Overall environmental issues

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! This report is sometimes unfairly called the "junk drawer." That is because it deals with a broad palette of issues that do not quite fit into other reports but which are often some of the absolutely most important ones we have to handle. With so much darkness in the world, it is easy to drown in the notices, look away and hope that it will soon pass. My first and perhaps most important appeal during this speech is not to look away and not to let the darkness win. We have much work left to do, and environmental and climate policy is perhaps even more important today precisely because of everything that is happening.

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 emissions and secure future jobs, Sweden needs more clean electricity that enables increased growth and a competitive industry.

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

It is probably no one who has missed that the Moderates want more nuclear power. Unfortunately, S-led governments for a long time pursued a policy to deteriorate and ultimately phase out nuclear power. This has been extremely harmful for Sweden. The Moderate-led government has set a new course for Sweden and secured a future where new nuclear power can actually be built.

We also agree that more wind power is needed. The Swedish energy mix has historically attracted many investments to our elongated country. Cheap, fossil-free, and available electricity shall be built up with a stable foundation in nuclear power and hydropower. Our focus must be 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, both wind power and nuclear power will be needed.

Mr. Speaker! Today, however, it takes far too long to obtain a permit for, for example, a new wind turbine. Many companies today testify to long processing times for environmental permits when they want to invest in and develop their operations. This also applies to all those operations that create great climate benefits. Instead of being encouraged, they are met with obstacles today. This applies, for example, to the hydroelectric power plant that could have expanded its production by streamlining the existing power plant but had to struggle for 15 years to get a permit. It also applies to the farmer who received an unreasonable number of extra requirements on his operation because he, unlike the neighbor who had had the same permit since the 60s, wanted to modernize his farm.

There is much to improve. On one hand, municipalities need to take their responsibility by streamlining processes and to a greater extent standing on the side of the entrepreneurs, on the other hand, our national regulations need to create the right conditions. It is, after all, the business sector that carries out the climate transition, not the politicians or the civil servants. Many seem to believe that it is politics' task to force through the green transition, but I question that. Politics sets the framework, the regulations and the direction, but sometimes it is actually better if politics does not interfere.

It is good that Sweden has tough environmental legislation. It has given us a unique position to create sustainable production chains. We see, however, a clear shift where the business sector is now the new environmental movement and is driving forward at a much higher pace than politics is capable of keeping up with. This has resulted in much of the legislation that has aimed to protect the environment instead hindering more than it helps. We must therefore begin to question when, where, and how politics has the mandate to intervene.

The Environmental Code was written in a time when the climate transition did not rank 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.

Mr. Speaker! There are few things that make me so angry as when people destroy our nature. Nature is a part of our heritage, and it is our collective responsibility to take care of it. Unfortunately, we see how serious crime causes devastation not only in our cities but also in our nature. Unscrupulous companies earn large sums of money by exploiting loopholes in our legislation and dumping waste in nature. It is also evident that the sentencing scale is not in parity with the devastation caused to animals, nature, and people. Here it is clear that a better process is needed to both detect and counteract environmental crime.

Mr. Speaker! The Aarhus Convention, which both Sweden and the EU have acceded to, is a UN convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making processes, and access to justice in environmental matters. The convention establishes, among other things, that the concerned public who has a sufficient interest or who claims that a right is being violated has the right to have the validity of an environmental-related decision reviewed by a court.

The basic principle is good. It is a completely natural part of a democratic society that an organization is given the opportunity to represent its members' opinions and interests. But the development of the right to appeal has gone in a direction that is problematic. Forest owners can be forced to defend their right to use their forest at their own expense, while small environmental organizations without local roots have the right to appeal logging without any cost responsibility whatsoever. That was not the intention.

Property rights are constitutionally protected, but the way we treat landowners today is shameful. I do not know why it has become an approach where one automatically distrusts landowners. As far as I know, the Swedish environment has only improved when, in particular, forest owners have gained control over their land. Again: I believe it is beneficial for all of us to ask the question: When does politics have the mandate to step in?

(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! The member began by saying that much is under consideration, but energy policy is not. A very large part of the introduction, however, was about energy policy, I can state.

The reason the member raised the energy policy landed on the question of whether we need more efficient permit processes. On that point, our parties are in complete agreement. Therefore, we think it is unfortunate that the government did not go all the way when it had the opportunity to truly implement a change regarding change permits as a general rule.

Then I listened with interest to the description of the problems with the Environmental Code. If the member can provide examples, I am interested in hearing them, for example, the three most important changes to the Environmental Code that the member envisions and which could ensure that we get a more efficient process. That is a question.

The second question concerns the criticism that Sweden has just received from the OECD, which states that Sweden risks missing both our climate goals and our environmental goals. At the same time, the Moderaterna in government have both implemented measures that increase emissions and cut the environmental budget.

How do the Moderates intend to ensure that Sweden meets its national commitments as well as our EU commitments and international commitments when the current policy is driving us in the completely opposite direction?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is important issues that Member Järrebring chooses to raise here.

Initially, regarding energy, we can state that if one has no energy policy, one also has no climate policy. The two go hand in hand, and we must begin to treat them in that way in a more serious manner as well.

We need enough electricity to transition all our large, heavy industries. We are a country far up in the north with cold temperatures. That is also something to take into account.

Then we are to transition an entire vehicle fleet. To manage that, we will need to handle energy policy in a completely different way than what has been done during previous terms. It is precisely for that reason that we have now shifted the policy – to ensure that nuclear power becomes a reality moving forward. It is incredibly important, and it goes hand in hand with permit processes, which the member also raised. Here, we have moved forward on many different fronts.

When looking at how we can simplify for our companies and for the business community, one must look at the big picture. What are the different solutions that are coming in here?

We have the bill "Steps on the way towards a more efficient environmental review". There, among other things, changes of permit are mentioned, but also that the validity can be extended. We also have the permit review of the electricity grid. It is incredibly important that, when we increase the production of electricity, it becomes possible to make it available throughout the country. Otherwise, again, it will stop due to all the bottlenecks that exist today.

It is also about changes in the Mining Act, because we will, after all, need much more minerals to manage to develop the technologies needed for the transition.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

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

I think that the vast majority, perhaps even everyone, understands that the climate transition, as part of the green transition, is about replacing fossil energy and fossil raw materials with other energy. That electrification is the key, I also believe everyone agrees on.

The great challenge is the industry's transition. If we look at the vehicle fleet, we see that the surplus of electricity production we already have today covers the need when it comes to transitioning the vehicle fleet for passenger transport. It is not the great challenge, if we are to be honest, but it is the industry's transition that is the great challenge.

I received no answer to my questions, so I want to give the member of Parliament the opportunity to answer them. How do the Moderaterna view the criticism from the OECD that Sweden risks missing both its climate goals and its environmental goals? How do the Moderaterna intend to ensure that Sweden meets both national commitments, EU commitments, and international commitments, given that the current policy, which has been pursued so far during the mandate period, is actually driving Sweden in the completely opposite direction?

Instead of examples of changes in other laws, I am interested in hearing what the member sees as the most important changes in the Environmental Code to streamline the permit processes.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, we are only given two minutes in the exchanges. It may not be possible to elaborate to the exact extent that I would have liked.

Regarding the Environmental Code, I believe an important part is to ensure that we apply it in a better way. In the first paragraph, it states that one should be able to take into account the goal conflicts that arise in different cases. Is it, for example, reasonable that a three-toed woodpecker stops the construction of something that is incredibly important for society? Such trade-offs are not made by politics today, but rather by courts. There are infinitely many goal conflicts, and I believe that the application is happening in the wrong way today.

To return to the energy issue, Joakim Järrebring mentioned that we have a surplus. That is true, but on the other hand, the difference between production and consumption is large. When we look at the figures, we clearly see that production has increased as a result of the wind power that has been able to be built out, but consumption, on the other hand, has not kept pace with the development. That is where we have the problem.

I hope that S can take this issue further and take the energy issue a bit more seriously in the future and see that a key in the green transition is that we combine the production goals with ensuring that it is actually possible to consume. There, the key is actually nuclear power. I hope that the Social Democrats are willing to take important and large steps forward in that issue and become clearer, for all our sakes.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Helena Storckenfeldt, for your speech! You started by saying that we must not look away. Now more than ever, it is important that we keep our eyes on climate and environmental issues, so on that point, I fully agree with the member. As it appears in the news feed and in daily politics, it is easy for these issues to fall into the shadows, but they are at least as important for our survival, which is what it actually is about, as many of the other issues being discussed right now. We must keep our eyes on this.

Climate and environmental policy is necessary, and we have been very good at it in Sweden. In the previous exchange of remarks, Joakim Järrebring brought up the OECD report that came out yesterday. Much of what we are debating today is included in the report. It shows, Mr. Speaker, that we in Sweden have often been champions, that is, leaders, when it comes to environmental and climate policy. We have succeeded in showing that one can reduce emissions and simultaneously increase prosperity. We have been the best in the EU at that.

Since we got this government, however, it has gone in the wrong direction. We now have an increase in emissions that is among the fastest among the EU countries, even the very fastest.

There are also other issues here where we see that we are not reaching our goals. Of our 16 environmental goals, it is 12 that we are not reaching, and it is going in the wrong direction since the new government came in.

One of the things I was thinking of asking about, besides how we are to approach this overall, is the hydropower that Helena Storckenfeldt touched upon regarding permit processes.

Something that the OECD points out is that we have not adapted hydropower to the environment. There is an agreement. There is a NAP, a national plan, for how this should proceed, which has been paused by this government. Now nothing is happening, and we see that our environmental values are disappearing. This is important base power for Sweden, but we must also reach our environmental goals. What is the government doing about it? When will the NAP be resumed?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Those were good and important questions!

I would like to begin by thanking Emma Nohrén for her commitment to these issues. It was actually a post on her social media that inspired the introduction to my speech today. I think it is important to point that out. In the very dark world we find ourselves in today, it is important that we also have some form of common direction and thought here about where we are headed and which values we defend.

This government aims for Sweden to be a green pioneer country moving forward. What I see as a problem that has been and that we are now trying to fix is that it cannot be called a pioneer country without ensuring that other countries actually follow the work that we do here in Sweden. We achieve very great values in both environmental and climate policy. We have done that for a very long time, and we shall continue to do so.

What we need to do now is to design regulations for our business sector to ensure that companies stay in Sweden and continue to produce in Sweden, and by doing so, show that it is actually possible to increase our prosperity while simultaneously maintaining high climate goals. That transition presupposes much more clean electricity, so our focus lies on increasing competitiveness and ensuring that we maintain good growth while we maintain high climate goals.

There are very many parts that go into this, not least the permit processes that we spoke about in a previous exchange of remarks.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, these questions overlap with one another. That is also why we have a report titled Overall environmental issues. They are included in many of our other reports, but they were needed here as something that somehow holds the whole thing together. It is permit processes, veto rights and ownership rights and such things.

But, again, despite the high ambitions that I am convinced Helena Storckenfeldt wants, we see that the development is going in the wrong direction. It is not just that the emission reductions are stalling, but we have an active policy that actually causes emissions to increase. This applies primarily in the transport sector.

We also see a standstill and a backward step on the environmental side when it comes to, for example, the environmental adaptation of hydropower and how forest policy is conducted and presented.

We have received this thorough report. It is produced every ten years, Mr. Speaker; it is the fourth time we have received it in Sweden. If we read between the lines, we see that one is confounded. What happened in 2022? What actually happened? We have actually shown that it is possible to achieve increased prosperity and that we have strong companies.

I am told by many of the companies that they wonder what the government is doing. The playing field and the regulatory frameworks that existed disappeared overnight in some parts or have been changed.

If there is anything that the business community wants, it is long-term perspective, Mr. Speaker. I ask the member again: How is one to address this, and how is one to ensure that it gets started?

I would also like to have answers on when this with the hydropower will get started. It is incredibly important that we have clean energy, but we must be able to have it with a clear conscience from a climate perspective but also for biodiversity.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the question regarding hydropower and the removal of various dams that exist throughout our country.

I come from Halland. There, we have quite a few such places where it is more or less appropriate to tear these out.

In the places where it is less appropriate, we see that it is old dams that have caused completely unique ecosystems to be created, which have existed there for hundreds of years. If we are to talk about real environmental benefit, I question whether it is appropriate in exactly all places in Sweden to remove hundred-year-old dams and destroy the existing ecosystems in favor of fish passages, also when one knows that there is no fish on its way there. On the other hand, there are other places where it absolutely must be done, and it is important that one can distinguish between where it is appropriate and where it is not appropriate.

What is being done right now is extremely unsustainable, because these aspects are not being taken into account. That is why I question this general, large-scale removal of dams.

We return to the climate policy. What has actually happened since 2022? Well, we have chosen to invest in the energy policy to ensure that it becomes long-term sustainable and robust and to ensure that it becomes possible to reach the climate goals in both the short and long term.

The previous government would potentially have reached the 2030 goals but not the 2045 goals and not net zero. There, they put all their eggs in one basket, which was called the reduction obligation – which was also criticized by the Swedish National Audit Office because it had not been possible to follow the entire path all the way through.

We have set a different focus. It lies on increased competitiveness, good growth and high climate goals.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We have already started the debate with exchanges of remarks, but we are here to debate the report Overall environmental issues.

Behind the somewhat nondescript heading hide important issues such as permit processes, environmental assessment, wind power establishments, property rights issues, public procurement – a joker in most reports – as well as environmental crime and liability issues regarding environmental pollution. It is diverse, but this is what is enormously important for the puzzle to come together. Many of these issues are what connect the different policy areas within environmental and climate policy.

Mr. Speaker! We have already mentioned it in the debate, but I would like to take it again in my speech: Every ten years, the OECD evaluates Sweden's environmental and climate policy. It is a major evaluation – the OECD, which we are part of, is an organization that has an enormous amount of facts and knowledge and compares between countries but also within countries.

This report was handed over to Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari yesterday. It is not a fun read. The OECD is very questioning. Sweden has been on the right track for a long time and previously shown that it is possible to reduce emissions and increase prosperity. But now something has happened.

In 2022 we got a new government, the Tidö group, and all of a sudden the figures shake. There are kinks in the curve, and curves that usually go down go up. Above all, we see that emissions are increasing in the transport sector. Of our 16 national environmental goals, 12 will not be reached by the years they are intended to be reached.

Our forest policy receives stinging criticism. The environmental adaptation of hydropower receives stinging criticism. It must get started and be implemented again and regain its proper place.

This, Mr. Speaker, is not only embarrassing. It is also serious. If we do not reach our own climate goals, which are often sharper than the international goals and EU goals we have, it means that we will also not reach our European or international environmental and climate goals.

Regarding international commitments, we have signed the Paris Agreement. We have also signed the agreement for biodiversity and protection, the Kunming–Montreal framework. Furthermore, we have signed the nature restoration legislation, Mr. Speaker, and we have signed European climate laws.

Quite clearly, this compilation of our climate policy shows that we will not reach the goals. One does not write that one is surprised, but one writes out that Sweden was one of the six countries that voted against the restoration legislation. But even if the government now does not think this is a good idea and has voted no, it still applies. One must fulfill its commitments to follow the legislation. That is where many of the things we debate today come in.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has submitted many motions on how Sweden should achieve its climate and environmental goals and get back on the right track. Many of them are included in today's report. Unfortunately, they have not received a majority, and therefore we have many reservations. We stand behind all our reservations, but I want to move for approval of reservation 37 already, which concerns environmentally hazardous subsidies.

Environmentally harmful subsidies are also something that the OECD cracks down on. Rarely have gasoline and diesel been as cheap as they are now in relation to disposable income. The dollar has indeed fallen in value, and that does its part. But it also depends on an active policy of this government. That was something one also campaigned on. Now we see that fossil emissions are increasing. It is, therefore, a policy one actively pursues by lowering these prices.

On 19 December 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted. I think it shows very well how climate and environmental issues are interconnected. Unfortunately, it often happens that climate and environment are handled as two separate things, but we cannot achieve one without achieving the other.

One of the goals that Sweden has committed to achieving, action goal 18, is about that by 2025 at the latest – this year – we shall begin the work of identifying subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity and begin the work of phasing them out. By 2030, those subsidies shall be reduced by 500 billion dollars annually. Despite the fact that we have ratified this, we have not achieved it or even begun the work.

Mr. Speaker! The latest mapping of environmentally harmful subsidies was carried out in 2017. Therefore, our reservation concerns giving Naturvårdsverket the assignment again to map the environmentally harmful subsidies for both climate and environment and for an action plan on how they should be phased out.

Globally speaking, these are incredible figures. According to the IMF, oil, coal, and gas were subsidized with 7 trillion dollars in 2022. That is 145 million kronor per minute.

In Sweden alone, in last year's budget, 10 billion kronor more than the total climate, environment, and nature budget went to environmentally harmful subsidies. It was 31 billion. We therefore believe that something needs to be done very quickly. We can find low-hanging fruits and even win-win situations.

Mr. Speaker! There are many more things that need to be done. We have talked about how to get the permit processes done. Miljöpartiet has a motion regarding a so-called climate force. That proposal was included in the Environmental Assessment Inquiry but unfortunately did not become a reality – at least not yet. Some county administrative boards have nevertheless tried to do this. The County Administrative Board in Västra Götaland pooled the resources for large installations. Battery factories, perhaps one does not want to talk about today, but there are those that still function. It was also about other large investments to reduce the climate footprints. They ensured that the county administrative boards had the resources. But unfortunately, the government has cut the funds to the county administrative boards, so this cannot be maintained.

A proposal in the Environmental Assessment Inquiry was, therefore, a climate force – a task force – for these large investments, which could be used nationally. It could help with the permit process and have the necessary expertise. It is not the case that one and the same place constantly receives these large requests, but rather it might be about an establishment in one location. Then one can work there and subsequently take the knowledge forward. In that way, one could increase the speed. It would be very good for both the companies that want to establish themselves and for the climate and our officials, who would gain better knowledge.

Mr. Speaker! There are many more things that I would like to bring up. I will not do so now, but again: The Public Procurement Act needs to be updated. We are sorry that the government did not agree to make the changes that could provide a climate benefit.

We also believe that the protection for private individuals who are subjected to various types of environmental problems needs to be strengthened. Most recently, it concerned PFAS in Kallinge, where private individuals had to fight like David against Goliath. They won, but we believe there needs to be legal support for those who are subjected to such situations where they are affected without their own fault – in this case, poisoning by carcinogenic substances. Such things should not affect the individual. It must lead to a lex Kallinge.

Mr. Speaker! I move, as I have said, for the approval of reservation 37 and hope that Sweden can once again become a country that leads the transition and can inspire others instead of confounding investigators.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As the previous speaker has pointed out, this is a collection heat for motions that do not quite fit into any other report. Therefore, it is a diverse collection of motions that we are going to try to handle. In my speech, I have intended to address some of the reservations that exist. But I want to start by moving for approval of the proposals in the report and rejection of all reservations.

The first part concerns the environmental goals system, which previous speakers also touched upon. We have an environmental goals system in Sweden. The idea behind it is very good, but unfortunately, we have an environmental goals system that is structured in such a way that some of the goals will not be able to be reached.

In this chamber, the environmental quality goal Living Forests is often debated. Quite a few researchers in Sweden are very clear that if all human activity on the earth's surface were to cease for a hundred years, we still would not be able to reach the environmental quality goal Living Forests. Then the question is whether that goal should really remain as it is formulated or if it should be rewritten. And now that we have such a goal, the question arises whether we have more goals that would need to be reviewed.

As it stands now, we have achieved one goal, and that concerned freons. That was quite easy to achieve. It was a low-hanging fruit. But many of the other environmental goals are perhaps not goals but rather visions or perhaps even utopias. Before we add further parts to the environmental goals system, we should therefore review the parts we already have.

Another thing that there are several reservations about and that has been raised in previous speeches and exchanges of remarks is permit processes. When the government took office, we took over some ongoing investigations that the previous government had commissioned. We have also commissioned new investigations to continue with this. An environmental permit investigation, for example, has submitted its report this year on how we should act to handle permit changes and permit processes in a better way. We are not going to put obstacles in the way when people want to make changes to improve for climate and environment. People want to be part of the transition, but there are regulatory frameworks that put spokes in the wheels.

As has been pointed out previously, we have a climate justice investigation that emphasizes the importance of more efficient and faster permit processes. One thing is to have an investigation that says that, but it must then be followed up by politics. And precisely so that we can get faster permit processes and thereby be able to facilitate the climate transition, this government is now following up on these investigations. Several other investigations point in the same direction, and therefore it is very important to now actually do something that makes a real difference.

Mr. Speaker! These days, it is quite popular to use AI. I asked AI if it could speak about what is the difference between the previous Environmental Assessment Inquiry and the Environmental Permit Inquiry, which the current government commissioned. Then AI answered as follows: The Environmental Assessment Inquiry emphasizes climate goals and modernization of conditions, while the Environmental Permit Inquiry focuses on practical simplifications and clearer regulation.

That is where we want to get to: practical simplifications and clearer regulation. That is what the Environmental Permit Investigation that the government appointed clearly points out, and that is where we must get to.

Mr. Speaker! Included in the report is also the municipal veto against wind power, or rather reservations where they want to remove the municipal veto.

We need an enormous amount of electricity to manage the transition. This has been mentioned in previous exchanges, and there is no doubt about that. We need more of everything. But then we must have the production where it actually fits. Not all electricity production fits everywhere, and therefore the municipal veto is important. It is the municipality that has the planning monopoly otherwise, and therefore it is also the municipality that should be able to have a veto regarding this. This morning in the SVT news, we could, for example, see how landowners in Smedjebacken were affected by a halved value of the property simply because a new wind farm was planned nearby.

The question regarding the Aarhus Convention and the right to speak was raised earlier. Since the last parliamentary term, we have had an announcement regarding hunting of predators. The Aarhus Convention distinguishes between the public and the directly affected public. Unfortunately, we in Sweden, as I was about to say, as usual, have gone a bit further than the minimum requirement and thus granted the right to speak to persons who, therefore, should not have it because they are not directly affected.

It becomes a bit strange when permission is granted for wolf hunting in Värmland, and then an organization based in Stockholm or private individuals living in Stockholm appeal this permission even though they are not directly affected. When logging is to take place in Värmland, an appeal arrives in the mail from the southern tip of Öland. Nor are you directly affected then.

The issues regarding the right to be heard must be handled better, and therefore the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in Sweden must be changed.

Mr. Speaker! There are several motions regarding environmental crime. In the report *A stricter environmental criminal law and an effective sanction system* from the Environmental Criminal Law Inquiry, a stricter penalty scale for environmental crimes has been proposed. A new breach of contract has been introduced targeting business activities or other activities that dispose of waste in an unauthorized manner, which we have unfortunately seen in quite a few places.

The government has now moved forward with these very important parts so that we can stop waste crime, which is actually the fourth largest crime in the world. It is truly extensive, and this is therefore extremely important.

(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 thought we would resume the discussion I had with Member Storckenfeldt regarding energy policy. The Moderate Member emphasized the importance of nuclear power. I believe, however, that everyone here in the chamber is aware that if there is to be new nuclear power, it is at best, according to the most positive assessors, not before in 15–20 years.

We need to increase electricity production significantly so that there is any need for increased electricity production with nuclear power in the future, and then we also know that what can provide the increased electricity production in the near term is wind power on land and at sea.

I also listened to the member's arguments regarding the municipal veto. He emphasized how important it is that the municipal veto remains in place when it comes to wind power. I would therefore like to hear if it is the Christian Democrats' view that this veto will also continue to apply to uranium mining.

I want to address this issue regarding offshore wind power and the necessity of quickly producing new electricity. All West Swedish municipalities except Öckerö municipality and the entire business community in the region have pointed out that the offshore wind power project Västvind is crucial for supplying electricity to West Sweden and creating thousands of industrial jobs.

Despite this, the government did not lift a finger to get the KD-led alliance government on Öckerö to take responsibility. How does the member view the fact that his own local party comrades are blocking the energy transition that the Christian Democrats and the government say they want to see?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! This was interesting. When Joakim Järrebring took the floor in response to my colleague Helena Storckenfeldt, he pointed out that a very large part of her speech concerned energy policy, a part that is not included in this committee report. Now Member Järrebring takes the floor in response to me and continues with the energy policy and furthermore with nuclear power and offshore wind power, something that I did not mention in my speech. But Joakim Järrebring has the right to ask whatever questions he wants in his responses; he shall be allowed to do so.

Regarding energy policy, it is a self-evident matter that we must have more energy and more of everything. If we are to follow the laws of physics, however, it is such that the more weather-dependent energy we have, the more predictable, controllable base load we must have to balance it out so that the electricity system functions. We therefore cannot just proceed with weather-dependent energy if we do not ensure that we fill up with base load.

Yes, we need everything. However, ideology cannot be allowed to rule, we must also follow the laws of physics, and if we are to follow the laws of physics, we must have more of a predictable, rule-governed base force.

Regarding the offshore wind power project that Joakim Järrebring refers to, I will in no way criticize my fellow party members in Öckerö. On the other hand, I can have a considerable amount of understanding. I spend one week every summer on Hönö, which is located in Öckerö municipality, and I understand if one there is afraid of offshore wind power further west that will destroy the fantastic view towards the Western Sea. I have no problem understanding that.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! An interesting starting point in this entire energy discussion, which we repeatedly hear from the government parties, is that we in some way, based on natural laws, need to have nuclear power in the electricity system for it to function.

We have an energy system that has perhaps been one of the absolute best electricity systems in the world for a very long time. However, it is an old and outdated system, and if we are to build further on the hundred-year-old technology, we need to have stable base power in the system.

There are alternatives. One can build a new and modern electricity system with flexible consumption and a completely different type of control. One can use new technology to balance the frequency on the grid.

I strongly oppose when representatives for the government and the governing parties say that nuclear power is absolutely necessary. It is a technically feasible solution if we are to build further on exactly the same technology for the electricity system that we have today, but it is not the only possible way forward.

I thought the member passed by the offshore wind power project rather quickly. There are 70,000 jobs in Western Sweden at stake. Is it reasonable that a single municipality can be held responsible for this? Is it reasonable that the green transition and the jobs linked to this stand or fall with a municipality's vote? Does the member really think that is reasonable?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Joakim Järrebring stands here and says that we had the best electricity system in the world. That is probably correct – we had the best electricity system in the world. But the Social Democrats, together with the Green Party, did everything they could to dismantle the best electricity system in the world.

They decommissioned fully functioning nuclear reactors. The operation of these could also have been extended until we had built new and even more modern nuclear reactors. They were also involved in developing a review of hydropower in order to remove small-scale hydropower with surgical precision.

Joakim Järrebring pointed out in his previous speech how much the offshore wind farm off the west coast would provide. The small-scale hydropower currently provides the equivalent of what the city of Gothenburg consumes in a year. Is it worth dismantling? Is it not at least equally valuable to retain this, given that the situation is as it is?

Yes, Sweden had the world's best electricity system. But it was the Social Democrats, together with the Green Party, who were very good at dismantling it.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that we can still be very proud as Swedes. Sweden has a long tradition of ambitious and results-oriented environmental policy. Sweden has been a pioneer in climate work. We have built our prosperity on a combination of innovation, sustainable development, and strong public institutions. But the policy pursued by the current government implies a drastic change in direction.

The report we are discussing today concerns overall environmental policy. It is a broad issue that covers everything from environmental assessments and permit processes to the preservation of biodiversity and the management of environmental crime.

Mr. Speaker! It is clear that we are at a crossroads. We can choose to continue the Swedish tradition of ambitious reforms. We can also let short-term economic interests rule at the expense of both our nature and our future growth.

The government's environmental policy is characterized by low ambitions and a lack of long-term planning. The cuts in the environmental budget have affected everything from nature conservation to water management. We are now seeing the consequences of this in the form of worsened conditions for protected nature, increased emissions, and a lack of support for municipalities and companies that want to lead the way in the green transition. Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner has called for increased cooperation with the state to accelerate the green transition, which shows that the government's policy lacks both sufficient steering and long-term planning.

The government has made extensive cuts to the environmental budget. Compared to previous governments, the appropriations have decreased by over 7 billion kronor, and the cuts have had concrete consequences. The protection of valuable nature has decreased drastically. The County Administrative Boards have been forced to cut back on the maintenance of national parks and nature reserves.

This is not, however, an isolated issue, Mr. Speaker. There is a clear pattern in the government's policy. Environment and climate are not the only areas that have been sidelined. The government has consistently prioritized tax cuts for the wealthiest, while people with the smallest margins have fared worse. The tax cuts have largely benefited high-income earners – a person who earns 150,000 kronor a month gets around 4,000 kronor more in their pocket, while a low-income earner gets around 60 kronor.

At the same time, the government's policy has led to Sweden now being at the bottom of the EU in terms of growth and to unemployment in the country being at unjustifiably high levels. When we talk about environmental policy, we must also talk about economic policy. A successful environmental policy is, in fact, not only about protecting nature but also about creating new jobs and new opportunities. Here, it is worth specifically mentioning the need for more efficient permit processes and shorter processing times. I therefore wish to move for approval of our reservation in the report, number 4.

The green transition is actually one of the greatest economic opportunities of our time. By investing in renewable energy, sustainable industry, and a circular economy, we can reduce our emissions and our environmental impact while simultaneously strengthening Swedish competitiveness.

But instead of taking advantage of these opportunities, the government has chosen to retreat into the past. We see it in their reluctance to provide stable rules for renewable energy. We see it in how they make it difficult for municipalities and regions to carry out important environmental and climate investments. We also see it in how the government has not even tried to convince its own party friends in the KD-led alliance government in Öckerö, which recently voted no to the offshore wind power project Västvind, even though the project is absolutely crucial for Western Sweden's electricity supply and risks affecting 70,000 jobs in the long term.

Mr. Speaker! Environmental policy and growth policy are linked. If we are to have a strong economy in the future, we must invest in sustainability, innovation, and justice. We need a coherent policy that does not just look at the next quarterly report but looks up and looks toward the next generation. We need a policy that gives people the opportunity to live a good life without worsening the conditions for those who come after us.

It is this that we need, and that is why it is so serious that we now see a government that does not take either the environmental challenges or the economic challenges seriously. We have a government that has neither a plan to reduce emissions nor a plan to create the jobs of the future. We have a government that lets tax cuts for the richest take precedence over investments in sustainable development and social justice. It is not a government that puts ordinary wage earners first.

I mean that the Swedish people deserve better. Our environment deserves better. Even future generations deserve better. Therefore, a different path was needed. A path was needed where we combine climate and environmental policy with a growth policy that benefits everyone, not just a few.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! To continue on the track of taking reply after reply after reply, I thought I would return to the energy system. Joakim Järrebring mentioned in the previous exchange of replies that we had the best energy system. There was a reason for this. The basis for our success in reducing emissions since the 70s is our fossil-free energy mix, which is built on hydropower and nuclear power. Now it must be rebuilt, and it will take time.

I hope, as I mentioned in the previous exchange, that S can reconsider some decisions regarding this and perhaps make some clearer decisions. What is needed are long-term conditions for the industry and for the transport sector's transition. We must secure our electricity supply, because without electricity, no transition will occur either.

But the question remains, Mr. Speaker, as to what the Social Democrats actually want. Batteries are not a long-term solution. As mentioned, we had the best system, but we no longer have it because of the decisions that the Social Democrats made.

My very specific question to Member Järrebring is: If S were to gain power at the next election, will the nuclear power plans be torn up?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! In international assessments, Sweden's energy system is still ranked as one of the most robust in the world. The whole point of my previous remark was that our electricity system is based on old technology and that there is new modern technology to use if one wants a more robust electricity system in the future that is not centralized but decentralized. It creates many good conditions to also cope with serious events such as major crises and even war. If we have learned anything from the horrific war of aggression that Russia is carrying out in Ukraine, it is that a main priority in war is to attack the electricity system to create chaos and demoralize the population.

There is every reason, I think and the Social Democratic Party thinks, to reflect on what the Swedish electricity system should look like in the future. How do we create an electricity system that is robust, can withstand disturbances, and delivers energy where it is needed when it is needed at the lowest cost? If we have that as a baseline and then choose the best technology instead of staring blindly at a single type of energy, we also achieve the best energy system. If it is nuclear power that is best – well, then we build nuclear power. If it is not nuclear power, we build another electricity system.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I, who come from Halland County, know that before the 2014 election there were plans for new nuclear power in the Ringhals area. But as soon as there was a change of government and the Social Democrats took power, all such plans were scrapped, because it was known that there was no political will. That is the reality we must start from. I often think: Where would we have been today if we had continued to hold power, if those plans had not been torn up, if there had been a political will even after that election? We would have been in a completely different starting position to achieve the green transition.

The system that Joakim Järrebring describes, we cannot get without more brute force. That is just how it works. Today we cannot use all the electricity we produce. As I mentioned in the previous exchange, there is a very large difference between production and consumption. We must find our way back to the balance that made us have the most efficient system.

I took notice when Järrebring spoke about the power that a municipality on the west coast has. He spoke about this as if it were something incredibly bad. I believe we all agree that the process needs to go faster and that we need to find ways to increase the local acceptance for wind power. But would this municipality alone bear the responsibility for the missed job opportunities? My concrete question to Joakim Järrebring is: Do the Social Democrats want to remove the municipal veto?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Helena Storckenfeldt for her contribution and questions.

It is good for those listening to the debate if we agree on the historiography surrounding Swedish nuclear power. We had a referendum where the decision was that we would phase out nuclear power from the Swedish electricity system. Many governments have worked based on that. Between 2006 and 2014, when the Alliance ruled, they implemented the largest tax increases on nuclear-produced electricity. They were much larger than those that the Social Democrats implemented during the following mandate period.

Should one then beat their chest and say that it is the Social Democrats who have caused us to stand with the energy system we have today? One certainly can say that, because we still have one of the absolutely most stable energy systems in the world according to international assessors, and we have continuously, even in electricity area 4, had the lowest electricity prices in Europe. So, we still have something that speaks for a stable Swedish energy system.

But moving forward, we need to do a lot. We need to increase electricity production. It is almost difficult to comprehend considering how long we have stayed at the same electricity production. That is how it has been for decades. But even if we decide to build new nuclear power, it will not arrive for at least 15–20 years. Before then, we need to ensure that we increase electricity production so that we can manage the green transition and ensure that the investments in future technology are made here – in Western Sweden, in Norrland, and so on. Then we need to produce electricity with the help of wind power, land-based and offshore, but we do not see the government doing enough to solve that.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! This is truly a debate that covers the highs and lows. I hadn't imagined an energy policy debate here today, but not me against it! As a Liberal, I like nuclear power. It is always fun.

Something I want to focus a bit on here today, and which many others have raised before me, is the permit processes, this roadblock for growth and development and not least for the climate transition. One encounters a tangible frustration when out on site visits. Almost regardless of which operation one speaks with that is seeking a permit, the question is raised. There is a great need for reform and review here. The Government is working at high speed on the issue. We simply must remove this roadblock. We are now carrying out a very ambitious review. There is also a broad consensus here in the chamber that this is important. Still, it is only during this parliamentary term that one can see that things are actually happening for real. We are not at the finish line yet, but much is underway.

Mr. Speaker! An efficient and predictable environmental review, together with supervision and guidance that works, is a prerequisite for sustainable growth and for the climate transition. We must achieve more efficient processes. This is particularly important for Swedish competitiveness. The unnecessary red tape that we have in Sweden, with far too protracted and long permit processes, risks leading to Swedish companies falling behind internationally.

If we turn it around and succeed in achieving a change, it contributes to a faster climate transition and to making existing and new Swedish companies stronger.

Mr. Speaker! When working with environmental policy, one is constantly faced with weighing different interests against each other. There are few areas where it is so clear that what we do is about conflicts of interest.

Property rights are pitted against species protection and coastal protection. Wind power installations are pitted against the interests of neighbors. We are to establish nuclear power, and some do not want it. And we have hydropower. It can be continued for as long as anyone wants.

This is what the question is about. It is also linked to the permit processes. We must find faster ways to reach decisions regardless of whether it leads to a business establishment or not. It is not always so easy to know what is best.

It is also about weighing environmental and climate measures against one another. We had quite extensive discussions about this in the previous environmental goals preparation, where several here in the chamber were present.

Some things one does are good for biological diversity but are bad for the climate, and vice versa. It is certainly not easy. It is our task to make the trade-offs and look at the whole. We must reconcile growth and good environmental policy.

Politics has long been somewhat one-sided. We need to find a better balance, and that is what we strive for. With the government we have now, new steps are being taken. My Minister for Climate and Environment often speaks about legitimacy. For politics to be able to reach its goals, one must see the conflicts of interest and manage them.

Mr. Speaker! This brings me back to the right of ownership once again. Many motions in the report we are handling here today address the right of ownership. As a Liberal, it makes me happy every time it happens. The right of ownership is a liberal fundamental principle.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the speech!

We agree on more efficient permit processes and how important it is to reconcile sustainable and green growth with an efficient climate and environmental policy. That is good.

I think we should talk a bit more about the environmental budget and nature conservation. The County Administrative Boards have had their funds for the management of protected areas cut by the government by two-thirds. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency warns that approximately 150 million kronor are missing annually to manage the preservation and protection of the nature that we have formally protected.

Simultaneously with this, the government parties, and not least the Liberals, claim that one is pursuing an effective and ambitious environmental and climate policy. I wonder how the member thinks that fits together.

Does Elin Nilsson really think it is reasonable to claim that the policy is ambitious when one fails to manage to protect and preserve the nature worthy of protection?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Joakim Järrebring, for raising important issues!

We are doing the right things. The most important measure we are taking for the environment and the climate is the restructuring of the energy policy. We are working to produce more clean energy so that we can transition and reduce emissions.

Regarding the reduction of the appropriations, I know that the member is also aware that we have gone through difficult economic times. It requires priorities.

When the government took office, it took on a major task to get the school system in order, strengthen the defense, and not least to combat crime and organized crime. These are measures that demand great resources and that mean one must make tough priorities.

I am proud of the work we do in those areas. But I am also proud of the work we do when it comes to the environment and climate.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am the first to agree that the green transition, and then perhaps especially the climate part of it, is very strongly linked to a sustainable energy policy. That is good.

When it comes to the part of the green transition that concerns biodiversity and the environment, perhaps new nuclear power does not play any major role in either direction.

I also agree that it is important to manage to prioritize. That always applies in politics.

If we are to look at how the government has prioritized, one sees that it has chosen to prioritize gigantic tax cuts for those with the absolute highest income instead of ensuring that there are sufficient funds for the county administrative boards to be able to manage the maintenance of protected areas.

It is the government's priority. Does the member really think that it hangs together? Can one claim to have an ambitious environmental policy with those priorities?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

We have an ambitious environmental and climate policy.

I thought I would start by addressing the claim that we are lowering taxes for the richest. It is a reasonable principle that one keeps half of what one earns. Now we are on our way there. I am proud of and satisfied with that.

If one is to point out something that makes a difference and is important when it comes to investments in biodiversity, it is the investments in rewetting that we are making. They are very important for biodiversity.

The work is progressing well. It is work that has also been ongoing since previous governments, and we continue it. We prioritize it and invest in it, because it is so important in so many aspects.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the speech and also for the previous exchange of remarks! I will touch upon part of what has been said. I will try to frame my questions so that we do not repeat ourselves.

I have already earlier in the debate raised the OECD report that was released. It touches upon very many of the subjects that are addressed in the report we are debating today.

We see that we will not achieve 12 of our 16 environmental goals. We see that there is a hitch in the curve in 2022. At the same time, Elin Nilsson, who represents the same party as our Minister for Climate and Environment, stands and says that we are to have a strong climate and environmental policy and that trade-offs must be made.

We must make trade-offs as politicians. That is what we are here for. We have a wealth of facts and experts who say things. Then we must weigh the societal interests against each other and also ensure that there is a legitimacy for the decisions we make.

We also see that the policy that has been pursued has served us well. We have reduced our emissions and increased our prosperity. We have increased the proportion of protected nature. We have moved forward, even if we were not at the goal for many of the environmental targets before 2022. But the development for many of them was moving in the right direction.

Now it does not look like that. It also looks like it is conscious decisions that are making it go in the wrong direction. We have a reduced price on gasoline and diesel, which was also an election promise. We see that we have a reduced budget for environmental monitoring.

We see that the beach cleaning funds are disappearing, something that is very significant on the west coast where I live. We see that we cannot release salmon in some of the salmon projects that are ongoing. Several of these different environmental projects, climate projects, and policies are being stalled, reduced, and actively opposed. How are you going to address that?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the questions!

It is true that there are bumps in the road. But I want to start by saying that I have not read the entire OECD report yet. It arrived yesterday, and I look forward to reading it when there is time. I am quite certain that there is much useful material to take in from it. It is an important review, even though we would, of course, have liked to see a better result. We are still striving towards a climate and environmental policy that is as good as possible.

One of the snags in the curves is due to the entire discussion and the decision on the reduction obligation and the petrol and diesel prices. It was the right decision when it was made, and it is the right decision. There must be acceptance among the general population for the policy being pursued, not least when it concerns the environment and climate. One must also see how the policy we pursue affects people in their everyday lives. Fuel prices were so high that people could not afford to fuel their cars.

Does Miljöpartiet mean that we should raise fuel prices at a time when coffee is starting to approach a hundred kronor in the store? Food is becoming more and more expensive, and households are left with less and less money to move with every month.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that we must reduce our emissions and that they are increasing most right now, compared to previously, in the transport sector. A large part of this is about fuel prices. Sweden has gone from having some of the highest prices, but not the highest, in Europe to having some of the lowest prices, calculated on disposable income. I think that is something we need to change.

We must also give people alternatives. There was the environmental car premium and the electric car premium. We were about to steer it. There were grants to get a charging station at home and so on. All of this was rolled back by the government overnight. I believe that quite a few people who were in car queues had their coffee go down the wrong way that afternoon in October November 2022 when it was said that the premium would be removed just a few days later.

We are now seeing a lock-in effect where people can keep their diesel and petrol cars. There is no incentive to switch to electric cars or other cars with lower emissions. There are instruments, for example, the scrappage premium. But this year, only 1 percent of the funds have been used, and even then, the scrappage premium is one of the largest reforms that the government has presented. I therefore do not see that there is that much.

On the environment side, it looks the same. The government removes money and says that one should streamline, but does not say how it is to be done. The government does not give money to restructure but says: Here you get 30 percent less money. Do the same thing! We would like to know more.

It is not working. We see that our curves are going in the wrong direction. How are you going to change that? Is there a will to change it here?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the questions!

We are to have an ambitious environmental and climate policy, and we do. As someone said here earlier: If you have no energy policy, you have no climate policy. We are investing enormously in achieving a more robust energy system. We are moving forward with getting more nuclear power. It is crucial.

Miljöpartiet is left answerless when it comes to how to solve that question. An answer is needed on this. We need to achieve better energy production both in the short and in the long term, and there nuclear power is crucial. This also applies so that it will be easier to transition the vehicle fleet, or perhaps precisely because of that. We need to electrify the vehicle fleet.

In line with people changing cars, an electric car is an option, with or without subsidies. There is a desire to drive an electric car. Now that we are emerging from difficult economic times, one can hope that it continues.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report Overall Environmental Issues. It covers many different policy areas in our dear committee.

Today's debate seems, as it often does, to land in the energy policy area. It is exciting! I had intended to focus mostly on the permit issues here today, but I still think there is reason to comment on all the discussions surrounding energy policy and other things that are raised here.

We have a Social Democracy that says on one hand that it is a catastrophic development, and on the other hand that everything is very good. It becomes a bit difficult to understand. They call for more measures for offshore wind power while we see that the market is crashing. We see that countries offering large subsidies do not succeed in getting any bids. In Denmark, this is clear.

The discussion therefore becomes strange. The offshore wind farm in Västra Götaland would not be built even if it were to receive a permit, because no one wants to invest in offshore wind power today. This is because we already have very much weather-dependent power. Even more weather-dependent power competes out other weather-dependent power. The capacity factor is too low.

We need to actively work faster towards more nuclear power, and that will also, in the long run, lead to better market conditions for wind power. One can have different opinions about that, but it is a fact. The faster we can get new nuclear power in place, the easier it will become for those actors who want wind power to get it established.

At the same time, we can see that land-based wind power continues to be built at approximately the same pace as before. We have never had more energy production than we have today. However, consumers do not notice this in the form of lower electricity prices, precisely because the capacity factor is not high enough.

We also hear things such as that nuclear power is not something that can contribute to biodiversity and other things, but it is de facto the case that nuclear power is absolutely the best for the environment. It is significantly better than having turbines in our waters. It is significantly better than having offshore wind turbines that disturb fishing and that disturb people in their residential environment, and so on. Nuclear power is the absolutely most environmentally friendly way to extract energy.

Mr. Speaker! I intended, as I said, to focus on the permit issues and begin that now. I want to start from the fact that the Tidö Agreement signified a paradigm shift in many different policy areas. What people may have primarily perceived is what is happening in the migration area and the crime-fighting area. But if one reads page 17 of the Tidö Agreement, one finds the environmental permit processes and sees that they are to be simplified and shortened. It states that an inquiry shall be appointed to carry out exactly this, while at the same time one would first proceed with old inquiries. We have done that. The inquiry has been appointed, and the inquiry's proposals have also been delivered. It is very pleasing.

The Tidö Agreement was the starting point for an intensive effort to simplify and speed up the permit processes. Parts of the Environmental Assessment Inquiry's proposals have been implemented, and earlier this year, the proposals from the Environmental Permit Inquiry finally arrived. Three thick books titled A new coordinated environmental assessment and permit process have been presented. It concerns thousands of new pages of legal text to be introduced. The Environmental Permit Inquiry's proposals for new legislation, which are now on the table, are a direct result of the Tidö Agreement and a necessary reform to meet today's and tomorrow's demands for sustainable development and economic growth.

Sweden's current environmental permit process, regulated by the Environmental Code from 1999, has long been criticized for being time-consuming, bureaucratic, and unpredictable. It is even to the extent that a former Prime Minister named Göran Persson has called exactly the Environmental Code and the work that the Social Democrats did with it the greatest failure.

It is so in many areas: Social Democracy has failed with things. Now a better government and a better government base have come into place that are trying to rectify these deficiencies. It is very welcome.

Companies that want to invest have become stuck in year-long processes, which hampers both the climate transition and job creation. The Tidö Agreement identified this as an obstacle and enabled just this investigation. Now that we have received the proposals, we can state that they involve fewer authorities in the decision-making, clearer timeframes, and an opportunity to reduce the number of operations that require permit review when general regulations can suffice. This is not just practical; it is crucial for Sweden to be able to grow and be an industrial nation at the forefront.

A simplified process does not risk undermining environmental protection. The proposals are fundamentally not about compromising the environment but about making the system smarter. Instead of implementing an EU regulatory framework on top of the existing one, the commission's proposals enable a completely new and more efficient system. The Tidö Agreement's vision of a sustainable and competitive Sweden can thus be realized. It is proof that politics can be pragmatic and forward-looking.

It is well worth mentioning in this context that the investigation also presents proposals to address the very provocative fact that the agricultural industry is currently regarded as environmentally hazardous activity. We have an old announcement from the Riksdag regarding this. The investigation now proposes that this should be addressed by the agriculture being defined as environmentally impacting in the future – a small difference but fundamentally very important.

Mr. Speaker! We lack brown coal mines in Sweden. We also have no oil fields, and we lack gas extraction. Due to the lack of such industry, Swedish peat has come into focus for an increasingly radicalized environmental movement, which, in its illegal sabotage actions around our country, focuses on portraying peat as something terrible and a threat to global climate work. Nothing could be more incorrect.

The climate movement likes to refer to the IPCC and the research. But one must remember that the IPCC does not classify peat as fossil. Peat is classified as peat. It is its own class. One can also observe that the peat in Sweden is growing. More peat is produced than is harvested. We do not have a horrific peat industry.

Mr. Speaker! The nature conservation policy that has been pursued during the recent parliamentary terms has not been good in this area. For nature conservation to be able to exist, it must coexist with human activity. In Sweden, it has become difficult, sometimes impossible, to obtain permits for new peat extraction sites. This is a major problem that one must speak a bit more openly about, even though some interest groups operating both in the forest and on our roads here in the Stockholm area will become upset.

A shortage of peat is not a situation we want in Sweden. We do not want more expensive cucumbers. We do not want even more expensive tomatoes. We do not want a less productive forestry. In an optimal world, peat might primarily be a fuel whose primary significance would be in times of war and peace. But today we need peat when we grow things that are fundamental to our food supply and our forestry.

The alternatives are not particularly good today. It might be about coconuts from Asia, which require an extreme amount of water to be washed. It likely has a significantly greater environmental impact, especially if one takes into account the extremely long transports, not to mention the costs for them.

With that said, I would like to move for approval of reservation 18.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Martin Kinnunen! There were many things I would actually like to have time to discuss. However, there is no time for that.

I want to start by noting something that I perhaps thought belonged to the most striking, namely that Martin Kinnunen and the Sverigedemokraterna lack Swedish brown coal, Swedish oil and Swedish gas. Perhaps I should not be surprised.

Is nuclear power the most environmentally friendly way to produce energy? Perhaps one could say that if one is completely blind to the extraction of uranium and how we are to manage the nuclear waste.

The Västvind project was up for discussion. Contrary to what the member claimed, there were good conditions for that project purely in terms of investment – perhaps primarily due to the short connection distance, which meant that the investment calculation for the project added up from the very beginning.

In conclusion: The Sweden Democrats are usually very clear about how important it is to be law-abiding and that we need to strengthen the rule of law in Sweden – simply ensure that people follow the law. I can then state that the Climate Policy Council has condemned the government parties' climate plan as insufficient and lacking concrete measures. The Council notes that the Tidö government is postponing important decisions until the next mandate period.

How does the member view the fact that the government base violates the Swedish Climate Act by lacking an action plan that meets the law's requirements?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Joakim Järrebring!

That we lack brown coal mines should not be interpreted as that I necessarily would have wanted us to have them. If, on the other hand, we had other production in Sweden of energy that we need in Sweden, it would have been better than if we had imported it. It would have been positive if we had had both uranium as well as other metals and other things we need in our industry on our own land.

From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, we are positive towards all forms of mineral extraction. We do not think that one should ban minerals, as the Socialdemokraterna did with uranium.

I am also convinced that uranium can be extracted in an environmentally friendly way. If one does not think that uranium can be extracted in an environmentally friendly way, one should also not be in favor of nuclear power. In that case, one should be clear that we are to phase out nuclear power completely. That is the order I think one should have.

There are definitely environmentally friendly ways to extract uranium. We have those examples. If there is concern over uranium extraction, we have an environmental assessment that ensures it is carried out in a correct and reasonable manner. Today, we do not yet have any such extraction. We will hopefully have it later when it is no longer forbidden to extract uranium.

It is quite absurd today. If you want to extract rare earth metals that we need for the green transition and at the same time get uranium, you have to do something that has never been done in world history: extract the uranium and then put it back. This is what the law that the Socialdemokrater designed leads to.

Now my speaking time has ended, so I must continue in the next reply.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by answering a question that I received from Helena Storckenfeldt. No, we do not want to abolish the municipal veto, not even for offshore wind power. On the other hand, it is reasonable for the municipalities to provide a decision at an earlier stage.

I would like to have an answer on how the Sweden Democrats view the municipal veto when it comes to uranium mining. At the same time, I give the member of Parliament the opportunity to answer my first question: How does the member of Parliament view the fact that the government base violates the Swedish Climate Act by lacking an action plan that meets the law's requirements?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The problem with the Climate Act is that it is designed in such a way that one will accuse all governments of violating it. I did state that the Social Democratic government violated the Climate Act. I do not intend to comment on exactly what the current government is doing in that area. They can make that definition themselves.

The problem is that as the law is designed, a new government must, immediately after taking office, present in writing all measures for how it will achieve all climate goals. It is not possible to do that. There will always be an opposition claiming that the government is violating the Climate Act. It will be possible to argue that. However, it cannot be proven anywhere. We have no court that will deliver a verdict. But the law is designed in such a way. The basis is simply that one cannot present everything at the same time.

Mr. Speaker! Questions were asked regarding the municipal veto concerning uranium mining. We from the Sweden Democrats believe that the issue of when uranium mining is permitted should be reviewed. There cannot be a veto against mining in all contexts where a certain part of the mining is uranium.

We will need to extract critical rare earth metals in our country, and we will also need to extract them in other countries. Minerals often lie together with other minerals.

We will lay a wet blanket over all forms of extraction of these rare earth metals if there is a veto involving a ban on extraction – and uranium is part of this. I do not see such a veto as a viable path. Instead, there shall be a rigorous and responsible environmental permit process that presupposes an environmentally friendly mining of all forms of minerals in our country.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a report that contains motions on a number of different overarching environmental issues. Vänsterpartiet has three reservations that I intended to go through.

The first reservation concerns sustainable steel production. The Swedish steel industry is a world leader in several areas and an important export industry. Fossil-free steel is the future and an absolutely necessary part of the green industrial transition. In order for it to be possible to produce fossil-free steel, investments and work are needed to expand the electricity grid and renewable energy.

The work with energy efficiency must increase, and the work to develop facilities for hydrogen must be intensified. This is based on a political will and a collaboration between state agencies, research efforts, and industry. The steel industry's opportunities for transition are also dependent on efficient and legally secure permit processes.

Climate work must be long-term and contain clear goals so that industry can manage a transition even in times of recession or increased global competition. Therefore, we in Vänsterpartiet want authorities and institutions to review how the climate can be prioritized in the permit process.

Mr. Speaker! The second reservation concerns the municipal veto, which previous speakers have mentioned. The municipalities effectively have a right of veto today. This occurs by a municipality that is negatively inclined towards wind power simply being able to refrain from bringing such matters up and thereby completely stall the expansion.

We believe that the forms of the municipalities' influence on the wind power side must be changed, and the requirement for the support should be removed. The municipalities should, however, be involved and be part of the process at an early stage. It is also important to maintain high requirements for a legally secure review with regard to people's health and the environment.

The opinion of the municipalities should carry great weight, but in a situation where Sweden is to move from fossil energy to renewable energy in the energy sector, it is unreasonable as it stands today to have a municipal veto.

Vänsterpartiet also wants to increase the acceptance of wind power by legislating for a production-based economic compensation that goes to the local communities where wind power is built. Better incentives are needed for the expansion of wind power, both land-based and offshore, by benefiting the municipality and the residents in the surrounding area where the wind power is to be built.

Mr. Speaker! The third and final reservation we have in the report concerns requirements for environmental considerations in public procurement. Ecological production contributes to achieving a number of our national environmental goals, the global sustainability goals, and the global framework for biodiversity.

Investing in organic food within the public sector contributes to our common funds being used so that sustainable food can be served in our schools, hospitals, and elderly care homes. At the same time, it means that tax money is invested in common goods for us all, for example, biodiversity, clean water, fertile soils, and improved animal welfare. It is valuable for the long-term work within organic agriculture that the Riksdag also adopts goals for public consumption.

Today, organic food accounts for approximately 40 percent of consumption in the public sector. Sweden has good conditions to increase these levels by 2030. Therefore, Sweden should adopt a goal of at least 60 percent organic in public food consumption by the year 2030.

In conclusion, I move for the approval of reservation 27.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! This autumn, a letter was received by the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise regarding electricity prices. It was a letter in which it was described with concern how vulnerable the situation is in Skåne, when we face a risk of high electricity prices that can lead to bankruptcies and other negative effects for southern Sweden.

The correspondent described how difficult it is to establish new wind power in Skåne, how new offshore wind farms could be a much-needed addition to the Skåne electricity supply, and how difficult it is to predict how the Swedish Armed Forces will react with such conflicting interests.

The correspondent also pointed out that we need to update the land-based wind power in Skåne. Since 2016, no new wind turbines covered by environmental permits have been constructed in Skåne. These processes take time.

As a resident of Skåne and thus electricity area 4, I agree that more production is needed in southern Sweden. Electricity prices rose sharply this winter, and there is a large difference in prices in Sweden. For example, in November, it was 100 times more expensive to have electricity in Lund compared to Sundsvall. At one point, it cost 30 kronor to take a shower in Malmö. So we cannot have that!

Who was the sender? Yes, it was the county governor herself, Anneli Hulthén, the state's extended arm, who, with sincere concern for her county, expressed a wish to promptly establish new fossil-free electricity production in southern Sweden. She was truly worried, and I share her concern.

An important part of environmental protection in Sweden concerns permit processes for companies and operations that can affect the environment. This can involve mining, construction of roads, industries, or wind power. To ensure that these operations do not harm the environment, they must obtain permits from the authorities before they can start.

The Environmental Code is the law that governs much of these processes. It is an important piece of legislation that aims to protect people's health and the environment. It requires that all activities undergo an environmental impact assessment where one examines how the activity affects nature, water, and air. By following the Environmental Code, we can ensure that the level of negative environmental impact is as low as possible.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is the problem? The problem is that these permit processes take far too long. There have now been investigations and proposals underway to streamline these processes. That is good, but it is not enough. The Center Party wants to introduce a crisis commission primarily with the goal of doubling electricity production in Sweden because it can now take up to ten years before a new power plant can begin construction. It is the same if one is only going to lay larger power lines, and we cannot have that. Other countries manage this bureaucracy in less than half the time. In, for example, Germany, Denmark, or Finland, it only takes three or four years before one has a new permit for, for example, wind power. This must be possible to achieve in Sweden as well. Otherwise, we will be overtaken and the investments will occur in other countries.

Mr. Speaker! The Center Party's proposal is to let all authorities and stakeholders work freely for approximately half a year, review all relevant legislation, and review how we implement the EU's regulatory framework to find methods to shorten the time and simplify the processes. The goal should be that the permit process should take a maximum of two years, just as in other efficient countries in Europe, in order to get started with the expansion of new electricity production. The Center Party's ambition is that Sweden should build up to 50 terawatt-hours within two years and double this figure by 2030.

At the same time as one reviews the permit processes, one should also review the Environmental Code. As the Environmental Code looks today, climate is not valued as a benefit. Today's design makes it difficult to predict how things will turn out. There is no good standardization, and there is a large scope for interpretations.

National guidelines and limit values are needed so that the industry knows what applies. The Government needs to take leadership in the issue and not let different county administrative boards or authorities interpret the rules in different ways.

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes one must start at the other end to steer the development towards a more climate-friendly society. The Centre Party believes that we should identify which areas are suitable for wind power both on land and at sea. Sveaskog should be tasked with identifying suitable locations for wind power, and the Armed Forces should be more involved to account for what is required for their operations to be compatible with wind power. The authorities concerned should be gathered in a permanent council, including the Armed Forces, which is continuously responsible for cooperating to quickly obtain approvals.

Sweden actually has a capacity shortage. The Swedish national grid is one of the oldest in Europe, and large investments will be required to ensure that electricity reaches where it is needed. Bottlenecks in the power grids must not become a bottleneck for the transition. Laws and regulations must be in step with technological development.

Mr. Speaker! Therefore, I move for approval of the Centerpartiet's reservation number 2 regarding the revision of the Environmental Code.

I also want to comment on another important area within environmental issues: waste crime. According to the police and the county administrative boards, the dominant driver behind illegal waste management is large economic gains in combination with a low risk of detection and low penalties.

One can make money in two ways. One can choose to sell waste that has a market value or receive toxic waste for payment. Instead of sorting and purifying it, one buries it, burns it up, or simply dumps it in the forest. Criminals can in this way submit a low bid to the waste management but still make large sums of money.

In the illegal waste management, a number of different actors participate in the criminal enterprise, whether deliberately or unintentionally, for example so-called "målvakter" (fronts) or unprofessional environmental consultants who issue incorrect certificates. There are also threats and other pressures against government officials.

Waste crime generates billions and fuels organized crime in many ways. Many municipalities still do not work systematically with the issue. Waste management is a large part of environmental crime and is estimated to be one of the most profitable types of crime in the world.

There are several examples from Skåne. The majority of Skåne's municipalities have been subjected to waste crime in recent years. This is shown by a compilation that Länsstyrelsen Skåne made two to three years ago after visits to all 33 municipalities. One of the most common waste crimes is that one leaves unsorted construction and demolition waste. It is dumped, and contaminants leak into the soil and water.

It is also common for waste to go for export. Sometimes the same thing can be defined in different ways. For example, an entrepreneur claims that they have used goods to be forwarded for sale abroad, while the customs instead define it as dumping of old electrical appliances in a container on a ferry to the continent. There are different ways to define this.

The big loser is nature and our ecosystems. The waste pollutes our surface water and groundwater. The costs of the pollution are extensive but at the same time difficult to determine, because not all costs are compiled and they are not quantified either. We must do something about that.

Mr. Speaker! After the Think Pink mess, a lot has happened. Many proposals are being investigated and discussed, and new investigations have been initiated. But crime is happening now. We cannot wait. Good proposals were presented at the end of last month. It is a good step forward. The focus was on punishment and sanctions and not so much on how we can help municipalities to find the criminal actors.

We must focus even more on increased coordination between the authorities, within the police, and at the county administrative boards. Simply tightening the regulatory framework makes it harder for the serious actors to truly do the right thing. Therefore, I and the Center Party want to see more measures. Above all, we need to prevent and detect organized crime in time and prioritize field work at the municipalities and at the police.

Mr. Speaker! The final area is public procurement, which is another important issue in the work of reducing Sweden's environmental impact. Every year, goods and services are procured for a total of 800 billion kronor. These purchases can have a major impact on the environment, and in these procurements, price is decisive. Words such as circular and recyclability are rarely included.

By demanding sustainable products and services in procurements, the state and municipalities can contribute to a more environmentally friendly economy. To drive this development, an ambitious goal should be set, for example, of 20 percent recycled material in the state's procurements.

Overall environmental issues

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: Environmental issues are complex and require us to cooperate to find solutions. Sweden has many good laws and regulations in place, such as the Environmental Code and the permit processes. But it is important that we continue to work to improve environmental protection.

By combating waste crime and imposing environmental requirements in public procurement, we can contribute to preserving our nature for future generations. It is our common task to create a sustainable and environmentally friendly future.

Overall environmental issues

(Applause)

(cont. § 9)

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