Overall environmental issues

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report Overall Environmental Issues, the annual report on matters that did not quite fit anywhere else.

It concerns, among other things, the permit issues, which perhaps are that which is of highest dignity if one is to try to rank the different areas of concern covered by this report. There are also a number of proposals from the opposition parties, which I note.

Mr. Speaker! This is otherwise an area where the opposition parties have been offside for a long time. The referee blew the whistle a long time ago and gave the ball to the Tidö parties.

The environmental permit investigation delivered its first two partial reports during 2024 and 2025, and we have not had such intensive work regarding the permit processes and the Environmental Code since Göran Persson's time, when the foundation was laid for the problems we see today.

Mr. Speaker! A new agency is currently being established, which will take over responsibilities from other agencies in order to shorten and streamline the permit processes. The industry has welcomed the commission's conclusions and the work with the new agency.

Last week, the Environmental Permit Investigation submitted its third and possibly final partial report. We can now state that an extensive investigative work has been completed. Parts of the work have already been taken into account, and decisions have been made here in the chamber. Now all the materials are in place to truly implement shortened and more efficient permit processes.

Mr. Speaker! The proposals in the third partial report mean, among other things, that the chain of instances is shortened and limited to a maximum of three instances. The investigation also proposes that the grounds for exemption for the Land and Environment Court of Appeal be limited in such cases as that court examines as the court of last resort. Furthermore, it is proposed that a fee be introduced for appealing decisions to the Land and Environment Court and to the Land and Environment Court of Appeal. The proposals also mean that the detailed planning process is simplified and clarified. These are very welcome proposals that I hope can be implemented during the coming years.

Mr. Speaker! This report also includes the peat issues, so I thought to conclude by highlighting the importance of a viable and responsible Swedish peat production.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden lacks brown coal mines, oil fields, and natural gas. Due to the lack of these fossil industries, Swedish peat has become a target for an increasingly radicalized environmental movement. Through illegal sabotage actions, they attempt to portray peat production as a kind of global climate threat, but the truth is that nothing could be more incorrect.

Mr. Speaker! Let us look at the proportions. Peat extraction is carried out today on a vanishingly small part of our land. We are talking about approximately half a percent of the already drained peatlands in Sweden. It is a microscopic area in relation to the millions of hectares that are already leaking greenhouse gases due to historical drainage. To attack this small but vital industry is not only disproportionate – it is directly counterproductive for Swedish food security.

Mr. Speaker! There is often talk about emissions, but rarely about the necessary carbon stop. Through responsible peat production, we harvest peat from lands that are already drained and which are therefore bleeding carbon every day. By extracting the peat on these areas and subsequently restoring and rewetting the land, we stop the ongoing leakage. We transform a leaking source of emissions into a future carbon sink or a productive forest. It is environmental policy in practice, not just through posters and roadblocks.

Mr. Speaker! In the uncertain world we live in today, peat is a strategic asset. It is the foundation for our forest seedlings and for our domestic cultivation of, for example, cucumber, tomato, and spices. Without peat, we are forced to import alternatives such as coconut fiber from Asia, a product that requires enormous amounts of water in dry regions and is transported across half the globe. Replacing Swedish quality peat with long-distance imports is neither environmentally nor economically justifiable. We need a policy that sees peat as the resource it is and does not yield to the demands of various interest groups.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Member Martin Kinnunen for the speech!

Now the parliamentary term is approaching its end, and therefore it would have been very interesting to hear how the member and the Sverigedemokraterna think it has gone so far.

Regarding the permit processes, the member mentioned that it is the issue in the report that has the highest dignity. There was also a broad consensus here in the chamber that amendment permits should be the main rule. Despite the fact that there is a finished and well-substantiated proposal from the Environmental Assessment Inquiry, which the previous Social Democratic-led government appointed, the government and the Sweden Democrats chose not to proceed with it. I simply wonder if the reason is that the Sweden Democrats are satisfied with the current order and want to maintain it.

My second question, Mr. Speaker, concerns the permit processes for wind power specifically. They are also covered by this committee report. A while ago, the Sweden Democrats were very dissatisfied that they had not been involved in the decisions made regarding Kriegers flak and Kattegatt Syd, where the government gave the green light for these offshore wind power projects. The Sweden Democrats demanded to be involved, but the Minister for Climate and the Environment said no.

I simply wonder what the situation is now. Have the Sweden Democrats had it pushed through that this type of matter should be coordinated with them in the Government Offices? What was the dissatisfaction due to? Does it mean that these projects would have received a no if the Sweden Democrats had been allowed to decide?

I would also like to move on to the investigation Wind Power at Sea, which the Sweden Democrats were also very dissatisfied with. It became an investigation, but nothing has come of the proposals. Is it a matter of the Sweden Democrats having stopped them from appearing on the list of government bills?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

I would say that the permit processes involved eight lost years under the Social Democratic government. What we four parties have now done together is to lay the foundation for extensive and far-reaching work with the permit processes. It has taken time.

Of course, one can refer to a previous investigation with a small proposal and year after year in debates ask why exactly that proposal has not been implemented. But now we have proposals for extensive changes, where we overhaul the permit processes fundamentally. That work is ongoing step by step.

Regarding the question of the problems concerning the permits, I fundamentally have no other opinion, but we must reform the permit processes step by step.

It is now 2026. Now there is a decision regarding the new authority. We have three completed partial reports from the Environmental Permit Investigation. The next step is to make decisions on changes to the Environmental Code, also the more extensive ones that I briefly outlined in my post.

Mr. Speaker! There were also questions regarding offshore wind power and permits. I can only state that the Sweden Democrats do not understand that type of government decision, because we are not part of the government. We simply do not. I cannot speculate on how it would have looked if we had been part of the government.

Otherwise, I can state that Swedish wind power is doing quite poorly. It is cannibalizing itself. Profitability is low. There is no willingness to invest today when it comes to offshore wind power. We see how it is going for Denmark. There is no willingness there either.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the answers! I think it is starting to become a bit tiresome to constantly look back at what the previous government did or did not do. First, one complains that the previous government did nothing. When the previous government then presents a proposal that Martin Kinnunen does not seem to have any other opinion about, the Sweden Democrats nevertheless choose not to proceed with it.

The Sweden Democrats must decide: If one thinks that residence permits should be the main rule, one can change the current order. There is a finished and well-substantiated proposal. Why do the Sweden Democrats not proceed with it?

I will also bring up wind power. No one wants to invest, says Member Martin Kinnunen. I would rather say that the problem is that the rules of the game have changed. We see this, among other things, in the worsened conditions for connecting to the main grid. That was a decision made directly when the government and the Sverigedemokraterna came to power, and it is a consequence of the provisions regarding offshore wind power that are in the Tidö Agreement.

I also note that I did not receive any answer regarding the investigation Wind Power at Sea. There, there was at least as much dissatisfaction over that the Sweden Democrats had not been involved in the investigation.

Now the investigation has come out with a proposal on how to speed up the permit processes for offshore wind power, which is what we are debating right now. I wonder if the reason these proposals have not appeared on the list of government bills is that the Sweden Democrats have finally gained the influence they have demanded and then blocked this type of proposal from becoming a reality.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to wind power, I can state that the prices become very low when it is windy. They become far too low. The development we see in the market is that the wind turbines simply must be shut down. Despite more wind turbines, they have therefore produced less electricity during the last year. The losses in the industry are extensive. The write-downs for Vattenfall and other companies are in the hundreds of millions every year.

We have received an energy system that is not in balance and which makes wind power uncompetitive today. We have no companies that are prepared to invest what it costs to build offshore wind today. It is not attractive.

That is also why we need more secure energy supply. That is why the Tidö parties have moved forward with precisely investments in nuclear power. It will also benefit the profitability of wind power.

The investigation is being prepared at the Government Offices. This regarding the permit processes is an extensive task. If one is to go in and tinker with the Environmental Code and fix small things every year, it will create bigger problems than what is useful. When we change the permit processes, move things to a new authority and review the entire Environmental Code, it will initially create very great utility but also problems. It is, after all, a change. If we change the legislation even more, we will create even more problems and uncertainty. Therefore, it is right to take things step by step.

We are also forced to implement EU legislation in this area, which complicates the whole thing even further. It is simply a matter of time. We need to have proposals in place, and we need to do things at the right time.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Kinnunen, for the speech! Ordinarily, we hear about the excellence of peat.

I wanted to highlight another issue that the Sweden Democrats also often talk about, namely the importance of combating crime and restoring law and order in our country. It is an ambition we share.

We see how an increasingly organized and cynical environmental crime has spread in recent years. It is not about isolated mistakes, but about criminal networks that earn enormous sums by dumping toxic waste, conducting illegal hunting, and plundering our shared natural resources. This crime does not only threaten our environment and health, but it also competes out serious, law-abiding companies. It is part of the shadow economy that feeds other serious crime.

My question to the member is therefore: How do the Sweden Democrats view the prioritization of combating environmental crime? Is the party prepared to allocate specific and increased resources to the police, prosecutors, and supervisory authorities to ensure that environmental crime does not fall into the shadows of other, more visible crime?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Stina Larsson, for the questions!

I have personally experienced organized environmental crime at very close range in Botkyrka municipality in southern Stockholm where I live. Even after several years, it happens that the landfill starts to burn and smells very bad. Even in my own residential area, we are affected by it.

This is definitely an issue that needs increased focus. I also think that well-balanced investments have been made during the mandate period.

I also experience that there is significantly greater knowledge and a greater interest from our law enforcement authorities and from the authorities that deal with supervision. I also experience that the competence has been raised at the municipal level, at least in my home municipality. When I speak with officials who work with these issues, I notice that there is a completely different type of preparedness for these types of risks.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that the authorities in many contexts, with increased knowledge, have stepped up in these matters. The member agrees that environmental crime is serious, which is good.

But combating this type of advanced economic crime requires more than just general promises and more knowledge. It requires specialist competence. It requires intelligence work to map out the networks. It requires expertise to secure the evidence in complex environmental cases. It also requires a national coordination from north to south, so that we can link the cases together. Otherwise, the investigations fall between the cracks.

Centerpartiet has several proposals on this. We have a reservation in today's committee report, but the government parties and Sverigedemokraterna demand its rejection.

My follow-up questions are actually: Are the Sweden Democrats prepared to support, here and now, our proposal for earmarked resources to build up a national special force within the police, entirely dedicated to investigating serious environmental crimes? Or does the party consider that the general investments that are most often spoken about and have been made so far are sufficient in practice?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! From the Sweden Democrats' side, I simply want to state that the investments made in the justice system are historic. And the focus that has been placed on resource reinforcements for the judicial authorities, which has been made during this parliamentary term, lacks historical precedent. My basic position is that we need to invest even more, but we have done what is required in the short term. This is only the beginning of the work to crush gang criminality, which exists on far too many different levels in society.

I am not convinced that it is necessary to establish entirely new departments within the agency. I believe that work with continued resource reinforcement will continue to improve the fight against environmental crimes as well. We see that progress is being made regarding gang criminality in general, and my view is that progress is also being made in this area.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now it is time for general environmental issues. Just as the name of the report suggests, it is general. It can be high and low and very different subjects that end up here. There is a slightly mean name on the report, but we shall not say that here. I will jump between subjects, Mr. Speaker, and take up some of what we want to see and what has ended up here.

The previous speaker spoke about permit processes. I had not intended to speak so much about it, but since we have a reservation on the subject, I want to say that we want the proposals from the Environmental Assessment Inquiry to be implemented. It is completely incomprehensible that the government has not moved forward with them – when there are prepared proposals that in many respects agree with what the entire Riksdag thinks. It is actually the government that has made it so that we do not already have shorter and more efficient permit processes.

Mr. Speaker! What I would like to talk a bit more about is actually exemptions for the dumping of dredged material. It might not sound so exciting. When you build and do things, there are often different types of fill materials that need to be placed somewhere. Sometimes they are placed in landfills, but often one applies to be allowed to dump it in the sea. In the sea, everything disappears. That is an old truth that we today know is not true. It is also forbidden to dump dredged material according to the Environmental Code, but very many exemptions are granted for this.

Between 2015 and 2019, over 30 million cubic meters of bulk materials were dumped in Swedish seas, despite potential risks to the ecosystems. The assessments regarding dredged materials are not actually as modern as they should be. They are based on the concentrations of pollutants that exist and what they have been historically, and it is assumed that the materials will remain in the same place. But they do not assess how large the ecological effects are for species and habitats.

It can cause serious problems, especially if there is something else there that certain substances react with. It can be bottom communities that are wiped out and habitats that are changed. Pollutants are spread further. There are currents and other things in the sea. There can be an activity taking place or there may be fish above the sites. Pollutants that may be in the dredged material are thus spread further. It often results in a large turbidity nearby which also affects the ecosystems.

Last year we had a rather large media surge regarding these issues, when the City of Stockholm applied for a dispensation to dump dredged material into the sea here outside Stockholm. Then the City of Stockholm wisely withdrew the application. But then many probably realized that this does not work. They do not want these dirty dredged materials nearby and in their archipelago, with the effects that could occur.

Mr. Speaker! In order for this not to be able to continue, a change is needed. It is necessary that exemptions from the dumping ban should be exceptions and not, as they are today, the rule.

There is a concept in the legislation today: inconvenience to the environment. It is very unclear what it means. Here, the legislation must be clarified so that it actually includes the ecological effects, the risk of spread, and the impact on local ecosystems. We must also review limit values and how they are assessed.

Mr. Speaker! I want to move for approval of our reservation number 5, which concerns exactly seabed sediments. This is something that spreads from land to sea, and it can have major consequences. Here, the legislation has not kept up. A prohibition must be able to be a prohibition, and an exception shall be just an exception and not a rule.

We also have a reservation regarding wind power together with the Social Democrats and the Centre Party. We want the municipal veto to be reformed so that it can be exercised earlier in the permit process. That question will probably come up later in the spring, so I leave that debate here.

We have a very topical issue when it comes to peat extraction. Peat is used today for two purposes – for the production of electricity and district heating and as cultivation soil and soil improver. But peat as fuel actually produces a larger carbon dioxide emission than both coal and oil. One might not think so, but it is because it takes so long for peat to reform. It is counted as a fossil fuel.

Today we see that many of our neighboring countries – Finland, Ireland and the United Kingdom – have begun to phase out and ban peat production. Finland has banned this. Instead, large orders have been placed in Sweden, where production is ongoing. We in Miljöpartiet want this to stop. We want peat to be phased out and that measures are taken to ensure there are other cultivation materials. We want to ensure that research gets underway and that the opening of new peat deposits is banned. Those that exist shall be phased out.

Requirements in public procurement, we spoke about quite recently. We still want this. But I thought I would use my last minutes in the speech to talk about another environmental pollutant that, for example, could be spread via dredged material, if we are to try to tie it together. It is precisely PFAS. PFAS is a chemical cluster that most are now starting to get a handle on but which is still relatively new. Kallinge, a locality in Blekinge, was one of the first examples in Sweden. There, people were actually poisoned. It took a very long time before they received help, if they even received help. They had to drive this themselves – it was an interest organization – and they have done a fantastic job.

We from Miljöpartiet want there to be a "lex Kallinge," a law that ensures the individual has rights in connection with toxic disasters. Before it is clarified who is responsible – which can concern both drinking water and food – the affected person, the individual, needs to receive help from the state. It could be legal aid. How does one proceed? Most of us – I was about to say; I speak for myself – do not know where to start if one wants to appeal. Which instance is it? One might perhaps need help finding others if one is to bring a class action. It is also about health issues, testing, and those parts. Something is needed here. One cannot wait until the question of responsibility is investigated, because by then the individual has often already been brought to their knees.

Kallinge is not the only place in Sweden where PFAS is found in drinking water sources. We believe there are many problems ahead. We know that there are powder kegs out there with PFAS but also other substances.

It should not have to be ten years of individual work, hope and despair. What has happened to the people of Kallinge can make it so that we actually get legislation for rights for the individual so that one does not stand alone and helpless. The state must take its responsibility.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! This report is sometimes sloppily called the "slasktratten" (the slush funnel). But behind this somewhat condescending nickname lie some of our most important issues. It is about how we take care of our nature, how we expand our electricity system, and how we make room for both responsibility and development.

Sweden's future rests on us having an electricity system that works – year-round in the entire country and at prices that households and companies can manage. A stable energy system is not only crucial for our competitiveness but also a prerequisite for meeting the climate transition.

Today we see a growing demand for electricity from industry, the transport sector, and households. It is fundamentally something positive, because electrification is a key to reaching net zero. But it also means that we face an enormous challenge: Sweden's electricity demand is expected to double in a very near future.

That is why all fossil-free power sources are needed. Wind power will play an important role because it is wind power that, especially in the short term, has the greatest opportunity to quickly contribute with new electricity production. But wind power also has its challenges. It is weather-dependent, and it sometimes meets resistance locally.

Here, the Moderate-led government has taken responsibility. We have introduced economic incentives for municipalities that say yes to wind power. We also make it possible for neighbors to receive a share of the revenues and to request a buyout of their residence if they are too heavily affected. This is about increasing local acceptance, creating a win-win situation where the transition also entails a local benefit.

At the same time, we stand firm in that nuclear power is and remains a part of the base of Sweden's energy system. We need a stable foundation to build on, and nuclear power is what makes it possible to combine just weather-dependent types of power, such as wind, with a secure electricity supply around the clock.

It is, however, no secret that the permit processes in Sweden are far too slow. Today, it takes years, sometimes over a decade, to get the green light for projects that could contribute to the green transition. Companies that want to do the right thing and invest in climate-smart solutions are not met with support but with obstacles.

We have heard the stories, for example, about the hydroelectric power plant that could have streamlined its production but still had to fight for 15 years for a permit, or about the farmer who, unlike the neighbor with a permit from the 60s, was met by a bureaucratic wall simply because he wanted to modernize his operations. This is an unreasonable and, above all, unfair order.

The role of politics is to set clear, legally secure and effective rules of the game. But sometimes, Mr. Speaker, the best politics can do is to step aside and let innovation, investment and initiative find space.

Therefore, it is pleasing that we now see concrete reforms becoming a reality. The Government has simplified the permit process for electricity grids, which means that the expansion proceeds faster and becomes cheaper. More households and companies can thus gain access to electricity where it is actually needed. We have also begun a long-awaited reform of the Environmental Code, with a focus on agriculture and forestry, in order to simplify the assessment, reduce bureaucracy, and create more proportionate rules for our land-based industries.

In addition to this, we have appointed both a simplification council and an implementation council with the mandate to identify unnecessary complications and counter the over-implementation of EU rules that has for a long time hampered Swedish competitiveness. We have also reformed the shoreline protection. It may not belong exactly here, but I think that permit processes are part of all of this. It is about how we choose to treat our industries, our households, and our companies. We must ensure that they can actually come forward with their new products, developments, and investments – get them out and achieve the greatest possible benefit.

The coastal protection is part of this. Small watercourses and artificial bodies of water will no longer be an unnecessary burden that stops construction. It is a freedom reform for the countryside that gives people greater control over their land and strengthens the possibilities to live, build, and reside in the entire country.

Mr. Speaker! We have strong environmental protection in Sweden, and we should be proud of that. But today we see that legislation that once aimed to protect the environment is increasingly standing in the way of the very development we need. We must begin to ask the fundamental question: When, where, and how does politics have the mandate to intervene?

The Aarhus Convention, which both Sweden and the EU have acceded to, establishes that anyone who has a sufficient interest in an environmental matter or who experiences that a right has been violated shall have the right to have a decision reviewed legally. It is an important principle. Fundamentally, it is about transparency, participation and democratic influence – values that we Moderates stand behind.

Mr. Speaker, we can also observe that the development of the right of appeal has not been optimal. It now risks undermining both legal certainty and the legitimacy of our environmental processes. Forest owners are forced to defend their right to cultivate their own land, often at high costs, while small environmental organizations, often without local roots or members, can appeal the same cases without any cost liability at all. This was not the original purpose.

Property rights are constitutionally protected. Nevertheless, our landowners in Sweden are treated today as suspects and not as the pillars of society they actually are. Forestry has for a long time shown that it is possible to combine productivity with environmental consideration. It is thanks to their stewardship that large parts of the Swedish nature look the way it does today.

Of course, people should be able to organize themselves for the environment. It is a natural part of an open society. But we must also set boundaries and requirements, not least so that the right to appeal shall retain its legitimacy. The Moderates therefore want to see an adjustment of today's regulatory framework. We want to clarify what actually constitutes an environmental organization and set requirements for a clearer geographical connection and ownership of the issues one wishes to appeal. It is a matter of justice and common sense.

Mr. Speaker! Climate policy presupposes that we are able to have two thoughts in our heads at the same time. We must protect the environment but also enable investments, jobs, and faith in the future across the entire country. That requires fair and reasonable rules of the game.

(Applause)

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! In this debate two years ago, I asked the Moderaterna what the government intended to do to provide those who have been affected by PFAS contamination in Kallinge with redress and compensation. I received no clear answer then.

Since then, quite a lot has happened regarding PFAS. The Prime Minister announced in the government statement in the autumn that the government shall develop a national plan to prevent PFAS from spreading in our waters and in our nature.

I am pleased that the government is finally addressing the issue, even though we have not seen the national plan yet. But the problem is that PFAS has already been spreading for a long time and that people have been poisoned. Worst of all, this has affected the residents in Kallinge in Blekinge. In 2013, they were informed that for several decades they had been drinking water contaminated with sky-high levels of the forever chemicals PFAS. The source of the contamination is the Armed Forces' use of firefighting foam. Since the contamination became known, those affected have not been offered anything other than a blood test to find out how high levels they have in their bodies – no special health checks and no financial compensation.

The PFAS association in Kallinge has stated that their wish is that everyone who has high levels of PFAS in the blood due to the contamination in Kallinge should be compensated and receive the care they need. They also want to see changed legislation so that people who are affected can avoid having to resort to legal proceedings to receive compensation. It is the state that caused the release, and therefore the state must also take responsibility.

My question to the Moderaterna here today is therefore: What does the government intend to do to manage the state's PFAS debt and provide those affected in Kallinge with redress and compensation?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! That was an excellent question from Member Andersson Tay. I will answer completely honestly: I do not know. Just like the Member, I have not yet seen the national plan. We have to wait and see what is stated in it regarding how the problem should be handled.

From my own perspective and the Moderates' perspective, I can state the following: I just listened to the speech by the Green Party's Emma Nohrén. She emphasized that a new order is needed where the affected party can receive help. I think that is perfectly reasonable. I would like us, if possible, to come together and try to find some form of order for how we can get to the bottom of this type of environmental issue and safeguard the principle that the polluter pays. I think it is completely reasonable that we maintain that principle and come up with a solution that lasts a bit longer than just until the next parliamentary term.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is a very pleasing announcement. Vänsterpartiet has submitted similar proposals aimed at solving this and providing support to the people who are affected. If Moderaterna want to initiate cross-bloc talks to solve these problems, I am very positive about that.

People in Kallinge have waited a very long time for this. The pollution has, as stated, been known since 2013. Many people have already become ill. I do not think it is reasonable that they should have to wait any longer for this, rather a very quick solution was needed. People are worried about their children's future. People are afraid of getting cancer. Still, they receive no special health checks, even though the risks have been known for over ten years.

Furthermore, it is also the case that Kallinge is not the only place that has been affected. Even in Uppsala, it has been discovered that high levels of PFAS have leaked out. This is a growing problem, and it is clear that long-term solutions are required. I am glad that we agree that the problem exists, but now we are at the end of the mandate period. The Government has had an entire mandate period to act, so I truly hope that it tackles this problem immediately.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is good to have members who are passionate about an issue and do not give up. This is an issue that I and Andrea Andersson Tay have discussed many times here in the chamber, and it is an important issue. Every time we have had an exchange of remarks on the issue, it has been described in a new way, and that has been positive for me.

As I said earlier, we will have to see what the national plan contains. I think it will be very interesting to see. After that, we will have to see what is needed beyond that and what steps should be taken.

I thank the member very much for her commitment and look forward to continued commitment.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Storckenfeldt for the speech. It was interesting to hear which topics the Member chose to raise. I will now raise the issue of public procurement, which I usually do. We shall see if the Member has developed the answer since last time.

We all agree that the green transition is one of the great challenges of our time and that we must use all the tools we have to succeed. The public sector procures goods and services for over 800 billion kronor every year. It is an enormous market and a fantastic opportunity to drive development towards a more sustainable society. But here there is a potential conflict of objectives that we must dare to talk about: the trade-off between the lowest price and the highest environmental benefit. Setting ambitious environmental and climate requirements can sometimes mean a higher cost in the short term, but a one-sided focus on the lowest price risks rewarding unsustainable alternatives.

My question to the member is therefore: How do the Moderaterna view this trade-off? Are the Moderaterna prepared to let environmental and climate considerations weigh more heavily in public procurement than they do today?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think this is very interesting. Since we last discussed this in the chamber, I have had a number of meetings to learn more about how we can use the tool of public procurement. We have for a long time known that it is a tool that has a great effect on the market and is a driving force when it is used in the right way. It is about what type of development we want to see in society.

Here, I believe that the environmental and climate aspects are a given part. As I have said in previous exchanges, I think we should use those aspects in public procurement in a better way. I know that in Uppsala, for example, they have used them in question of the construction sector. It has been a very successful recipe. One can include requirements on what environmental benefit a project shall provide and not just take into account how much it will cost.

These are important principles that I continue to stand behind.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! It was positive to hear. The construction sector specifically is an industry where these issues have been raised and where environmental requirements are used in procurement. It is positive that we agree on this.

But every time the Centre Party and I have tabled motions and submitted proposals on this, it has been rejected by the government. At the same time, you say yes to this in surveys and inquiries, Helena Storckenfeldt. What do the Moderates actually want here? You say one thing but do something else.

Not setting ambitious environmental requirements is also a choice. It is a choice that risks cementing old, unsustainable technologies and causing us to miss the chance to build up a new, green market where Swedish companies can become world leaders. If the public sector does not dare to lead and act as a bold and demanding customer, who will then do it? Just waiting for the market to solve everything on its own is not the answer – that we agree on.

My follow-up question therefore becomes more concrete: Do the Moderaterna not believe that the public sector truly has a responsibility to act as a strategic engine in the green transition?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am trying to figure out if it was a double negation or not and whether I should answer yes or no to the question. But what I think is simply that it is obviously an important driving force in the green transition.

I know that the member also knows the difference between sitting in opposition and sitting in the majority. In the majority, one says no to the opposition's motions regardless of how good one thinks they are. One drives one's issues internally and has negotiations in the government, which then submit propositions instead. But Stina Larsson knows what I have said in this chamber on numerous occasions and what we drive on Moderate party meetings and work meetings. It is very clear what we think. I think that in this motion report we demonstrate the breadth.

When it comes to which different parts are important in the green transition, I believe that the permit processes belong to the absolutely most important, and I believe that the Center Party agrees with that. Even if the market may not solve all the details, I believe we are quite in agreement that it is one of the absolutely most important driving factors for achieving the green transition. We must ensure that we have the right permit processes in place and that the simplification work proceeds as we want.

What I want to say with this is that the government has not been idle. As I mentioned in my main speech, we have pushed through a number of simplification processes when it comes to the permits.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Helena Storckenfeldt and I are from the same constituency. We are both from Halland, and we both know the importance of the energy issue and its significance for the transition and growth in our county and in our country.

I do not request a reply to question the member's personal commitment, but rather it is more about that I am somewhat concerned about the development in the Moderaterna lately. It does not show long-term thinking and stability and the such rules of the game that the member mentioned in their speech. It is partly about the cuts that we see in the environmental budget and which hit our county hard in terms of nature conservation, climate adaptation and liming. It is partly about the energy policy. The focus should be on expanding electricity production, expanding the electricity grid and strengthening the transmission capacity. To do so at the pace that is required, stable rules of the game are needed.

We heard many words about wind power, something that I and we Social Democrats stand behind. But in practice, it looks like this, Mr. Speaker: Incentives for neighbors are still lacking, several years after the investigation was presented. The payments to the municipalities, the so-called wind power millions, have been missing despite clear promises. The first thing the government did when it took office was to worsen the conditions for offshore wind power to connect to the main grid.

I simply wonder why, Mr. Speaker. Why do we hear this in theory but see it become something completely different in practice? Because the conditions for wind power are being worsened.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by welcoming the member to her first debate with the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. It is very pleasing that we can finally have a bit more focus on Halland in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. It is absolutely correct.

I think the member is raising good questions, but at the same time, I must point out that the developments regarding the permit processes, the wind turbines, and how we secure a stable energy supply are not anything new. It was not something that suddenly landed in our laps when we entered Rosenbad; rather, this is something we have seen developing for a very long time and, with all due respect, primarily during the Socialdemokraternas time in power. I therefore think it is quite bold of the Socialdemokraterna to ask here in the chamber why everything is not solved in a quarter of an hour. That is approximately the amount of time the Moderaterna have been in power if compared with the Socialdemokraternas time in power.

Let me take a concrete example, which the member also raises and which concerns offshore wind. This government has in practice implemented and approved twice as many offshore wind farms as the previous Social Democratic government did. It is a concrete proof that we get things done.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the answer!

I note that the government is taking credit for processes and matters that were prepared and investigated during the previous government and which the member knows very well take a long time.

What we see in practice is a sharp drop in new investments in electricity production. Ongoing projects risk being paused. For example, Kriegers flak is being paused now that the government is worsening the conditions for offshore wind power. We see that Kattegatt Syd off my home municipality of Falkenberg, which could provide five terawatt-hours of electricity supply, also risks being paused because of this policy.

What is it then for a policy that I am describing, Mr. Speaker? Well, it is about how, instead of living up to what the member is talking about, that is to say that all fossil-free power sources are needed, from wind power to nuclear power, one conducts a one-sided policy that essentially undermines all other necessary fossil-free electricity production. It could be in place within the next 10–15 years, while waiting for new nuclear power. I do not believe that Halland households and companies are ready to wait at least 10–15 years for lower electricity prices and an increased pace in the climate transition.

I also noted that we can talk about stable and long-term rules of the game. I believe the member and I agree on that. But then I wonder why the Moderaterna chose not to enter into a broad energy agreement. Why did one choose to listen to the party strategists who concluded that one would rather have this as a political punching bag in the election debate? Shall we have a conflict for the sake of conflict? Or shall we join forces on the issues where we agree and deliver cheaper electricity for Halland households and companies? I know what the people of Halland answer to that question. What does member Helena Storckenfeldt answer?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think it would be very interesting if the member, in that case, answered the question of what her party wants with nuclear power. The Social Democrats, in fact, come up with new messages all the time. It depends entirely on which member one speaks with. It depends entirely on which year the party leader gives a certain speech. New messages come exactly all the time.

If we are to talk about long-term perspectives for the electricity supply, I believe the Social Democrats first need to look at themselves in the mirror and answer the question: What do you want with nuclear power? To what extent are you willing to stand up for nuclear power if you find yourselves in a government position again with the Green Party as support? Before that question is answered, it is totally uninteresting for us to enter into any form of energy agreement. It is too uncertain, quite regardless of what we agree upon in the individual room.

Regarding wind power, we talk a lot about increasing acceptance. It is something I know the member is well acquainted with because she comes from a municipality where there has been a great stir surrounding wind power. Halland is a county that has a lot of wind power and has taken a great responsibility. The money from that will, of course, come to the municipalities. But it is also important to consider people's reality. We must ensure that better reforms are put in place to get people on board. If we do not have them with us, we have them against us.

(Applause)

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! The report we are debating today contains many pressing issues. It concerns everything from the need for efficient permit processes to questions regarding environmental requirements in public procurement and stricter penalties for environmental crimes. Therefore, I am very pleased to have a place in this committee and to be able to work with these important issues.

I am, however, at the same time extremely concerned about the recent development where climate and environmental policy is being reduced to a so-called culture war. There, short-term political points are allowed to take precedence over what is best for Sweden and Swedish areas of strength, and there it becomes impossible to think further than to the next election.

This is highly concerning given what is at stake. It is about our shared nature, about reducing climate emissions and about meeting the climate changes. But it is also about how we secure future growth, how we create jobs across the entire country and how we strengthen our competitiveness and resilience in a changed geopolitical situation. All of this requires cooperation, stability and long-term thinking – exactly what has been missing during this parliamentary term.

Mr. Speaker! What am I referring to? Yes, we see it in the substantial cuts that have been made in the environmental budget. The management of valuable nature has deteriorated significantly, which the National Audit Office has also noted. It concerns the management of nature reserves, maintenance of hiking trails, and local nature conservation projects that are now being sidelined.

The government has also chosen to significantly cut the funding for the fight against invasive alien species. The budget for 2023 was completely zeroed out, despite the fact that the spread constitutes a growing threat to our ecosystems.

We also see how municipalities and county administrative boards are pleading for more resources following the cuts in climate adaptation work – at the same time as the risks of flooding, collapses, and landslides are increasing.

The work with liming of our acidified lakes and watercourses is also at risk. In my constituency Halland, which I referred to earlier and which is particularly hard hit, decades of successful nature conservation work risk being lost.

Mr. Speaker! Of course, politics is always about priorities. That is precisely why it is difficult to understand how the government and the Sweden Democrats have not been able to afford this while they have been able to afford extensive tax cuts for those with the very highest incomes. This policy is short-sighted and inefficient, and the consequences will become both harder and more expensive to manage in the future.

Mr. Speaker! Stable and long-term rules of the game, which several of us here in the chamber have highlighted, are also needed in the work with permit processes. We need faster and more predictable permit processes, especially against the background that global competition is hardening with each passing day and that we de facto face major technological shifts.

Therefore, it is positive that there is, or in any case there was, a broad consensus in the chamber that a permit system should constitute the main rule, in accordance with the proposal from the Environmental Assessment Inquiry, which the previous Social Democratic-led government appointed. It is therefore difficult to understand why the government and the Sverigedemokraterna chose not to proceed with the proposal when they were to present their proposition on a more efficient environmental assessment. Despite the fact that there is a finished and well-substantiated proposal, one chooses in practice to maintain the current order.

It is obvious that there is much more to be done to achieve faster and simpler permit processes, and therefore I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

Mr. Speaker! The report also covers issues specifically concerning the permit processes for wind power. We Social Democrats want the municipalities to be given stronger incentives to participate in an expansion and that any objections are submitted earlier in the process. An earlier municipal position would create both efficiency and predictability in the permit review without compromising the municipal influence.

The policy pursued during the mandate period has instead hindered an expansion, which I touched upon in a previous exchange of remarks. The conditions for connecting offshore wind power to the main grid have worsened, payments to wind power municipalities have been omitted despite clear promises, and incentives for neighbors are still lacking, several years after the investigation was presented. Deficiencies in the work with the permit processes have even resulted in the government being taken before the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Speaker! We cannot afford a policy that paints fictional oppositions between power sources when we need all fossil-free power sources, from wind power to nuclear power. I want to be clear about that message, by reason of a previous exchange of remarks.

We also cannot afford a policy where one is unable to see what needs to be done in the short and long term. It is not possible to pursue a one-sided policy that undermines all other necessary fossil-free electricity production that can be established during the next 10–15 years while waiting for new nuclear power. We need more cheap electricity here and now in order to be able to increase the pace of the climate transition and ensure that the jobs and investments stay in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! If we are to expand electricity production at the required pace, strengthen transmission capacity, and expand the power grid, stable and long-term rules of the game are required. It is not only we Social Democrats who say this, but Swedish industry and Swedish business also say it. That is the message from Swedish industry. Therefore, a broad energy agreement was needed that covers all fossil-free power sources and where the starting point is security of supply and low costs.

Against that background, I can only regret that despite constructive talks between several parties, no energy agreement was reached. It was the case that certain party strategists in some parties apparently wanted to keep this issue as some kind of political whipping horse in the election debates. In the end, short-term political points took precedence over Sweden's long-term needs.

Mr. Speaker! I know we can do better than that, especially in the turbulent world we find ourselves in. Our common focus should be to increase the pace of the climate transition, to reduce emissions, and to ensure stable rules of the game for our climate and environmental policy.

It is the direction that the Social Democrats want to see, and it is the direction that Sweden both deserves and needs.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As several members have pointed out, the report Overall Environmental Issues contains a blessed mixture of motions that do not fit into any of the other reports.

When it comes to permit processes, I experience that there is a broad consensus on the need to simplify and streamline the permit processes for environmental assessment. One wants to see that things happen quickly, and when we took over after the 2022 election, we wanted rapid changes. It is, so to speak, in the nature of politics; we are here to hopefully bring about change. At the same time, investigations must be allowed to take time so that preparatory documents can be obtained and propositions can be presented.

When it comes to the environmental permits, additional assignments have also been given during the period, which has caused it to drag on even further. But as we heard earlier, we have received the third of four reports from the Environmental Permit Investigation, and we look forward to moving forward in these matters.

This with a new authority has also been highlighted earlier in the debate. Having an authority that handles the issues is very important in order to facilitate.

In my previous speech, I quoted the former Prime Minister Göran Persson, and I shall mention him again now – I note that there is laughter on the S-bench. He has said that he would like to redo one thing that he was involved in and contributed to when he was Prime Minister, namely the Environmental Code. It is written far too arbitrarily, which has given our courts far too much power over how it should be interpreted. But I hope and believe that we can find a broad consensus to reform the Environmental Code.

Another question that has come up – it happens when one enters the debate late – is the peat. We heard Martin Kinnunen sing the praises of the peat, and there is no doubt that the peat was needed.

I note that there are reservations regarding peat. The question is what we should use as a cultivation substrate instead. We need, for example, to produce 400 million forest seedlings in a year, and all garden nutrients and much of the Swedish vegetable cultivation need peat today. Is it better to import coconut fiber from Sri Lanka – is it more sustainable? I am just asking the question.

Another issue that has been raised is the right of appeal, where there are reservations that one wants to provide the opportunity to expand it. According to our view, the right of appeal has not become as it was intended. The Aarhus Convention is quite clear that it distinguishes between the concerned and the directly concerned public. We note that many today seem to have the right to lodge appeals even though they should not, as they are not the directly concerned public. We see, for example, that even foreign organizations come in and appeal Swedish decisions. So, it was not intended for the right of appeal to function that way.

Another issue where there are reservations is public procurement, not least when it concerns food and what requirements should be set. There, I believe the consensus is largely total. As I have understood it, after having tried to get some information from the Government Offices and so on, the challenge there is more about certain EU rules putting a spoke in the wheel.

I believe that we in this chamber are quite in agreement on the issue of public procurement, not least regarding food. There is no doubt that public procurement can truly be a tool in the transition, but it can also be a tool to ensure that we facilitate things for our Swedish food producers.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are several reservations regarding environmental crime. Here we have had an investigation that has reviewed, among other things, the sanctions system regarding the fight against environmental crime and how it can be strengthened. Depending on the source, environment-related organized crime is the world's third to fifth largest organized crime. It is, therefore, an enormous crime that one really must take action on.

Even here, investigation proposals have been issued to be presented in government bills, and extended assignments have been given in the meantime. It has been seen that it has been necessary to give more assignments to obtain even better underlying material so that we can go as far as possible. Proposals for tightenings have thus been submitted, and Naturvårdsverket and nine other agencies have been tasked with seeing how the existing legislation can be strengthened so that one does not even need to wait for new legislation. On March 1, 2026, they shall present to the government what can be proceeded with directly without waiting for new legislation.

So, a lot is being done in this area, and I believe that even environment-related organized crime is an issue where there is great consensus. It is just a matter of finding the right ways to handle this crime, precisely because it has become so large and deeply entrenched.

Otherwise, I move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of the reservations.

(Applause)

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the presentation!

The chairman began by quoting a Social Democrat. I will quote some Christian Democratic local politicians who are very upset about the government's cuts to the environmental budget.

I mentioned several examples in my speech. It concerns the liming of our acidified lakes and watercourses. Acidification is a huge problem in my constituency Halland, and the liming work has been absolutely crucial. We are now seeing, as I said, that costs are increasing, that the appropriations are insufficient, and that decades of successful nature conservation work risk being lost. In my home municipality Falkenberg, in an already pressured economic situation, one is forced to allocate own funds in the municipal budget to try to compensate for the government's withdrawal.

But, Mr. Speaker, as we have said, we are not only going to refer to Halland in this debate. This is not a so-called Halland problem, but it is to the highest degree a problem also in the member's constituency Värmland. More than half of Värmland's lakes and watercourses are still in need of liming, but the appropriations are no longer sufficient.

As I also mentioned in my speech, it is a very short-sighted policy given that it will become both more expensive and more difficult to handle the consequences further ahead, once the damage has already been done. I simply wonder, Mr. Speaker: How do the members justify the so-called priorities in the latest budget bills?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Aida Birinxhiku, for the question! I would like to start by welcoming you to the Committee on Environment and Agriculture and the first debate we have here.

The Speaker took away my introduction because she referred to Värmland. I was about to say that it is not a challenge only in Halland but also in, among others, Värmland. One of the major challenges here, however, is not about how much money the government has allocated. It reflects back on what I was touching upon in my speech regarding the Environmental Code.

The largest mine in Sweden that contributes limestone to our lakes and watercourses is located in Värmland, but limestone can no longer be extracted there. This puts environmental regulations, which are quite rigid, in the way.

The reason is that the wastewater flowing out from the mine has too high levels of uranium. The member may choose to go to the café when our debate here is finished to buy any bottle of sparkling water – we do not need to mention any brand here. That bottle contains a higher level of uranium than the wastewater flowing from the mine in Gåsborn in Värmland. Nevertheless, a stop has been put on it. Consequently, we do not get lime from there, but we must import. That is the biggest challenge when it comes to the price. When we cannot use our domestic lime, we must therefore import, and this is what has caused it to become so expensive and the shortage to become so great in Sweden.

Since then, there is no doubt that we must ensure that we continue to care. Work has been done here for many years, and it must be carried forward. I believe the member and the undersigned are completely in agreement on that, but we must also remember what the foundation actually is.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

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

My question was not about why Värmland is severely affected. I stated that Värmland is severely affected by acidification, just like my constituency Halland. We agree that the problem exists, but my question was about why the government does not secure the necessary funding for the liming work. The member seems to be well aware of the issues.

Furthermore, it is not just about the liming work. I mentioned several examples in my speech. It is about the management of nature reserves and about climate adaptation measures. Despite the fact that we see that the risks for, among other things, floods, collapses and landslides are increasing, the government chooses to leave various local politicians and local representatives in the lurch. Why? Is the message that they have to bear the cost themselves? If so, I think one should be very honest about that and give clear messages to our local representatives, who now in their own reality see the consequences of the government's cuts in the environmental budget. The liming is a concrete example.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! As Aida Birinxhiku knows very well, it is about prioritizing, and that is done at the Government Offices. I do not sit there, but I sit in the Swedish Parliament together with the member. I am therefore not involved in that work and do not know how the negotiations have proceeded there. I therefore cannot answer that.

I know, however, that we do not have money for everything that we would wish we had money for. So that is for everyone, possibly with the exception of a few parties here in the chamber who are going to take out gigantic loans to manage their budgets. The Social Democrats are not one of them, just to clarify that since the member cannot answer this retort.

We have a budget to work with, and we must do that. As I said in my speech, the calcification is very important, and it is important that we continue so that we do not demolish the work that has been ongoing.

Like, we must prioritize. Now we see that the trend for healthcare queues has been broken. We are on our way to reducing the queues to healthcare. We see that the trend regarding shootings and explosions has been broken. It is a very important work that has been done. We must continue to invest in that as well. As the world looks now, we unfortunately must also spend gigantic sums on our defense to secure ourselves as well as we can because the world is so uncertain. There are very many parts that we would like to spend money on, but politics is about prioritizing.

We must also prioritize here. We do not have the possibility to spend money on everything, even if we would like to and even if it is very heartbreaking. But I hope that we get our environmental legislation in order so that we can continue to break limestone in Värmland and continue to use Swedish limestone in Swedish lakes. It is extremely important.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the member for the speech!

I said in my speech that we would return to public procurement. I thought I would take a reply to specifically Kjell-Arne Ottosson because he is a Christian Democrat and belongs to the same party as the Minister for Rural Affairs Kullgren, who is in charge of food production, but also the Minister for Civil Affairs Erik Slottner, who has public procurement in his portfolio.

It often sounds like we agree here. We do, but when one starts to look at the details, you see that it differs a little bit.

Work is ongoing, and the government is giving assignments to various agencies. But everywhere it says "should," as in "should steer towards society's ambitions and correspond to the high level of animal welfare and environmental consideration." When a position was presented in the EU regarding the EU's procurement directives, Sweden presented in the preliminary position what citizens "should" be able to rely on. Everywhere it says "should," not "shall."

The member was himself a member of the Environmental Goals Preparatory Group, where I served as chairman, when we worked with consumption-based emissions. There we talked a lot about public procurement. We also had a proposal that everyone agreed on, namely that we should have a "shall" requirement when it came primarily to climate in public procurement. When a similar proposal reached the Riksdag, it became a "should".

My question to the member is whether the Christian Democrats and the government are prepared to proceed with a "shall" requirement so that we do not just consider this, but actually fulfill it.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

What the government is prepared to do or not do is a question that Emma Nohrén can submit in a written question or an interpellation to the responsible minister. I cannot answer what they intend in that specific question.

It is exactly as Emma Nohrén mentioned that we had several proposals regarding public procurement in the Environmental Goals Preparation's work on consumption-based emissions. How the preparation of this has proceeded at the Government Offices, I cannot answer either, for obvious reasons, but I know that this matter of public procurement is extremely important.

I also know that there is a rather strict set of rules from the EU regarding how this may be handled, not least regarding the requirements that must be set in procurement. I do not know if there is anything there that plays a role. I basically have no good answer to give Emma Nohrén because I am not briefed on the matter. I speculate that it might be due to that, but I do not know.

I still believe it is important that we try to find ways forward so that we can increase public procurement, for several reasons. As I mentioned, it is important from a climate and environmental perspective, not least regarding food and then in order to ensure that we help Swedish producers. They produce food significantly more sustainably than some of their colleagues around the world, from whom we would preferably not import food. This matter of public procurement and strengthening it is therefore extremely important regardless.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I notice that I am not getting any answer, but the member is also honest in saying that he does not have one.

What is stated in the report regarding what the government has done is in approximately the same spirit. A mandate has been left. One is to review. One has sent, and it should arrive here. But one does not get to the point of achieving legislation that makes a difference. It is much about "reviewing" the procurement rules.

So that is how it has sounded since 2022. Now it is 2026. The government has had four years. There have been parliamentary inquiries but also other inquiries that have produced proposals on public procurement. Still, we see no difference. There is a new web tool that can be used to facilitate, but it does not say what one should do and what not to do.

I realize that I will not get an answer, but I can ask if the member themselves thinks we should get a "must" requirement so that we can move forward or if we should continue to be in this limbo.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

As I mentioned earlier, public procurement is not one of my strengths. It is an area that I have not worked much with and which I do not fundamentally know. Therefore, I also do not know how far one can go in the specification of requirements and what one has the legal right and possibility to do, not least according to the EU regulations. I therefore cannot give a concrete answer to the question. I believe that Emma Nohrén and the undersigned are in complete agreement on the importance and value of public procurement, but as I said, I cannot give a concrete answer because I do not possess the knowledge.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a report containing motions on a number of different overarching environmental issues.

Several of the proposals in the report concern permit processes. No one is against us having fast and efficient permit processes, but the risk is that one pushes too hard and that we instead get a legally insecure permit where the companies' wishes weigh more heavily than the protection of health and the environment. We must remember that we have the Environmental Code to be able to make a balance between exploitation and environmental considerations. In that case, it is important that a careful assessment is made.

Many industries today have environmental permits for an unlimited period despite the fact that the activity can negatively affect both air and water. With time-limited permits for large operations with a large environmental impact, one could instead set requirements that modern environmental technology is used when the old permit has expired and the activity is to be reassessed. The norm should be that it is time-limited permits that are to be granted during environmental assessment, in the same way as in many other countries.

The Environmental Code needs to become a sharper tool to achieve the climate goals as well as the other national environmental goals. According to the UN, we face a triple crisis in the form of global warming, depletion of biodiversity, and the spread of pollutants. These global challenges must be addressed in parallel. This must also be reflected in the Environmental Code.

Mr. Speaker! The municipalities today have, in practice, a veto over wind power. A municipality that is negative towards wind power can simply choose not to take up such matters and thereby completely halt the expansion. The forms of the municipalities' influence over wind power must therefore be changed, and the requirement for approval should be removed. But the municipalities must still be involved in the process at an early stage. It is also important to maintain high standards for a legally secure assessment with regard to people's health and the environment. When municipalities do say no, it is important that it is clearly justified. The municipalities' opinion shall carry weight, but in a situation where Sweden must quickly transition from fossil energy to renewable energy, the municipalities' decisions must be more predictable and legally secure than they are today.

Mr. Speaker! Drained peatlands emit greenhouse gases, and the extraction of peat releases large amounts of carbon dioxide that has been stored for a very long time. Peat is therefore classified as a fossil fuel by the UN's climate panel IPCC.

Vänsterpartiet welcomes that the Environmental Goals Commission has proposed measures to limit peat extraction, for example by stopping new permits for the extraction of cultivation peat, but argues that further tightening is required to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and protect carbon storage. We do not want any new peat deposits at all, and existing permits for peat deposits need to be phased out. We also want to see legislation that limits the exploitation of peatlands, as the exploitation of such lands results in higher greenhouse gas emissions.

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

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

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

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

The source of the discharge was the Swedish Armed Forces' fire drill site at air wing F 17, where fire-fighting foam containing PFAS was used for a long period. The chemicals then spread to the drinking water. Research is ongoing regarding what health impact this has had and will have, but so far, an increased incidence of, among other things, kidney cancer and elevated cholesterol levels has been established.

A group of residents has formed the PFAS association, which for many years has pursued a legal process where they have demanded damages from the municipal water company Ronneby Miljö och Teknik. Despite it being known that the Swedish Armed Forces caused the contamination, the residents must, for legal reasons, turn to the water company with their claims for damages.

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

The events in Kallinge are a scandal that demonstrates the fundamental failure regarding how chemicals are regulated. Substances are allowed to be released unhindered, and only decades later do we see the negative effects.

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

I respect the brave people of Kallinge who took up the fight for redress. The fact remains, however: Individuals who are poisoned due to the state's actions should not have to fight for their rights. The government must step in and offer compensation and redress to all those affected, regardless of whether they live in Kallinge or elsewhere, and regardless of whether they have had the opportunity to pursue a legal process or not. Therefore, I and Vänsterpartiet demand that the government take action on the issue and present proposals for clearer legislation on liability when people are exposed to high levels of harmful chemicals.

I move for the approval of reservation 20.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We live in a restless time. Europe's and Sweden's eyes are now turned towards Davos – a summit on economy, security, and trade with a focus on Trump. The Prime Minister, our Prime Minister, reprioritized his calendar this morning and traveled together with a couple of colleagues from the government to Switzerland.

The trip to the climate summit in Brazil this autumn was not equally prioritized, however. Nor was it as prioritized a meeting among all the world's leaders.

What is required for our world leaders to realize that the climate crisis is important and real – opinion or economy? I can also state that the issue of climate and environment is not so important for our governing parties, who are members of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. I can inform you that they are no longer here in the chamber and want to listen to the end of the debate.

Leadership is lacking in the environmental and climate issue. The politics must take the lead in the green transition and show that this is important for all our futures. This is not being done now. Therefore, I and the Center Party want to replace this government, because emissions must be reduced, jobs must increase, and the whole country must function.

Madam Speaker! The Center Party's environmental policy is about building a Sweden where economic development goes hand in hand with environmental and climate work. We believe in using new technology and the power of the market to solve climate challenges rather than restricting people and companies. Our vision is a greener, freer and safer Europe, where Sweden is a leading country.

Centerpartiet wants to see a policy that combines high ambitions with practical solutions. This includes, among other things, a green tax shift, where it becomes more expensive to pollute and cheaper to act climate-smart. We want to support the development of fossil-free energy supply such as wind power, solar energy and bioenergy. Strong biodiversity and a sustainable use of the forest and the land are fundamental parts of this. Our goal is for Sweden to be the world's most resource-efficient nation.

Madam Speaker! We are not there today. Emissions have increased over the past year thanks to the government's policy, and we are now subsidizing fossil fuels. Business owners testify that environmental initiatives have been omitted when the government has prioritized away environment and climate. This in turn leads to us losing competitiveness in the EU.

Companies need, instead, clear and long-term environmental requirements so that they can make long-term decisions. Never before have we had so much knowledge, so much technology, and such strong commitment to transforming our societies to become more sustainable. Still, the transition is going too slowly.

Madam Speaker! Permit processes and environmental assessments are important parts of our society that aim to protect our environment and people's health while simultaneously enabling development and investments. We need permit processes for the sake of the environment, but they need to be improved and proceed faster.

Let me be clear. Strong environmental protection and efficient permit processes are not opposites. On the contrary, they are interdependent. Today, it often takes far too many years to obtain permits for larger facilities – in some cases over ten years. This is unreasonable in a time when we know that every year of delay means higher emissions and lost jobs.

At the same time, we must be honest. The permit processes exist for a good reason. They are intended to protect nature and people's health. They are intended to ensure that we do not solve one problem by creating another. The problem today, however, is not that the requirements are too high. The problem is that the processes are too slow and unpredictable.

There is a paradox in today's system. Projects that are crucial for the climate are often treated as if they were a threat to the transition. We must change that. When companies, municipalities and investors do not know whether it takes two years or ten years for a project to be approved, they hesitate. Then the investments move somewhere else, and then we lose both momentum in the transition and the opportunity to build the jobs of the future here at home.

When it comes to the permit processes, I and the Center Party believe that decisions should be able to be made faster. We want to make the processes more predictable, and we want to improve the coordination between authorities and ensure that the right questions are examined in the right order.

After today's debate, a majority of the parliamentary parties feel this way. However, the Government is not presenting the finished proposals that actually exist on the table. I therefore move for approval of reservation 3.

Madam Speaker! Public procurement is another tool to drive the green transition and reduce emissions. Every year, the public sector purchases goods and services for many billions of kronor, which provides an enormous opportunity to influence the market in a sustainable direction.

I and the Center Party believe that the public sector should take the lead and set clear environmental and climate requirements in its procurements. This can include requirements for circular solutions, increased use of recycled material, and strict conditions for animal welfare and environmental considerations that correspond to the Swedish level in food procurements. It is important that a follow-up of these requirements takes place to ensure that they are actually complied with and provide the desired effect.

Madam Speaker! The last area I want to address is the fight against environmental crime. Environmental crime is a serious and growing problem that is often linked to organized crime and which has major consequences for our nature and health. The Centre Party believes that these crimes must be prioritized higher and fought more effectively. Therefore, we propose that the penalties for serious environmental crimes be toughened.

It is crucial that authorities cooperate more, both nationally and internationally, to track waste flows and detect crimes in a timely manner. Centerpartiet has proposed that the Swedish Environmental Crime Authority be developed into a so-called "ekokrim," with specialized investigative resources, which can be responsible for combating environmental crimes, corruption crimes, and economic crime. We see this as necessary to stop the criminal economy, which finances violence and competes out serious companies, also within the environmental sector.

Madam Speaker! Clear leadership is needed. The government lacks it. We believe that the politics must lead the way in the green transition and show that it is important for our future. It does not do that today. Therefore, I and the Center Party want to replace this government so that emissions go down, jobs increase, and all of Sweden functions.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 28 January.)

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