broad solutions and investments rather than tax cuts are the way forward to climate-proof society. We must manage intense rainstorms better. We must therefore implement the national strategy for climate adaptation and the Paris Agreement. With the help of so-called rainstorm mapping, Sweden can increase preparedness to cope with the effects of climate change.

Sweden needs to invest in the modernization and expansion of our drinking water infrastructure to meet the challenges we see, something that has also been discussed earlier in the debate. We need to ensure a secure drinking water supply. But we must also understand that the municipalities' water and sewage companies will not be able to manage this solely by charging fees. It will simply be shockingly expensive. We also have an enormous maintenance debt, which many municipalities experience as very dramatic.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want the Riksdag to stand behind what we state in our follow-up motion that Sweden should have an action plan for improved climate preparedness where concrete measures are identified. Environmental monitoring is crucial for us to be able to reach Sweden's environmental goals. This is where the Social Democrats are investing. Clearer legislation, more coordination between agencies, more policy instruments, broad solutions, and investments instead of tax cuts were needed. That is what we believe is the way forward. Furthermore, it will be more expensive to do the opposite.

Investments are needed in safe and secure drinking water supply in preparation for potential crises.

The Social Democrats invest more than the right-wing conservative government in this, and we also invest significantly more in expenditure area 20.

Madam Speaker! Climate adaptation alone is not enough to protect our societies in the future. Emissions must also be reduced. About six years ago, the UN's climate council released a development report, and I remember it because it was so dramatic. It was released, therefore, before the torrential rain disaster in Gävle. The message was that not even Manhattan, that is, one of the world's wealthiest places, can manage solely by climate-adapting against the sea levels that the world will experience if global warming is allowed to continue. According to the report, Manhattan would not be able to climate-adapt away the problems even if they had started the work back then, in 2018. It simply becomes too expensive. I think of this when I hear how Gävle describes the impossibility of expanding the water and sewage systems so that they can handle the amounts of rain that fell in 2021.

We can obviously do better, and we will climate-adapt. I have said that all the time, and that is what we Social Democrats stand for. But it will not be enough. It will be far too expensive. We must also reduce emissions, and therefore it is so worrying that the government is not reducing emissions but on the contrary increasing them so that we risk not reaching the goals by 2030, nor our own transport goals.

The climate adaptation work also relies on climate policy to reduce emissions. Our strong message to the government is therefore: Change course! Do the right thing! Invest in a proper climate policy!

(Applause)

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

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Droughts, forest fires, water shortages, heavy rainfall and floods make it obvious that climate change is affecting us here and now. In Sweden, we have noticed a difference in our climate in recent years, and we can expect that heavy rainfall will increase in both intensity and frequency. This places new and greater demands on construction and that more actors work actively to prevent floods, collapses and landslides. Not least, we must ensure that we equip and climate-adapt the infrastructure when we build new.

In the Paris Agreement, it is stated that the current need for climate adaptation in the world is great. All regions are affected by climate change, and even in Sweden we have felt the effects, not least after storm Hans. The worst hit, however, are those in the most vulnerable developing countries. There, a flood does not mean that one is late for work, but rather that one is left without a harvest and thus without food that year, that the house collapses, and that the family is forced to flee.

Climate change contributes to poverty and insecure food supply, which can also have serious consequences for peace and security. Reduced emissions, increased resilience, and a green transition are therefore crucial to securing people's living conditions in both the short and long term.

The need is great in both Sweden and the world, and the decisions made today will affect what tomorrow looks like. Therefore, I am proud that the Moderate-led government is investing in what makes the biggest difference for the climate. We are removing inefficient symbolic politics and investing where we do the most good.

Madam Speaker! In the first instance, the focus must be on reducing emissions and meeting the climate goals. But it is not enough to look at what happens within Sweden's borders. We must also lift our gaze and consider the global developments.

Global emissions are currently increasing. The question one should therefore ask is rather how Sweden can contribute to other countries following the work that has already become a reality to a much greater extent in Sweden.

If we are to manage the transition in Sweden, the EU, and globally, we must therefore conduct a policy that makes other countries want to follow suit. Sweden shall be a green pioneer country, not because it feels good in the moment, but to show the world through practical action what is possible and get more to follow suit.

Unfortunately, no other country in the world will want to follow the Swedish example if the only thing we have to show is high electricity prices, an unstable energy system, and the lowest growth in the EU. On the contrary, low electricity prices, stability in the energy system, and high economic growth are required. A growing economy is not only important for the long-term financing of more police and more hands in health and social care, but also for having the resources to transition and combat climate change.

General reforms for strengthened competitiveness and economic growth are also good climate policy. It gives Sweden and Swedish companies the resources to carry out the green transition in practice. To maintain our status as a green pioneer, a bourgeois government that sees the needs and takes them seriously is therefore required.

Madam Speaker! Common to many of the environmental problems that humans have encountered so far is that she has also shown herself capable of solving them. The solution has not been to reduce human activity, but on the contrary, the solution has been a combination of technical innovations, economic growth, public demands, and political accountability. This gives hope and confidence that we can also manage today's major environmental problems.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

Finally, I would like to thank the committee for a rewarding and constructive year. Here in the debate, we are often sharp with one another, but both before and after, we share many good laughs, and we gladly have a coffee together. It is something that I appreciate very much and something that I am convinced democracy benefits from. A big thank you for this, indeed!

I also want to thank the committee's secretariat, the Chancellery, the speakers and my colleagues in the committee and wish everyone a wonderful summer with just the right amount of sun and rain.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Storckenfeldt for a contribution that contained several parts where we can agree on the importance of adapting society and the investments when it comes to climate adaptation. I think there are parts where one can find common ground there.

I also want to say that I and many with me appreciate the pleasant conclusion which shows that we can often cooperate.

With that said, I must nevertheless ask two questions. One is what we Social Democrats have raised in our follow-up motion, namely the importance of finding ways to also take responsibility for the situation that municipalities face. This concerns, in particular, water facilities that are outdated and the fact that there is a maintenance debt.

We will have strategic infrastructure that risks being damaged if we do not take collective responsibility and find models for it. Therefore, I want to hear how the Moderates and the Member of Parliament view these issues. It is important to be able to move forward here together.

The second question is at a higher level of conflict. It concerns reducing emissions. I note that the member, in their speech, once again uses the polemical description that the government "removes inefficient symbolic politics and invests where we do the most good."

I and we Social Democrats must really question that type of slogan. Sweden currently has major concerns that emissions are increasing. There is talk of an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of 5.9 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents by 2030 – and I am taking the low figures. Swedish authorities also agree that this no longer works. It is everyone from the Climate Policy Council to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency that criticizes this. I would like to hear what is effective in this.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! We Moderates are convinced that what helps the climate transition and the enormous transition that is to take place in Sweden and globally is not e-bike subsidies, electric car bonuses, or plastic bag taxes. It is this that I refer to when I speak of inefficient policies that have received criticism, not only from Moderates but also from experts and expert councils.

So, we have removed that. We have ensured that it is not the guiding principle for climate policy in Sweden, but rather that what lays the foundation is an energy system that is stable and robust and that can handle the enormous transition that is to take place.

If we are to continue to be an industrial country, we will need enormous amounts of clean electricity, and more than plastic bag taxes and electric bicycle premiums are required for that to become a reality. More nuclear power is required, all fossil-free types of power are required, and a robust foundation is required to the highest degree to ensure that it actually becomes a reality.

What has built Sweden strong has been low electricity prices. It is that which has driven many of the large investments to Sweden. It is that we are in the process of losing, and that is why we are placing the focus there, so that we can actually be a green pioneer country in the world and show what is possible.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Storckenfeldt for that description, even though I do not share it - not at all.

The image of Sweden, and also the reality, after the social democratically governed government is that Sweden was in a leading position globally as a leading climate nation. Sweden was one of the member countries that also helped when the EU's climate law was negotiated.

We have, therefore, in various ways shown in concrete action how one can lead with investments that were then innovative and which have been very important. It ranges from Klimatklivet to Industriklivet and to the political will to let the industry lead the development with new technology and achieve these reductions, which also become important even outside of Sweden.

From there to symbolic actions - it becomes so boring when one gets stuck in that type of PR trick. Sweden was so much more than this, even though it is also important to cycle more. It is boring that one gets stuck in this instead of looking at what can be the next big step for Sweden.

Regarding electrification, it is a matter of opening doors. We Social Democrats are in complete agreement. We also see that electrification is a very important part moving forward, but that is not what our criticism is based on; rather, it is about the fact that this government is increasing emissions and missing the targets for 2030. It is devastating for the climate, because it is so important to act in time.

We are already five out of twelve in the climate policy. So focus on answering the questions we ask: Why are emissions increasing for the first time with the member's government?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to be clear when I say that the image of Sweden as a green pioneer country stands strong internationally. It is very clear when one is out in the world and discussing with politicians and entrepreneurs all around the world.

What we know, however, is that we do not win internationally or globally and that the global transition will not occur if we in Sweden do things that only reduce emissions here and now.

We cannot base our climate policy on something that is incredibly short-sighted. The reduction obligation is such an example, which I believe Jytte Guteland is referring to. We saw very clearly that we would not have been able to follow the path all the way through. There was a lot of criticism precisely because it was not possible. It was incredibly short-sighted. It would not have been possible to reach the goal by 2045, and it would not have made us appear as an example to the world. We see instead that these fuels can be used in places where it is very difficult to electrify.

Jytte Guteland highlighted two examples that I would like to place a little extra weight on, and those are Klimatklivet and Industriklivet. They are not the things we say are inefficient. Rather, we have strengthened them. They are things we thought were positive that the Social Democratic government put forward and which we therefore continue with. But inefficient, symbolic political matters – such as plastic bag taxes, e-bike premiums, and the electric car bonus, which we know did not lead to people replacing their old fossil-fueled cars but rather buying an additional electric car – we are now moving away from.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Helena Storckenfeldt from Moderaterna mentioned in her speech that one removes inefficient symbol politics and invests where it does the most good. Today we are discussing the government's letter regarding a national strategy and action plan for climate adaptation.

What the government has done in the area of climate adaptation since it took office includes, among other things, phasing out the grant to MSB regarding the production of analyses and impact assessments concerning climate risks. The government has also phased out the funds for the county administrative boards' climate adaptation coordinators. Therefore, my question is whether Helena Storckenfeldt considers that these agencies' important work for climate adaptation is ineffective symbolic politics.

Furthermore, I would like to know what the government has done that the Moderaterna consider to be of greatest benefit when it comes to climate adaptation.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! We know that the activities MSB carries out under its appropriation will continue to be able to be conducted. They are still funded.

We also know that in 2020, the previous government, which Elin Söderberg's party was part of, invested 75 million on preventive measures against landslides and other natural disasters. In 2021, they invested 24.9 million on preventive measures against landslides and other natural disasters. In 2022, in the Moderate, Christian Democrat, and Sweden Democrat budget, suddenly 520 million kronor were invested. Today, under the Moderate-led government, we have 507 million available for all municipalities in Sweden to apply for.

Mr. Speaker! I think the figures speak for themselves. It is very clear that we are prioritizing climate adaptation measures. This is local work for which municipalities and property owners are responsible. We have ensured that the funds are available. We hear that it is most problematic when they fluctuate. Now we know that this budget is fixed. This is financed over a long period ahead, and municipalities will continue to be able to apply for money.

Mr. Speaker! I do not, therefore, think there is any doubt that we consider climate adaptation measures to be a priority. The figures speak for themselves.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet negotiated a budget bill in the autumn of 2021 for 2022. It is welcome that the Moderaterna, when they took out parts of that budget and it was to go through the Riksdag, did not remove exactly those 520 million for preventive measures. Since then, the Moderaterna have therefore not cut the appropriation to MSB regarding the funds that municipalities can apply for to take measures. What has been phased out are the funds to MSB that concern looking at risks and performing consequence analyses and investigations to obtain a good basis when one then is to apply for funds for measures. Those funds have been phased out by the government. It stands clearly and distinctly in the budget bill for 2024.

In the same budget, the government has also phased out the funds that went to the county administrative boards' climate adaptation coordinators. This is central agency work for climate adaptation. I am therefore deeply concerned when the Moderaterna talk about removing inefficient symbolic politics. It is about central agency work with climate adaptation.

In Helena Storckenfeldt's speech, the situation for developing countries and other parts of the world that are affected extremely seriously by the consequences of climate change was also mentioned. It is about poverty, famine, and an increased risk of crises and conflicts. They affect security policy locally but also internationally. Therefore, I ask Helena Storckenfeldt if the government intends to increase aid to countries when it comes to climate adaptation measures.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have ensured that a larger part of the EU's aid goes to climate measures and not least climate adaptation. We have also been very clear from the Swedish side that a larger part of the Swedish aid goes to climate measures and not least climate adaptation measures.

Miljöpartiet often wants to claim that they pursue a policy that is well-anchored in research. Nevertheless, they tend to do the opposite in some cases. In the European Parliament, we have a clear example of how Miljöpartiet, together with its party group, not only opposed the legislative proposal to allow new technologies such as gene scissors and new genomic methods but also actively campaigned against it. It could be a win for everyone as we could strengthen the competitiveness of agriculture while simultaneously transitioning agriculture to become more sustainable by, for example, letting the technology replace harmful pesticides.

Mr. Speaker! It is very clear that there is an agreement within the research. The new technology, which was also awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, could contribute to making our food system more resilient by developing improved plant varieties that are more climate-resilient. It is, therefore, climate adaptation in practice. It would make them more pest-resistant and provide higher yields. It is a technology that could make an enormous difference not only in Sweden but in the most vulnerable developing countries where climate change hits the hardest. Still, the Green Party chose to vote no and actively oppose this. I wonder why.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are in a climate crisis. The EU's climate data service Copernicus states that 2023 became the warmest year so far, globally. From Greece, it is reported that the heatwave has arrived record early this year. This causes great concern for the rest of the summer. Temperatures of over 40 degrees have already been recorded.

The temperature increase in Sweden has so far been approximately twice as fast as the average global warming. Even on Swedish soil, we are experiencing the consequences of climate change with fluctuations between extreme heavy rainfall, drought, and heatwaves.

It is clear now that we must leave the weak, fragmented society behind. We face a time when the public sector needs to have muscles to protect the citizens and make society function. We face a time when we must build the common good robustly. It is urgent. We need to both press down emissions and climate-adapt Sweden. The adaptation concerns everything from different forms of flood protection to protection from drought and heat.

The climate adaptation investigation says that it will cost Sweden an average of 2 billion per year until the year 2100 to climate-adapt Sweden. And these costs will increase significantly if we do not manage to reach our set climate goals.

Mr. Speaker! What do we then need to do to succeed with the climate adaptation that is required? Climate change leads to significantly altered precipitation. The risk of heavy rainfall increases while longer periods of drought become more common. Agriculture will need to adapt its water management to this with, for example, more embankments, more ditches, more drainage, and irrigation systems that need to be developed.

The forest is also affected, and this needs to be met by long-term planning that includes, for example, more mixed forest combined with a strengthened biodiversity that can withstand drought with associated insect attacks and that also withstands heavy rainfall better.

It is also important to review our existing road network and our railway in order to climate-proof as much as possible. Cities and urban areas need to be adapted so that they can withstand the floods that are now occurring at increasingly frequent intervals. They also need to be adapted to the heatwaves that are now becoming increasingly common even here in Sweden. For example, more well-insulated houses and more greenery in the cities are needed, which can provide shade and lower the temperature for the residents, while the greenery can simultaneously soak up more water during heavy rainfall. It is clear that the state needs to contribute more to the work of municipalities and regions with climate adaptation.

Mr. Speaker! In a final report from SKR's program preparation for sustainable transition, one of the conclusions is that the state needs to powerfully and long-term strengthen the state grant to municipalities for climate adaptation measures and broaden the grant to include more climate effects as well as enable regions and property owners to also apply.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Left Party have presented a number of proposals in our budget that may be of value to mention in this debate.

We reject the reallocation of funds to MSB and the county administrative boards that the government has made with 50.5 million kronor. We propose a new state support to municipalities for climate-adapted and greener cities. The support shall be given for the development of existing urban greenery as well as the establishment of new urban greenery to promote stormwater management and biodiversity.

These measures promote preventive work to counteract the effects of increasingly frequent extreme weather that increases the risk of floods and heatwaves. The appropriation shall, among other things, enable state co-financing for measures to convert paved surfaces by installing water-retention measures such as planter beds. The support also enables support for urban cultivation in the immediate environment. Common to the measures is that they shall promote climate adaptation as well as the environmental quality objectives Good built environment and A rich plant and animal life.

We also propose an investment support for climate adaptation within agriculture, where we want to introduce a state support for investments and measures within agriculture that strengthen agriculture's water management in a changing climate and which thereby contribute to strengthening our self-sufficiency rate of food. The support shall also cover so-called agrivoltaic systems that combine solar energy production with cultivation in agriculture. We also consider that the support for the establishment and maintenance of wetlands in the agricultural landscape needs to increase.

Finally, we propose in the Left Party's spring budget that municipalities should be able to move forward public investments within the construction and civil engineering sector that would otherwise be postponed due to the strained economic situation.

That includes measures for climate adaptation. We propose a model that involves the state stepping in and covering half of the investment cost for planned projects that can be carried out between 2024 and 2026. More about this can be read in Vänsterpartiet's spring budget.

I move for approval of reservation 16, which concerns the significant need for state funding for climate adaptation.

With that, I wish everyone a lovely Midsummer.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety.

The effects of climate change are already tangible, not least with rising sea levels and an increased frequency of extreme weather events. We have all seen the images of floods, fires, and storms, which have become increasingly common. But what can we do to meet these challenges beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions? The answer lies in climate adaptation.

Climate adaptations mean that we adapt our societies and ecosystems to reduce the negative effects of climate change and seize the opportunities that may arise. It is about preparing ourselves for the future by building resilience and flexibility in our systems.

Why is this so important then? Firstly, it is about protecting human lives. Extreme weather, such as hurricanes and floods, can cause enormous destruction and lead to loss of life. By investing in climate adaptation, we can build safer homes, develop effective warning systems, and strengthen our infrastructure to better withstand these events. One example is the Netherlands, which by building advanced flood protections has succeeded in protecting its low-lying land from the forces of the sea. But, Mr. Speaker, we have examples even closer to home. Here in Värmland, in Arvika, protective dikes have been built against Glafsfjorden so that Kyrkviken in Arvika will not be flooded as we saw in the early 2000s.

Secondly, it is about economic stability. Climate change entails significant economic costs. Damage to infrastructure, lost workdays, and destroyed farmland are just a few examples. By investing in climate adaptation, we can reduce these costs and create a more robust economy. Companies that proactively adapt their operations to climate change are also better equipped to manage risks and seize new opportunities, which makes them more competitive in the long term.

Thirdly, it is about preserving our environment and biodiversity. Climate change threatens many species and ecosystems. Forests, wetlands, and coral reefs act as natural protection against storms and floods while simultaneously contributing to many ecosystem services.

But climate adaptations are not just about reacting to threats, but also about seeing opportunities. By investing in, among other things, sustainable technology and renewable energy, we can create new jobs and drive economic growth in a sustainable way. Cities that invest in green roofs and walls, energy-efficient buildings, and sustainable transport become not only more resilient to climate change; they also become more attractive places to live and work.

It is important to remember that climate adaptations are not an alternative to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Both of these efforts are necessary and complement each other. By reducing our emissions, we can slow the pace of climate change, while climate adaptations help us manage the changes that are already inevitable.

When I read the government's communication National Strategy and the government's action plan for climate adaptation, which form the background for today's debate, it struck me that much has been done and many assignments have been assigned to various agencies, regardless of the government's color. It is somewhat difficult to get a proper overall picture with so many actors. Even the National Expert Council for Climate Adaptation points out that in some parts it is unclear where the responsibility lies. Therefore, it was pleasing that the communication clearly addresses this with responsibility and the importance of a very clear distribution of responsibility.

According to the government, measures to reduce climate-related risks should primarily be handled by those who are affected and responsible, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. In Sweden, we often have the motto that he who has responsibility when the sun shines also has it when the storm howls. This applies largely here as well, but the demarcation can in some parts be difficult.

The work needs to be scientifically based, carried out from a holistic perspective, and coordinated with relevant actors, whether it concerns floods, higher water flows, and sea-level rises that threaten society, infrastructure, and business, or whether it concerns high temperatures that entail risks to the health and well-being of humans and animals with droughts and fires that threaten society, infrastructure, and business, and everything in between.

Climate adaptations are crucial to protect our societies, economies, and environments from the negative effects of climate change. By being proactive and investing in these adaptations, we can create a safer, more sustainable, and resilient future for us all. It is not just a matter of survival, but it is also about seizing the opportunities that lie ahead of us.

The Government is clear in the letter that Sweden shall be climate-adapted, resilient, and take advantage of the opportunities that come with a changed climate. During the current parliamentary term, a number of measures need to be taken to create the conditions for a structured, coordinated, and socially efficient work on climate adaptation that leads to a reduction in vulnerability to the effects of climate change. To accelerate climate adaptation measures, the Government intends to advocate for a number of measures, including that clear and purposeful goals and monitoring systems are established, that responsibility for the climate adaptation work is clearly distributed, and that there are good conditions to take one's responsibility. Furthermore, the Government intends to advocate for synergies with the work on preventing natural disasters, crisis preparedness, and supply preparedness.

An investigation has also been commissioned which shall, among other things, review how the state can remove obstacles so that cost-effective measures can be implemented more quickly, which is requested by many municipalities.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I wish to conclude my speech. I would like to wish the Speaker and the Speaker's Presidium, the Chamber Office, MJU and my colleagues in the committee a good and pleasant summer.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! The climate issue is our time's most important issue. Even if we reach the goals of the Paris Agreement and Sweden's climate goals - although it feels like the government is doing what it can to ensure the goals are missed - we will need to adapt our societies to a changing climate. All too often, the mental image is that if we only reach the climate goals, we do not need to do anything more. But that is not true. Even 1.5 or 2 degrees of warming will have an impact.

Climate adaptation measures must, of course, not become a measure that replaces emission reductions. On the other hand, they need to be prioritized so that we have a safe and well-functioning society. If there is one thing the covid pandemic has taught us, it is to have good crisis planning. We must prepare ourselves so that the effects of such extensive events have as little harmful impact as possible. We know that in some areas it is no longer possible to insure one's building. In Skåne, erosion has taken houses. The risk of landslides in Götaälvdalen is increasing, and it was pure luck that no one was injured during the last large landslide in Stenungsund. There are large areas in Sweden that MSB classifies as serious risk areas in Jämtland, Mälardalen, Västsverige, and Skåne.

Planning for a changing climate must be done already now because it is significantly more cost-effective to prevent than to repair damage. It involves, among other things, adapting properties to protect residents against extreme heatwaves, ensuring that streets can withstand increasingly powerful rainstorms, securing coasts against rising sea levels, and protecting forests against fires and increased pest attacks.

We must place special emphasis on fortifying society-critical functions such as water supply, sewage systems, power systems, roads and railways. New infestations of spruce bark beetles have also increased in recent years, which is partly due to dry summers. This involves large losses of timber. Timber and residual products from the forest were needed to replace emission-intensive materials and fossil sources. It has also caused the carbon sink in the forest to no longer increase at the rate we have seen previously. All of this is climate effects that are already occurring.

We have now received an updated national strategy for climate adaptation. That is good. The government deserves praise for that. What is missing is real action. There are many fine words but little workshop.

But I am not the one who just complains, but I also intend to deliver a number of solutions to the government. Here are therefore tips and ideas, which the government is welcome to take with them to incorporate into a new updated version or present in its budget bill this autumn.

First and foremost, climate adaptation must receive sufficient resources. Boverket has compiled a number of reports in a preliminary study stating that at least 100 billion will be needed for climate adaptation until 2100. That is 1.3 billion kronor per year, which means that the government is currently financing 7 percent of the expected need.

Like the nuclear waste fund, we need to find a financing solution that can secure sufficient resources both in the short and long term. Centerpartiet has proposed a climate adaptation fund that can help finance things in the local community, not least the water and sewage systems that I mentioned in a previous exchange. There are enormous renovation needs there, not least in the countryside. There are many meters of piping per inhabitant there.

The government has, instead of investing, cut the appropriations to MSB. It is directly irresponsible. One should instead appoint an inquiry to look at additional financing models. It could, for example, be wise for several municipalities to help each other finance measures upstream in a municipality to provide increased efficiency. It is precisely a question of the effective measures, which the now absent Moderate advocated for, but then the regulatory frameworks also need to work. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 13 in the report.

The government should also consider utilizing our roofs better for stormwater management. The roofs on our houses must be used to a greater extent for electricity production, stormwater management, and ecosystem services. It could involve building more green roofs that can contribute to receiving larger amounts of rainfall. Such climate adaptations are socio-economically smart and should, just like reduced emissions, be eligible for support.

The regulations should be adapted to facilitate agriculture's climate adaptation. Unfortunately, we see that rigid rules are blocking measures within agriculture. This concerns, among other things, rules for water extraction and biotope protection, which in areas with stone walls, for example, make rational irrigation impossible.

The lack of concrete proposals in the section on agriculture in the national strategy is telling, especially when it is almost not at all about managing drought but only about temporarily large amounts of rainfall.

The government should also include climate adaptation in the existing climate policy framework as well as the Climate Act. Preventing emissions is always of the highest priority, but the work of reducing emissions and adapting society must also be linked. In this way, the issue of climate adaptation will receive greater political weight and priority, and the work can be continuously evaluated by the Climate Policy Council.

I also want to convey to the government to increase the efforts for research, coordination, and evaluation of the work with climate adaptation, and then it will become more socio-economically efficient and faster. Please look at other countries that have already been hit harder than us. We are spared compared to many others.

There is simply a large number of measures that could have been included in the government's action plan, but they are missing. It is unfortunately a prevailing trend in the government's work on the climate area. There are many fine words, a lot of talk, and far too little workshop. Given that the government is increasing emissions, one should invest even more in climate adaptation. We see a world that will become warmer because of the government's policy. Instead, the appropriations are being reduced and the work is coming to a standstill.

This is dangerous and directly irresponsible, and it will affect everyone from farmers to villa owners negatively. It is not acceptable.

My advice to the government is to supplement the action plan immediately before it is too late.

(Applause)

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the report MJU18 National strategy and the government's action plan for climate adaptation.

Floods, high temperatures, uncertain water availability, landslides, rockslides and erosion, droughts and fires, increased amounts of pests, diseases and invasive species, effects on biodiversity, threats to secure energy and food supply, impact on the conditions for the finance and insurance industry and global effects affecting trade, food production, immigration, international relations and secure living environments - these are the challenges that the government sees as needing to be managed due to the global climate effects, Mr. Speaker.

It is not in the future. All the things I mentioned have already occurred. Against that background, it is easy to understand that this has had and will increasingly have consequences for individuals, the business sector, infrastructure, and important societal functions.

The effects of climate change create new conditions for the entire societal development. And Sweden's vulnerability has increased, as the work on measures to reduce the impact of natural disasters on society has so far proceeded too slowly.

Mr. Speaker! The most important thing we can do for the climate is to reduce our emissions and transition from fossil to fossil-free. The Government, as the first government, shows with our climate policy the way to reach the climate goal 2045. At the same time, we must work with the effects of the global climate on Sweden. The basis there is, among other things, the restructuring of the energy policy with all types of power, including nuclear power.

The government has now updated the climate adaptation strategy and developed an action plan for what needs to be done in the next five years. Now, cooperation and concrete measures are needed at all levels so that we can protect our communities.

The goal of climate adaptation is a society that functions in a changed climate. Climate adaptation should not be something one does on the side, but it must be integrated into the work when we develop our societies. But we are not there yet, and many steps are required before climate adaptation is a natural part of our operations.

Climate adaptation is expensive, especially if it is not built into the development from the beginning. Measures for climate adaptation need to be based on a holistic perspective, be carried out in cooperation between relevant actors, and be cost-effective. A focus for this government is to create the conditions to implement concrete climate adaptation measures. To achieve this, we need to increase knowledge about climate risks, remove regulatory barriers, and develop responsibility and financing models.

Mr. Speaker! The work with climate adaptation and crisis and supply preparedness are closely linked, and they need to be coordinated to an even greater extent. Crisis preparedness is strengthened by, for example, infrastructure and water supply being robust, even in a changed climate. At the same time, climate change increases the need to review the country's already large maintenance debt, which we have heard about earlier in the debate, of our water, sewage, and stormwater systems.

I have personally seen how 90 millimeters of local rain in one and a half hours on our street could not be absorbed by the stormwater system. It resulted in all the villas on the other side of the street getting 50 centimeters of water in their basements, despite the neighbors' attempts to build embankments. Photos, family memories, and basements were destroyed.

I raise this matter to point out that an incident which was very tough for the affected villa owners hardly made it into the newspapers, compared to the major floods. But it is those types of incidents that the municipalities need to take into account already today.

Mr. Speaker! Municipalities and property owners have a central role in climate adaptation work, because the effects of a natural disaster are local and the municipalities have the monopoly when it comes to detailed plans.

What can cooperation look like? Who is responsible? What hinders cooperation? And who pays? The Government has appointed a special investigator to look into exactly those questions. Who is responsible for measures that need to be taken on land that the municipality does not have authority over? What possible financing models exist to distribute the costs in the long term between those who benefit from the measures? The investigation is to be completed in April next year. The Government's goal is to be able to propose measures during this parliamentary term.

At the same time, much work is being done at the state level, in our 30 agencies and our county administrative boards. It concerns underlying data and guidelines for decision-makers, but also cooperation and funding of measures that are extensive and require long-term commitment. SMHI is responsible for a national knowledge center for climate adaptation. And SGI has a central role in reducing the risks of landslides, avalanches, and erosion. These are two examples. And in some cases, there are state grants for measures against floods, landslides, avalanches, and erosion, for example along the Göta älv. These are managed by SGI and MSB.

Even though a great deal is being done today, we must increase the pace and develop the state's work. An important part is to know how the current work is progressing and what is effective. SMHI and Naturvårdsverket shall therefore, in February next year, propose a national system for monitoring and evaluating current climate adaptation work.

The National Expert Council for Climate Adaptation has been tasked with producing an updated national climate and vulnerability analysis. It shall identify climate-related risks that Sweden needs to manage within different sectors and geographical areas.

These two assignments will make it easier for the government to assess when the state should coordinate efforts or contribute with funding for adaptation measures. The government also intends to analyze whether national guidelines should be developed for the selection of climate scenarios and risk assessment. But this requires a careful review, and they must contain a large measure of flexibility.

Climate change affects, among other things, precipitation in Sweden. The Government has therefore commissioned a number of investigations and assignments focusing on the management of too much or too little water and on the quality of the water. This concerns water supply, sewage and stormwater, water balances and groundwater extraction, among other things to understand the paths of water during a flood.

The government has also made major investments in the rewetting of drained wetlands. This is especially important for managing climate effects but also for water quality and biodiversity.

The Liberals see that it is municipalities, the business community and property owners that have a decisive role in climate-adapting society and the natural environment. It requires cooperation, knowledge and long-term decisions.

The State's task is to create the conditions for this, remove obstacles and, for larger measures, contribute with state resources.

Mr. Speaker! With those words, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all motions. I wish the members a pleasant and happy Midsummer.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have a debate on the government's communication on national strategy for climate adaptation. Nuclear power was, however, mentioned in the presentation. Therefore, I would like to ask a question about that.

The government has proceeded with a reorganization of energy policy with a focus on building new nuclear power without having analyzed the effects of this reorganization on the climate transition. At the same time, economists argue that a one-sided focus on the expansion of new nuclear power risks delaying electrification and increasing electricity prices in the medium term and thereby delaying the climate transition. A report from Chalmers highlights the same issue: that a one-sided focus on new nuclear power risks delaying electrification and that investments in electricity in the near term may be missing.

Therefore, my question is: Why have the Liberals and the government chosen to proceed with a reorganization of the energy policy where the focus is new nuclear power without analyzing the effects of this reorganization on the climate transition?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Elin Söderberg for the question. The energy system is one of my core issues. If we look at what has happened in recent years, we see that the previous government decommissioned a number of nuclear power plants, which is the root cause of why my home area has huge problems getting enough electricity. We are talking primarily about the decommissioning of Ringhals 1 and 2. It has caused the whole of Western Sweden and the fuel supply for Sweden to have huge problems. If we had kept them, the whole of Sweden would have had a significantly lower electricity price today.

These are things that the current government has had to take care of. It is thought-provoking, or worrying, that these shutdowns were made without looking at what is required in an electricity system for it to be secure and predictable and able to deliver electricity to companies and residents where it is needed and when it is needed. Now the government is trying to repair this.

For an electricity system to function, predictable electrical energy is needed. Everyone here in the chamber knows that we need to double the amount of electricity if we are to manage the climate transition. That we have more electricity is the very foundation, otherwise we cannot transition.

If we are to achieve a doubling, it means that hydropower, which today accounts for 50 percent, will only account for 25 percent in the future. How are we to secure electricity production if it is weather-dependent to 75 percent?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, we have a situation with a power shortage in southern Sweden. That requires a powerful expansion of electricity production in the near term as well as an expansion of the power grids so that we can manage the power shortage.

The Leader of the Opposition speaks in his answer about how it would have been if we had kept nuclear power. But we do not face the choice between where we are now and that nuclear power which has already been decommissioned remaining. The question instead is what we do moving forward.

Moving forward, we need an electricity system that is secure and robust, and we need to meet the power shortage. Therefore, it is absolutely central that we expand electricity production significantly in the near term, and Miljöpartiet has presented clear proposals to do this. We also have sharp planning goals much earlier than the current government does.

In order for the electricity system to be robust, it also needs to be climate-adapted. My next question to the member therefore concerns how she views the climate-related risks for the electricity system if one chooses to proceed with an expansion of new nuclear power. Has the government analyzed the effects of climate change on the electricity system?

For example, in France, nuclear power plants have had to shut down because the temperature in the sea has been so high that the cooling systems could not be used. Climate change places us in completely new risks. Therefore, I see it as incredibly important that a consequence analysis based on climate-related risks is conducted when proceeding with the energy policy.

We have seen that the government has not conducted any impact assessment regarding the effects of the reorganization of energy policy for the climate transition. Now the question is whether an impact assessment of climate-related risks for the electricity system will be conducted.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite fascinating that Elin Söderberg is now standing in the speaker's chair and asking the government to look at the effects of the reorganization of the energy policy. I wonder where that analysis was when the previous government - with the Social Democrats and the Green Party - shut down four nuclear power plants.

Of course, we shall look forward. That is the only way the government can work. But I must still pose a counter-question: Where was the impact analysis from the previous government when they decommissioned four nuclear power plants, something that destroyed Sweden's energy production? This is something everyone agrees on.

The current government is positive towards all types of power. But as I mentioned earlier, we must build more predictable energy to meet electricity production and the climate transition ahead. The Liberals do not want to expand the rivers. Hydropower can of course be made more efficient, but since we do not want to expand the rivers further, we must look at other predictable energy. That is where nuclear power is the key today.

We now need to look at how we can quickly increase this. But at the same time, we must, as the members say, see how we can quickly get more energy by 2030. To manage the effects of the weather-dependent energy sources, work is currently being done on energy storage. The Government has also made a decision to increase offshore wind power significantly more than the previous government did.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member of Parliament Gellerman for a speech that largely contained policies that we Social Democrats can agree with and stand up for. This applies in particular to what concerned the importance of looking forward regarding coordination models and financing models to manage the transition and climate-adapt the society.

Many municipalities are facing very large challenges. There is a maintenance debt in the water and sewage systems. There is also a challenge in that there will be more heavy rainfall in the future; we know that. We have already been hit many times. We heard the Member of Parliament Gellerman describe vividly how this has also affected her neighbors. All of this is important, and we need to work together here.

When it comes to climate adaptation, an important part is to ensure that global warming is stopped, as if it just continues, it will make the situation even worse.

Already six years ago, in 2018, the UN climate panel pointed out that not even Manhattan, one of the world's wealthiest areas, would manage to climate-adapt if one started already then, due to the sea-level rise that is faced and the rainfall amounts that will come. Already, I want to hear from Member of Parliament Gellerman how she assesses the policy that the government is pursuing right now in this regard. Through the SD-supported bourgeois government, the emissions are actually increasing for the first time.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question. I am pleased that we share the same view on so much of what the government is doing now. As someone said earlier in the debate: When it comes to climate adaptation, there is a greater consensus on what things need to be done moving forward.

A question was asked regarding the government's policy on the climate area. With the climate policy that the previous government pursued, it became very unclear whether we would reach the 2045 goals.

As I mentioned in my main speech, we are now making a reorganization, especially of the energy policy. Thereby, we lay the foundation for reaching the 2045 goals. Even those who have looked at the government's climate action plan have said that this is the plan that is closest when it comes to reaching the 2045 goals.

At the same time, we must take measures that ensure we get more energy here and now, reduce emissions today, and manage to facilitate business establishments. In Western Sweden, we have a coordinator who said at a meeting: Today I received notice that a company that was supposed to provide a thousand jobs will not locate its production here because there is no allocable electricity.

Moving forward, we need to invest more in electrical energy. I mentioned wind power. All types of power must be able to hold, above all perhaps wind power together with batteries. We also need to invest in gas turbines.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member of Parliament Gellerman for that description. We Social Democrats share the conviction that we need to electrify to manage the transition. In that, we can stand on common ground in very much. It is somewhat of a redundant point to take that debate.

We see, however, that the government is now increasing emissions instead of reducing them. According to calculations, it ends up somewhere at an increase of 5.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. This risks leading to us not meeting the 2030 goals. In fact, many agencies are now saying that we are not doing so.

It is difficult here to understand the government's rhetoric, which the Member of Parliament has picked up on. The government describes it as being in a better situation if one increases emissions further until 2030. It is not the case that the authorities agree with that. To achieve climate neutrality by 2045, it is necessary to be on the right track at all times. Otherwise, the Swedish people will see shock increases at the pump or face enormously difficult transitions in a short period of time.

I spoke a few years ago with Volvo's CEO, who described how important electrification is for Volvo. From the side of this large company, it was also described how important it is that we have clear objectives; otherwise, the small subcontractors risk falling through the cracks. There is a risk of a "bloodbath" for the small companies because they do not get time to transition.

Therefore, it is incomprehensible that this government, with a liberal climate minister at the helm, is slowing down. We need to maintain a clear goal for the entire society.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! What Member Guteland is talking about is very much about the reduction obligation. I myself sat in and negotiated the reduction obligation. Regarding the concerns I raised, it was heard that by putting all eggs in one basket regarding the reduction obligation to meet the climate goals, one would get incredibly much higher prices at the pump. No consideration was taken into account as to whether we will be able to produce enough biofuels to fulfill the reduction obligation. The National Audit Office said that it was a completely unsustainable way to reach the climate goals given that this consequence analysis was not performed.

This government conducts a policy that there is support for in Swedish society. We must have a way that makes it possible for, for example, the countryside to transition. There, one is dependent on the car.

We in the Liberals did not want to lower the reduction obligation so much. But we absolutely thought that the goal that had been set for 2030 was far too high. It would have hit us through incredibly high fuel prices, and it would have hit the countryside.

What this government is doing now is to look at what are the important things that we need to do moving forward in order to be able to reach 2045 in a sustainable way and also be able to reach the 2030 goals. For the Liberals, we think it is incredibly important to build up a second-hand market for electric cars, so that all people can be part of this transition. How are we going to be able to get out more electric cars and at the same time more electricity fuel and biofuel for shipping and aviation? That belongs to the things that we are now looking at.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to stick to climate adaptation, which is what we are debating. There is much to say about the energy system, and likewise about the government's emission targets. But what I take away from previous exchanges of remarks is that Helena Gellerman speaks warmly about the countryside having the opportunity to transition. This also applies when it comes to climate adaptation.

Here we see that we have great challenges when it comes to the water networks, which I have highlighted previously. According to Svenskt Vatten, 16 billion kronor were needed annually. It is necessary to increase the investment rate and also increase the sums that are taken out. At the same time, we see what costs that entails. As an example, we can take Gävle, where there have been double floods. Now, insurance companies have demands of 1.2 billion on Gästrike Vatten. Then we should be glad that Gävle is still a reasonably large municipality. Many others have had significantly more difficulty handling this.

My question to the Liberals and, above all, to the government, which Helena Gellerman indirectly represents as a Liberal Party member in the Riksdag, is: What does the government intend to do to handle the enormous reinvestment and dimensioning needs that we see in the water and sewage systems, not least in sparsely populated municipalities?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin very much for the question. As I pointed out in my main speech, we see that the large maintenance debt will worsen. It will be accentuated even further by the climate changes that we see ahead.

When it comes to the really large floods that have occurred - the member raised Gävle - we have tasked the council to produce a climate and vulnerability analysis that can serve as a basis for assessments of which geographical areas and sectors we need to focus on. In that regard, I assume that water networks will be one of the things that will be highlighted. It will serve as the basis for the government's assessment of where we need to make more interventions.

When it comes to water and sewage, the responsibility lies with the municipalities. Yes, 16 billion is needed per year, but to Rickard Nordin it sounds roughly like those are funds that the state is supposed to provide. It is actually the case that the municipalities themselves must take on this responsibility. I have personally been involved in presenting twelve municipal budgets in Lerum Municipality. Maintenance investments and new investments are placed in the investment budget, but both amortizations and interest are placed in the operating budget and can be laid out as fees on the tax collective. The main responsibility for taking these measures still lies with the municipalities.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is no happy news one receives from Helena Gellerman and the government if you are a rural municipality with a poor water network. What Helena Gellerman says is: Blame yourselves! The responsibility lies with the municipalities. You have to handle it on your own - whatever the cost may be!

What this means is that the citizens will have to pay significantly higher water fees. Tell them that: This is something you have to deal with yourselves!

The best thing that can be achieved is an analysis of what we need to focus on. But that we need to focus on the va-networks is something everyone already knows. It does not need to be analyzed further.

There are a number of things being requested that would make a difference at a national level. The Center Party wants a climate adaptation fund. But if the government does not want to invest any money whatsoever in that area, there are quite a few other things that could also make a significant difference.

For example, one could change the Water Services Act so that the municipality can charge a higher water fee. One could have a more even collection over time and also for future investments. That is not allowed today. It is a matter of legislation, and that responsibility does not lie with the municipalities. That responsibility lies with the government, and it is not taking its responsibility.

We can eco-design water products to a significantly greater extent, in the same way that we have phased out the incandescent bulb and poor refrigerators. There are a huge number of products today that waste far too much water which we could also phase out. That should be driven by the government. It is at the EU level or at the national level. It does not lie within the municipal responsibility. Why is the government doing nothing there?

Furthermore, we have a fantastic green deduction that the government has continued to support, and which the Centerpartiet proposed and introduced together with the parties in the January agreement. There, one could include water-saving measures. That provides both climate effects and energy effects.

Why is the government doing nothing there? It does not fall under municipal responsibility. When will the government take responsibility in the issues that actually lie on the government's table in order to facilitate for the municipalities and not least for the sparsely populated municipalities, Helena Gellerman?

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am very pleased with the commitment for the debt we have. It does not only concern the countryside but also our cities. There, perhaps there are more people to spread the fees over. The main focus should perhaps be on the countryside and rural areas.

It is precisely those things that we have given the council a mandate to look into. Where is the vulnerability analysis? What are the increased climate problems that will come for the water supply system and the stormwater system?

I raised it in my speech. I have personally seen how the stormwater system has not functioned. Measures are being taken. We are not leaving the municipalities in the lurch. But the routine maintenance must be taken responsibility for by the municipalities.

One has not looked at it in the long term. The member says that one does not dare to go out to the citizens and speak about increased water fees. That is exactly what I have done in Lerum municipality.

In order for us to handle future hundred-year rains and so on, we have gone out and said it in the speaker's chair in the municipal council and in debate articles. We must increase the expansion and the new investments in water and sewage to be able to handle it.

As politicians, one must be able to stand up for this and explain it. We have received a mandate to continue changing waste management facilities. Then there are municipalities that need support. It is something that the government needs to look at moving forward.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's communication on national strategy and the government's action plan for climate adaptation. We do so in a situation where we are in a global warming and where 2023 has been the warmest year measured so far.

This autumn, for the first time, we exceeded an increase of two degrees above the temperature during pre-industrial times. We see consequences here in Sweden and globally with heavier rainstorms, floods, droughts affecting harvests, and heatwaves that claim human lives.

The consequences here in Sweden are both direct and indirect, with flooding in Åre and Gävle and with drought that prevents our farmers from harvesting their crops.

There are also consequences for our infrastructure and indirect effects here in Sweden when climate-related risks and extreme weather in other countries affect, for example, trade chains and supply chains. It affects our Swedish companies. There are climate effects that worsen the security policy situation and which give indirect effects here in Sweden.

This is a situation that requires accountability and leadership. But the Swedish government has a poor track record in that area. This is especially evident when it comes to the policy for reduced climate impact. There, one has constantly spoken about an effective and ambitious climate policy. But instead, one makes reform after reform that significantly increases greenhouse gas emissions.

The National Expert Council for Climate Adaptation has stated in the strategy that it wants to see a transformative perspective that concretely strengthens the incentives for climate adaptation. The National Expert Council speaks of a major push on a broad front.

What is contained in that communication on strategy that the government has presented? To begin with, it is a communication and not a bill. It therefore does not contain any concrete proposals for us in the Riksdag to take a position on. It is also delivered heavily delayed.

The strategy says one thing while the government does the opposite. In the strategy, it is highlighted that the county administrative boards' work for climate adaptation is extremely important and must continue. The strategy also highlights the importance of information and that we have knowledge of the situation.

At the same time, the government has chosen to phase out funds to MSB and the county administrative boards. This concerns concrete appropriations that have gone to knowledge building from MSB and concrete appropriations that have gone to the county administrative boards' coordination work regarding climate adaptation. The government has actively phased out and deleted them from the budget in the budget bill for 2024.

The strategy also mentions the goal that we need resilient ecosystems. At the same time, the government has opposed nature restoration and lowered the appropriations for the protection of nature and nature conservation. In the strategy, the responsibility is also highly unclear.

In the strategy, the responsibilities of the municipalities and the responsibility that property owners are to take are often mentioned. But very little is stated about what the government intends for the state to have for responsibility so that we can together adapt all of Sweden and equip our entire country against the climate consequences occurring now and the worse ones that will come in the future.

There are things in the communication that I gladly welcome, such as that costs for climate risks should be included in the budget bill going forward. But against the background of the government's track record, I believe it only when I see it.

From the Green Party's side, we have presented several concrete proposals regarding climate adaptation both in the follow-up motion to this letter and previously here in the Swedish Riksdag.

It is about concrete measures to prepare Sweden for a changed climate when it comes to infrastructure, agriculture, water supply and much more, and also concrete resource reinforcements in our budget motions.

I believe that the government must promptly return to the Riksdag with a bill on climate adaptation including both a strategy and an action plan. It is also necessary that they deliver on what the National Expert Council for Climate Adaptation requests. I therefore move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I am very pleased to hear that the first thing Miljöpartiet highlights is the risk of drought and failed harvests for agriculture. It is absolutely crucial. Within agriculture, a great deal of responsibility rests on the individual farmer when it comes to climate adaptation.

They are also costly measures. They pressure an already heavily burdened industry. Investments in irrigation facilities are needed to cope with the drought and which can contribute to a more secure and even water supply during the growing season. They also, of course, have other positive environmental benefits.

We are simultaneously conducting an environmental assessment that rather wants to tear down dams. It is not just about hydropower. There is great concern regarding many irrigation dams that exist across the country. We need to adapt the regulatory frameworks to facilitate agriculture's climate adaptation.

We see how rigid regulations block the adaptation measures that exist. This concerns, among other things, the dams but perhaps above all also the biotope protection around various water intakes. Not least in stone wall-dense areas, such as at my home in Småland, the biotope protection makes rational irrigation impossible to cope with drought and food supply in times of a tougher climate.

My question to Miljöpartiet is: If one truly wants to help agriculture against drought and secure the food supply, is one then prepared to review the legislation that actually hinders this today?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! From the perspective of the Green Party, we see that food production in Sweden needs to increase very significantly and that this needs to happen at the same time as we prepare ourselves for a changed climate. In Sweden, we will get an extended growing season, while at the same time we see an increased risk of drought and heavy downpours that create entirely new conditions for agriculture. Even when it comes to insect infestations or diseases in animals, we need to adapt based on new conditions.

And with the fact that we have a world where food production can be affected even much more seriously than Sweden's is part of our crisis preparedness and part of our climate adaptation, but also part of that we should have a good food supply and a living countryside, that we need to increase food production in Sweden. We also have several proposals to do so.

What I question in Rickard Nordin's question is that he, for example, mentions the biotope protection. As Miljöpartiet sees it, we need robust ecosystems that can help us in the climate adaptation work in order to be able to adapt properly to the climate. We also need to adapt agriculture so that we are not as vulnerable when it concerns, for example, heavy rain showers or drought. Both of these things also need to be done simultaneously.

It is the direction we in Miljöpartiet have when we develop our policy to ensure adaptation, both when it concerns strengthened biodiversity and robust ecosystems and the climate adaptation services we get from there, and when it concerns adaptation of agriculture.

Therefore, my question remains as to whether Rickard Nordin considers that one should reduce or worsen the work regarding biodiversity and nature protection in order to be able to take measures for agriculture.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Elin Söderberg, it falls exactly on what the government does in its strategy. There are many fine words. It is a reasonable problem description and good objectives regarding increased food production and climate adaptation. But there is not a single concrete proposal.

This is the big problem. It is easy to say these fine words and good things, but one proposes nothing.

It is of course clear that we should have robust ecosystems. But today, we have a biotope protection that says that if you place five stones in the same spot for a year, they then may not be moved. It is hardly those five stones that provide a robust ecosystem. On the other hand, these types of stone collections become obstacles. Come home to me in Småland and pick up some stones, and you will see what it looks like in the fields! You have to put the stones somewhere. They do not disappear into thin air. And if you have placed them in one spot for a year, you then may not move them. Then you are stuck.

This is a rigid regulatory framework that prevents one from having rational irrigation and rational agriculture to increase food production, to secure the needs we have and for crisis preparedness. We also know that other countries will reduce their food production due to climate change.

I suggested that we should review these legislations, both regarding how we manage ponds and regarding the biotope protection when it concerns these absurd situations, in order to allow for rational irrigation. These are clear, concrete proposals. I asked if the Miljöpartiet were prepared to review them. I received no answers back. I received, above all, no information regarding other concrete measures to solve this.

Now, Elin Söderberg, you get the chance again. What does Miljöpartiet want to do to secure irrigation, a question that is being raised? The member began their entire speech precisely by stating that drought and failed harvests are a threat to agriculture. What does one then want to do to improve this?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the questions!

When it comes to agricultural policy, the Green Party negotiated when we were in government to ensure that climate adaptation in the implementation of CAP, the EU's agricultural policy, which we now have before us, would particularly be highlighted in the national funding within the framework of CAP, precisely because we see this as a central part of increasing food production here in Sweden. There were several concrete measures in the reforms we submitted when we were in government that concerned climate adaptation and strengthened biodiversity linked to agriculture, but also measures for reduced climate impact within agriculture.

Now we have a task ahead of us in the EU with a new CAP. There, climate and climate adaptation have been a clearly prioritized issue for us in Miljöpartiet, and we will, of course, drive it forward.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When I graduated from high school in the 1990s, many of us at that very time sat and dreamed of a sun holiday to Spain or Greece - perhaps some week during the summer to sunbathe, swim, and lie on the beach. The goal of the sun holiday itself was to get a little warmth and a little sun.

Today, one is not as eager to book a trip to Greece during the summer. In recent weeks, the ongoing heatwave in just Greece has hit the country very hard. It has become warmer than 40 degrees in several parts of the country. In Crete, for example, it was 44 degrees last week. Schools, shops and many tourist attractions are currently closed across all of Greece.

In addition to the Greeks themselves having been hit very hard, several tourists have been found dead in the heat. Most well-known is perhaps the British food profile Michael Mosley, who was found dead on the Greek island of Syme last week.

Greece is one of the European countries that has been hit hardest by climate change so far. The reason I am talking about this is not that I want to warn against traveling to Greece, but that I want to emphasize that the climate has changed very rapidly in Europe over 30 years. We are now unfortunately also seeing that it can change much faster in the future.

It is of course not only the heat that we have to deal with ahead, but also the water – too little water when it is hot and dry and floods when the rain finally comes.

During the severe floods that hit Germany a few weeks ago, among others, two firefighters from the rescue team died, and a woman drowned in her basement. The reporting on the German floods largely disappeared in all the EU election movement, but that Europe's countries are now being hit by catastrophic floods is no longer news either. It happens every now and then.

Many municipalities in Sweden are also affected when the heavy rains hit. I do not need to stand here and list all the forest fires, landslides, and floods that we have seen in the country during recent years.

In the long run, the water issue will also increasingly be about the rising seas and how we are to protect both buildings and our drinking water from a constant seawater intrusion from our seas.

My point is that it is high time to act and get the climate adaptation work moving seriously.

The Slussen project, which I believe everyone can see here outside the window, is one of Sweden's largest climate adaptation projects. It was started as far back as the 1990s and has taken approximately 30 years to complete.

Large projects take time. First they must be planned, and then they need to be implemented. A lot can happen with our climate during a 30-year period, which means we have very little time to waste.

Mr. Speaker! It is good that the government is now investigating unclear responsibilities and possible financing models regarding climate adaptation, but we already have a lot of knowledge about what needs to be done. It is important that the investigations, and also future investigations, do not put the work on climate adaptation on hold.

Right now, we see that we are heading towards perhaps three degrees of global warming, likely more here in the Nordics. We need to reduce our climate emissions quickly, both in Sweden and globally, but our entire society also needs to be climate-adapted at the same time. It is a task that we absolutely cannot wait with.

A large part of the measures need to be carried out in environments that are already built, and that complicates things further. We already know now that it will take time and that it will cost money, but we cannot afford to wait. The costs of doing nothing are even higher, and a large part of the work will, as we have heard today, fall on municipalities and regions, which have completely different circumstances when it comes to both knowledge of what needs to be done and economic resources for this work.

Already now, we need to create a project to map the climate adaptation needs in all municipalities and support those municipalities that today have too small resources so that everyone can begin the work. We also need to jointly prioritize the really large climate adaptation measures that may need different types of support.

We cannot treat the climate adaptation work as a side project, and we need to shift into many additional gears and initiate a project that concerns all of Sweden. I therefore want to, just like Elin Söderberg, move for approval of the Green Party's reservation number 3.

Finally, I would like to take the opportunity to wish everyone a nice summer with just the right amount of sun and just the right amount of rain.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 10.)

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