Overall environmental issues

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! This is a very mixed report. It includes many different issues that span a wide area. I will therefore delve into some of the issues and move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

When one thinks of the Moderates, it is perhaps most natural to think of freedom, responsibility, property rights. Property rights are fundamental for the Moderates. It is a human right, which is protected both in the Instrument of Government and in the European Convention.

A year ago, when the corresponding report was last handled, we in opposition pushed through clear formulations on property rights that gathered a majority and became an announcement to the government at that time. It was an important step.

We see that the right of ownership and the right to use the land one owns are at risk of being eroded. Many forest owners describe it as a slippery slope. We think that is a pity, because the forest owners provide us with both climate-smart products and unforgettable nature experiences for everyone who visits the forest. For this, they deserve respect and gratitude. The Swedish forest has contributed to lifting our country out of poverty and is today one of our most important industries, which creates jobs and welfare throughout the country. Furthermore, the forest has a central role in the green transition and is a key to breaking our fossil dependency.

Long-term ownership and management, which often extends over several generations, deserves better conditions. We Moderates want the competitive conditions for Swedish farmers to be strengthened. Therefore, it is important that we stand up for the right of ownership.

Mr. Speaker! Environmental crime often has serious consequences for people, animals, and nature, and this over a long period. Environmental crime needs to be taken more seriously and prioritized higher. Far from all environmental crimes are reported, and even fewer are solved. Environmental crime, not least illegal emissions of environmental toxins, can have far-reaching consequences.

But for the majority of environmental crimes prosecuted, the penalty is no more than a day-fine, even though imprisonment is in the range of penalties. In order to curb environmental crimes and for the penalties to be in parity with the crimes, we want to tighten the penalties for more serious environmental crimes.

But for environmental crimes to be curbed, more also need to be detected. Here, the supervisory authorities play a large and important role. Supervision needs to achieve equality across the country. It should not depend on whether the municipality in question has or does not have knowledge and competence in the area. The quality needs to be improved, and smaller municipalities' possibilities to fulfill the assignment need to be strengthened. This involves, for example, cooperation between municipalities or systems with experts who can provide advice on specific industry issues.

Mr. Speaker! Many companies testify today of long processing times for environmental permits when they want to invest and develop their operations. This also applies to all those operations that create climate benefits. Instead of being encouraged, they face obstacles today.

This winter, I and some colleagues visited the Untra hydroelectric power plant, which, when it was built, was believed to be able to supply all of Stockholm with electricity for a long time to come, if not forever. No increased production would be required, quite simply. Now, however, we have learned that was not the case and that much more will be needed, not least for the green transition. For 15 years, one had to struggle to obtain permission to expand the hydroelectric plant's production—something that should have been able to happen many years earlier. This is unreasonable.

Hydropower constitutes a fundamental part of the Swedish power supply. In 2022, it accounted for 41 percent of Swedish electricity production, and there is great potential to increase the output from existing hydropower, for example through investments in new turbines. Untra is an example of how unnecessarily long permit processes hindered the Swedish power supply and the transition. We will need twice as much electricity as we use today just by 2045. But instead, development is being slowed down by unnecessarily long and complicated processes.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's competitiveness and welfare are built on the fact that we have a secure and stable electricity supply. Energy policy must secure electricity at competitive prices and guarantee that electricity is available when and where it is needed. To reduce our emissions and secure future jobs, Sweden needs more clean electricity, which enables increased growth and a competitive industry.

Climate change is becoming increasingly tangible, and a whole palette of solutions will be required to reach net-zero emissions. The electrification of industry and transport, two of our largest emitters, is a large piece of the puzzle. But for us to succeed, it will - with the risk of repetition - require much more clean electricity.

Our energy system today is built around hydropower in the north and nuclear power in the south. This has laid the foundation for our robust, fossil-free electricity system, which ensures that we have enough electricity for Sweden's households, companies, and other critical societal functions.

It is probably no one who has missed that the Moderaterna want more nuclear power. The policy that S-led governments have pursued for decades to deteriorate and ultimately phase out nuclear power has been harmful for Sweden. With the Tidö Agreement, this government has set a new course for Sweden, which guarantees a future where nuclear power can be built.

But we also agree that all fossil-free types of power are needed. Wind power will be needed. We are currently in a tough economic situation, and both households and companies need much more clean electricity at reasonable prices. Therefore, we must do everything in our power to develop proposals that lead to more fossil-free electricity production, regardless of the type of power. Our focus must be on building up a fossil-free energy system that lasts in the long run.

When expert agencies have reviewed the plans for the transition, they have concluded that the electricity demand will amount to 280 terawatt-hours already by 2035. To meet this challenge, the industry, experts, and authorities have jointly been clear about one thing: wind power will be needed. And the Moderates agree.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helena Storckenfeldt, for the speech! I am happy to pick up where the member ended her speech – the need for more electricity in Sweden. I heard that we agree that one of the major problems when it comes to producing more electricity is the permit processes.

The previous S-led government appointed two inquiries, the Environmental Assessment Inquiry and the Climate Justice Inquiry. They are both finished and referred and are lying on the government's desk. My question is: Why are you, the parties in the Tidö group, sitting on your hands right now? You appoint another inquiry - okay, but why not move forward with the proposals that could already now lead to faster permit processes? Why this sluggishness?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Obviously, there are things missing in what the previous Social Democratic government has worked out. We can see this in several different areas. A rethink was needed here, partly to increase acceptance, and partly to ensure that it is actually possible to expand wind power in a reasonable and good way where ownership rights are also taken into account. We see that many landowners want to expand more wind power.

Then I want to urge the members: We are the Tidö parties.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! The question remains, however. I can certainly have sympathy for wanting to continue investigating whether there is more that can be done with the proposals that were in the investigations. But the proposals that are already investigated, referred, and ready – why are they not being moved forward? Is there something specific in those proposals that the Moderaterna and the other parties behind the government do not agree with or do not think are good? In that case, it would be nice to hear it. Otherwise, my question remains: Why not move forward with legislation that could have improved the permit processes here and now?

It may also be worth reflecting on a group of important authorities when it comes to the permit processes, namely the county administrative boards, and how the government has chosen to handle the funding there. How does it facilitate the permit review that the resources to the county administrative boards are being reduced?

I was there on Monday and visited the County Administrative Board of Västra Götaland. There, approximately 8 million kronor disappear per year for just the permit review. That corresponds to almost 16 positions. How does that facilitate the permit review?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have, among other things, issued a supplementary directive to strengthen the incentives for the expansion of wind power in the municipalities. We see that it is one of the absolutely biggest issues. Both my party and the member's party govern in municipalities in Sweden that have said no to wind power. It is obvious that we need to increase the incentives for the expansion of wind power. It is one of the absolutely most important issues. Here, the government has recently issued a supplementary directive. I look forward very much to what that investigation will come up with.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helena Storckenfeldt, for the speech! The member began with the right of ownership. It is a word that has been raised in the debate very much and ever more strongly in recent years. Just as the member said, it is protected in both the Instrument of Government and the European Convention.

But it is also written there that the public interest sometimes takes precedence. In that case, the person who owns a property can also be entitled to reasonable compensation. Sometimes when the Moderaterna speak, I think it can sound as if there is no restriction on the right of ownership. If you own something, you can do whatever you want with it.

I am a forest owner myself. There are laws and rules that one must adhere to, and I am glad that there is a common framework for what one is allowed and not allowed to do, because as an individual, one cannot always keep track of everything, and one also cannot always see one's own part in a larger context or in a larger ecosystem.

When I hear representatives for the Moderaterna and most recently the member himself speak, it sounds as if the one who owns something themselves gets to decide, and no one else should interfere. Do the Moderaterna see that there actually are such things where we can have common rules, or is it always the one who owns something who should decide for themselves?

If one has an industry, for example, there are emission rules and other laws and regulations, and there is nothing strange about that, but as soon as it concerns land or forest, it sounds like from the Moderaterna that everything should be permitted, because the individual knows best. Is this correctly understood?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I described in my speech that many forest owners experience it as a slippery slope right now. For us Moderates, it is about maintaining a sense of reasonableness in these issues. There must be a reasonableness.

We have very high confidence in forest owners precisely because we see that they take care of their piece of nature in a way that "Authority Sweden" is not able to do. There we have a very high confidence in the forest owners, for the natural values they preserve and for how they work with biodiversity on their own plot on this earth. We see that they take care of their own in a way that Sweden as a whole could not do. We therefore have a very high confidence here.

But this sloping plan is something that we must get right. It is something that does not align here with how we treat our landowners all around Sweden, and it is something that I want to work on in any case.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! I also have a very high level of confidence in landowners, farmers and forest owners. But I see that one may need help in seeing the whole in a larger context - what one does on one's own land, one cannot always know how it affects the neighbor's and so on.

The committee members are talking about a downward trajectory. We have had this order for a long time, and yet we see that we have a smaller proportion of old-growth forest now than ever before, and more is being logged. We see a species extinction at record speed, and we see that the biodiversity in the agricultural landscape is decreasing.

The system we have now has not worked completely. Now there is legislation coming from the EU that we must restore our land, because we have simply destroyed a lot of land areas because we thought it was best. Now we see that we need to do it in a different way.

I would rather see that we help our landowners and forest owners with advice so that they can do the right thing. The vast majority want to do the right thing, but it is incredibly difficult to keep track of everything.

Do the Moderates and the member see any possibility that this could be part of the whole, or is it always the one who owns something who knows best?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! What one owns, one takes care of. This lays the foundation somewhere. From this, we can then discuss restrictions in different ways.

Sweden has historically had to restrict landowners' rights in order to be able to build socially important infrastructure. We will see this again, not least now when we are to expand the electricity grid to meet the electrification of our industries and transport. There, it is a matter of reasonable compensation.

But one must ground oneself somewhere in this issue. For us, the basis is that one takes care of what one owns, and that we have confidence in our landowners.

When it comes to how our nature is managed, I would rather see how this is done within nature reserves, for example. There we have seen that it has not been done in a particularly good way. There, the landowners are the priority, and there Myndighetssverige should learn from the landowners – not the other way around.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I started the debate a bit early by requesting a reply before it was time for my speech; it is indeed an exciting topic we have to debate today.

We are debating the report Overall environmental issues. It is a somewhat sprawling report, but it is incredibly important. It concerns the major issues that set the framework, for example the environmental goals system, the Environmental Code, permit processes, ownership rights - as was just spoken about - as well as the right to speak, environmental crime and public procurement. It concerns the major parts that set the rules of the game.

I want to say already now that I obviously stand behind all of the Green Party's reservations, but that for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 15, which concerns the fact that the Environmental Code must be climate-proofed.

Mr. Speaker! We are facing a decisive time if we are to meet the climate challenge. The research is unambiguous. The latest IPCC report speaks its clear language – and unfortunately, a very sad language: We are currently not on track to meet the common commitments we have. The research world is also clear that we really must try to do it. We must meet the Paris Agreement's goal of keeping us below 1.5 degrees. It is about us being able to live in a world that we recognize, that can be managed and where we can get food, transport, and everything else to function.

If we exceed 1.5 degrees, we do not really know what awaits, but research shows that it will probably be a much more frightening planet that we will live on. There will be more extensive extreme weather, more droughts and downpours and shattered ecosystems, probably with mass migration as a consequence because many lands will not be farmable. It must not happen.

Mr. Speaker! This is something we have known for a while, and after a few shaky years, Sweden has actually tried to get on the right track. Right now, the green transition is taking place in Sweden.

Through long-term rules of the game and common goals for where we are headed, the S-MP government created the conditions. Jointly in this chamber, except for one party, we have also adopted a climate law - the climate policy framework. We have a 2030 goal of where we are headed, to provide the conditions to reach the goals. We also created conditions for this to be achievable with common means, such as Klimatklivet, Industriklivet, Fossilfritt Sverige, and so on.

Of course, there was grumbling at the beginning - people said it wouldn't work - but then one realized the seriousness and saw that it probably will work. It is difficult, but if we succeed, it will also provide competitive advantages. If Sweden succeeds in taking the lead, our companies will also do well. We see the opportunities now; we see fossil-free steel and battery factories. Sweden has the lead - and must continue to have it.

In a typically Swedish way, we also sat down and talked about how we move forward. The Environmental Goals Commission received a new assignment to look at how consumption emissions can be reduced. Jointly from all parties, we also delivered a model for how this could be done, as well as a model for how Swedish exports could contribute to this.

Unfortunately, that model has not moved forward under the new government, and here we come to the absurdity that exists in this context, Mr. Speaker: We have had a bourgeois government put in place which, together with the coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna, is pulling the rug out from under what was about to happen.

We see a tossing of the energy policy, new rules of the game, a counteraction against the cheapest energy source - wind power - and a reduction of the reduction obligation without anyone telling what they will do instead. They took the eggs out of the basket and did not put any new ones in at all. We also see a total inability to see that biodiversity and healthy ecosystems are part of the solution - that a healthy planet and healthy ecosystems have higher resilience. No, this government seems to remove everything, and woe to the one who says that a species or a plant would be necessary.

Clear and long-term rules of the game are a prerequisite for being able to plan one's operations, and the volatility that prevails now is not for the better. It increases the risk that economic investments will be withheld. Without a long-term plan, the companies are left vulnerable.

We see that legislation is needed that takes this new situation into account, and we see that the Environmental Code needs to be climate-proofed. We see that there need to be stop rules regarding high greenhouse gas emissions in permit assessments, and we see that the legislation needs to be developed so that one can stop the fossil and instead get investments in the fossil-free.

We see that a major investment in renewable and cheap energy production needs to be made, and today wind power is the cheapest source of energy. Already this year, wind power is expected to account for 30 percent of Swedish electricity production, and companies are queuing to build in the best wind locations. At Svenska kraftnät, there are over 70 applications for offshore wind farms, which more than corresponds to the electricity demand we have and will have.

In order for the positive development regarding renewable energy to continue, the municipal veto needs to be reformed. An investigation was indeed commissioned, but it received additional directives that made this impossible to solve. There must also be efficient permit processes, and we believe that all examinations should be gathered at one and the same authority. The permits must, in fact, be in place for all of this to be able to happen, Mr. Speaker – so that we can build up the green transition.

I believe that several of my political opponents will push for regulatory simplifications and the removal of the possibility of appeal. If one reads the report, one sees that they think the best thing would be if the companies were allowed to do as they pleased, whenever they pleased. And yes, regulatory simplifications are good – we should not have rules unnecessarily – but many rules exist for a reason. We must ensure that we do not trample on other values. We must weigh different societal interests against one another.

Sometimes conflicts of objectives arise, and then they must be resolved. At the same time, we see that several of the new activities that are now in the queue were not even intended – it was not even known that they would come – when the rules were written. Therefore, we must update the legislation, but that does not mean the same thing as scrapping everything.

I believe that the most important thing that needs to be done concerns capacity. When I am out and talking with companies that have sometimes waited for permits for many years and have received the notice that what they have written is not sufficient and that they must provide supplements, it turns out that it is rarely the legislation that is at fault. Instead, it is the capacity on the other side – that the municipalities do not have the officials on site who are needed. The County Administrative Boards do not have the people on site who are needed, that is to say, not enough staff. Nor is there enough staff in the courts.

We just heard my colleague from the Social Democrats tell that we visited the County Governor of Västra Götaland County on Monday. There, it was discussed how they handled the large applications that came in: They worked in teams and reduced the long processing time that has been there, to show that this is important. They had all the staff and all the knowledge involved from the beginning. This has resulted in that the spade has already been set in the ground for a battery factory in Gothenburg and that there is one underway in Mariestad. But it was also said that they receive less money and that they cannot do this without money.

To my dear friends in the government parties and the coalition party, I would therefore like to say: If you want results, make sure to provide more funds to municipalities, regions, county councils and courts! Then the queues will decrease and the green revolution will be here sooner than we thought.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As we have heard earlier, today we are debating a report which we internally in MJU somewhat disparagingly call the "sludge funnel" (slasktratten). This is not because the topics in any way belong in a sludge, but it is here that we collect many of the motions that do not fit into other reports. The matters treated in this motion report are very important. From the colleagues who have already been at the rostrum, we have heard that it concerns, among other things, the Environmental Code, permit processes, environmental crime, and so on. These are, therefore, in no way any unimportant issues.

The Environmental Code is an important and large part of this. It receives quite a lot of criticism. Something that is quite interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that the former Prime Minister Göran Persson, who was to a large extent involved in the introduction of the Environmental Code as it looks today, has said that he has done a lot during his political career but that there is one thing he would like to redo and do right, and that is precisely the work with the Environmental Code.

The Environmental Code was written so unconditionally that it gave far too much power to the courts to step in and judge. There, the politics, regardless of side, had other thoughts about what was wanted with the Environmental Code. It is, therefore, written far too broadly. One should have gone into more detail and made it clearer. I believe, based on the motions I have seen, that we with quite great unanimity in this chamber can find ways to reform the Environmental Code in these parts so that we end up where we actually want to be.

We are right in the middle of the transition, and it is absolutely necessary. And those who are really leading the way are the business sector. They must lead the way - otherwise, they are not on track but could lock up and go home. At the same time, the business sector is very clear that they are doing the work, but that what largely hinders them is us - the legislation and the state.

They are very clear that we must achieve changed permit processes in several parts. That is why the government parties are so clear that the permit processes must be adapted and modernized, so that we can promote a faster transition. And it is precisely for that reason that, within not too distant future, an investigation will be launched – to simplify and shorten the environmental permit review according to the Environmental Code so that it becomes more flexible, efficient, and predictable.

Since, Mr. Speaker, we have also, as we heard here earlier, the Climate Justice Inquiry and the Environmental Assessment Inquiry, which have recently reviewed the Environmental Code with the aim of modernizing it. There are several parts that the government parties have said are good and which will be included there.

At the same time, I become a bit thoughtful, Mr. Speaker. We recently heard my colleague in the committee, Emma Nohrén, talk about, among other things, permit processes. In the report, many motions regarding permit processes are addressed and that these should be simplified and shortened. But there are no motions pointing in that direction from either Miljöpartiet or from Vänsterpartiet. Therefore, it would be interesting to know in what way they want to speed up the transition of the business sector and industry.

We heard here earlier that people spoke about more money, which is apparently the solution to everything. But I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker, that more money is always the solution to everything. Sweden is at the forefront, and if we are to be able to continue doing that, we must facilitate. We must secure the competitiveness of Swedish business. We must secure Swedish industrial production and promote a green transition with the export of climate-friendly products and technology. It is in that way, Mr. Speaker, that we lead the way – by bringing our goods, our technology, and our expertise out into the world.

According to the latest figure I saw, our exports are displacing carbon emissions equivalent to 26 million tons, thanks to the goods being manufactured in Sweden, where we have already taken many steps and thus, for example, have a significantly greener energy mix than in many other parts of the world.

We have had four announcements during the previous eight years that have dealt with exactly the permit processes. Unfortunately, nothing has happened, but I have great hopes that we will really be able to achieve something now that we know the investigation is underway and we see positive signals even from the Social Democrats.

Another issue that has been discussed a lot in this chamber and which is also included in this year's motion flora is the classification of agriculture. We took a decision about a year ago that agriculture should no longer be classified as environmentally hazardous activity. There were quite a lot of discussions about this then. It sent very strange signals to our farmers. Those who are involved in producing our first-class Swedish food were told that what they are doing is environmentally hazardous activity. I therefore look forward to the government changing the classification so that it instead becomes environmentally impacting activity. There is no doubt that agriculture has an impact, but we shall call it what it is and not environmentally hazardous. It sends very important signals.

Mr. Speaker! The right of ownership has already been raised several times. Both the constitution and the European Convention have been mentioned, but the UN Declaration was forgotten, as the right of ownership is also included there as an important part. It is important when interfering with the protection of property to check the proportionality, but it is precisely when it comes to proportionality and how it is assessed that we are perhaps not always in agreement.

It is stated in the law that the individual shall be entitled to compensation when the public authority restricts someone's use of land or a building in such a way that the ongoing land use within the relevant part of the property is significantly hindered. It becomes a matter of interpretation what "significantly hindered" means.

Just as we heard earlier, one takes care of what one owns, and therefore it is very important, just as I said yesterday in another debate we had here in the chamber, that the individual forest owner can trust the state and that the state also trusts the individual forest owner.

Now I have no figures from last year, but in 2021, Swedish forests accounted for an export value equivalent to 164 billion kronor. It is enormously important for Sweden's economy, it is enormously important for our Swedish industry, and it is enormously important for our Swedish forest owners, but it is very important for the climate because our products from the forest are helping to push out products that would otherwise be produced from CO2-intensive materials such as steel and concrete.

I note that I have already reached my eight minutes, Mr. Speaker. I had intended to speak about both wind power, procurement, and some acceptance, but out of respect for the fact that my minutes have elapsed, I hereby choose to conclude by moving to approve the committee's proposal and reject all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the presentation! I am making a new attempt to get answers to the questions that I posed to the Moderate member.

Chairman Ottosson is welcome to explain why one is delaying the completed investigations, which have been referred and are finished and which could have become new legislation that would have facilitated the permit processes.

The member stated in his speech that it is not always more money that is needed to solve societal problems. I completely agree with the member on this, but we are talking about permit processes where case officers—people of flesh and blood—are required to handle the permit reviews. Does Kjell-Arne Ottosson not think that less money for the county administrative boards, resulting in 16 fewer people, affects their ability to handle the permit processes?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker and Joakim Järrebring! It is pleasing that Mr. Järrebring is so eager to achieve simplified and shortened permit processes. I can guarantee Joakim Järrebring that we are both equally eager.

Admittedly, my party is one of the parties in the government, but I do not have full control over all the processes and exactly what the calendar looks like in the Government Offices, even though it would have been interesting to have significantly more information from there. I can imagine that Joakim Järrebring experienced the same at the time his party sat in government.

As I said, we are quite close now to moving forward and launching the whole thing, because it is important and something that the business community is really demanding. They are so clear that it cannot be misunderstood.

I have a counter-question for Joakim Järrebring. As I said in my speech, we have, if I have counted correctly, had four announcements during the last eight years. Even the sun has its spots, so I may have counted incorrectly, but when I sat in my chamber last night and checked, I got four announcements in this area.

Where nothing has happened during Joakim Järrebring's party's tenure is in the area of simplified and shortened permit processes. Why is it that during the previous eight years, one has not moved forward with this? It is clear that the will exists now since there are motions from the Socialdemokraterna on the subject, which is very pleasing.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must begin by correcting the member. It is clear that a lot of things have happened. Otherwise, there would not have been two completed investigations that have been referred and are ready and can become legislation if only the government brings them to the Riksdag.

The question remains as to why you are resting on your laurels. Why is it not possible to shorten the permit processes for the things that can be, even if the government parties want to investigate more things? I am on board with that, but there are ready-made legislative proposals that can simply be submitted to the Riksdag. Why are they not coming here?

I received no answer to the second question. It is the question about the systematic cuts to the county administrative boards in the autumn budget but also in the year-end budget. Does the member not believe that reduced resources to the county administrative boards for permit assessments affects the time for the permit assessments?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, the investigations exist. If one reads in the Tidö Agreement, one sees that it states that parts of them are to be implemented. I do not remember the exact wording, but even when the Tidö Agreement was written, one was therefore clear that parts of this should be moved forward with.

Then there are, just as Joakim Järrebring pointed out, certain parts that we must adjust and other parts that we want to change based on our way of seeing it.

It is very good that the Social Democrats and Joakim Järrebring are so eager. In that case, I believe we can achieve an even greater consensus on this and thus, when we have such a large majority on the issue, drive it forward.

I asked the question why not so much happened during the eight years. Joakim Järrebring countered that one has two investigations.

There were two investigations over eight years but no workshop. Why didn't they start earlier? The first announcements were made well in advance to reach all the way to the goal so that there would actually have been a workshop and not just investigations. How is it that they didn't get that far when they are now so very eager in the work here, when they write their own motions?

We both want to move from words to action. It is the workshop that is important. That is when we ensure that the business community receives the help it requests. Had we started earlier, yes, then we would have come further in the process now – and perhaps made an even greater impact in a positive sense when we send our environmentally friendly and climate-smart goods and our technology out into Europe and the world.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now that was a closing remark, so those questions will have to hang in the air - perhaps until upcoming replies.)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I want to state that we Social Democrats, of course, stand behind all of our reservations, but for the sake of time, we move for approval only of reservation number 9.

It is with a sense of deep responsibility that I stand here in the speaker's chair today, because we are to debate one of our time's most important issues: the environment.

We live in a time when humanity faces an enormous climate challenge and major environmental problems - problems that we humans ourselves have created through the fossil-driven economy. These are also problems that we can still manage to handle, but it requires that we as decision-makers act powerfully to protect and preserve the living conditions on our earth. It is a matter of justice, respect, and collective responsibility, today and tomorrow, but also for future generations.

In order to effectively meet these challenges, we need to have a well-functioning and well-thought-out environmental policy. An environmental policy that recognizes that there are conflicting goals is an environmental policy that is anchored in reality. There are opposing national interests that the policy needs to judge. Our task is to make these trade-offs with a focus on all aspects of sustainability – the economic, the social, and the ecological. Therefore, sustainable environmental policy can be to grant continued permission to Cementa. Therefore, sustainable environmental policy can lead to new mines, and therefore, sustainable environmental policy can be increased production in forestry.

Mr. Speaker! The environmental goals system constitutes the basis for our environmental policy. The latest evaluations and follow-ups show that many authorities are making both small and large efforts that are significant for reaching the goals, but that Sweden needs to do much more.

Environmental policy must therefore be updated and strengthened in several areas so that we can reach the goals by 2030. Above all, we need to focus on and prioritize the work with the water-related environmental quality objectives, climate adaptation, biodiversity, and a faster green transition where we replace the fossil-driven economy with a circular system.

It is in that perspective that one should view the Tidö Group's decision to lower the reduction obligation to 6 percent, which will increase fossil use and increase emissions from the transport sector.

The serious matter is that the government presents the reduction of the reduction obligation in isolation and without answering what compensatory measures are envisioned to offset the increased emissions or what the costs for emission allowances or fees to the EU are estimated to amount to.

Mr. Speaker! The Environmental Code, which is the central part of our environmental legislation, must be reviewed together with other legislation, and the frameworks for the processes for environmental assessments must be reformed in order to promote new industrialization and the expansion of the electricity grid and electricity production.

We need robust legislation that takes into account both today's and future environmental challenges and at the same time does not create unnecessary obstacles for the transition.

If we are to meet the climate and environmental challenges, the permit processes need to become faster, simpler, more cost-effective, and more predictable, while maintaining high environmental requirements.

Specifically, we Social Democrats want to see solutions such as parallel permit processes and that permit amendments become the rule. We want to promote the competence resources and capacity of the relevant authorities and courts and resolve the "supplementation swamp" by ensuring that chairpersons and environmental experts within the environmental review delegations can serve across the entire country.

Wind power is an important part of our transition to a sustainable and climate-smart society. Wind power is also absolutely crucial if we as a country are to be able to make the green transition a Swedish success story with new companies and increased resources for welfare through jobs and growth throughout the country.

Wind power is absolutely crucial because it is wind power that, in the near term and in the medium term, has the possibility to contribute with the necessary increase in electricity production so that the business sector's planned investments will land in Sweden.

If the expansion of wind power does not pick up speed again, the investments, and thus the jobs and growth, will end up in other countries. A significant increase in electricity production will then not be needed in Sweden, whether from solar power, wind power, hydropower or nuclear power. To then, as the government does, make it more difficult for wind power investments in several areas is bad climate and environmental policy, bad job policy, bad growth policy and bad welfare policy. All parties in the government base must drop the one-sided focus on nuclear power, implement the proposals in the incentive investigation and roll back the proposals that make it more difficult for a rapid expansion of wind power in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! New reforms in a state budget usually amount to between 20 and 30 billion. I want to say something about the approximately 820 billion of our common tax funds that do not contribute sufficiently to the necessary transition. I am, therefore, speaking about the scope of public procurement in Sweden.

It is naturally the case that 820 billion has a large potential impact on the environment. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that we set high environmental requirements in procurements and that we ensure these requirements are also complied with. By setting requirements for toxin-free, fossil-free, and circular solutions in accordance with the climate policy action plan and the strategy for circular economy, public procurement can contribute to the green transition.

Mr. Speaker! In the business world and the manufacturing industry, there is talk of the method of continuous improvement. This has its origin in the Japanese business philosophy kaizen. We can observe that the budgets the government has presented so far – the autumn budget as well as the spring budget and the spring amendment budget – have a recurring theme when it comes to climate and environmental policy. It is a form of reverse kaizen, one could say. Instead of continuous improvements, the government is working with continuous deteriorations and economic cuts in the environmental and climate areas.

The Sverigedemokraternas economic-political spokesperson is clear that the direction is set and that the environmental budget shall be halved. Despite this, the government and the governing parties repeat a mantra: The government has not lowered Sweden's environmental and climate ambitions, and the autumn budget is the second-largest environmental budget ever. There are expressions to describe the behavior of saying one thing and doing something else.

I want to conclude with a question to the representatives for the government parties: Doesn't it prick the conscience at least a little bit to claim one thing and do something completely different?

(Applause)

(cont. § 15)

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