Overall environmental issues

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the committee's annual report on overarching environmental issues. The content usually varies a bit, but what is common is that these are important issues that do not quite fit into any of the other reports that we have to discuss during the parliamentary year.

Mr. Speaker! I intended to focus a bit on what I see as the most important issues being raised this year. It is the permit processes. The Sweden Democrats have no reservations in this report. That is due to the process we have in the Riksdag with simplified motion handling. For those who are not familiar with this, I can say that it simply means that a long series of proposals that the parties submit resemble those that have been submitted in previous years, and therefore we leave no reservations for us to vote on in the chamber.

The Sweden Democrats naturally stand behind their proposals even moving forward. But this time, I choose to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in its entirety.

The background to this is also the Tidö Agreement, where the coalition parties have chosen to prioritize the permit processes highly. That the permit processes were prioritized when we negotiated the Tidö Agreement is not particularly strange given how it functioned during the previous S-MP government.

Mr. Speaker! There was no lack of problems during those years. I can give a few examples. We had complete chaos in the nuclear fuel issues, where cooperation problems between the Social Democrats and the Green Party almost led to an emergency shutdown of Swedish nuclear power. It would have been completely catastrophic, as we were heading into an energy crisis.

We had a debacle with Cementa, which was threatened with closure, which would have had disastrous consequences for all construction in this country.

Mr. Speaker! Instead of creating conditions for the extraction of minerals and creating new mines in our country, the previous S-MP government has focused on extraction bans. With S-MP-C logic, we would rather import uranium from Kazakhstan than let uranium extraction in Sweden be tested against the environmental protection legislation that all other mineral extraction is tested against. The only logical conclusion we can draw is that they want Sweden and the EU to import raw materials from countries with poorer environmental protection to an ever increasing extent.

The EU today produces, for example, only 1 percent or less of the metals needed for the manufacture of wind turbines, batteries, and fuel cells. This implies a significant and furthermore increasing need for materials from countries such as Congo and China and that one is, in reality, today exporting environmental problems to these countries. These are not a number of individual occurrences that have happened by chance but the result of a deliberate strategy from the environmental movement, Miljöpartiet and the Socialdemokrater - they were in government position then. They simply dislike the industrialized society and undermine it via departments and agencies.

It is therefore no coincidence that chaos and Kafkaesque state processes repeatedly arose and that investments instead ended up in our neighboring countries Norway and Finland. It was precisely what the social democratic government base wanted to happen.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, have launched the most ambitious work ever regarding improvements of the permit processes. The Sweden Democrats want to see rules and procedures that actually benefit Swedish industry, including the basic industry. It is obvious that when production takes place in Sweden, the environmental impact is significantly lower compared to, for example, in Asia.

A similar argument can be made regarding EU policy. It can concern everything from the right to manage one's forest in Värmland to the possibility of mining limestone for cement on Gotland and reasonable permit processes overall. It can also concern long-term investments in infrastructure and an education policy that corresponds to the needs of the industry.

Unlike our opponents, we in the Sverigedemokraterna view Sweden as an industrial society positively. In that case, it is important that politicians and civil servants do not interfere in every detail but let the industry's representatives focus on developing the Swedish industrial society. Politics should set the course and establish frameworks but, above all, guarantee legal certainty and otherwise clear the way for successful operations.

Mr. Speaker! Then one must turn over every stone. For example, one cannot, as the Social Democrats do, review the environmental permit processes and at the same time include clear directives not to review the Environmental Code. The blindfolds must be removed. Politics must be prepared to take responsibility and take a stand in conflicts of interest and dare to make uncomfortable decisions because it is important for our transition, our country, and our people's long-term prosperity.

Mr. Speaker! Extensive work is currently underway with several different parallel investigations where certain matters have already been completed. We have seen changes in the Mining Act to streamline permit processes within mining activities, for example. We have added money to the budget for the County Administrative Boards for environmental supervision, supervisory guidance, and environmental assessment. We have added extra funds to Sweden's courts so that they can streamline their work in handling permit assessments. Proposals have also been submitted for a clearer process for the permit assessment of power grids.

Mr. Speaker! Simplifying and shortening the permit review process according to the Environmental Code is an important part of the Tidö Agreement. In order to enable an effective and ambitious climate policy that contributes to jobs and growth, we must enable faster and more predictable permit processes.

The most comprehensive investigation on this subject was presented in June last year and is expected to be completed in December this year. It focuses on four areas. It concerns the Swedish implementation of EU law in the environmental field and how the Swedish regulatory framework can be simplified so that Sweden does not impose unjustifiably high requirements in relation to what the EU requires.

It is about how the permit review process can be divided so that those who need an environmental permit for their operations can receive earlier notification than today regarding the suitability of a certain operation at a certain location.

It is about how authorities can contribute as effectively as possible to an optimized environmental permit process. And it is about how the total time for the review can be shortened. The investigator shall, among other things, consider whether higher requirements can be set for a decision or a judgment to be able to be reviewed by more than one instance.

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf (SD) agreed.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Kinnunen, for your speech! I listened with interest to how the member highlighted Sweden as an industrial nation. Much of what was said from the rostrum, we Social Democrats agree with.

There are, however, questions where we seem to have slightly different views, at least if one looks at how the Sweden Democrats vote on climate and environmental issues in the EU and how they have influenced the government's climate action plan. We see that there is a principal lack of measures that would enable Sweden to meet its environmental goals and its commitments. It is the green transition.

For us Social Democrats, it is very clear that the green transition is the very key for Sweden to continue to be a successful industrial nation. It sounds a bit false, I think, when the member highlights how important Swedish industry is for Sweden while his party actively opposes the green transition both at the EU level and here at home.

My question to the member is: How do the Sweden Democrats actually view the green transition in the EU and in Sweden to ensure that we have successful companies that can create jobs, growth, and prosperity in Sweden in the future?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the questions! The green transition is a very important issue. It is also central to the climate action plan that the coalition parties presented late last year.

It is a comprehensive climate action plan. It is actually the most comprehensive climate action plan that has been presented. Although only two have been presented in Swedish history, this one is comprehensive and extends across virtually all policy areas. But if we talk about what was needed for the transition, I can say that clear rules of the game were needed. When meeting with companies, it is perhaps precisely the permit processes that come up first of all.

I wonder: What did the Social Democrats and the Green Party do? It was almost eight years for them. It was a bit messy at times, so it wasn't exactly eight years together, but the Social Democrats were in a governing position for eight years anyway. We can state that during those eight years, no clear improvements were made to the permit processes.

Now there is much criticism from the Social Democrats' side that the current government is not making things move faster, but it is rooted in the fact that it is complicated to clean up after an eight-year Social Democratic government.

There are other issues that are very important for industry in the green transition. It is electrification, and here we have seen major problems in Sweden. The expansion of the power grid is extremely delayed. It is problematic that it takes an extremely long time. Companies cannot establish themselves because there is a lack of power in the system. Active and intensive work is currently underway here. What did the Social Democrats do during their eight years? We also have the issue of skills supply, which always recurs. It is another major challenge. But these are issues that are addressed by the coalition parties in the budget and in the climate action plan, which I would like to say is comprehensive.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer, even if it was perhaps not so much an answer to my question as it was attacks against the previous government.

The Chairman of the Board speaks about the extensive climate action plan. Yes, it may be extensive in words, but it has been condemned by both the Climate Policy Council and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency because it contains no concrete measures that take us all the way to net zero.

If we fail with the transition, we also fail to maintain the Swedish welfare. Then we fail to ensure that Sweden continues to be a successful industrial country.

I share much of the description of the problem - we all do. The permit processes are problematic. One question then is why the government basis did not proceed with the proposals from the Climate Justice Inquiry and the Environmental Assessment Inquiry, which we appointed. If it was considered that more measures were needed, one could have moved forward with these improvements to the legislation while investigating more. I do not quite understand why one is dragging one's feet in these matters, if we are now in agreement that they are incredibly important.

I think it is clear that the Sweden Democrats' view on the green transition is something completely different. It is possibly a necessary evil. But sometimes I wonder if the Sweden Democrats even see the green transition as something that needs to be done. The member may be welcome to explain how the Sweden Democrats view the green transition.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for the continued questioning! When Joakim Järrebring is going to explain what is wrong with the coalition partners' climate action plan, he talks about the Climate Policy Council. That could be a good punch line.

The Climate Policy Council criticized the climate action plan – that is correct. But I think we should go into a bit more detail on what it was they criticized. The Climate Policy Council was critical of the very extensive work that is now taking place with the permit processes. Regardless of whether this comes from the Climate Policy Council or from someone else, I would like to say that it is a worrying criticism. If one does not understand the need for more efficient permit processes, one will simply not be able to present a policy for the green transition.

The green transition is nothing that I as a politician or we as politicians have decided on. It is fundamentally driven by innovation and by enterprising people. We politicians can perhaps put spokes in the wheels. We can perhaps speed things up a little bit. We can improve the situation. We can worsen it. But fundamentally, this is a process that occurs regardless of whether one would want it or not.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, we think it is a positive process. If one thinks it is positive, one cannot be concerned, as the Climate Policy Council is, that we should speed up and streamline the permit processes. One should understand that it may be the most prioritized thing to do in the area.

One should also understand that it was inevitable that we lowered the reduction obligation. I know that the Social Democrats do not yet have the answer to the question. But how do the Social Democrats want to handle the reduction obligation instead? How much more expensive will it become to transport oneself in this country? There, the Social Democrats are still indebted to provide an answer.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Just as the previous speaker Martin Kinnunen said, it is overarching environmental issues that we are now debating. These are important issues, but they do not quite fit into other reports that we have during the year.

Some of the questions that we have already discussed are coming up again, but in a different way. Some of what I am going to say now, for example, we talked about in the previous debate on nature conservation.

Mr. Speaker! The environmental goals system is something that recurs in almost everything we do in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, because it is the monitoring method that we have. It was agreed upon by our representatives in the Riksdag in 1999.

Since then, we have used the environmental goals system to evaluate the policy and to see that we are doing the right things. But we should perhaps develop the environmental goals system, because for several of the questions that we need answers to today, we perhaps did not even know that we wanted to ask them. This is, after all, over 20 years behind us.

One of the things we have included in a motion is that one should develop indicators for outdoor life, for example. It is a well-being measure that many of us utilize. But it is also about tourism and other things, and it also has a significant impact on the economy. We would very much like to see that indicators for outdoor life are developed when it comes to the environmental goals system.

Mr. Speaker! We have many reservations in this report. Several of them are treated simplified, which means that we will not take them up today because we took them up last year. But today I would like to move for approval of reservation 17.

This is connected to what I raised in the speech on nature conservation. It is about PFAS and the scandals that have surrounded it. This is a subject where we have gained new knowledge. It is well over 10,000 substances - it is a large cluster group. We had no idea that they existed 20 years ago. Now we have seen that we have them everywhere. If you take a sample of water anywhere, you can find PFAS. It concerns our entire ocean and all our water.

One can find it at individual wells. It is often not because of the activity in their villa or on their farm that there is PFAS in the well. But drinking contaminated water is associated with danger and cancer risk. Therefore, we must ensure that there is a regulatory framework that allows an owner of an individual well to receive compensation and that the remediation is carried out with the help of state funds or that the polluter pays. One should not have to wait for large legal processes.

This is what our reservation 17 is about. I really want us to move forward with it. There are many out there who are concerned, and this is associated with large costs.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I want to take up this issue with permit processes. The debate has already landed there. If we are to be able to make the green transition, it is extremely important that we have permit processes that go quickly and that one, as a business owner and entrepreneur, receives their permits and knows what one is allowed to do and not allowed to do, so that one can move forward. Today we see unreasonably long times, partly because one does not know how to handle it, partly because of staff shortages. There is a lack of funds, for example, to the county administrative boards so that one can move forward.

A few weeks ago, we had a seminar here in the Riksdag, where we heard about a major initiative that was actually delayed because a case officer was on parental leave. There was no other person available, because there were no funds to replace the person. So, we are not going to have that.

Despite this, the government and SD have cut the funding to the county administrative boards and thus to the permit processes. Several of the county administrative boards built up competence by forming clusters or teams that allowed the permits to be granted faster, for example in Västra Götaland where we quickly received permits for battery factories in Hisingen and in Mariestad. As the allocation of funds looks now, they say that this would take much longer, perhaps several years longer.

We must have permit processes that allow us to follow the environmental legislation. It is not just about removing the laws, but it is about us providing the means to the county administrative boards and the courts so that the processes move forward. Then it goes faster. That is not how it looks today.

There is also an uncertainty when it comes to new substances. There is a proposal from several of the county administrative boards that one should be able to have open or time-limited permits. When new substances end up on the various lists of what one should control, one could then include new knowledge.

Today, it does not work that way. Operations want long-term stability and therefore long-term permits. But with new knowledge, one needs to be able to update these permits, which is not possible today. This is something that is requested by the county administrative boards, and we have a reservation regarding it. It would provide higher security, and one would also dare to grant permits today because they could be changed and modernized over time.

I want to conclude by talking about public procurement, something that recurs in many of our reports. We have a reservation which states that when we purchase animal products, we shall set the same requirements as we do in Sweden regarding animal welfare and other matters. It cannot be that we here in the chamber set laws and rules for what shall apply to our Swedish farmers and fishers, and then one purchases something else because it is cheaper to cheat the system. So we cannot have that!

Last week, there was a meeting on the food strategy 2.0 to which one person from each party was invited. There, the food producers had a major pull regarding what is the Swedish USP – unique selling point – i.e., why Swedish food is in demand in the world. It was about high animal welfare, low antibiotic use, and safe food. That is why Japan, China, and other countries want Swedish food. It cannot be that we set high requirements here at home, ship out the goods, and instead buy in goods of poorer quality or from animals that have it worse.

This becomes a bit problematic. We are usually in agreement on this. But nothing happens. On the other hand, there has been a proposal, and I shall now read it out, that "an obligation should be introduced to consider the climate, the environment, people's health, animal welfare, as well as social and labor law aspects in public procurement, if the nature of the procurement justifies it". The proposal was prepared and on the table, but the government has rejected it and does not intend to proceed with it. This is what the National Agency for Public Procurement writes in its report on how procurement can be further developed.

Do it over and do it right! This is something that we all want and that I also believe all Swedes want. We are proud of our food production. We want funds that go to public procurement to benefit the Swedish, good animal welfare, and a good environment.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! This report is sometimes, somewhat unfairly, called the "sludge funnel." It deals with a broad palette of issues that do not fit into any of the other reports but which are often some of the most important we have to handle. It concerns permit processes, the Environmental Code, the mining industry, wind power, and environmental crime. You hear - this is an important report.

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. But instead of being encouraged, they are met with obstacles today.

I am often on study visits around the country, and one visit that stuck with me a bit extra was a visit to the Untra hydroelectric power plant. When it was built, people were convinced that it could supply all of Stockholm with electricity in all time to come. Simply no increased production would be required. Now, however, we have learned that this was absolutely not the case and that much more will be needed for the green transition.

The hydropower plant had to struggle for 15 years to get permission to expand its production, something that should have been possible many years ago. It is quite unreasonable how the process proceeds. Hydropower is a fundamental part of the Swedish power supply, and there is great potential to increase the capacity. Untra is an example of how unnecessarily long permit processes have hindered the Swedish electricity supply and the transition.

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 that enables increased growth and a competitive industry.

Our energy system is built around hydropower in the north and nuclear power in the south. It 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 a decade to deteriorate and ultimately phase out nuclear power has been harmful for Sweden. The Moderater-led government has set out a new course for Sweden and guaranteed a future where new nuclear power can actually be built.

But we also agree that more wind power will be needed. The Swedish energy mix is what has historically attracted many investments to our elongated country. Cheap, fossil-free, and available electricity – this is what we shall build up with a stable foundation in nuclear power together with all the fossil-free types of power we can get hold of.

Our focus must lie on building up a fossil-free energy system that lasts in the long run. The harsh reality is that our electricity demand will double in a very short time, and to meet this challenge, industry, experts, and authorities have collectively been clear about one thing: Wind power will be needed.

Mr. Speaker! Today it takes an average of nine years to establish a new wind turbine in Sweden. That is quite unreasonable. The Environmental Code was written in a time when the climate transition did not stand particularly high on the agenda. Today we have completely different conditions and needs. It is obvious that the Environmental Code needs to be reformed so that it promotes development instead of hindering it.

The best climate policy is no longer that which seeks to force emission reductions through legislation, but rather that which creates the best conditions for companies and citizens to transition.

Mr. Speaker! If Sweden is to seriously contribute to the climate transition, it must not only be possible to conduct industrial activities, but in many places, they must also be developed and expanded. This will in some cases require trade-offs between preserving local environmental values and establishing and developing new operations with global climate benefits. Furthermore, jobs shall be created and competitiveness strengthened in Sweden. In many cases, the climate benefit must carry more weight than it does today, which means that other interests may have to take a backseat.

Intrusions into areas with high natural values and activities with negative local environmental consequences will sometimes be necessary. For electrification, metals and minerals are required, which in turn require new mines. Bioenergy and sustainable buildings require forest raw materials, which in turn require logging. Wind and nuclear power require steel and concrete, which require lime and ore.

We have in our bedrock many of the metals that the world so desperately needs in order to be able to transition, including our rare earth metals and our copper which is needed for the electrification of industry and transport. Sweden's conditions for increased extraction of these metals and many other critical minerals are very good. Furthermore, we have the world's most environmentally and climate-friendly mining industry. We have an almost moral responsibility to utilize these assets to help the world transition.

Unfortunately, Swedish politics has made mining in Sweden more difficult rather than easier. Under the Social Democratic government, Sweden plummeted in international rankings regarding conditions for the mining industry. In five years, Sweden fell from position 8 to position 36. We are now going to rectify this.

Mr. Speaker! Environmental crime often has serious consequences for people, animals, and nature – and for a long period of time. 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 that are prosecuted, the penalty is no more than a day-fine, even though there is imprisonment in the range of penalties.

To curb environmental crimes and to ensure that the penalties are in parity with the crimes, we want to tighten the penalties for more serious environmental crimes. But in order to be able to curb environmental crimes, more also need to be detected. Here, the supervisory authorities play a large and important role. 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, collaborations between municipalities or systems with experts who can provide advice on specific industry issues.

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

I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! I believe we have all been touched by what the residents in Kallinge in Ronneby municipality have gone through. In 2013, they were informed that for several decades they have been drinking water contaminated by sky-high levels of the forever chemicals PFAS. The source of the contamination is the Armed Forces' use of firefighting foam.

During the more than ten years that have passed since the contamination became known, those affected have not been offered anything other than a blood test to find out how high levels they have in their bodies - no special health checks, no financial compensation.

Some of the residents started the PFAS Association and joined together to demand damages. Now the Supreme Court has ruled in their favor, but the judgment only means that it has been clarified that they are entitled to damages. To determine how each individual is to be compensated, a new legal process or a settlement is required. The problem is also that the judgment in the Supreme Court only applies to those who are members of the PFAS Association, and they constitute only a fraction of the thousands who are affected.

The chairman of the PFAS Association, Herman Afzelius, says that his wish is that everyone who has high levels of PFAS in their blood due to the contamination in Kallinge should be compensated and that they should receive the care they need. He also wants to see changed legislation so that people who have been affected can avoid having to resort to legal proceedings to receive compensation. It is the state that caused the release, and therefore the state must also take responsibility.

What does the government intend to do to provide redress and compensation for those affected in Kallinge?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is a complicated and difficult question that touches on the very depths. We in Sweden are usually incredibly proud of our fantastic nature and how we have taken care of it in different ways, but we have large historical debts that we must also take care of.

The question becomes difficult because it is not only about the historical debt but also about what happens moving forward. How are we to handle PFAS, which is also needed as a substance in incredibly many different technologies, in the Armed Forces, in medicines and the like? How do we handle PFAS moving forward? A major work is underway at the EU level.

This is a question that is about exactly compensation, just as Andrea Andersson Tay points out. People who have been more or less poisoned by their drinking water should, of course, have the right to compensation and receive the care they need. But I believe that this is a question that is much larger and must be handled in a broader way. How do we handle the historical debt? It must become clear where the responsibility lies and who bears the debt. It is not just about the individual case, but PFAS as a political issue must become clearer.

We from the Moderaternas side want the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to make a national assessment of environmental debts, particularly linked to PFAS. It is one of the proposals that we are driving from our side.

But this is an issue that has been on the table for a longer period of time, and unfortunately, no government has presented concrete measures. It is something we will continue to work on, and I hope that we will have a solution to present.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that we agree that there is a problem, but unfortunately, it does not help the people of Kallinge in the situation they are in now. It has been over ten years since the contamination was discovered there, and it has been almost five months since the judgment in the Supreme Court was delivered.

The problem is not new. The government has had plenty of time to consider how to compensate those affected in Kallinge. Now, a quick decision is required.

Furthermore, we know that Kallinge is not the only place in the country where the Armed Forces have released PFAS into the drinking water. For example, Uppsala suffers from the same problem. This government has also given the Armed Forces permission to release PFAS-contaminated water into Vättern, which is a drinking water source for 250,000 people. Is it not time for the state to both take responsibility for old sins and prevent more people from suffering the same damage as the people of Kallinge?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I mentioned in my previous answer, it is important that we achieve a broader response that addresses not only the Kallinge case but PFAS as a whole. It would be better, that is to say, just as the member himself raises, to establish a regulatory framework on how the government, the policy, should handle old debts, old sins, and handle the issue moving forward. How are we to handle PFAS as a subject? It would be important to achieve that.

I thank the member very much for the question and for raising the issue.

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 listened with interest and can state that in these issues, we Social Democrats and you Moderates think very much alike.

But it is exactly as the member said himself: Even if nuclear power is built in 10, 15, 20 years, it is absolutely necessary for the green transition that we get other electricity production in place quickly, and as the member mentioned, it is wind power that has the potential to meet that challenge. So far, however, we have seen that the Moderaterna in a government position have hindered the expansion of wind power. That is the only thing in the political area that a decision has been made on.

We agree that much of what needs to be done is about achieving more efficient permit processes. But the question of strengthening the incentives to build wind power is also extremely central.

I would very much like to hear how the Moderates intend to tackle these challenges. How shall we ensure that the amount of wind power needed for the green transition is built so that the investments that we know there is interest in making in Sweden actually end up in Sweden and not in other countries? How shall we ensure that we get more wind power on site quickly?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! This autumn, the Moderates adopted a completely new climate policy program, in which we addressed the wind power issue properly.

We just discussed the question of how we can ensure to increase local acceptance, because that is what I believe it all boils down to.

We see that in our neighboring countries, including in Finland and in Denmark, systems are in place to be able to expand wind power faster.

I spoke with a Danish politician who said: We really must shorten the permit processes in Denmark. It takes far too long to build wind power. I said that in Sweden it takes nine years. How long does it take here? I asked. Two to three years, he answered. It puts things into perspective.

One thing that I know the Social Democrats also highlight is earlier veto. But that is not the answer to the whole question, rather it is about so much more. Among other things, there must be sufficient information so that the municipality can make that decision at an earlier stage.

We must ensure that local acceptance increases. We can do this, among other things, by ensuring that the property tax goes back to the municipalities and that one has the right to redemption if a wind turbine is built near one's property. I believe it is important that several such things are taken into account. What effects does the lighting have on the surrounding area? How can we ensure that the local community and the municipality have more to say and benefit from the wind power in the same way as from other investments in a municipality? There are large amounts of money in the wind power industry, and we see that they want to make the investments here.

We have more proposals on shortening the permit processes, but we can address those in the next round of remarks.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helena Storckenfeldt, for the answer!

I hope that we will see the government come to the Riksdag with proposals in the direction that the member has just described when it comes to incentives and simplified opportunities otherwise for wind power companies to make decisions on investments.

I do not need to take up my entire speaking time, but I would very much like to hear how the Moderates and the government intend to act regarding shortening the permit processes.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is always pleasant when a Social Democrat prefers to give the floor to a Moderate and, for once, listens to the bourgeois side. It feels very good.

We have delivered here. There are several propositions on the list of propositions regarding shortening the permit processes within several different areas. I do not believe there is a one size fits all within the permit processes themselves. But we have a proposal that specifically addresses the expansion of the electricity grid, one that specifically addresses the development of the mining industry, and one more general one about a more efficient environmental assessment.

It is clear that the current system is not built according to the needs that exist today. It is something that we will address and try to manage in the best possible way after eight years of red-green mess.

When we spoke about wind power earlier, it was mentioned that the Moderates or the government have made things more difficult. I would like to say that we have instead achieved much more. In eight months, we said yes to twice as much offshore wind as the Social Democratic government said yes to in eight years.

I understand that it is uncomfortable for the Social Democrats to come forward with lots of wise suggestions and say that we agree with each other and criticize the government that has sat for not even two years, when they had eight years in power to shorten the permit processes and ensure that we received a reformed Environmental Code that seriously addresses the challenges we currently have with electricity.

It is a bit ironic that S has achieved nothing in eight years and now that they have lost power all of a sudden, they have a broad palette of things that they would like to do. Many of them were also started by this government.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden and the world stand at a decisive crossroads. We must choose the path that leads us toward a sustainable future characterized by green innovations, economic growth, and social justice.

It is about more than protecting our environment; it is about creating a solidary economic model where the green transition drives increased prosperity and creates good, sustainable jobs for everyone, regardless of where in Sweden one lives.

Mr. Speaker! Our planet is crying out for help, and the time to act is now. Climate change is a reality that threatens not only our environment but our entire existence.

Therefore, it is deeply worrying to see how the current government's lack of ambition and drive in climate and environmental issues risks our common future.

The Social Democrats stand for a proactive leadership that does not shrink from the great challenges.

The government's climate action plan has been reviewed and criticized, rightly so. The action plan lacks the calculations, measures, and the concrete actions that are required. Words, graphs, and pious hopes are what it is full of, Mr. Speaker, but goose feathers and rhetoric will not achieve the transition.

As Social Democrats, we carry a vision of a Sweden that not only meets global climate goals but also paves the way for a new era characterized by justice, equality, and economic prosperity for all.

We want to see modern environmental permits that enable companies to grow and innovate while contributing to a sustainable future.

We see a future where permit processes are not an obstacle but an enabler for green growth and new jobs throughout our country. In that case, the permit processes must be shortened, and here we have had a number of proposals that have been investigated and referred, and which the government should have brought to the chamber a long time ago.

According to information from Svenskt Näringsliv, every second company that has problems with the permit processes chooses not to carry out investments or to do them in other countries.

The socio-economic effect is estimated to amount to 50 billion kronor, which is the wage cost for approximately 15,000 people. And we know that for every new person who is employed in the Swedish industry, more jobs are generated in the knowledge-intensive service sector, in retail, and in school and healthcare. This means more tax kronor are generated for our common welfare.

Electrification is the key to the transition. However, it takes far too long to build new electricity production and electricity distribution. It must happen faster than ever and on a scale we have not seen before. During the last 20 years, Svenska kraftnät has built 60 miles of trunk grid for electricity distribution. In the coming 20 years, we will need to build 700 miles. It is urgent and critical that we have efficient and shorter permit processes in place.

We Social Democrats have also pointed out new measures that we hope the government's investigation takes into account. Here, I would like to move for approval of reservation 3 regarding more efficient environmental permits.

At the heart of our vision lies the concept of a just transition - a fundamental pillar of Social Democratic policy. No one shall be left behind, and society's support shall be adapted to each individual's needs and circumstances. It is a transition that ensures no one is left behind as we move towards a greener economy. It means investments in education and retraining so that the workforce can adapt to new green jobs. It is about supporting our regions and communities so that they can participate in and benefit from the green revolution. It is about a distribution policy that takes into account the different circumstances prevailing in city and country.

Our political role is to ensure that this transition is not only green but also just. This means that we must focus on the social dimensions of climate policy, i.e., that we ensure the transition leads to increased prosperity for everyone and not just for a few selected few.

Mr. Speaker! We want to create a society where all Swedes, regardless of where they live, can have access to the opportunities that the green transition brings. To get there, bold political decisions are required.

We must dare to invest in the industries and technologies of the future. We need a review of the Environmental Code that makes it possible for companies to quickly adapt to new environmental requirements without getting stuck in bureaucratic processes. We must strive for efficient and predictable permit processes that support innovation and sustainable development.

Let me be clear: the green transition is our time's greatest economic opportunity. It offers the chance not only to combat climate change and environmental degradation but also to create a more sustainable and inclusive economy - an economy that creates jobs, drives innovation, and ensures Sweden's competitiveness on the global arena.

Mr. Speaker! Before us lies a path filled with opportunities, where Sweden not only overcomes the climate crisis but also builds a stronger and fairer society - a welfare society under democratic control. It is a path that requires cooperation, vision, and determination.

Unlike the SD-led government, which shows an obvious lack of credible climate policy and ambitions for a strengthened welfare, we Social Democrats stand ready with a clear plan and a firm commitment to lead the transition towards a more equal and sustainable society.

We can build a greener, stronger and more just Sweden where climate policy and environmental protection go hand in hand with economic growth and social justice. It is a Sweden where the future is brighter for everyone.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal in the report and the rejection of all reservations.

In the debate so far, much has been said about environmental permits, for understandable reasons. In the report, there are quite a few proposals for announcements regarding precisely environmental permits. The first is from 2017, and then every other year thereafter.

Why, then, have these announcements not materialized? The reason is that we had a red-green government with disparate interests. Consequently, one could not make progress on these, and all these announcements have remained pending. That caused the patience of those of us who were then in opposition to wear thin. Now I note that the patience of the Social Democrats is wearing thin. When one is in opposition, Mr. Speaker, one must always say "too little and too late," otherwise one commits a dereliction of duty; it is, so to speak, the opposition's manual, point 1 a.

Now we do have a government that has a united view on issues regarding environmental permits. Now we have the chance for real. I also hope that we can join forces in these issues, not least with the Social Democrats who have been very clear here that they want to go in that direction.

When you sit in opposition, you can always push forward and swing a bit freely. That is one of the advantages of sitting in opposition. When you are in government, you have to take responsibility and ensure that things are done correctly. Therefore, it takes time, Mr. Speaker. It is very frustrating; I cannot help but agree with that.

We have had quite a few investigations that have both been ongoing and are ongoing - regarding nuclear power, offshore wind, government review, power lines, as we heard earlier, environmental permits and much more. Previous investigations have been handled, and bills are on the way. Among other things, the bill on steps towards a more efficient environmental review is to reach the Riksdag during the spring of 2024.

In the directive to the investigation *Simplified and shortened permit processes according to the Environmental Code*, we can read the following: "The investigator shall, among other things, investigate how the Swedish regulatory framework can be changed so that Sweden does not impose higher or overlapping requirements in relation to what the relevant EU regulations require." That this even needs to be written, Mr. Speaker, seems very strange to me. It is a self-evident matter that we as a nation should not trip ourselves up just because we want to go further.

Unfortunately, we see this very often when we are to implement, not least legislation that comes from the EU. We have a minimum implementation, but in order for us to be really sure that we truly do everything, we always set the bar higher. Who is it then that we are making things difficult for? Yes, for ourselves.

The assignment regarding this investigation is to be reported in December, and I sincerely hope that we receive a solid and good investigation that we can then quickly move forward with.

The Environmental Code is another matter that has been brought up earlier today. The Environmental Code has the purpose of promoting sustainable development. It is very extensive today with 33 chapters and around 500 paragraphs, if I recall correctly.

The Environmental Code certainly needs to be changed. It needs to be given a broader social interest, and the possibilities to fulfill Sweden's climate goals need to be given a stronger role. There must also be an ambitious objective that a new environmental legislation can significantly reduce the costs and the time spent on environmental permit processes. Companies will then have significantly better conditions to transition and contribute to both Sweden's climate goals and the global climate goals.

In connection with the assessment, we today depart in the Environmental Code from the concept of the best possible technology. The EU's regulatory framework speaks instead of the best available technology. The authorities' varying perceptions of the surrounding world result, with the starting point of "best possible technology," in increased costs, unpredictability, and competitive disadvantages compared to our European neighbors. Therefore, it is very good that there are now investigations underway that are to meet this Swedish over-implementation which we unfortunately see all too often. Several investigations to be presented in the near future concern the Environmental Code.

The Climate Justice Inquiry and the Environmental Assessment Inquiry have recently reviewed the Environmental Code, among other things for the purpose of proposing changes to modernize and streamline environmental assessment and promote investments while ensuring environmental protection.

The investigators' proposals are being prepared within the Government Offices. But government representatives have stated that in order to meet the needs of the business sector and to contribute to the climate transition, they will implement parts of the proposals that have in any case been submitted by the Environmental Assessment Inquiry.

In the budget bill for 2024, the government writes that an efficient and predictable environmental review, supervision guidance, and supervision according to the Environmental Code is a prerequisite for sustainable growth, so that the green transition can be implemented and to contribute to several environmental goals being reached.

The Government further emphasizes that it is a crucial prerequisite for carrying out the climate transition and simultaneously increasing Sweden's competitiveness and growth that the environmental permit processes become both simpler and more efficient. According to the Government, this applies to new operations but also to existing operations that need to be changed or converted. But if the lead times in the environmental assessments are too long or the predictability is too low, Swedish companies risk losing competitiveness. Increased efficiency in the environmental assessment processes would contribute to a faster climate transition, an increased willingness to invest, and Sweden's international attractiveness. Environmental requirements shall be expedient, but the permit and process rules of the Environmental Code need to be modernized and developed. There is no doubt about that.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has provided an account of the statistics for the environmental permit process that was submitted in 2022. It shows that the average processing time for cases decided by the environmental permit delegations increased from 350 days in 2020 to 420 days in 2022. This must be reversed.

Another part that I want to highlight, Mr. Speaker, is the environmental goals. During my nearly six years in the Riksdag so far, they are something that has been discussed every single time we have handled reports on environmental issues. Even this time, I ask myself the question I have asked every time before, namely whether it is really right that we have environmental goals that so clearly cannot be reached.

Is it not better, Mr. Speaker, that we set environmental quality goals that are achievable, that we have a chance to reach them? Otherwise, the question again is who it is that we are destroying for, who it is that we are obstructing. We help neither the environment nor ourselves.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, environmental crime is one of the world's most profitable activities within organized crime and has major consequences, not only for the environment but also for people's health. It is very lucrative, but it is difficult to detect, prosecute, and punish. These factors make it very attractive for organized criminal groups. Therefore, it is important that work against this form of crime does not only take place at the national level but that the EU and other international actors are truly active.

The ongoing Environmental Criminal Law Inquiry is looking here in Sweden at how the sanction system for the Environmental Code and the fight against environmental crime can be strengthened, which is good. But without effective international work, we will never be able to curb this.

The questions regarding wind power, offshore wind, and procurement may be deferred until another time, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a report containing motions on a number of different overarching environmental issues. Several of the proposals in the report concern permit processes.

No one is against us having fast and efficient permit processes. The risk, however, is that we instead get a permit that lacks legal certainty, where the companies' wishes weigh more heavily than the protection of health and the environment. We must remember that we have the Environmental Code so that we can make a balancing act between exploitation and environmental considerations. In that case, it is important that a careful assessment is made.

The Environmental Code needs to become a sharper tool to achieve both the climate goals and the other national environmental goals. According to the UN, we face a triple crisis: global warming, depletion of biodiversity, and the spread of pollution. These global challenges must be managed in parallel and must also be reflected in the Environmental Code.

Mr. Speaker! I intend to devote the main part of my speech today to talking about pollution, or more specifically, chemicals. The Swedish Chemicals Agency reported in a report in 2017 that 87 percent of the criminal complaints for suspected environmental crimes that the agency had submitted during the years 2012-2016 had been dropped and that only 13 percent had led to fines. The criminal complaints concern deficiencies that have been discovered during the agency's supervision of companies that manufacture, import, and sell chemical products, pesticides, and goods. The largest proportion of complaints concern goods containing substances that are prohibited according to the EU's chemical legislation Reach. Such goods risk harming the health of those who use them.

The Swedish Chemicals Agency has proposed to the government that some of the offenses that the agency currently reports to prosecutors should instead lead to environmental sanction fees. In 2016, the government at that time commissioned the Environmental Supervision Inquiry to investigate the possibilities for a shift in sanctions in the chemicals area. The inquiry assessed that such a shift in sanctions would lead to a more efficient system.

Vänsterpartiet believes that the introduction of environmental sanction fees would provide faster and more effective penalties for companies that sell goods with prohibited chemicals and create better conditions for the legislation to be followed. We therefore want environmental sanction fees to be introduced for more chemical offenses.

Mr. Speaker! Substances in the chemical group PFAS can today be found almost everywhere in the environment and in our bodies. The substances have been used since the 1950s and occur in a variety of different products, including textiles, paper packaging, cosmetics, mobile phones and fire-fighting foam. PFAS are also called forever chemicals because they do not break down in nature. They can spread over long distances via air and water and are therefore found all over the world. We know that a number of PFAS are reproductive toxins, and several are suspected to be carcinogenic.

Within the chemical industry, the risks of PFAS have long been known, but the producers chose not to disclose the information and withdraw the substances. Instead, they continued to manufacture them in ever-increasing quantities, which have subsequently spread into the environment and to us humans through the water we drink, the food we eat, and the things we surround ourselves with. That this could happen is a scandal and proof that today's chemical legislation does not work and must be tightened.

It is of utmost importance that we ban these substances as quickly as possible, so that the situation does not worsen further. The Swedish Chemicals Agency, together with authorities in four other European countries, has developed a proposal that would significantly restrict the use of all PFAS within the EU. Vänsterpartiet welcomes the proposal and wants it implemented as soon as possible without being watered down.

Regardless of any potential future ban, PFAS is an ongoing scandal that we will have to live with for the rest of our lives. Some who have become aware of this in the most painful way are the residents of Kallinge in Blekinge. After having unknowingly drunk PFAS-contaminated water for several years, they now have the highest measured levels in the world of PFAS in their blood.

The source of the discharge is the Swedish Armed Forces' fire drill site at air wing F l7, where fire foam containing PFAS was used for a long period. The chemicals then spread to the drinking water. Research is ongoing regarding what health impact it has had and will have, but so far, an increased occurrence of, among other things, kidney cancer and elevated cholesterol levels has been established. A group of residents has formed the PFAS association, which for many years has pursued a legal process where they have demanded damages from the municipal water company Ronneby Miljö och Teknik. Despite it being known that the Swedish Armed Forces caused the contamination, the residents must, for legal reasons, turn to the water company with their claims for damages. The events in Kallinge are a scandal that demonstrates the fundamental failure in how chemicals are regulated. Substances are allowed to be released unhindered, and only decades later do we see the negative effects.

Just as the fossil fuel industry for a long time knew about the climate threat without letting that knowledge reach the public, the chemical industry has known for 50 years that PFAS is toxic without sounding the alarm. They have put their own short-term profit ahead of people's lives and health.

In December, the Supreme Court announced that those who have drunk the contaminated water in Kallinge are entitled to compensation. It is a very pleasing decision, but fundamentally it is completely unacceptable that people are forced to resort to long and costly legal processes to request compensation.

I respect the brave people of Kallinge who took up the fight for redress, and I am very pleased that their struggle has resonated so much that they have now also been appointed as Sweden's sustainability most powerful. But the fact remains that individuals who are harmed by the state should not have to fight for their rights.

The government must step in and offer compensation and redress to all those who are affected, regardless of whether they live in Kallinge or somewhere else and regardless of whether they have the possibility to pursue a legal process or not. Therefore, I and my party demand that the government takes action on the issue and presents proposals for clearer legislation on liability when people are exposed to high levels of harmful chemicals.

Companies also risk getting caught in the crossfire when contamination is discovered. In one case, farmers in Halland were forced to cease cultivation for two seasons because water from nearby watercourses was found to be contaminated with PFAS and therefore could not be used for irrigation. The farmers have had to bear the costs for this themselves until the investigation into responsibility is complete, which could take several years.

Other businesses that risk being affected are, for example, small-scale fishers who fish in lakes with such high levels of PFAS that the fish are judged to be unsuitable to eat. It is not reasonable that entrepreneurs should be affected economically by pollution caused by others. The Government must therefore also develop legislation that enables those affected to continue running their businesses while the investigation of responsibility is ongoing.

I move for approval of reservation 16.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The report we are now debating is a bit like a bag of loose sweets with both sweet and sour caramels. One of the truly sour caramels is the one regarding the permit processes. Regardless of which industry or which entrepreneurs one speaks with, in large part, the question of the need for more flexible, more efficient, and more predictable permit processes comes up. It is a question where the frustration is palpable, and it is far from new.

Relevant actors have long requested and pointed out the need for a more reasonable regulatory framework. The Government and the Tidö parties see the need for a major rethink on the issue, not least to manage the green transition.

Mr. Speaker! An efficient and predictable environmental review, supervision, and guidance is a prerequisite for sustainable growth and for the green transition. We must achieve more efficient processes if we are to be able to carry out the green transition. The need for guidance is particularly highlighted when speaking with relevant actors.

Efficient permit processes are crucial for the implementation of the climate transition. They are simultaneously important for Swedish competitiveness. Unnecessary red tape means that Swedish companies risk falling behind internationally. An increased efficiency in the environmental assessment processes, on the other hand, would contribute to a faster climate transition, an increased willingness to invest, and a stronger Sweden internationally.

Environmental requirements must be purposeful. This is not about dismantling a strong protection for the environment. But that is not the point; the Environmental Code's permit and process rules need to be modernized and developed. Today, they are an obstacle to Swedish companies' opportunities to transition their operations. Therefore, we are working purposefully to achieve change.

Mr. Speaker! Some of us sitting here in the chamber today participated in the meeting on the updated food strategy held last week. There, we received, among other things, a presentation of the Environmental Permit Investigation, which was commissioned by the government in June last year and which is to report its proposal at the end of this year. This is just one of several things happening in the area right now.

Someone here in the speaker's chair before me today called the work that the Tidö parties have now initiated the most ambitious review of the permit processes we have seen. And that is true.

According to the directive to the investigation, it shall review and submit proposals on exactly how the permit processes and the permit review according to the Environmental Code can be simplified and shortened by making the review more flexible, efficient, and predictable - precisely what is being requested.

Finally, to return to that bag of sweets I spoke of at the beginning of my speech, I do, in any case, look forward to a really nice praline just in time for Christmas. Or to be more concrete, Mr. Speaker: I look forward with confidence to continuing to clear the way for new Romin reactors and more Pourmokhtar parks.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we have perhaps the world's most ambitious and extensive environmental legislation. In many ways, this is positive. At the same time, the legislation is in several respects based on old truths and outdated structures from a time when Sweden and the world looked different.

In order to be able to fully transition to a circular economy and ramp up the pace of the climate transition, large parts of the Environmental Code must be fundamentally reviewed and modernized so that we can achieve environmental and climate effects from new innovations without permit processes that put spokes in the wheels.

The idea behind ambitious environmental legislation is good, and it is good to be cautious with new environmental innovations. But in reality, the outcome is often different. The Environmental Code today hinders rather than helps us in transitioning to a circular and fossil-free Sweden.

The linear material flows that we have built society around must be broken and replaced with circular cycles, where products are used significantly longer and where all material can be recirculated to become inputs for new products. It is also important for the business sector because it provides good competitive advantages.

If we are to achieve the climate goals, we need to transition to a circular economy, and we need to reuse all our raw materials several times over. But unfortunately, the industry and manufacturing are limited due to regulations and legislation when it is not possible to extract, for example, all metals from our waste facilities because they are considered dangerous.

For the circular transition to succeed, it is required that politics sets ambitious goals. The public sector has great opportunities to influence the climate transition and environmental work in a more progressive direction. Every year, goods and services are procured for a total of 800 billion kronor.

At the same time, the carbon emissions and resource efficiency from the public sector leave much to be desired. Price is decisive for evaluation and award in most procurements. Words such as circular, recyclability, and reusability are rarely found in the procurement documents and the specifications.

Public procurement therefore needs to be used to a greater extent as a tool for a circular transition. I and the Center Party believe that we must increase the proportion of procurements that set sharp requirements on circularity and resource efficiency. This applies particularly to furniture, textiles, and interior design in the public sector, where the proportion of products with recycled material is very low. To drive this development, we want to set an ambitious goal of, for example, 20 percent recycled in state procurements.

I therefore wish to move for approval of reservation 12.

Mr. Speaker! Today's environmental regulations also limit us in other ways. Technology and development are moving forward with new green innovations, but the legislation is not keeping up. It is small and growing companies, which often employ young people, that want to show and demonstrate their innovations, but they are met by a wall of burdensome state regulation and supervision.

It is of course not only small companies that experience this. We want to make it easier for all companies to test new and untested environmental technology without the authorities putting spokes in the wheels with a suffocating regulatory framework, which even established companies have difficulty living up to. The business sector is far ahead in the transition, and we should not limit that through outdated legislation.

Mr. Speaker! I want to raise another area regarding the Environmental Code. It concerns the classification of agriculture. It was not so long ago that we had an announcement that agriculture should not be considered environmentally hazardous activity, but it seems that those who have championed the countryside and Swedish food production have suddenly forgotten what was promised.

Centerpartiet wants to see the government return to the Riksdag as soon as possible and change the Environmental Code for agriculture, just as many agreed.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish business is world-leading in several areas of the green transition. In area after area, it is today the business sector that is leading and the politics that is running behind and trying to catch up.

Many companies have been involved in and successfully shaped global agreements to reduce carbon emissions and steer towards a more sustainable operation. The new technologies and products that Swedish companies develop and produce will lead to reduced emissions not only in Sweden but in the entire world. Many Swedish companies understand that it is in the transition that the growth and the good future margins are found.

Sweden has the natural resources, the capital, and the innovations to emerge victorious from this transition, which can continue to create jobs and growth. But it fails on such a seemingly simple thing as permits. Lengthy and unpredictable permit processes are a threat to both the climate and the jobs. We therefore cannot have an order where bureaucracy and dysfunctional processes hinder the transition.

The debate on the simplification of permit applications has stalled on wind power. Of course, the permits for wind power are an important part, but it is not only there that simplifications are needed. Permits are required for power lines, other energy sources, industrial establishments, and not least mineral extraction in entirely new areas in Sweden.

The problems with the permits consist of many parts. It is about the fact that the number of large and complex applications has increased in a very short time, which means that authorities and courts cannot keep up. The vast majority know that this is a problem, and many attempts have been made with coordinators and investigations.

Mr. Speaker! The Center Party aims for the time for permit processes to be halved. It shall become clearer for the applicant what is expected, how long the process will take, and on what grounds the decision will be made. Cooperation with authorities shall be improved and regulations simplified. Costs shall be lowered for both the business sector and the taxpayers. All this shall occur with maintained care for the environment and climate.

I and the Center Party want to see action here and now. We actually want to go even further than what is stated in today's report. Last year, we proposed a permit preparation body that would work closely with the government and the authorities to, over the course of a year, resolve the biggest problems that the companies experience and go one step further in the climate transition. Unfortunately, we received no support for this in the Riksdag.

By showing the rest of the world that we have a robust process for resolving today's deadlock, we will be able to signal to investors that Sweden is the best country to carry out climate investments, not only because we have the resources and the expertise but also because the future permit process is efficient, predictable, and legally secure. The business community knows that an investment leading to reduced carbon emissions will have a better return than an investment that increases emissions. That is how demand looks, regardless of whether one cares about the climate crisis or not.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker: Sweden has a complicated regulatory framework that restricts the green transition. The business sector is ahead and needs support from authorities and politicians in the development.

I and the Center Party want to use public procurement as a tool for a circular transition. We want to make it easier for small companies to test new and innovative environmental technology. We also want to ensure that we simplify and halve the time for environmental assessments and permit processes.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 24 April.)

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