Examination of the motion of no confidence against Minister Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a motion of no confidence against Romina Pourmokhtari. MP considers that she lacks suitability as she increases emissions and destroys climate policy 1. L argues that she has a plan for net-zero emissions by 2045 and that the opposition's policy is ineffective symbolic politics 2. M considers that she is competent and that the government is investing in nuclear power 3. V argues that the government does not take the welfare collapse or the climate crisis seriously and will vote yes in the no-confidence vote. SD defends her and argues that the motion of no confidence lacks grounds 4. KD argues that the no-confidence is a political game 5. S argues that the government deliberately increases emissions. C argues that the government actively increases emissions and lacks leadership, which damages Sweden's reputation and competitiveness 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN
During the House's meeting on 21 December, Rickard Nordin, C, and Elin Söderberg, MP, submitted a motion of no confidence against Minister Romina Pourmokhtari, L. Since the motion was supported by at least 35 members, it was tabled for the first time. The motion was tabled once more yesterday. The motion shall now be taken up for a decision.
First, the opportunity is given to submit a statement of vote.
Daniel Helldén (MP)
Mr. Speaker! It is the Green Party's view that Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari has repeatedly acted in a way that shows she lacks the suitability for her office. Her trust has been exhausted.
A motion of no confidence is a tool that should be used very carefully. But since the government took office in the autumn of 2022, countless steps have been taken that dismantle the climate and environmental policy that Sweden has built up over several decades. It began sharply with the abolition of the Ministry of the Environment, and since then, the Swedish people have been able to follow a series of decisions where the climate and the environment have been deprioritized on the agenda, where the climate budget is decreasing, and where the measures to protect nature and limit emissions have been scrapped.
Mr. Speaker! The least one should be able to expect from climate policy is that it reduces emissions. Minister Romina Pourmokhtari, who is responsible for climate policy, has instead pursued a policy that significantly increases emissions. When the government has been asked how it intends to handle the serious effects, the Minister has repeatedly referred to the upcoming climate action plan. On a number of occasions, she has also made statements that are grossly misleading and directly incorrect.
Before Christmas, the action plan was finally presented. It neither measured up nor provided answers to the questions of how we are to reach the goals. Instead, the government delays the climate transition and pushes the responsibility forward, and ordinary people and companies are those who will take the big hit.
Instead of a responsible policy that protects the population and future generations against serious risks, Sweden is being made more vulnerable to the security policy risks that accompany the climate and environmental crisis. Economic risks, risks of avalanches, landslides and floods, or risks to people's lives and health do not seem to concern Sweden's government.
To act as has been done in recent years is inexcusable and incomprehensible. To furthermore dismantle existing tools aimed at reducing emissions and protecting our environments and then present a climate action plan that provides no concrete answers on how emissions will be reduced in the near term, but primarily announces future investigations, is irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker! That a government's climate policy reduces emissions is not only something one as a citizen should be able to expect. It is also a requirement on the government as set out in the Climate Act. The Tidö government is actively increasing emissions for the first time in two decades, and nothing in the presented action plan shows how they intend to repair the damage. The Riksdag's confidence in Climate and Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari should by now, for everyone, be exhausted. Anything else would be to downplay the seriousness of the climate issue.
With this as a background, the Green Party's announcement today is that the Green Party considers that Romina Pourmokhtari lacks suitability in the exercise of her office and that the Riksdag should declare that the minister no longer has the Riksdag's confidence.
In this speech, Janine Alm Ericson, Emma Berginger, Mats Berglund, Camilla Hansén, Annika Hirvonen, Linus Lakso, Rebecka Le Moine, Amanda Lind, Rasmus Ling, Katarina Luhr, Jan Riise, Jacob Risberg, Märta Stenevi, Elin Söderberg and Ulrika Westerlund (all MP) agreed.
Lina Nordquist (L)
Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Romina Pourmokhtari, our Minister, there is for the first time a plan in Sweden to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2045 at the latest and thereafter negative emissions.
This government's climate policy does not aim to reduce carbon emissions - it aims to completely eliminate them. This, to reach all the way to net zero, requires completely different measures than climate work limited to reduced emissions.
None of the opposition parties have any coherent policy to go all the way. It is that simple. The previous climate action plan failed to reach Sweden's climate goal, net-zero emissions by 2045.
What these parties are actually saying with their motion of no confidence today is that one ignores reaching the goal but is terribly interested in knowing when one has reached that halfway point, perhaps. It is either this that it is about, or everything is just political games - something that a spokesperson for Miljöpartiet actually considered himself. That is why Miljöpartiet failed to gather all its 18 own members behind the motion of no confidence.
Regardless of the reasons for movement, Mr. Speaker, this is completely incomprehensible. Our planet and our country have neither the time nor the means for inefficient symbol politics. The opposition's policy, and that which previous governments have wholeheartedly engaged in, is as if we here in this chamber were trying to reduce carbon emissions by taking turns holding our breath. Furthermore, some of us, depending slightly on where we come from and what we work with, would need to hold our breath an enormous amount. It is unfair policy that has been conducted previously, and one cannot hold one's breath forever, period.
Less of everything does not work. What works, however, is politics that, like Romina Pourmokhtari's policy, transitions all the way to net zero.
Mr. Speaker! The only way to reach net zero is to phase out gasoline and diesel. A decisive question for every political power holder is: Shall we replace these fossil fuels with something, shall we offer wise alternatives, or shall we just stop doing things? Shall we stop running companies in Sweden? Shall we stop transporting goods? Shall we no longer move around?
Romina Pourmokhtari's climate transition is for real. Her climate action plan pushes forward measures that phase out fossil fuels for good but without forcing people back to the past or putting companies into bankruptcy. Her measures instead make it easy to make climate-smart decisions at the kitchen table or in a corporate board. They make it easy to electrify everyday life, industry, and the transport sector.
Absolutely crucial for this transition is a significantly expanded fossil-free electricity production - more nuclear power, wind power and solar energy. Clean electricity is directly crucial for Sweden to truly manage the climate transition.
Romina Pourmokhtari has granted permission for more offshore wind power in one year than the red-green government managed in eight years. She has removed the obstacles for nuclear power so that the transport sector and industry, Mr. Speaker, can stop using fossil fuels in their operations.
The Liberals' climate policy lays the foundation for a society completely without emissions. The future is to be able to travel, run businesses and transport goods without harming the planet. And with a reliable, robust and fossil-free electricity system as the foundation, Romina Pourmokhtari's climate action plan thunders forward.
It is market introduction support for domestic electric aviation. It is support for the introduction of electric-powered vessels. It is increased incentives for driving electric buses and transporting heavy goods with electric trucks. It is a scrapping premium where one gets rid of a car that causes damage. It is a major investment in expanded charging infrastructure across the entire country. And now I have only mentioned a few of the 70 measures that are in this climate action plan.
This is the path to an effective and just climate transition that receives broad support in society.
Mr. Speaker! It is not Romina Pourmokhtari who should be removed. It is the meaningless symbolic politics that we have been subjected to until now, the kind that has pushed the most difficult questions forward in time for other governments to solve and for other generations to take the hits for.
The Liberals vote yes to a modern climate policy that works, Mr. Speaker. But we vote no to removing the first minister who has stepped up to draw a line all the way to net zero.
In this speech, Malin Danielsson, Joar Forssell, Martin Melin, Mauricio Rojas and Cecilia Rönn (all L) as well as Helena Storckenfeldt (M) agreed.
Mattias Karlsson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet have tried to unite the split left-wing opposition to demand a vote of no confidence against Sweden's very competent Minister for Climate and Environment, Romina Pourmokhtari. She is the first Swedish climate minister who has a credible plan for how we are to meet Sweden's climate goals and reach net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest.
A completely fundamental prerequisite for that work is cleaner electricity, so that we can electrify transport and industry. Without energy policy, one has no climate policy. Therefore, this government is investing in new nuclear power. And therefore, as we heard earlier, the current government has, in one year, granted permits for more offshore wind farms than the Environment Party ministers did in eight years.
It is hardly a secret that the opposition stands far from the government when it comes to energy policy. When the Green Party and the Social Democrats were in government, they worsened the conditions for nuclear power, and thereby they also worsened the conditions for the climate transition.
The Left Party's opposition to nuclear power is an important driving force behind their criticism of the government's climate policy. With this motion of no confidence, the left-wing alternative in Swedish politics continues to act in a way that is harmful to Sweden and bad for the climate.
The government will continue its long-term work to achieve Sweden's climate goals all the way to net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest. This will be achieved through more nuclear power and more fossil-free electricity. It will be achieved through a competitive business sector, economic growth, and improved conditions for households. It will be achieved through more international cooperation, investments in the rewetting of wetlands, and innovative climate technology through the strengthening of Klimatklivet and Industriklivet.
This is an effective climate policy that increases people's freedom instead of restricting and complicating their everyday lives, as the Green Party government's climate policy did.
We must remember that the Green Party's strategy for short-term reduced emissions is a reduction obligation at such levels that ordinary families who are dependent on the car would not be able to make their daily lives work.
In the longer term, the divided left-wing alternative's plan is not worth a drop of water. But it is the current government's plan.
Mr. Speaker! We need unity in Swedish politics regarding solutions to the major problems that our country faces.
Imagine if the opposition had been able to listen to the companies, bury the hatchet, and stand behind a robust, fossil-free energy system with more nuclear power! Then we could have obtained broad and long-term support for this. It would have been good for Sweden. Now, the opposition is instead acting destructively and regressively.
It is obvious that today's vote of no confidence from Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet is primarily a way for these two small parties to seek attention and headlines. The outcome of today's vote is already clear in advance, because the confidence in the Riksdag for the government remains firm. And the government's confidence in the good work being carried out by Sweden's Minister for Climate and Environment, Romina Pourmokhtari, remains firm. None of this is affected by the opposition's destructive and misguided vote of no confidence. The Moderaterna will, of course, vote against the motion of no confidence.
In this speech, Sten Bergheden, Jörgen Berglund, Crister Carlsson, Gustaf Göthberg, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, Johan Hultberg, Caroline Högström, David Josefsson, Noria Manouchi, Erik Ottoson, Lars Püss, Johanna Rantsi, Magnus Resare, Edward Riedl, Oliver Rosengren, Maria Stockhaus, Helena Storckenfeldt, Oskar Svärd, John Widegren, Viktor Wärnick and Boriana Åberg (all M) as well as Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.
Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)
Mr. Speaker! Some people say things before an election. Then the election is carried out, and things are said after the election. Politicians lie very rarely, but sometimes one can use words to wrap things that one intends to do so that it becomes unclear for the public. They then do not really know what will happen. Those who do this do it so that they themselves can win high and well-paid positions or so that they can benefit their friends with good economic conditions. The losers of this are the Swedish people and, ultimately, in the long run, democracy.
Sweden has, during the last 30 years, lived under a doctrine: the market doctrine. When I grew up, one did not boast that this was what was considered to be the solution to all social problems. The school became a market school and healthcare a profit machine for private interests. Road maintenance was privatized and put out to tender, and rail traffic is priced and operated according to market principles. The main argument was that it would become cheaper and better – but the goal was to lower taxes for the very richest.
It takes time before the consequences of a systemic shift take full effect, and during that time, we are like frogs in warm water: the temperature rises slowly, and it is not until it is too late that we notice that the water we are all bathing in is actually boiling. Today we experience the consequences of this blind faith in market solutions. It is many of us who experience them every day.
It must be said that this is not solely the fault of the current government; all governments over the last decades bear a heavy responsibility for the development we now find ourselves in. But this government promised that it would come to grips with the problems we now face. Ahead of the election, the representatives for the government parties used beautiful flowery language about everything they would implement.
The largest party in the government support speaks about something else – often that it is people coming from other countries who, by their mere existence, bear the responsibility for our societal problems. But when the appropriations to the regions decrease in relation to inflation, the consequence is fewer employees, in the thousands, in the country's healthcare. It is not Aisha or Muhammed who have made those decisions, but it is Ulf Kristersson and Jimmie Åkesson.
It is now that we experience how schools cannot afford to keep their teachers. It is now we see how the municipalities' cuts in social services have the effect that social workers cannot prevent or catch those who are in the risk zone of engaging in activities that are harmful to others.
The pandemic showed how vulnerable our society is when healthcare and elderly care are not prepared when the crisis finally hits. How many people could have avoided being stranded on the E22 or the train platform during the Christmas holidays if we had not had a privatized road maintenance and a privatized rail traffic?
Was it worth those extra crowns after the seventy-first job tax deduction? Above all: Was it worth that we now have a few multi-millionaires who seem to believe they live on a completely different planet than we others?
When we face one of the greatest threats to humanity in history, namely the climate crisis, is it reasonable to believe that it is every single individual who alone shall shoulder the responsibility for the transition when society does not do what is required to make it possible? Every human being in Sweden has a responsibility, but it is together that it becomes possible to do something effective. It is together that we are a society, a community, a country and a culture that is worth defending.
Then it requires a government that has the will and the leadership ability to achieve the changes that are needed for us to resolve the problems. To unilaterally demand that the population do its part when the government withdraws does not work. We are a free people in a free country, and when we struggle, we do it for each other - for our children and descendants - just as much as for ourselves. We do our duty, but we also demand our right.
The current government does not take the threat in the form of the impending welfare collapse seriously – not to mention the threat to our very existence in the form of climate change. This is demonstrated by saying no to the opposition's proposals on upgrading and on making the transition.
At conferences, we hear chest-thumping about our own responsibility and what we ourselves should do, but at the same time, in interviews, we hear what the real goal is. There, it is not a strong welfare or a robust infrastructure that is being spoken about, but there it is tax cuts. One thing is said before the election. Then the election is carried out, and then another thing is said after the election.
Mr. Speaker! The government should resign. Ultimately, it should be Ulf Kristersson who stands to account here today. It is he who bears the responsibility. This is shown, not least, by the climate action plan. A government that says one thing but does another cannot enjoy the confidence of the Riksdag - not even its acceptance. We in Vänsterpartiet do not have confidence in Ulf Kristersson as Prime Minister. We do not have confidence in his government and do not have confidence in its representatives.
Mr. Speaker! The Left Party will therefore vote yes in the vote of no confidence regarding the Minister for Climate.
In this speech, Nooshi Dadgostar, Lorena Delgado Varas, Tony Haddou, Birger Lahti, Daniel Riazat and Ilona Szatmári Waldau (all V) agreed.
Linda Lindberg (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Today is a special day here in the Swedish Riksdag. That I, as a Sverigedemokrat here and now, in this speaker's chair, intend to defend a liberal minister in Sweden's government is what I can remember as a unique event.
The reason is obvious: The motion of no confidence directed against Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari, which lies before us on the table today, is quite strange, Mr. Speaker. It actually lacks any basis regardless of which logical thinking model we use as an analytical method.
It can be noted that the Center Party and the Green Party justify the motion of no confidence by making the assessment, unlike the government, that we will not achieve the goals in the Climate Act with the climate action plan. So, one can certainly think that. In 2018, however, Sweden's Minister for Climate was the Green Party's Isabella Lövin, who presented a climate action plan with the support of, among others, the Green Party and the Center Party. Lövin stated at the time that the plan was not sufficient for the goals to be achieved – but was allowed to remain.
The Sweden Democrats' position regarding the motion of no confidence is as follows: We Sweden Democrats have been clear that the law that launched the Tidö Agreement is the law we stand behind. It is a law that is aimed forward, for Sweden's best, and where we jointly give the country a new opportunity and a new direction. There are no other alternatives, Mr. Speaker.
The policy being pursued in this area by the current government could naturally be sharper and even more focused if we Sverigedemokrater had had more to say about it, but it is better with some steps in the right direction than giant leaps in the completely wrong direction. It is not perfect policy, but it is much better than what has been the case under previous governments.
We have for several years seen how the green-party-oriented climate policy has harmed Swedish households and companies through bans, taxes, and regulations. Sweden and the people have been pressured to take a disproportionate responsibility for a global problem, with the consequence that prices have been pushed up, Swedish competitiveness has deteriorated, and emissions have instead been moved abroad. It is a naive policy that has harmed Sweden and increased the burden for the population, where the effect globally is strikingly small.
We are now shifting the policy - and it is high time - with balance and common sense at its core. A clear example of the Sweden Democrats' drive to pursue a sensible policy is, among other things, the abolition of the reduction obligation. We are now lowering fuel prices for ordinary people, business owners and - yes - ultimately for everyone in some sense.
Mr. Speaker! In other words, there are no reasons whatsoever for us to change our minds because of a more or less worthless motivated motion of no confidence. This is especially not the case when the reason is that our political opponents consider the policy being pursued to be bad. One acts based on the premise that the policy being pursued is expected to yield an unsatisfactory result. The Climate Act is cited as support for their position.
When the Climate Act was adopted, we in the Sweden Democrats were against it. One reason for this was that we feared it would be misused in the future. A red-green government tried, quite obviously, to create a framework to continue governing even after the Swedish people had voted them out. That is what we see now, Mr. Speaker.
And of course, the purpose of the Climate Act is that Sweden shall protect ecosystems against climate change. And that is what we are doing. We are simply choosing a different strategy than the one that the Green Party wants to see. There is no law, not even the Climate Act, that says that Sweden shall pursue Green Party-style politics for all time.
Mr. Speaker! It is also in the nature of the matter and in the dynamics of politics that political differences lead to discord. They are all common and natural elements in a vital democracy. But wanting to remove ministers because the minister is doing their job and implementing the majority's will is, on the other hand, not as common. The motion of no confidence that is on the table today cannot be considered to meet the criteria for serious political craftsmanship, but rather constitutes a way to breathe life into a fading political existence by, if only for a few minutes, making themselves a little relevant.
In today's vote, the Sweden Democrats will vote no, that is, press red.
In this speech, Nima Gholam Ali Pour, Lars Andersson, Mats Arkhem, Sara-Lena Bjälkö, Carita Boulwén, Bo Broman, Alexander Christiansson, Staffan Eklöf, Matheus Enholm, Yasmine Eriksson, Mattias Eriksson Falk, Mikael Eskilandersson, Rashid Farivar, Josef Fransson, Ann-Christine Frohm Utterstedt, Sara Gille, Jörgen Grubb, Angelica Lundberg, David Lång, Adam Marttinen, Thomas Morell, Eric Palmqvist, David Perez, Daniel Persson, Charlotte Quensel, Patrick Reslow, Michael Rubbestad, Jessica Stegrud, Jimmy Ståhl, Carina Ståhl Herrstedt, Johnny Svedin, Victoria Tiblom, Beatrice Timgren, Eric Westroth, Markus Wiechel, Leonid Yurkovskiy and Jimmie Åkesson (all SD) agreed.
Camilla Brodin (KD)
Mr. Speaker! A motion of no confidence is one of the sharpest tools the Riksdag has to exercise its power of oversight. It is a tool that should be used with great caution and after most careful consideration, and it should be reserved for those cases where a minister has committed serious and concrete errors. That being said, it is not a tool to be used lightly or to conduct PR coups in the chamber.
Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, we now see parts of the opposition doing exactly this. The motion of no confidence is being used to play political games and is directed at an individual minister to express a general dissatisfaction with the government, specifically the government's climate and environmental policy.
Let me be clear. It was no coincidence that the motion of no confidence was raised shortly after the government presented its climate action plan. It is a climate action plan that actually allows us to reach the goal of net-zero emissions by 2045. A plan that is not only short-term but that can bring order and clarity to climate policy in the longer term. This shall be achieved with the help of a broad palette of measures and economic instruments - and not just those that hit people's wallets directly and make it difficult to live in the entire country. This is crucial to achieve a real long-term effect and reduce emissions.
Mr. Speaker! The motion of no confidence that we are to take a stand on here today is about whether the Riksdag has confidence in Minister Romina Pourmokhtari or not. The Christian Democratic parliamentary group stands behind the entire government we are part of and thus also the Minister for Climate and Environment. The Christian Democrats will therefore vote against the motion of no confidence, that is, vote no in today's vote.
In this speech, Yusuf Aydin, Magnus Berntsson, Christian Carlsson, Hans Eklind, Cecilia Engström, Dan Hovskär, Kjell-Arne Ottosson and Camilla Rinaldo Miller (all KD) concurred.
Lena Hallengren (S)
Mr. Speaker! For the first time since the election, the Riksdag convenes to consider a motion of no confidence directed against a cabinet minister in Ulf Kristersson's government.
We Social Democrats have always been restrictive in the use of votes of no confidence because it is the Riksdag's absolute sharpest tool for criticizing a minister. Only in one of the thirteen no-confidence votes that have been conducted has the no-confidence been raised by us, and only once have we voted for the no-confidence.
I will now state the reasons for how the Social Democratic parliamentary group will act.
Sweden's Climate Act, which was adopted by the Riksdag in 2017 with almost total agreement, is clear. The Government shall conduct a climate policy that reduces emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but it shall also preserve and create functions in the environment that counteract the harmful effects of climate change.
This government has done exactly the opposite. From the government's own budget for 2024, it appears that as a result of decisions made between July 1, 2022, and July 1, 2023, emissions are instead expected to increase by 5.9-9.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents by 2030.
We can observe that the government and responsible minister Romina Pourmokhtari are intentionally pursuing a policy that leads to increased emissions. The minister and the government could have acted differently, and one could have chosen a path towards reduced emissions in line with the climate law that the Riksdag has decided on. The government could have chosen to respect the decisions that the Riksdag has made and the promises that it has issued itself. Instead, yet another breach of promise is now added to the list that the government leaves behind.
The Minister and the entire government must be held politically accountable for this climate betrayal. Minister Pourmokhtari's actions in the matter have also been reported to the Committee on the Constitution, which during the spring will conduct its review from a constitutional perspective.
Mr. Speaker! It is obvious that the SD government and Romina Pourmokhtari are not delivering a climate policy that follows the Climate Act, which is required for Sweden to meet our commitments and that takes responsibility for our children's future. But the government makes collective decisions. Replacing the minister without changing the policy makes no difference for the climate.
In light of what I have stated here, the Social Democratic parliamentary group will abstain in this vote.
Muharrem Demirok (C)
Mr. Speaker! We have now listened to a debate where arguments have been presented and where we have heard the parties' representatives put forward their views on the issue.
Outside these premises, there is another reality. Last week, the EU's climate service Copernicus stated that 2023 became the warmest year ever recorded in Earth's history. That is the reality that exists out there. It is the reality that should be reason enough for this entire chamber to act. But here we stand, in the middle of a climate crisis and with a government that is actively increasing emissions.
We in this chamber, and not least Climate and Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari, have an enormous responsibility on our shoulders. The severity of the climate crisis demands leadership and a policy that can manage to reduce emissions without compromising either growth or mobility. It is possible, for we have done it before. But with the Tidö parties' castles in the air as a climate action plan, the leadership echoes with its absence.
Page after page in this climate action plan, one can read about analyses and reviews to be carried out, investigations to be commissioned, and climate goals to be renegotiated. The proposals that can actually make a difference here and now, well, they seem to remain at the Sweden Democrats' office after SD has cast its veto against the government.
The lack of climate policy from the Tidö parties will cost Sweden dearly. Now, greenhouse gas emissions will increase by up to 50 million tons until 2030. This means that we either miss the climate goals and are forced to pay billions in tax crowns in fines to the EU, or that we must soon shock-increase fuel prices, alternatively severely limit Swedish agriculture and forestry.
In Sweden's Climate Act, which we have decided upon in this chamber, it states that the government shall conduct climate policy work aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. And the minister responsible for climate policy and the submission of proposals for the government's decisions is Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari.
It is difficult to understand how parties such as the Liberals and the Moderates are acting. In the most serious security policy situation in decades, they now choose to increase our dependence on oil nations like Russia. Despite the warmest year ever, they are increasing emissions, and despite saying they are a bourgeois government, they are now saying no to tens of thousands of new jobs within the green sector.
The actions of the Tidö parties have seriously damaged Sweden's reputation. Business representatives report that it is becoming harder to do business with other countries, and experts warn that our influence is diminishing. Worst of all is that climate researchers are now sounding the alarm after having taken part of the Tidö parties' policy. The government's actions at this stage are not only deeply irresponsible from a climate perspective. They are also a threat to Sweden and our competitiveness.
Mr. Speaker! Since the government's policy clearly violates the Climate Act and increases Sweden's carbon emissions, the Center Party's parliamentary group no longer has any confidence in Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari. We will therefore vote "no" today. And I urge all members who care about the climate, regardless of party affiliation, to do the same.
In this speech, Malin Björk, Jonny Cato, Ulrika Heie, Stina Larsson, Anna Lasses, Rickard Nordin and Helena Vilhelmsson (all C) agreed.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.