New rules for data centers and sustainable fuels as well as a new reduction obligation

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the reduction obligation once again. We have had several debates here in the chamber that have touched upon climate policy, and the reduction obligation often ends up in those debates. But today, we will therefore take a position on the government's bill regarding a changed reduction obligation.

It must be said directly that this is not a return to the old radical reduction obligation. We shall have a fair and balanced reduction obligation even moving forward.

Mr. Speaker! When we are now going to have this discussion, I think it can be relevant to zoom out a bit and reflect on the journey it has been with the reduction obligation. It began with an environmental goal preparation in the early 10s that came up with a goal for the transport sector. It was noted, quite correctly, that it would not be enough with electric cars and plug-in hybrids to reach the unrealistically high set goal.

A quota system was then proposed, something we already had on a smaller scale and which exists in other countries. Those who read the referral responses on the Environmental Goals Commission's partial report see clear warning signs. Among other things, the Konjunkturinstitutet warned that this would lead to increased fuel prices of up to 6 kronor per liter.

The Government took the Environmental Goals Commission's report forward to a new investigation. In 2017, the bill "A new steering mechanism for reduced climate emissions from fuels" was submitted. It laid the foundation for the design of the reduction obligation, which was then implemented on July 1, 2018, following a decision in connection with the budget bill.

I went back and watched the debate here in the chamber from 2017. Already then, the Sweden Democrats warned of the consequences of the reduction obligation law and its effects on the price. The Social Democratic and Green Party government, however, argued that the price increases until 2030 would only amount to 1–2 kronor.

We know now that the Social Democrats were wrong again. The price increase was significantly higher than that. Sweden became the most expensive country in the world to transport goods, services, and people in. This did not only have consequences for inflation and households' private finances, but it also became very much more expensive to, for example, transport groceries to our grocery stores.

It took some time, because the S-MP government then chose to also carry out a historically large tax cut on July 1, 2018, so that one would not notice the introduction of the reduction obligation. It should however be said that we have had significantly larger tax cuts on fuels since then. It was a historical tax cut then, but today significantly larger tax cuts have been made. But because of this tax cut, no effect was noticed, which also made it harder for us Sverigedemokrater to build public opinion during the 2018 election campaign regarding the problem with the reduction obligation. People barely managed to learn the name then, precisely because no difference was noticed at the pump. To that extent, the price became higher, it was suppressed by the tax cut. The large effect was only seen during the years that followed.

The result of this radical reduction obligation was that we got the world's most expensive diesel. These funds were generally transferred from households and businesses to a few fuel actors. The policy forced a demand for HVO, renewable diesel, to such an extent that it became difficult for many smaller actors to obtain fuel. I met several entrepreneurs who had been forced to pay the obligation precisely because they failed to find fuel on the market. The large fuel actors took hold of most of it.

What other consequences did it have then? Well, in the calculations, reduced emissions are registered. But what did this mean in reality? Politics directed raw materials from all possible parts of the world to the Swedish transport sector. Any significant effect on global consumption across the entire planet is difficult to determine. We cannot say that emissions have decreased on our planet because of the reduction obligation.

However, one has shifted raw materials. For example, we consumed a very large amount of palm oil and palm oil-based fuels during the first years. We imported palm oil-based fuels from Indonesia and ran cars and trucks on them. Probably, it increased emissions.

But in the calculations, as was said, reduced emissions were registered. The same thing can be said now when the reduction obligation has been decreased, that is to say that the emissions then increased in the calculations.

At the same time, we can observe that never before have so many biofuels been produced in Sweden as today. In Sweden, we contribute to displacing more fossil fuels than we have ever done before. However, this cannot be credited in the calculations when calculating territorial emissions, in the same way as the climate benefit of exports in general is not included.

Mr. Speaker! When we now adjust the reduction obligation through an agreement between the government and the Sweden Democrats, the level is raised slightly. Since the market situation for HVO today has a better balance, partly thanks to a lower reduction level, this is not expected to have any major effect on the price. However, it will have an effect, but thanks to the tax cuts on both gasoline and diesel that the Sweden Democrats and the government agreed upon in the budget bill, we do not expect to see any significant price increase at the pump. It is difficult to say exactly what it will be, but it is likely that one will not notice any significant difference when refueling the car.

Mr. Speaker! What the Sweden Democrats said about the reduction obligation here in the chamber already in 2017 has now reached practically all parties. Everyone wants to see a different model than the one we had previously. But let us still clarify what these parties want. A radical policy is required to reach the transport goal that the Environmental Goals Commission came up with at the beginning of the 10s, and these parties are therefore prepared to invest in reaching this goal regardless of what consequences it may have.

If one is to increase the proportion of renewable fuel, it will cost money, regardless of which model one uses. It is not possible to conjure up fuel that is significantly more expensive to produce. It will become more expensive for Swedish households, regardless of how one pays for the fuel. Let us be clear about that. The Social Democrats, the Centre Party, the Left Party, and the Green Party agree on significantly raising the price of transporting oneself in our country.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for your historical description!

I believe the member forgot to mention that the Environmental Goals Commission's proposal was made so that we could achieve the goals in the Paris Agreement. This was, of course, a large part of it. The Environmental Goals Commission's proposal was also to save the Swedish forests and so that we could continue to log. So that was what the Environmental Goals Commission that sat then thought. But now the Tidö parties, including the Sverigedemokraterna, who have negotiated a common climate policy, stand behind Sweden's goal of net-zero emissions by 2045. I think that is, of course, positive. Welcome, Sverigedemokraterna!

In April this year, however, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency reported that Sweden does not appear to be on track to reach the climate goals for 2030, 2040, or 2045 with the Tidö parties' policy, and that the reduction obligation should therefore be higher. Failing to reach the goals – especially the EU goals negotiated by the Tidö government – risks becoming very expensive for Swedish taxpayers, in the form of fines and the purchase of emission allowances.

My question to the member is: When the reduction obligation in this case is not sufficient, what additional measures does the Tidögänget plan to present here and now to lower emissions?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Sätherberg, for the questions!

Through the adjusted reduction obligation, it is our assessment that Sweden will be able to reach its ESR commitment by 2030. That is the assessment that exists. Then, it is always difficult to predict the future.

We got the world's highest fuel prices. The Social Democrats thought it would become a few kronor more expensive. We know that it did not become so. We also know more things. The Paris Agreement was signed at approximately the same time as the Environmental Goals Board adopted its final report around 2013. But no other country that has signed the Paris Agreement has introduced a reduction obligation. The connection between Sweden's reduction obligation and the Paris Agreement is therefore reasonably extremely weak.

The link between the forest and the reduction obligation is also weak, because Fit for 55 and the other climate measures did not exist when the plans for the reduction obligation were made or when we passed the reduction obligation act. They did not exist; they came later. We got these things largely because Sweden had a Social Democratic government that negotiated fantastically poorly. They believed that the Swedish reduction obligation act would hold until 2030 and therefore focused on establishing a link between ESR and LULUCF. Now we know that it still would not have worked.

Today we have the calculations. We know that the reduction obligation at the old level would not have been sufficient to achieve the LULUCF commitment. The problem is the LULUCF act itself, and that is why Sweden, together with like-minded countries, must work very hard to change that legal act.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the answer but do not agree. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency presented its report in April, which will go into the government's climate reporting on how things are progressing. There, it was stated with all clarity that we will not reach the goals for 2030, 2040, or 2045 with the climate policy that is currently being pursued.

Today, the Tidögänget has presented a proposal that ensures we will not manage to reach the climate goals. The Sweden Democrats actually wanted zero reduction obligation and even threatened a government crisis if they did not get their way. It became 6 percent in 2024, and now in 2025, the Sweden Democrats are behind 10 percent. At the same time, the tax on fossil fuels has been lowered to virtually the lowest possible according to EU rules, which means that when ETS 2 is introduced in 2027, the instrument to lower the tax will no longer be available to counter price increases.

The Tidögänget has also not delivered any proposals to compensate where, for example, the need for cars is greatest in the sparsely populated areas and in the countryside, as we have done with our tank discount. Taxpayers risk paying dearly because Sweden is not reaching the climate goals. What is the Sweden Democrats' answer to what the price of diesel and gasoline at the pump will be in 2027 when the negotiated ETS 2 is introduced?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is difficult to comment on the price at the pump. What one can comment on is in which direction the policy affects the price. We shall strive to maintain low prices on fuels in Sweden. It shall be a Swedish priority, according to the Sweden Democrats. I assume that it will continue to be so even in the next mandate period.

We have presented a steering report that looks at how households can be compensated. Sometimes this can be carried out through taxation. Indeed, the Sweden Democrats, as Sätherberg says, have been successful in lowering fuel taxes in Sweden today. On July 1, we will have the absolute lowest level of diesel tax that is permitted in Europe, and that is very positive. But we still have the opportunity to have the absolute lowest level even on gasoline. We have not reached the floor for the lowest possible tax yet. In that case, it is important not to adjust the taxes upwards.

What will the Social Democrats do after the election? Will you also, just like the Sweden Democrats, fight to ensure that no automatic tax increase is implemented? I do not think so. The Green Party has, in any case, been brave enough to tell the truth about the opposition parties' policies on TV. They have made it clear that we will get more expensive fuels with the Left Party in power. The Sweden Democrats will be a counterweight to this.

I must also state that the ETS 2 act is deeply problematic. The Sweden Democrats clearly signaled against ETS 2 during the negotiations in the EU Committee when the Social Democrats held government power. We do not think it is a fair way to design a trade system where Swedes are to pay in money that, among other things, goes to Hungarian and Bulgarian households. It becomes transfers from Swedes to Bulgarians and Hungarians. We do not think it is reasonable at all, but the money should stay in Sweden.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Regardless of the climate issue, Europe imports fossil fuels from Russia in larger amounts than we have donated in the form of support to Ukraine. If we are not to use renewable fuels now but continue with fossil fuels, and if electrification does not proceed so quickly that we can reach our goals, how then shall we reduce the import of fossil fuels to Europe from Russia?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

We will, of course, continue to work for a transition of the transport sector. The Sweden Democrats are fully on board with us moving towards electrification. But let us be clear that even to produce HVO, one uses, for example, natural gas today. Russia is a large producer of natural gas, which means that on the margin, one is still part of the same market.

We do not know today the exact origin behind our raw materials. We know where the oil that is refined into fuels in Sweden comes from. On the other hand, we cannot be completely sure where the finished raw material comes from. What we know is that the vast majority of the raw material comes from Norway today. I think that is positive.

As long as fossil raw materials are used, it will obviously affect the entire market for fossil raw materials in some way. However, this is how we do it regarding very many different things. We still need plastic and many other things.

Transitioning is a long-term task. It will not be possible to do in any single year. Regardless of whether we include 40 or 50 percent, we will still be dependent on fossil raw materials in certain contexts, which will, on the margin, affect all countries that produce these raw materials.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are moving towards electrification, says Martin Kinnunen. I would rather say that we are possibly limping considerably towards electrification. The pace of electrification is slower now than when the government took office. The Tidö parties have effectively sabotaged the electrification. The supports that existed have been removed. The opportunities to receive compensation that existed have been stopped. They have seen to it that electric car exports have increased now.

Martin Kinnunen is, of course, right that we do not know the origin of very large parts of our raw materials. We do not know the origin of approximately 54 percent of the fuels in Sweden. This is hardly about Norwegian North Sea oil. Instead, it comes from states such as Russia, which we really do not want to involve ourselves with. In that situation, Martin Kinnunen and the government choose to increase the proportion of the fossil, and it is no small sums involved. We are talking about 4 million liters of diesel per day. Large parts of it come from rogue states that do not want to disclose the origin.

We are not going to solve this for any years, says Martin Kinnunen. No, but to begin with, we are heading in the wrong direction now. We are using more fossil fuels now than when Martin Kinnunen and his friends in the government took office.

Tell those who are fighting in Ukraine that we will continue to use Russian fossil fuels and that we need to use a little more now. Then we will see in some year if we can resolve things. Tell those who are fighting at the front that Sweden is not prepared to take our share of the responsibility. We are not prepared to reduce our imports from Russia. Tell those who are fighting for their lives and their freedom that our prices here are more important than their lives there.

How are we going to get rid of the Russian oil when we increase the fossil use in Sweden? Answer that to both me and the defenders in Ukraine, Martin Kinnunen!

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think that the brave Ukrainians at the front could care less about Sweden's reduction obligation law, if I am to be honest. I do not think they care one bit. I also believe that they realize that preparedness and security policy are important even for Sweden and that it is not a winning concept to place an enormous cost burden on Swedish agriculture and worsen Swedish food production, which the radical reduction obligation law led to.

Phasing out fossil fuels is a long-term task. With every passing year, the mix within the vehicle sector changes. There are more and more electric cars. The consumption of fossil fuels is decreasing. If we zoom out a bit, we see that everything has moved in roughly the same direction, even if the curves may vary slightly depending on interest rates, inflation, and growth.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Our country is currently being pressured by several parallel crises. We have a healthcare crisis. We have a gang crime crisis, which is creeping further down into the ages. A war is still ongoing in our vicinity. We have a cost-of-living crisis, which is evident not least when we buy food. We also have a climate crisis, Mr. Speaker. Climate changes are already tangible, and they threaten future generations and Swedish prosperity. On top of that, Sweden's emissions are now increasing. We have super-low growth, and our unemployment figures are among Europe's highest. This is true counter-politics.

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that a new captain is needed who does not turn a blind eye to all the parallel crises but sees the big picture when it comes to steering the Swedish ship forward.

Today we are therefore debating the government's proposal for yet another change to the reduction obligation. I wish to move for the approval of our reservation 2.

We stand in one of our time's most decisive challenges, namely to transition so that our society becomes sustainable, climate-smart, and just. Climate change does not wait, and neither should we in the Swedish Riksdag. But the transition must never become an individual responsibility where ordinary people are pressured by increased costs. It is here that politics must show the way with decisiveness and with justice.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a great advantage, and that is the Swedish forest. Unlike many other countries, we decided early on that new planting would occur upon harvesting. Sweden wanted a forest growth. That means we also have a bioeconomy to develop in the transition to replace the fossil with renewable. Therefore, we appointed Social Democrats in government to the Bioeconomy Inquiry. We did that to get proposals for a sustainable, competitive, and growing Swedish bioeconomy.

On 1 December 2023, the inquiry submitted its final report, A sustainable bioeconomy strategy, but already on 29 March 2023, a partial report, Renewable in the tank, was submitted. There, measures were proposed that promote efficient production of liquid biofuels based on domestic raw materials in Sweden. This gives us an opportunity, in addition to electrification, to use Swedish raw materials to reduce emissions from the transport sector by mixing in more renewable fuel, quite simply more Swedish in the tank.

Kristersson's government has had several years now and every opportunity to develop the bioeconomy in Sweden. We have very good conditions, but the political will seems to be lacking.

Today we are discussing the government's vacillation regarding the reduction obligation. In 2024, it was to be a 6 percent blend. In 2025, a new bill was submitted regarding 10 percent instead. What will come next, Mr. Speaker, you and I have to guess.

We Social Democrats propose Sverigebränslet instead, and we do so for many reasons. We must make it possible for ordinary people to be able to use the car, especially where access to public transport is non-existent. At the same time, we must press down emissions. In Sweden, there are approximately 5 million cars rolling today. Of those, 47 percent run on gasoline and 31.3 percent on diesel.

For more jobs, for Swedish industry, for the climate and for our preparedness, we already in 2023 presented a completely new model for the blending of biofuels in Sweden, something we call Sverigebränslet. Our proposal today is that the level of blending shall be 19.3 percent for diesel and 10 percent for gasoline. This is a way forward so that we can reach both Sweden's and the EU's climate goals. This was agreed upon by seven of eight parties, so that we can reach the flexibilities negotiated by the EU that allow us to manage Swedish agriculture and forestry.

Overall, Mr. Speaker, we can also save billions in tax crowns that would otherwise go towards costly emission allowances or fines to the EU. There are many other priorities one can choose to make for these many billions instead of paying for Sweden's emissions to other countries.

Mr. Speaker! I, along with both the pandemic and Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, have seen it become obvious that our existing systems were not sufficiently flexible. We therefore believe that the right way forward is to have a portion of the Swedish fuel as a so-called supplementary blend. When the price of fossil fuel from dictatorship states spikes on the world market, the blend can be reduced. When the production of biofuels in Sweden gets started on a larger scale and the price becomes cheaper, the supplementary blend can be increased.

We also believe that Sweden must work hard for a differentiation of the tax on sustainable biofuels and fossil fuels at the EU level. It is a fundamentally important issue that climate-smart fuels are not taxed in the same way as fossil fuels.

Another important measure we Social Democrats want to see is that the state takes a greater responsibility in the biofuels market. We have proposed a reform of the energy market that we call folkhemsel. It is based on the state entering and signing long-term contracts and then auctioning off the electricity at reasonable prices. We want to consider doing the same thing, signing long-term contracts, when it comes to Sverigebränslet. We also want to consider the proposal that the Bioeconomy Investigation submitted in the spring of 2023 so that we can stimulate domestic production, which creates more Swedish jobs and turns Swedish residual products into Swedish renewable fuels.

In our proposal on Sverigebränslet, we Social Democrats also propose a number of other measures regarding the reduction obligation fee and moving from MK1 to MK3 to create a more stable situation regarding fuel prices.

In summary, Mr. Speaker: Sweden needs a new way forward to handle all the parallel crises. Our model for fuel blending in Sweden, which we call Sverigebränslet, is important for reducing emissions and for innovations, the green industry, and more jobs in Sweden. Together with our other budget proposals, which concern, for example, the fuel discount, child allowance, making the increased housing allowance for families with children permanent, and our saying no to the government's worsening of the high-cost protection, it makes it easier for ordinary people's everyday economy.

At the same time, we Social Democrats are already investing in pharmaceutical preparedness, healthcare preparedness, and food preparedness, because Sweden's preparedness and supply capacity need to be built up now.

Climate change is here and requires action. And, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to conjure away the emissions from over 4 million cars that run on diesel and gasoline. What is happening now, with increased emissions that remain in the atmosphere for a long time, makes it even tougher and more expensive and will require even more drastic measures. This is, of course, something the Kristersson government is fully aware of, but it leaves a running bill for the next government to handle.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Malin Larsson (both S) concurred.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats often try to sound as if they understand people's everyday lives. But when it comes to the bottom line in climate policy, it is often the Green Party that has to set the pace. Now we get it in black and white what awaits if the Social Democrats were to be given the chance again to form a government together with the Green Party. It will become more expensive to live, to drive a car, and to live outside the big city.

The Environment Party's spokesperson Amanda Lind has been very clear. It will become more expensive, she says in SVT's 30 minuter. By that, she obviously means fuel prices. The Environment Party wants to significantly increase the reduction obligation again. It is exactly this type of policy that once caused prices to skyrocket and which hit families with children, the countryside, and business owners the hardest.

When the Social Democrats stand here and talk about responsibility and justice, I want to ask what is it that has changed. Will they, this time, say no to the Green Party if they were to end up in such a situation that they have to take over the government power? Or will they, as usual, let the greens decide?

This is somewhere the difference between us and the Social Democrats, Mr. Speaker. We lower the prices – they make it more expensive. We have learned the lesson – the Social Democrats have not.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe I must begin by informing the members that the Swedish people have probably never had it more expensive than right now. It was easy to wave hot dogs in the election campaign and promise one thing after another. But right now, the price for the grocery bag is super high. You do not increase the child allowance like in the rest of the Nordic countries. You even change the high-cost protection so that medicines become much more expensive for the sickest. There is much where you could have done the opposite compared to what you are doing right now.

Today we are discussing the reduction obligation, which has been increased to 10 percent this time, which is not enough – the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has already spoken about this. The member usually beats their chest and says that we are meeting the goals. The member has said that in this speaker's chair very many times. But now the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency says that we are not doing it at all. We are meeting no goals – neither for 2030, 2040 or 2045.

My question back to the member is therefore: What does the member intend to do? Does she intend to let the Sverigedemokraterna rule? We just heard the Sverigedemokraterna in the speaker's chair. Nothing was said about reaching climate goals, even though the Sverigedemokraterna have backed the climate goals that exist now. Do the Moderaterna and the member have the same view, that climate goals are not something to have and not something we should achieve?

Now the government's agency is speaking in its reporting, which will go into the government's climate reporting, about not managing to reach any goals. Then the question arises, for that is what we are discussing here today: What will be the answer? What measures will we see here and now?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! For the first thing, we have the lowest tax burden since the 70s, and it shows. It makes a very big difference.

Then I think it is quite remarkable that the opposition has such an escalated tone in a price debate, especially regarding the reduction obligation. Since this government took office, total emissions have decreased in both 2022 and 2023. They increased temporarily in 2024, but now the plan is stable – emissions are to continue decreasing year by year until 2030, and then we will also reach the long-term goal in 2045.

I thank you very much for the answer. Unfortunately, it only reinforces my view. From the Social Democrats' side, one can perhaps protest a little at the beginning, but when it comes down to it, it is likely the Green Party that will have the last word in climate policy. For we know how it usually turns out, Mr. Speaker. When power is at stake, other principles weigh lightly. And if increased fuel prices are required to keep together a red-green government base, it is a price that the Social Democrats seem prepared to let Swedish car commuters, entrepreneurs, and rural residents pay.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I truly agree that the price of gasoline and diesel was far too high. But I can, Mr. Speaker, inform the members of how it looked during the same year, with the same reduction obligation and when no changes were made. On May 1, 2023, a liter of diesel cost 21.02. On September 11, 2023, it cost 25.81. It was the same reduction obligation and the same taxes, no change.

We must, Mr. Speaker, make ourselves independent from those who hold the purse strings, the dictatorship states on the world market, which raise the price. It is unreasonable that an ordinary Swede has to pay 5 kronor more per liter because we do not control this.

That is why we propose a Sweden fuel. That is why we propose that we should use what we have in Sweden and that other countries do not have, a bioeconomy. We propose that we should produce fuels, purchase them and auction them off so that we can bring down the prices. This is our strength, not our weakness.

We have done our homework. When we noticed that it started to cost, we in the Social Democratic government stopped the indexation in 2022, because it became too expensive.

But it is not just about a reduction obligation. It is also about the fact that we are completely governed by the world market price of crude oil produced by dictatorship states. That is not what we want. We want to increase Sweden's preparedness. We want to see more jobs in Sweden. We want a green industry with new innovations. This perhaps is the difference between the Social Democrats and the Tidögänget – that we want something to live off of in this country.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for the speech I listened to!

In the 2014 election campaign, people discussed gasoline and diesel prices. At that time, there was a finance minister candidate, Magdalena Andersson, who said: No, the taxes shall not be raised; it is already so expensive to refuel. Then they raised the tax every year and continued to make it even more expensive to refuel.

Now the Social Democrats have something else that they have come up with a cozy name for. They call it Sverigebränsle, and it is supposed to be a slightly cozier fuel. Fuel is cozy, and in Sweden it becomes even cozier.

But what does this mean then? If I understand the matter correctly, Anna-Caren Sätherberg's party wants to significantly increase the reduction obligation. It is to be approximately doubled. Is that correct or wrong? Can the reduction obligation become even higher?

As I understand it, the doubling of the reduction obligation is an absolute floor, but the ceiling is somewhat unclear. Now crude oil costs 65 dollars per barrel, according to the latest listings. What level should the reduction obligation then have for Sweden's fuel? The member can answer that, so that the voters can take a stand on how much more expensive the fuel will become if the Social Democrats are in charge? The whole thing is very unclear.

The second ambiguity concerns the procurement, which seems to be based on the Bioeconomy Investigation. How much will it cost the taxpayers, and where will that money be taken from? It is not free to procure fuel. How does one ensure that the raw materials for the fuel come from Sweden – is the country to be turned into a Soviet state, or are we to remain in the internal market in Europe and trade with other countries? How has this been envisioned?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is an exciting discussion, I think, that the member is leading. There we are talking about the free market and that in the Sweden Democrats, one would rather trade with dictatorship states than create an own Swedish industry with Swedish industrial workers and with Swedish forest residues. I am actually surprised.

It is called Sverigebränslet, because the investigation itself is precisely about how to make better use of more of what Sweden has. We also have advantages in that we ensure that we achieve an increased bioeconomy.

Unfortunately, the government has still not done anything about this, even though the commission submitted its report in March or April 2023.

I usually remember all the questions, but today perhaps that is not the case. But I intend, in any case, to speak about the additional blending – if that is what the member is referring to – is enormously smart, because one has a flexibility. I told in the previous exchange of remarks that the reduction obligation on May 1, 2023, made the diesel cost 21.02 per liter, but on September 11 of the same year, the price was 25.81 with the same reduction obligation. That is not reasonable. Precisely for that reason, one needs flexibility in the system.

If we truly get an industry started with our own raw materials and with Swedish industrial workers and can trade it at a lower price, it would be very foolish not to use that fuel instead of diesel and gasoline.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the attempts to answer the questions!

The bioeconomy investigation has been delivered. There are many good ideas and good hopes in the investigation. I have read the referral responses from, for example, Konjunkturinstitutet, Energimyndigheten, Konkurrensverket, Tillväxtverket and so on.

Everyone notes that the proposal cannot be implemented. It has not been properly costed. It is not possible to ensure that it will be Swedish raw material. We simply do not know if it will be Swedish raw material because the fuels can be imported from any country, from almost any dictatorship, unless we have sanctions against the country in question, in which case it could be more complicated. But there are no such limitations.

We also do not know if the fuel will be sold in Sweden. It is not Soviet Union yet: one can sell the fuel in different countries. They will probably try to sell it at market price, and we will not have a very different market price in Sweden.

The Chairman points out that the price of raw materials fluctuates. That is how it is. We can look at the table in some business newspaper and see that raw material prices change from second to second, basically. It is annoying that the bag of coffee costs much more now than it did two years ago. But coming up with some kind of "Sverigekaffe" solution will not solve the underlying problem. Someone will still have to pay when the coffee becomes more expensive at times.

Are we then going to make some kind of adjustment to the blend that we are going to adjust upwards? That is what I wondered. Will the blend be adjusted upwards if the oil price is 65 dollars a barrel or if it is 60, 70, 85 or 100? What levels are we talking about, and what do we say to those who are to provide the fuel? They want to know a year in advance what level it should be, because there are quite long lead times in the market. It will not work to just switch back and forth. A bit more long-term thinking is needed.

This is something that the Sweden Democrats and the government have stood up for during this mandate period. We stand up for long-term thinking regarding the rules of the game.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! That long-term perspective consisted of brutally lowering the reduction obligation to 6 percent, and all fuel suppliers wondered what they were going to do. Then the long-term perspective came only a year later, when it was raised to 10 percent. I do not even take it to heart that the Sweden Democrats believe they can teach the Social Democrats anything about long-term perspective in this situation.

However, I would like to know what the Tidögänget thinks Sweden should live off. What jobs should we have in this country – should we invest in what we are good at? We are a small, export-dependent country up in northern Europe. Of course, we should also be able to export fuels, because we still have a bioeconomy that is fantastic if we use it correctly.

For me, this is a completely absurd discussion when we have low growth and super-high unemployment and when we increase emissions even though we know it is possible to do exactly the opposite and manage that as well. I think flexibility is good. We have settled on 19.3 percent. That level remains fixed. We are just above the government there. I can state exactly how much more it will cost, if that is what this member is after, but he can also calculate that, because it clearly states in the government's own report how much more it will be.

My concern for Sweden is that there is no thought on what kind of industry we should have, on our advantages, on what kind of jobs we should have, and on how we should start and manage the climate transition. We should not have to pay fines and emission allowances to other countries because Sweden is not doing its part. I want to invest those funds in very many other things.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The reduction obligation has been one of our most important tools for reducing emissions from the transport sector. Mixing biofuels into gasoline and diesel can be an effective way to reduce emissions, but only if it is done in the right way.

The previous reduction obligation was set too high. It led to Sweden practically vacuuming up the global market for biofuels, resources that otherwise could have been of greater use in other sectors than passenger car traffic.

The National Audit Office stated that the reduction obligation had fallen into an unsustainable path. It was established that it was neither cost-effective nor feasible in its current form. This is serious criticism, and it would be irresponsible not to take it seriously.

Let me therefore be clear: We Moderates believe that climate policy should be effective, evidence-based and anchored in reality – not driven by symbolism or short-term populism.

That people feel that politics is reasonable, fair, and understandable is a prerequisite for the transition to be able to take place in practice. Therefore, the government has changed course. The reduction obligation is lowered to a level that is compatible both with our climate goals and with a reasonable price at the pump. Instead, we focus on using biofuels where they really make a difference – in aviation, in shipping, and in heavy transport.

At the same time, we are making a major investment in electrification. We are expanding the charging infrastructure, securing the energy supply, and enabling investments in new nuclear power. That is how we drive the climate work forward – with technology, innovation, and long-term credibility.

We know that the transport sector accounts for a significant part of Sweden's emissions. But we also know that Sweden is a pioneer country, where we have combined economic growth with reduced emissions. Since the 1990s, Sweden's GDP has doubled. At the same time, our emissions have decreased by over a third. It is a testament to the fact that technology, growth, and sustainability go hand in hand.

Madam Speaker! The reduction obligation, which aims to increase the proportion of biofuel in diesel and gasoline, is one of our tools for reducing emissions. But it is a tool that must be handled with caution. An excessively rapid and unrealistic increase risks significantly raising fuel prices, which particularly affects those who live and work in rural areas. It affects households, agriculture, and companies that have no other alternatives. It also undermines the acceptance of climate work, and without popular anchoring, even the most ambitious climate goals will fail.

To ignore the voters' will is not only unwise. It is also dangerous for the trust in the entire climate work. Therefore, it is also worth highlighting what the alternative would have been. If the Social Democrats are allowed to form a government together with the Green Party again, which history has shown they are happy to do, we know what awaits. The Green Party's spokesperson Amanda Lind has herself said that fuel prices should increase by several kronor per liter. They want to raise the reduction obligation – again. It is a policy that hits households, companies, and the countryside hard.

When the Social Democrats now try to appear popular and pragmatic in climate policy, we should remember who it was that governed when prices skyrocketed. And we should ask: Do they intend to stand up to the Green Party next time, or will it be like last time when the Green Party got to dictate the terms?

We Moderates believe in another path – one that holds together climate ambitions and economic reality, one that people can actually get behind.

Sweden shall be a pioneer country, but no country in the world will want to follow an example where climate policy is perceived as a punishment. Therefore, we choose a path that is both effective and possible to implement in reality.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joanna Lewerentz, Oskar Svärd and John Widegren (all M) concurred.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for your speech!

My first question, due to the speech, is: How much more expensive will the price at the pump become when ETS 2 is introduced in 2027? According to all calculations, it will be a few kronor more – or more. But the member may be welcome to answer that.

Madam Speaker! In 2024, emissions from the transport sector increased by 18 percent. The Tidö parties have declared that they will still reach the decided ESR target for 2030 with the government's proposal for updated reduction obligation. The responsible minister has even called it a golden solution. The experts, however, are very skeptical. It is about the pace of electrification not holding up. It is about LULUCF and how we meet our commitment regarding carbon sinks. It is about the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency releasing a report in April showing that we will not meet the targets for 2030, 2040, or 2045.

But since the member claims that we will meet the 2030 goal, my question to the member, Madam Speaker: What do the calculations look like that form the basis for Sweden meeting the ESR goal by 2030, and what flexibilities do the Tidö parties intend to use?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! We can begin by talking about the price level. We can observe that the price in March 2022 was approximately 28 kronor per liter. In May 2025, it was 15 ½ kronor per liter. It is therefore more than 10 kronor cheaper to refuel, per liter.

This is obviously a government that listens to what the people want, that is to say, reasonable petrol and diesel prices. We want the transition to be possible in the whole country. That means we must take households and companies with us and that climate policy does not become something that we just deal with here in Stockholm, but something that the whole country can stand behind. That was absolutely not possible with the previous reduction obligation.

Furthermore, it received harsh criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office, which stated very clearly that it could not be implemented. Still, one chooses to stand here and criticize that we are not reaching the climate goals with our reduction obligation. The fact is that with the old reduction obligation, one was also not on track to reach either the short-term or the long-term goals. One would not have reached all the way.

Now we have a new policy where we have changed course. We have reduced emissions both in 2022 and 2023. In 2024, there was a bump in the curve, in roughly the same way as it was in 2021, when the red-green government was in power. Then emissions increased temporarily before returning to a downward trajectory.

The government lifted the electrification. We know that the growth for electric cars stalled during 2024, but that happened for the entire passenger car fleet. Since then, we have been able to observe that it has picked up pace again this year. We have seen a clear increase during the first months of this year.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! It was not an answer to my question, so I will ask it again at the end. Then perhaps the Member can account for it.

It is as the member says. I could have used that example. In February 2022, it was therefore 28 kronor. With the same reduction obligation on May 1, 2023, it was 21 kronor. So it is not just about the reduction obligation. There was a 7 kronor difference. We must ensure that we manage this in our own way. We must build up a bio-fuel industry so that we are not dependent on world market prices for crude oil, which can cause the price to become 7 kronor more expensive.

The reduction obligation, Madam Speaker, was exactly the same. It had not been raised; instead, it had stopped the indexing. That is what makes it so unreasonable that one does not instead want to strengthen Swedish wallets, Swedish jobs, and Swedish business.

But that was not what I asked about, rather I asked which flexibilities one intends to use and what the calculations look like that form the basis for what the member says – that we will meet the ESR target by 2030.

I can say something – whether the member tries to find any answer or cannot do so. It is about, for example, the overperformance that the previous government had built up. It is about 8.5 million tons that have not needed to be used until now when emissions are increasing in Sweden. Then they begin to be used.

But there are several flexibilities. I am interested in hearing how it has been concluded that the ESR target for 2030 can be met when the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and other expert agencies are clear that it cannot.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! We can observe that Sweden is on the right course to meet the ESR requirement, but above all, we are definitely on the right course to meet the long-term goal, which I believe is much more prioritized. We will actually reach net zero by 2045 and thereafter succeed with negative emissions. We have realized that the short-term thinking that one should reach there but no longer works does not work, and we must start thinking more long-term. How can Sweden contribute to the world in a better way?

We tend here in Sweden to stare blindly at what happens solely within Sweden's borders, and we stare blindly at various short-term goals. It is incredibly harmful for climate policy as a whole, not least for the acceptance of climate policy. We know that the price at the pump makes a difference. It makes a difference what one needs to pay for the transition, and it makes a difference when the rest of the country feels that climate policy is something they deal with in Stockholm, but they do not understand how it looks in reality. It damages the trust for climate policy at its core, and there we are making a profound mistake. Therefore, we have chosen another path.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! On May 2, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's basis for the government's climate reporting arrived. Their message was clear. It was the same message that the Climate Policy Council, the Fiscal Policy Council, the Konjunkturinstitutet, and a collective body of researchers have had previously: Not a single one of Sweden's climate goals is being met.

Still, Helena Storckenfeldt stands in the Riksdag's rostrum and says that we are reaching the goals. If there is anything that makes the people in Sweden lack confidence in Sweden's climate policy, it is politicians who say that we are reaching goals that we obviously are not reaching.

Would it not have been better if the government admitted that we are not reaching the goals, that they are not the government's priority? It would have been straightforward, honest, and open to a debate on whether we should reach the goals or not. But to say that we are reaching the goals when we obviously are not, when a united body of researchers and a united body of authority executives say that we are not, becomes strange.

On what basis does Helena Storckenfeldt base the claim that we will reach the Swedish climate goals, when all authorities and all researchers say something completely different?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! When we are debating the reduction obligation, it cannot be avoided that it was not particularly sustainable for Sweden to move forward alone in the EU with the highest requirements. It was bad for Sweden's climate policy and for the Swedes' wallets. In the 2022 election, seven out of eight parties campaigned on precisely lowering fuel costs for households and companies.

It is important to note this in this debate when we are talking about the legitimacy of Swedish climate policy. If there is to be acceptance for it, one must feel that they are part of the transition. We see now that electrification is going well, that the charging infrastructure is on the rise, and that more people are buying plug-in hybrids. Electric cars are also on the rise after a dip in the curve in 2024. The same applies to emissions, which, under the previous government, as I mentioned in the previous exchange of remarks, also had a dip in the curve in 2021.

For some reason, Rickard Nordin did not stand and shout that we were not reaching any climate goals; instead, there was complete agreement that the extremely high reduction obligation – which the Swedish National Audit Office criticized as not sustainable, as it could not be implemented in practice – would ensure that the climate goals were reached and that everything would be fantastic.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. We have realized our mistake. Therefore, we have made this adjustment. The reduction obligation has been lowered to a level that is more reasonable, which both gains acceptance and ensures that we can reach the climate goals.

I am fully convinced that we will need many other things in climate policy to reach the goals, but it is my intention that we shall do so.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! The fact that the member intends to reach the climate goals does not help when measures are introduced that mean we go in the opposite direction.

I asked what grounds Helena Storckenfeldt bases her assumption on that we will reach the goals, as she claimed from the rostrum. I received no answers at all.

Show me a report that takes the government's policy into account and shows that we are reaching the goals! The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency says that we are not. The Swedish Energy Agency shows what is not working. The Fiscal Policy Council does so, and the Climate Policy Council does so. A collective group of researchers does so. Who says that we reach the goals? Not even the government's climate action plan "All the way to net zero" reaches all the way to net zero. They made a big "blob" so that it wouldn't be visible that the scale didn't go all the way to zero.

The government itself does not believe this. In that case, is it not better to admit the facts? With this policy, we will not reach the climate goals. Admit that, instead of claiming something else.

It is possible to lower fuel costs without increasing emissions. We have shown how it can be done. It is a matter of prioritization. To compare a pandemic effect with increased emissions, when they fell sharply because we stayed home and did not travel to work, with an active policy for increased emissions – for 4 million liters of diesel a day, which is deliberately pushed into Swedish cars – is downright dishonest.

In the Swedish National Audit Office report that Helena Storckenfeldt refers to, it appears that it works perfectly well to mix in up to 50 percent renewable. It is also the most effective thing one can do alongside raising the carbon tax. It is significantly more effective than the policy that the government itself proposes. If we listen to the National Institute of Economic Research, we will have prices approaching 40 kronor per liter in order to reach the climate goals with the government's policy. But they are kept significantly lower with the Center Party's policy.

Show me what lies to the foundation of the claim that we reach the climate goals!

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! It is obvious that Rickard Nordin and I have different views on which different policy instruments are needed to reach the climate goals. We have different visions of how we are to get there. I promised Rickard Nordin earlier that I would not mention nuclear power in this debate, but unfortunately, I will do so. It is an incredibly important piece of the puzzle to get the climate transition started in a truly functional way.

It is not about the small symbols that might feel good in the stomach. A reduction obligation at a record-high level in the EU, a plastic bag tax, and an electric bicycle subsidy are not things that will make us reach the climate goals. We are talking about large structural transformations. If electrification is to work, we need more clean electricity.

Rickard Nordin says that we need much more wind and that the fossil-free power plants can constitute a much larger part of our electricity system. But we see clearly what happens when we do not have a stable base power in the foundation. Hydroelectric power is incredibly important, but the other part is nuclear power. There, we have different views on how we should reach the climate goals.

We both agree that the forest should be utilized, but to reach the transport sector goals, electrification is most important – and to ensure that we have the people with us. If we do not have the people with us, it doesn't matter what fine goals that Rickard and I think we should reach. If we do not have the people with us, it will not happen in practice.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! The global average temperature exceeded one and a half degrees during 2024. Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions increased, and emissions from road traffic in Sweden increased by a full 18 percent compared to the previous year.

The reports are full of indications that the government's policy does not meet our national climate goals and EU commitments. OECD and the Climate Policy Council have in their reports stated that the government's policy is insufficient to reach national climate goals and EU commitments by 2030.

The Climate Policy Council notes in its report that certain decided and announced measures during 2024 – including, among others, the new reduction obligation – were steps in the right direction. But they do not outweigh other decisions during the mandate period that have contributed to increased emissions, primarily within the transport sector.

Madam Speaker! In order for Sweden to reach these goals by 2030, further measures to reduce emissions within the transport sector are necessary. This applies in particular to the goal for emissions from domestic transport, which, according to the Riksdag's adopted climate policy framework, shall be reduced by 70 percent by 2030 at the latest.

In order for Sweden to reach its EU commitment, the so-called ESR target, by 2030 and avoid paying expensive fines, emission-reducing measures within transport are also required here.

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet welcomes that the government is implementing an increase of the current level of the reduction obligation. But in line with the majority of the referral bodies, we can state that an increase of the reduction obligation from 6 to 10 percent until 2030 is insufficient if we are to reach the EU's ESR requirements and our national climate goals by the same year. This applies not least since the government intends to compensate for the level increase in the reduction obligation. The government also does not present any concrete proposals on how to strengthen a national production of sustainable biofuels.

Madam Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet have in several motions set out our view on the reduction obligation and what measures we consider required within the transport sector to reduce emissions in a sustainable way according to adopted national goals and EU commitments for the climate by 2030. We consider that the reduction obligation is important for greenhouse gas emissions to decrease in accordance with these goals.

An increased national and sustainable production of renewable fuels strengthens Sweden's self-sufficiency in fuels during a transition period before the electrification of the transport sector is completed.

The reduction obligation needs to be one of several necessary measures for this to be possible. The limited increase in the level of the reduction obligation that the government proposes in the bill is, in our opinion, insufficient, and the climate effect is uncertain. This is due, among other things, to the fact that publicly loaded electricity is included in the new reduction obligation and that the reduced tax on gasoline and diesel actually counteracts electrification.

Vänsterpartiet has for a long time proposed a large number of measures and initiatives to reduce emissions by favoring sustainable modes of transport and increasing the pace of electrification of road traffic. These measures for a more transport-efficient society reduce emissions in a sustainable way and reduce the need for bio-raw materials for the reduction obligation.

We have proposed, among other things, large state investments in cheaper and expanded public transport, a mode-neutral travel deduction, an electric car bonus for those with lower incomes, and urban environment agreements where reduced car travel is prioritized.

Madam Speaker! We currently have infrastructure planning and policy that in significant parts do not take into account our climate goals but instead enable investments that increase car traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. It is a problem with an overly one-sided focus on the reduction obligation as a tool to reach set climate goals. There are also other disadvantages with too high levels in the reduction obligation.

We must not forget that biofuels also produce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, it is important that we can reduce people's need for cars to manage everyday life. The more we can do that, the greater the gain will be for the climate and the environment. It is the responsibility of politics to give people this opportunity.

Even though biofuels must meet sustainability criteria, the use of various bio-based raw materials for production means that land areas are affected directly or indirectly.

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of our reservation 4 in the report. It concerns that the government should return with a proposal for an action plan containing proposals for reduction levels for petrol and diesel with requirements for progressively increased blending of biofuels until 2030. This shall be combined with other measures that streamline and reduce road traffic in a fair climate transition in line with adopted national climate goals and EU commitments until 2030.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the bill and the rejection of all reservations.

The proposition contains several proposals for legislative changes aimed at adapting Swedish legislation to changed EU directives on renewable energy, fuel quality, and energy efficiency, as well as to the EU regulation ReFuelEU Aviation. It also contains proposals regarding a new reduction obligation and new rules for data centers and sustainable fuels.

It is in many parts quite complicated material that is handled in the committee report, and we see in the follow-up motions – and have also noticed it in the debate so far – that most of it still once again revolves around the reduction obligation and biofuels. There are several different proposals there. The part about data centers may, however, remain untouched, as far as I have been able to read. Therefore, I will not also touch upon it in more detail in my speech.

The bill addresses new and amended sustainability criteria for fuels. The sustainability criteria are expanded to include more types of fuels, including renewable fuels of non-biological origin and recycled carbon fuels.

The proposals in the bill are consistent with the obligations resulting from Sweden's EU membership. Most of the proposals aim to implement the new sustainability criteria in the renewable energy directive.

The Member States have, in certain parts, the possibility to introduce more extensive legislation than the renewable energy directive prescribes. It could, for example, be to require sustainability statements from more installations that use solid and gaseous biofuels. But such a solution appears to be administratively burdensome. Therefore, it has been omitted in the bill.

The proposals are therefore judged not to exceed what the renewable energy directive requires. That is pleasing, Madam Speaker, as Sweden has in many respects previously willingly gone further than required and over-implemented EU legislation. This has since backfired on us ourselves.

The purpose of the sustainability criteria is to ensure that the renewable fuels used in Sweden are sustainable. Requirements are set both for the raw material used in production and that the use of renewable fuels shall lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to the use of fossil fuels.

Most of the motions in the report concern the reduction obligation in some form. The new reduction obligation for petrol and diesel proposed in the bill becomes more technology-neutral and can also be fulfilled through the delivery of fossil-free electricity from public charging stations.

As we have heard earlier, the levels for emission reduction are being raised from 6 to 10 percent for both petrol and diesel so that Sweden can steer towards its ESR commitment. I want to add here that the Steering Measures Inquiry has been tasked to analyze whether steering measures can be designed to phase out fossil fuels from the sectors covered by the EU's effort-sharing regulation, also called the ESR regulation, at the pace required to reach the long-term climate goal for 2045 in a cost-effective and socio-economically efficient manner, and the other EU-legal commitments that Sweden has in the climate area.

The instrument review shall, among other things, submit proposals on how the reduction obligation should be developed and analyze which other instruments can be used to ensure that Sweden's climate commitments within the EU are met.

The investigation shall also look at whether a common reduction requirement should be set regarding petrol and diesel. Given how it went with the previous government's calculations and the lack of underlying data regarding the reduction obligation, it is now extremely important that there is a basis that it is actually possible to base decisions on, and decisions that hold over time.

This matter of obtaining decisions that hold and removing the volatility in politics is also something that has been very clearly requested by the referral bodies. Furthermore, the part that is to analyze which other policy instruments can be used to ensure that Sweden's climate commitments within the EU are met is extremely important, so that we do not once again put all our eggs in one basket.

Madam Speaker! I want to address some of the reservations found in the committee report. I particularly want to mention how the Green Party and the Left Party – as we have already partially heard from the rostrum – on one hand demand an increased amount of biofuels but on the other hand demand a more restrained agriculture and forestry. They believe that Sweden should strive to, to an ever greater extent, strengthen the national capacity for self-sufficiency of fuels, but what is it to be produced from? Furthermore, short-lived products are undesirable in these two parties' narratives, which clearly emerged in the forestry debate earlier this spring but also in the two climate debates we had two weeks ago. This means that their equation does not add up. We are to replace fossil material, but we are not to use the forest. At the same time, we are to increase self-sufficiency. What shall we use then? Do we want a transition or not?

The direction of the proposal implies stricter and broadened sustainability requirements for fuels, new reporting requirements for data centers, and a reworked and more technology-neutral reduction obligation. The purpose is to reach the EU's climate goals and promote electrification, which to the highest degree is a transition for the future.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Unlike other members, I intend to stick to the reduction obligation and not nuclear power.

In a previous debate in the chamber today, Minister for Finance Niklas Wykman said that we have an aggressive Russia that lives on selling energy products and that we need real solutions. Yes, we do. But in the midst of a burning war in Ukraine financed by Russian oil money, the government chooses to deliberately increase the use of fossil fuels. In the midst of a burning climate crisis, when a united body of researchers demands reduced emissions, the government chooses to actively increase them. This is qualified madness. In the midst of an economic recession with weak growth and sky-high unemployment, the government also chooses to turn down tens of thousands of Swedish jobs. What is this government doing?

Today's adjustment of the reduction obligation does not mean that we meet the climate goals. There is no one other than possibly Helena Storckenfeldt who believes that. There is no backing from any research that says this. It also became clear in a previous exchange of remarks. We are therefore talking about an increase of 4 million liters of diesel per day from the previous levels. That diesel does not come from Norwegian North Sea oil but from untraceable sources, with high probability from rogue states.

What the government is doing overturns the long-term perspective for the transition that has existed and which the business community so eagerly demands in order to be able to make their investments. We have already seen reports that investments of up to 20 billion have been stopped. The climate action plan, which was postponed time and again until it could no longer be done, is a castle in the air. Policy instruments shall be investigated to, at best, be in place after the next election. The Minister for Climate seems to have given up hope of getting this government to reduce emissions. The violations of the Climate Act are obvious.

But the government's point of contention is that renewable fuels are inefficient. They refer to the National Audit Office's report. But even there, the summary already states that it is an effective policy instrument. It is significantly more effective than electrification, especially in the short term. The only thing mentioned as being more effective is to stop the logging in the forest. I believe that Kjell-Arne Ottosson and I are in complete agreement that it would be insane policy. This government often talks about effective climate policy, but what they have been effective in is scrapping it.

Thea Konjunkturinstitutet has, moreover, advocated for an increased carbon tax, the same tax that the government has lowered. When the government talks about putting all eggs in the same basket, it is a pure lie. This government has crushed all the eggs. The electric car bonus has been removed. The travel deduction with a focus on rural areas and public transport has been abolished. The requirements for climate-smart procurement were also scrapped, and the reduction obligation was slaughtered.

Renewable fuels are the most effective we have, according to the National Audit Office, if we are to stop deforestation. I understand that you are not listening to me. But listen to yourselves! We have a State Secretary who has said: "The reduction obligation is our tool to reach the climate goals in the transport sector. The alternative is prohibition and rationing or abandoning the climate goals. I hear no one arguing for that, only against the reduction obligation." That was said by Daniel Westlén in the election year 2022.

Unlike fossil fuels, where we have 100 percent import and where we know that world production comes from countries like Russia, whose entire war economy is financed by fossil assets, we have the opportunity to produce renewable fuels here in Sweden. Both the Bioeconomy Investigation and the Swedish Energy Agency have pointed out an enormous potential, with several billion liters from sustainable raw materials, tens of thousands of jobs, multi-billion investments, and rural initiatives. This is also in our reservation 10, which I move to approve.

Not so long ago, before the ugly face of populism appeared in the Moderaterna, it sounded different. Back then, people said this: "Good that the requirements for the inclusion of biofuels in our cars are increasing. Important for the transition and something M has demanded for a long time. But it is unclear why it has taken the government over a year to reach the same levels that the authority proposed and that you are therefore postponing the increase by half a year. Today, Sweden imports 85% of our biofuels. Now we need to get a domestic production of sustainable biofuels started."

This is what Jessica Rosencrantz said in 2020. But we still see no proposals from the government to get the Swedish production of sustainable biofuels started, only an investigation that lies in the filing cabinet and an increase in fossil fuels.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, prices rose. A natural response to such a Russian action is to reduce the dependence on the goods that we import from Russia, such as oil and gas. That certain parties who have a history of infiltration of Russia in the Riksdag are perhaps not so surprising when they cannot choose between Putin and Biden. But that my bourgeois colleagues in M, L and KD join this crowd surprises me even more, especially in the current security situation.

If one had wanted to tackle the increased prices, it would have been a good idea to lower the tax on renewables and perhaps also lower the reduction obligation fee and other things to spur further transition, preferably in combination with the investments in domestic production that Centerpartiet has long advocated for and which Moderaterna also advocated for before the election. But none of that has happened. Instead, the tax on fossil fuels has been lowered so much that there is a lower tax on fossil diesel than on pure electricity. It is not strange that electrification has stalled, that electric car sales are decreasing, and that the shares are falling.

Such a low reduction obligation also hits the countryside and the green industries directly in the heart. Sweden has tough climate goals, established here in the Riksdag with the support of seven out of eight parties. We are to reduce emissions in the transport sector by 70 percent. Combined with the EU goals we have for reduced emissions in sectors where one does not trade emission allowances, we would reach the goals. But – here comes the big but: – the EU goals apply to more sectors than just transport. They also apply to the land sector. If one increases the emissions from transport – and they increased by 18 percent last year – one must reduce them in the land sector, that is, the green industries.

Now that the government is completely turning its back on renewable fuels – which, moreover, actually work in today's engines – two paths remain. One is that we reduce logging in the forest and reduce food production – precisely what the Kristdemokraterna and Centerpartiet completely agree that we should not do. The other is that we ignore it all and pay the EU's fines. It will be expensive and quite frankly unnecessary: instead of investing the money here to reach our goals by investing in renewable fuels, we shall send them to Brussels as penalty fees.

The government usually says that one should invest in electrification instead, and so they invest in charging stations. But if anything has been judged as inefficient, it is partly because most of the charging takes place at home or at the workplace, and partly because it does not help with masses of charging spots when we are not getting any new cars out that can use them. The private market has died for electric cars after the environmental car bonus was scrapped.

The second measure the government often refers to is the purchase of emission allowances from other countries. There, the uncertainty is judged to be so great that it is unclear whether there will even be a surplus, and above all, the prices will become very high.

The third measure is to do things outside the EU. Here, the government has invested in e-scooters in Ghana. Then the big question is: Why is one investing in e-scooters in Ghana instead of electric cars in Sweden?

To summarize: What the government is doing effectively is increasing emissions and taking out a promissory note for future governments and taxpayers to pay, with interest.

The Climate Act is clear: the Government shall conduct climate policy work aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This and many other decisions from the Government are going in the completely wrong direction. They are flagrant violations of the law.

Then it is better to admit that we are not reaching the goals, that one is not investing in achieving them and that one does not think it is sufficiently important. That would have been honest. We need more honest politicians in the Riksdag who stand up for what they actually make decisions on.

We in the Center Party stand up for a policy that makes a real difference, which is anchored in research, which lowers both emissions and costs for the citizens while simultaneously strengthening our security situation and creating jobs.

Such a policy should be pursued by every party that calls itself conservative. We hold the line against Russian fuels, against climate delayers and climate deniers in the Riksdag. We will bring down every government that lowers Sweden's climate ambitions.

(Applause)

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not easy to stand up in the debate after Rickard Nordin, but it was well said.

Last year, 2024, was the first year that the earth's average temperature exceeded a 1.5-degree temperature increase globally. Last year, 2024, was also the year when Sweden's climate emissions spiraled out of control and Sweden became the country in Europe that had the fastest increase in emissions.

In Sweden, domestic transport accounts for approximately one-third of our national emissions. The main reason that emissions in Sweden increased so sharply in 2024 was the increased use of fossil fuels due to a lowered reduction obligation. According to the debate, it is the Tidö parties' idea of a good climate policy.

Sweden has a Climate Act which states that the government shall conduct climate work aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions and which aims to prevent dangerous disruption in the climate system. Sweden shall meet both the national climate goals and the binding climate commitments towards the EU, both in the short and in the long term.

This is something that has been somewhat overlooked in the debate so far. It is the climate goals that we are to reach. It is not about whether we love the reduction obligation or do not like the reduction obligation. We shall use tools in order to be able to reach the climate goals.

In the long term, the transition of the transport sector specifically is primarily about electrification and transport efficiency. But the reduction obligation has at all times been seen as a necessary transitional solution.

Cars with internal combustion engines are still being sold, and it is estimated that a car is used for an average of about 17 years. It will take a long time to convert the vehicle fleet to electric power. The reduction obligation can in the near term provide us with a significant and predictable phasing out of fossil fuels from the vehicles that are rolling on our roads today.

The reduction obligation for diesel was lowered by the government from 30 percent to 6 percent starting from the year 2024, the same year that Sweden's emissions began to surge. In the bill, the government now proposes that the reduction levels for gasoline and diesel shall be raised from 6 to 10 percent from July 1, 2025, until December 31, 2026, and that the reduction levels shall be 10 percent for the period 2027–2030. Our climate minister calls this "the golden solution" and simultaneously puts too few eggs in the same basket.

Several heavy referral bodies consider that the reduction level of 10 percent proposed in the bill is not sufficient to ensure that Sweden's ESR commitment, that is, our commitment according to EU legislation, can be reached.

Another long row of referral bodies point out in their responses that the level of 10 percent is also not sufficient to reach Sweden's national climate goals. The Climate Policy Council also notes in its annual review that the government, even with the new proposals, is not even close to achieving the EU's climate goals by 2030.

Furthermore, the government's proposal includes including electricity from public charging stations in the reduction obligation. This will lower the reduction obligation already this year and every year hereafter and successively the requirement for the blending of renewable fuels to achieve the reduction obligation.

The requirement for biofuels will therefore decrease every year until the year 2030. Several referral bodies clearly point out that the inclusion of electricity increases the need to raise the reduction obligation so that the proportion of renewables in fossil fuels is not eroded. With the low reduction obligation that the government is now proposing, the requirement for renewable fuels will in the future be significantly lower than the levels of the reduction obligation itself.

I and Miljöpartiet believe that the reduction obligation needs to be raised gradually to ensure that the proportion of fossil fuels in Swedish fuels does not increase as a larger proportion of the vehicle fleet is electrified. We believe that the level for the reduction obligation in the proposal is far too low.

We want the level for the reduction obligation for gasoline to be raised to 10 percent on July 1, 2025, and to 12 percent on January 1, 2026. For diesel, we want the level to be raised to 25 percent on July 1, 2025, and to 30 percent on January 1, 2026.

Furthermore, we want the government to come back with a new proposal on new levels for the reduction obligation for gasoline and diesel until the year 2030. These shall be levels that will contribute to Sweden's national climate goals and climate commitment towards the EU being met.

We naturally believe that more measures are needed to reduce emissions from the transport sector. We therefore want Sweden to introduce, as soon as possible, in addition to expanding the reduction obligation, a national emissions trading system that can guarantee that the climate goals for 2030 can be achieved.

The emission trading systems simultaneously provide revenues that can be used to support those households that currently lack reasonable alternatives to fossil transport and to make the alternatives to fossil fuels cheaper.

To manage the transition, fossil fuels need to become more expensive, electric cars cheaper, and railways and public transport cheaper and better. We want to roll out a national electric car offensive with various supports for the purchase and leasing of electric cars, so that the electric car becomes more attractive and accessible for more people.

We want to increase the reduction obligation and introduce a production subsidy for biofuels, and we want to invest heavily in railways and public transport with, among other things, Sverigekortet. It is a card that perhaps the Sweden Democrats might think sounds nice, because they like Sweden as a prefix.

In 2027, Sweden is to implement the EU's new emissions trading system ETS 2, which includes, among other things, the transport sector. This is, of course, welcome. But it does not provide sufficient steering for Sweden to meet either the EU's binding commitments or the Swedish climate goals.

The reduction obligation continues to fulfill an important function, especially in the short term. The Government has appointed the so-called Steering Measures Inquiry, which shall look at which steering measures can be designed to phase out fossil fuels.

To enable the introduction of a national emissions trading system as early as possible, we believe that the investigator should receive an additional directive to specifically investigate such a system and submit a partial report on it as soon as possible.

Access to sustainable biofuels needs to increase so that the sale of fossil fuels can cease. For this, clear and long-term political goals are needed, while we also need to ensure a sustainable production and a sustainable extraction of biomass.

We therefore view the revised rules in the EU's Renewable Energy Directive, which aim to ensure a sustainable extraction of forest biomass for biofuels and biofuels, positively.

But Sweden lacks both legislation and a system for monitoring and control that prevents forests with high nature values from becoming biofuels. Therefore, we would like to see that Sweden, in connection with the implementation of the EU's revised renewable directive, needs to ensure sustainable forestry and protection of forests with high nature values.

In conclusion: If we are to reach our climate goals, fossil fuels need to be phased out from the transport sector. The proposal for the increased reduction obligation that we are debating today is completely insufficient.

If access to sustainably produced clean biofuels, such as HVO100 and other renewable fuels, is supported in the long term, it contributes to companies' sustainability work and competitiveness, and to the development of domestic production chains which, among other things, create new jobs and strengthen Sweden's crisis preparedness.

Sweden has everything to gain from a swift and just transition. We can rid ourselves of our harmful fossil dependency, push out Russian gas and Russian gasoline, and strengthen our resilience. Swedish companies can profit from exporting climate-smart technology. With the proposal we have on the table, we risk losing all of this and simultaneously missing our climate goals.

Madam Speaker! I would therefore like to move for the approval of the Miljöpartiets reservation 6, Development of the reduction obligation and a national emissions trading system.

In this speech, Jan Riise (MP) agreed.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

In a previous speech, honest or honorable politicians were sought – I don't quite remember which it was, but something in that style was said. Katarina Luhr deserves credit, because she is truly honest, honorable, and clear about what Miljöpartiet wants. In the 30-minute segment where Amanda Lind was present, it was also very clear, not least regarding the reduction obligation and the price of fuel. It is to be raised significantly.

We heard Katarina Luhr in her speech mention a lot of other measures that would be added to the reduction obligation. As we have heard at least over the last two years in the budget debate, we have two parties in this chamber that have so immensely more money than the other parties. It is unreasonably large loans that are to be taken for both support and investments. But I will let that ball lie and come back to the biofuel.

Miljöpartiet writes about sustainable fuel in its motions, and there are reservations about that. Therefore, I must ask Katarina Luhr: What shall we produce the biofuel from in Sweden? We are to increase the self-sufficiency of domestically produced biofuel. What shall we use?

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

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

I would like to start by talking about the money. Where do we get all the money from? An important source that we will get money from if we can introduce it is the national emissions trading system. That is where we intend to bring in money to be able to make some of the investments we want to make. But we also want to be able to distribute money to those who need support in order to be able to transition.

This is one of the reforms that we propose in order to be able to invest in reducing emissions without those who actually have the hardest time transitioning being affected. I think it is important to emphasize that one can choose where they want to invest their money.

Then we come to sustainable forestry. I think it is interesting. We will need products from the forest, and we will need products from agriculture. And we will need large amounts of increased biogas production, for example, to increase the production of biofuels. But we also have sources that we can use which we do not use to the full today.

I think the government has slowed down a bit in its eagerness to do something. Now they talk about taking a lot of climate measures, but we don't actually see any measures. We only see removed measures.

I am fully convinced that there is a large source of biofuels where we can increase our own domestic production in order to also strengthen our preparedness. We must look at this broadly now that we need to produce our own energy in a much better way.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

It is therefore not enough that we have an emissions trading system at the EU level; we are also going to complicate and make the whole thing more expensive with an emissions trading system at the national level. Furthermore, we are going to raise prices significantly on fuel. The question is how we are even going to be able to afford to produce anything in this country with all these additional costs.

Katarina Luhr and the undersigned stood here and debated earlier regarding forest, for example, and the Green Party's longing to go back to clear-cutting. We shall clear-cut, she argues. Then the question is: In what way are we to obtain raw materials for biofuels from the forest if we are to go back to clear-cutting again? Furthermore, one wants to let the debris remain in the forest so that it can return as fertilization, for we are apparently not to have any fertilization in the forest otherwise to increase growth.

In agriculture, where we can also source raw materials, the Green Party does not want to have inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers to achieve good harvests. This also puts a spoke in the wheel for agriculture.

The question is once again: Where shall the goods be sourced? I think it would be very good if we could achieve an expanded domestic production. On that, we are in complete agreement; it would be absolutely excellent. But if we do not give either the forestry or the agriculture the chance to contribute with the goods, where will we then source the raw materials for the domestically produced fuel?

(Applause)

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker and Member Ottosson! I was previously a local politician and worked, among other things, with the issue of biofuels. In my municipality, we conducted a study on how one could have a sustainable extraction of agricultural products to produce biofuels, for example. There are quite large areas within agriculture that currently lie fallow and which could be used to produce products that can be used to make biofuels.

I would also like to raise the issue of forestry. I think it is a bit strange with the Christian Democrats, because it feels like you neither want to produce biofuels nor protect forests with high natural values. It feels like everything is about what the Green Party thinks is wrong.

I believe there are very many with me who actually think that there are such large values in the forest that we need to protect the forests that today are not plantations. We have previously in this debate talked about that we have very large forest plantations where we have replanted that do not have the same nature values. I think it is important to keep two thoughts in mind at the same time, and I think it is very important to protect our forests.

I would have liked to ask a question. Do low fuel prices take precedence over reduced climate emissions? Is it more important that we have low gasoline prices than that we reduce climate emissions? It also leads to enormously high prices for both us citizens, the business sector, and agriculture when the climate changes hit us in the long run.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 22 May.)

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