Point tax

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! When the Tidö government took office in the autumn of 2022, the uncertainty in the world and in Sweden's economy was very great. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the consequences of the lockdowns during the pandemic, the double-digit inflation, and the extremely high prices for electricity, gasoline, and diesel were certainly a difficult legacy to manage. It was difficult but not impossible, something the government proved by successfully fighting inflation and lowering the costs for fuels. The diesel price today is about 10 kronor lower than it was in August 2022, thanks to the government's tax cuts.

The energy tax is the point tax that generates the largest tax revenues and which affects households the most. High taxes on fuels make it more expensive to get to work and drive the children to practice and contribute to increased food prices, because all goods in the store are transported there.

In addition to this come the fuel costs that food producers have. Therefore, a continued increased reduction of the carbon and energy tax on diesel used in agricultural machinery is highly justified.

At the end of last year, the very welcome news arrived for Sweden's producers and users of biogas: Following pressure from the government, the EU Commission approved Sweden's tax exemption for biogas and biogas oil.

Madam Speaker! Today's debate concerns the excise taxes and our different parties' positions on these. As is known, the excise taxes are a galaxy of taxes whose fundamental purpose, in addition to generating tax revenue, is to reduce the consumption of things considered harmful to health and the environment.

Without becoming too philosophical, I can state that there is a built-in contradiction in the excise taxes: If the unwanted consumption decreases, the tax revenues also decrease, or even worse – illegal and purely criminal activities begin to provide less scrupulous consumers with untaxed goods such as smuggled cigarettes and smuggled alcohol. Therefore, the excise taxes must be well-balanced.

This reasoning applies to all taxes otherwise. They must be well-balanced so that they are, on the one hand, sufficient to finance the state's and the municipalities' commitments towards the citizens, but on the other hand are not so high that an excessively large part of the salary from that extra effort and work effort disappears in high taxes.

Sweden now has the lowest tax burden in 50 years, this thanks to our Moderate-led government, which has lowered taxes for everyone who works and who has worked. It now pays more to work and make an effort. Lower taxes give higher growth, and growth gives prosperity.

Madam Speaker! The point taxes should not create unnecessary obstacles for Swedish companies and households, such as the aviation tax, which the social democratic and Green Party government Löfven-Romson introduced on April 1, 2018, and which the government is abolishing from July 1 this year.

Several researchers, including Brännlund and Kriström, have concluded that the aviation tax is a point tax that lacks a direct connection to aviation's environmentally impactful emissions. One taxes the journey itself and not the potential emissions.

I think it is extremely strange that two parties want to maintain and even increase the aviation tax. Miljöpartiet wants to double it, and Vänsterpartiet wants to make it progressive. If you travel once, it becomes one tax rate, if you travel twice it becomes another and higher tax rate, if you travel three times it becomes an even higher tax rate and so on.

In addition to the costs for those who are forced to fly often, there will be large costs for administration. Who is going to keep track of how many times a person travels so that the progressive tax can be calculated, and how is it to be done? Should flights abroad also be taxed? It would lead to a surveillance society in the true spirit of George Orwell, but the Left Party's predecessors, the communists, certainly have ample experience of that.

The abolition of the aviation tax is welcomed by the business community as it is an obvious competitive disadvantage for a sparsely populated country with large distances. Another aspect is that there are several parallel steering instruments at the European level. On one hand, aviation is included in the EU's emissions trading system, and on the other hand, the EU has introduced the ReFuelEU Aviation program, which aims to increase the use of and access to sustainable aviation fuels.

It is only growth that provides higher prosperity. Therefore, taxes must be designed so that growth is promoted.

In the spring, the alcohol tax on beer from small, independent breweries was lowered. It was a very welcome step so that the producers of craft-produced beer would receive fairer conditions.

Legislation at the EU level regarding differentiated alcohol tax has existed for a long time, but it required a center-right government for it to be implemented in Sweden as well.

There are many enthusiasts all over the country who run local microbreweries, often alongside another job, because they also have to make a living. For them, a reduced alcohol tax is a great relief and constitutes the difference between continued operations and closure.

Craft beer is not just culture, it also promotes the tourism industry, creates new jobs and contributes to increased growth, and increased growth is something we so much need in these times of war, raised tariffs and a very uncertain global situation.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! The world is in a climate emergency. Today we can read that over 80 percent of the world's coral reefs have suffered mass bleaching as a consequence of the oceans absorbing far too much of the carbon dioxide that humans have released by burning fossil fuels.

A few weeks ago, alarm reports arrived that Sweden will fail to meet all climate goals due to the government's policy.

In this state of emergency, the government chooses to turn a blind eye. They prioritize lowering the tax on alcohol and diesel, as if there were no tomorrow. Perhaps they think like their former party leader that in 50 years we will all be dead. But the reality for all of us who have children, all of us who dream of their future and security, is that some of them who live now will have to bear the consequences of the politics pursued by governments that do not take the climate issue seriously.

Boriana Åberg talks about it becoming cheaper to drive the children in a diesel car. It is true. But the government could have chosen another path – a path that enables parents to piece together their life puzzles without failing at the most important challenge that the government has to handle, namely the climate transition.

We in Miljöpartiet have presented a national emissions trading system with distribution for the most vulnerable as a response to this challenge.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! While Annika Hirvonen was reading the alarming article in the newspaper this morning, I read a very interesting article about disinformation. It is about how one takes a kind of information and adds one's own angles so that it suddenly becomes something that is directly untrue.

It is precisely the type of disinformation that Annika is spreading here, including that we are lowering the tax on spirits. I spoke about a reduced alcohol tax on craft-brewed beer. Whoever thinks that beer is the same as spirits is wrong – very wrong, I would say.

Then Annika Hirvonen complained about the reduction of the diesel price. I can say that it was a promise that the Tidö parties went to the election on, and the voters chose to vote for the Tidö parties. The voters did not choose the Green Party's policy, which, moreover, would lead to a liter price on diesel of 35 kronor. I do not have a bad conscience because we have fulfilled our promises to our voters and made it easier for people to get to work, to drive their children to school and practice, to visit their elderly parents, or to go and do the big shopping.

The solutions that Annika Hirvonen and her party advocate for may work well in central Stockholm with the subway and other communications, but they do not work in the countryside in a sparsely populated country like Sweden.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must nevertheless ask Boriana Åberg if she does not believe the researchers' alarm reports on the consequences of climate emissions.

We see the consequences now. With the mass bleaching of the world's coral reefs, there is a risk that the ecosystems in the oceans, which are a foundation not only for the fishing industry that many people make their living from, will change and that many stocks will totally collapse.

Does Boriana Åberg not believe in the link to extreme weather leading to floods, increased risk of forest fires and other environmental disasters whose consequences we have also seen in our country – in cities and not least in rural areas?

What we need to do now is to reduce emissions. At the same time, those households that are dependent on cars, for example because they live in rural areas, must have the economic means to either transition through policies that promote electric cars – a leasing check, for example – or manage the finances while we transition for everyone who can actually switch away from the fossil.

The faster we help Swedish households become free from diesel and other fossil fuels, the more robust our society will be in the future and the less dependent Sweden will be on fossil fuels from rogue states and dictatorships.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that we must combat environmental disasters, and the greatest environmental disaster we have in the present is the war ongoing in Ukraine with all the bombs being dropped and spreading dangerous chemicals and all the dams and weirs that are being bombed to pieces. The ecocide taking place 600 kilometers from here is the greatest environmental disaster.

In order for Sweden to be able to contribute to stopping the war in Ukraine and continue sending billions in weapons, equipment, humanitarian aid, and other aid, we must have the resources for it. These resources are only created by increased economic growth.

There, Miljöpartiet has a great debt to bear together with Socialdemokraterna and Vänsterpartiet and also Centerpartiet for their actions regarding the shutdown of nuclear power. It is a clean, environmentally friendly and predictable type of energy. By closing six reactors, they have made Sweden dependent on imported electricity, which most often comes from hardly environmentally friendly brown coal. In addition to the damage it causes to the environment, it causes economic damage for Sweden's companies and for Sweden's consumers.

By facilitating growth, by making it easier for people to get to work and for companies to produce, we are actually combating environmental disasters.

(Applause)

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Boriana Åberg, for the speech!

I heard in the previous exchange Boriana Åberg speak about the promises that the Moderaterna, together with the other Tidö parties, set out before the election. They were to significantly lower the price of gasoline, and they have done so. They have delivered on that promise.

But then I thought of another issue where all the parties on the conservative side were very offensive throughout almost the entire last mandate period and promised change. I am, of course, thinking of the electronics tax.

There were few things that could make the blood pressure of a Moderate in opposition rise – like the electronics tax – or the plastic bag tax or the aviation tax, for that matter. Then you won the election, and since then, you have not addressed this issue.

Then my question is: What is it that has happened? Why has it not been done?

This tax was not just signal politics. It was a deplorable tax, according to the Moderates in opposition. Now the situation is that this tax lives on, and furthermore, the tax has been increased.

Can Boriana Åberg explain this, not only for me but perhaps for the voters who had expected a reduction or a removal of this tax, and for the industries that are also waiting for a decision.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kalle Olsson, for this question!

I would first like to welcome the fact that for the first time during the 15 years I have been in the Riksdag, I have received a question from a Social Democrat concerning a request for a tax cut. It pleases me immensely, and I take it as a promise that on that day – let it not happen all too soon – when the Social Democrats are in power, we will abolish and lower even more taxes.

When it comes to the chemicals tax, I shall be completely open. I do not think it is a good tax. I still think the tax is counterproductive, and I am not alone in that. In December 2023, the Moderaterna party congress decided that the party shall work to abolish the electronics tax. This decision was based on criticism of the tax's lack of environmental governance and its negative impact on Swedish companies.

This still applies. At least, that is what we in the Moderate Tax Committee think. Since we took office, we have made a strong start when it comes to lowering taxes and abolishing harmful taxes. Kalle Olsson himself mentioned both the plastic bag tax and the aviation tax. We have not lost hope that the day will come when other taxes harmful to business will be abolished.

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Boriana Åberg, for the answer! It was an honest answer, I must say. It is appreciated.

When the Social Democrats led the government work, the chemicals tax – or the electronics tax – was an ugly way to fleece consumers. It was a bad tax that did not hit the mark. When the Moderates then took over government power, it was perfectly reasonable to retain a tax that they, in opposition, considered illegitimate. That is how one must summarize the situation today.

As a member of Parliament, I believe it is important to carry out what one has said and promised to the voters. As a Social Democrat, I will not start competing with the Moderates over who can lower taxes the most. On that point, I humbly concede walkover already in advance. On the other hand, I think it is important to do what one has promised the voters, and it is only to be noted that here, the voters have been betrayed.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Many of the promises we have fulfilled, and only half of the mandate period has passed. We have lowered the tax on gasoline and diesel. We have abolished the aviation tax and the plastic bag tax, and above all, we have lowered the tax on work and pensions. These are the promises we went to the election on.

When it comes to the Social Democrats' newly awakened interest in the electronics tax, I can say that we have been consistent. We do not like the chemicals tax. We did not like it when we were in opposition, and we are not fond of it now either. However, when one has come to power, there is a priority order regarding what should be addressed first.

I can say that the Social Democrats have not been consistent at all. In an interpellation, Magdalena Andersson, who was then Finance Minister and a very warm defender of the chemical/electronics tax, said this: In summary, I believe that the government's policy, of which the chemical tax is a part, strengthens Swedish competitiveness.

You may have one thing or another to examine yourselves. Magdalena Andersson also said that the chemical tax investigation had made the assessment that the tax would lead to a relatively small transition to foreign e-commerce. Many business owners feared, however, that people would import their household appliances and their electronics from abroad.

I welcome that you have opened your eyes and now see that not only are new taxes and increased taxes good, but also reductions of these.

(Applause)

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I move for approval of reservation 17. It concerns exactly what we debated, namely the need for a review of the electronics tax. I will return to that.

Excise taxes are consumption taxes on certain goods and services. Just like other taxes, excise taxes naturally also generate revenue for the state treasury, which we can use for various forms of collective benefits. One difference with excise taxes, however, is that there is an additional purpose with these taxes, namely to act as steering measures, for example towards reduced emissions, for an increased pace in the climate transition, or for the promotion of public health. Alcohol tax and tobacco tax are two of the more recognized and clear examples in the latter area.

As members of the Committee on Taxation, we regularly meet representatives from various industries, interests, and organizations who have views on taxes and excise duties and on how these taxes affect their areas. The objections are often that a specific tax leads in the wrong direction and does not have the steering effect that we as legislators have wanted to achieve. Sometimes the objections are reasonable. Sometimes we may be moving in a gray area where there are arguments both for and against. Sometimes the criticism may be more a result of unwelcome costs that are squeezing margins.

Regardless of what, Madam Speaker, it is important to repeatedly reflect on the effect of taxes and how well they steer in the direction we want them to steer. A prerequisite for having a functioning tax system at all is that people perceive that the taxes are reasonable and fulfill their purpose. This becomes particularly important with just the excise taxes, because they, so to speak, have a deeper meaning than just bringing in funds to the state treasury.

An example where questions have arisen regarding a tax's effectiveness is the chemicals tax – or in everyday terms, the electronics tax. The purpose of the tax is to reduce the occurrence of dangerous substances in people's home environments by taxing household appliances such as refrigerators and microwave ovens, as well as electronic products such as screens, tablets, and the like. These are, therefore, products that contain certain flame retardants.

The purpose of the tax can therefore be described as reasonable and relevant. In evaluations, however, it has been shown that the tax has not achieved the positive environmental effects that were intended and hoped for. It has also not been cost-effective.

An important aspect when we talk about this tax is that these products are often developed for significantly larger markets. They may even be developed for a world market and not specifically for the small Swedish market.

We Social Democrats therefore believe that the design of the electronics tax should be reviewed to ensure that the tax leads to the desired effects. If one looks at the Committee on Taxation's report SkU15, one can note a fairly broad consensus across several parties regarding the fact that this tax should at least be reviewed. Some parties want to go even further. In the bourgeois camp, the criticism of this tax is clear. It has at least been so, Madam Speaker. Therefore, it is a bit strange that more parties do not now join the demand for a review.

At the same time, the question of the electronics tax is one of several examples of how Sweden would benefit from a broader tax review. Our parties have different ideological starting points, which is expressed in not least the tax policy. This report is also an expression of that. But for some taxes, it is reasonably easier than for others to find consensus.

Another example of this theme, which is otherwise now up for consideration in the Committee on Taxation, is the government's proposal to lower the subsidy rate for the installation of solar cells. We consider this to be unfortunate. It is a typical example of how rapid political changes risk worsening the planning conditions for both households and companies that want to be part of the green transition.

The need for a comprehensive review of the tax system is great. Fundamental pillars in such work should include, among other things, striving for stable tax revenues in order to secure the financing of our common commitments. There should also be predictability, so that citizens and companies know what applies. This also applies, of course, to the principle that tax shall be paid according to ability to pay.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the excise taxes. These are taxes that we handle within a number of different areas: electricity, fuel, vehicles, chemicals, gambling, alcohol, and tobacco. It is a wide range, but many of these taxes have a common purpose: They are intended to influence our choices and behaviors. They are to steer consumption. We shall drink less, we shall smoke less, and we shall gamble less. Fundamentally, it is about reducing harmful effects on both health, the environment, and the economy of society.

In some cases, an excise tax is a functioning tool to achieve such goals. In other cases, it is more questionable. For us Christian Democrats, it is important that every individual excise tax is justified, purposeful, and accurate, and that it must not have disproportionate consequences for households, companies, and the countryside.

Madam Speaker! We want to see a policy that unites responsibility with consideration. When it comes to the energy tax on electricity, it is clear that it hits both our households and companies hard, especially now when energy prices have been very high. We Christian Democrats have long advocated for the issue of lowering the energy tax, because we want to see a more reasonable and fair cost level for electricity, not least for families with children, small business owners, and people in rural areas.

Unfortunately, we have not yet been heard on this, but we will continue to work for a reduction. For us, it is about long-term competitiveness, secure energy supply, and the families' finances.

At the same time, the electricity tax also has a governing function. It should promote efficient energy use and contribute to the transition to fossil-free electricity production. It is a balancing act that we must follow carefully.

It is also good that certain industries, for example agriculture and forestry and the manufacturing processes of industry, have a reduced electricity tax. It contributes to strengthening competitiveness and national production.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the fuel taxes, the government has acted during the mandate period to alleviate the increased costs of gasoline and diesel that affected many. The increased fuel prices hit hard, especially against the countryside, agriculture, and the transport sector. Therefore, it was important to lower the energy tax on gasoline and diesel, which the government has done. It was a necessary step to dampen inflation, protect household purchasing power, and strengthen competitiveness within, for example, Swedish food production. It is clearly noticeable every time one stands at the pump.

We also welcome that the government has implemented a reduction of the tax on agricultural diesel. It is an important support for agriculture and is absolutely crucial for our self-sufficiency and preparedness.

Madam Speaker! The excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco have positive effects. These taxes have to some extent contributed to a reduced consumption, especially among our young people. We should be happy about that. All tobacco use is unhealthy. For us Christian Democrats, it is important to improve public health, which can be damaged, through preventive work but also by making it easier for smokers to quit.

We must simultaneously be vigilant. High tax levels can have the opposite effect. They risk driving smuggling, illegal sales, and other crime. That is not acceptable. Therefore, we must be careful with the balance between the public health that we want to protect and the rule of law in our country.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats stand for a policy that combines responsibility with consideration for people, companies, and our society. We want the excise taxes to be used with care, not as an end in themselves but as a means to achieve our well-considered goals. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Just as Cecilia Engström thinks, we in Miljöpartiet believe it is wise to have an excise tax on certain goods in order to promote public health.

There is a gigantic public health problem that we must address: antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance means that bacteria develop resistance to the antibiotics that are used today to treat serious infections. Antibiotics are necessary for people to undergo major operations, for example cancer surgeries, but also to survive pneumonias and sepsis. The more antibiotic resistance develops and spreads, the greater the risk that more people will die in the future from things that can be cured today.

Antibiotic resistance is something that Sweden has worked on for a long time. We were, for example, the first country to decide as early as 1986 to ban the use of antibiotics in feed given to animals. It is simply used because it makes the animals grow faster. It also contributes to the fact that animals can be treated much worse and have poorer conditions. But the more antibiotics that are given to both humans and animals, the higher the risk that antibiotic resistance develops and spreads.

The Green Party has therefore submitted a proposal for a point tax on antibiotics that have been overused in meat. It would primarily target foreign meat where too much antibiotics are used. How do the Christian Democrats view an antibiotic tax?

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Annika Hirvonen, for the question!

We all agree that antibiotics are a major problem in our agriculture. The Swedish production really stands out. Our Swedish farmers are good at not using antibiotics unnecessarily and, above all, not for preventive purposes. We want many countries in the EU to adopt this and learn to do as we do in Sweden.

Unfortunately, we have EU regulations to comply with. According to them, we are not allowed to protect a specific production method. This would become such a method. Therefore, we argue that Sweden, based on the state aid rules, is not allowed to have such a regulatory framework that would protect against specifically antibiotics, which would then be less present in Swedish meat compared to meat from other countries.

I believe more in that we can teach other countries to use the methods that our Swedish farmers are very good at. They can also be used in other situations. We shall, therefore, influence the EU countries to become better, instead of Sweden being affected by what other countries do.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is quite true that the EU does not allow us to introduce a tax only on imported meat in order to protect Swedish meat. However, I do not share Cecilia Engström's view that it would violate EU rules to introduce a tax on all meat that has been produced with over-use of antibiotics, regardless of which country it comes from.

This is an incredibly important issue. It is one of the greatest global health challenges that the world faces. Then one needs to dare to try. One needs to dare to use the tools that could actually make a difference. It is of course true that an antibiotic tax on meat would benefit Swedish farmers, because they do not overuse antibiotics. They do not use antibiotics for preventive purposes and therefore do not give them to healthy animals. In the world generally, and in the EU, the majority of all antibiotics are actually given to healthy animals. Only about 30 percent are given to sick people.

Sweden should push for solutions regarding this challenge. We know that money talks – if it becomes more expensive to buy a product that is bad for health, the consumption of the product decreases. That would have an effect. A positive side effect would be that it would benefit Swedish farmers, which I and Miljöpartiet think would be positive. This, however, does not need to be designed in a way that violates the EU's non-discrimination prohibition.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! One is not allowed to differentiate the production methods. According to the EU rules, one may not be for or against the production method and impose a tax on it. The rules are clear.

We have tried with Kravmärkt, but even for this, it is difficult to create specific rules. We therefore cannot place a tax on antibiotics specifically; it would not have worked based on the rules that exist. This we must handle.

We could have been better at telling other EU countries how it is done in Sweden and that it works to have an agriculture even without antibiotics. I believe it is better to influence other countries in the EU than to change things for Sweden's farmers.

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I heard that Cecilia Engström raised the electricity tax in her speech. I also noted that Cecilia Engström herself has submitted a motion on the issue.

I recall how it sounded once upon a time. Then, the Christian Democrats, the Liberals, the Sweden Democrats, and the Moderates wanted to lower the electricity tax. The one who was perhaps most vocal on this issue was the leader of Cecilia Engström's party, Ebba Busch. She is now the Minister for Enterprise and in many ways responsible for these issues.

Now, the election was won. It was an election that, in many ways, was about wallet issues. The electricity tax and the fact that households had been pressed hard by high electricity prices were part of the story.

What did you do after you won the election? You promised a lower electricity tax. Then you started to consider – perhaps you could at least freeze the indexing of the electricity tax? In the end, you raised the electricity tax. It is quite a significant journey. You have raised the electricity tax not just once but twice. You have raised the electricity tax by 12 percent at this point.

Why raise the electricity tax when you have promised to lower it? If one has promised something with emphasis, is it not then important to keep that promise?

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kalle Olsson, for the question!

Absolutely, that is the case. I agree with Boriana Åberg that it is interesting to hear that the Social Democrats can talk about taxes and that one actually wants to lower taxes, because that is something we consider very important in many situations. We are also trying to do so in all areas where it affects households and the people out in the country. It is about companies and about families who are affected.

We naturally see that the electricity tax is something that could make a difference. At the same time, we see that it is a tax that is quite small in relation to what it would mean to lower it slightly. One has to do quite large things for it to affect households, and therefore it costs quite a lot.

Naturally, we must prioritize. We have prioritized bringing down inflation. Household finances are very much affected by what it costs to, for example, shop or refuel. It also affects food prices, as transport is a large part of this.

Naturally, one must make a prioritization. Here we have prioritized other taxes over the electricity tax, or rather, the government has made that prioritization. We Christian Democrats would have liked to see that the electricity tax had been included among these taxes.

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I can think it becomes a bit strange when one tries to stand on two legs at the same time. One is a Christian Democrat when it suits being a Christian Democrat, but when it suits a bit better, one is part of the government. One actually has to take responsibility for the overall policy.

This was not a small promise on the sidelines; lowering the electricity tax was one of the major and important issues that Cecilia Engström's party put forward. If we Social Democrats could not lower the electricity tax, we could step aside, and the bourgeois parties would fix it.

Now we stand here a number of years later. The electricity tax has not been lowered, and the indexation has not been frozen. Instead, the electricity tax has been raised. It is true that other priorities have been made. When this parliamentary term has expired, the tax on fuels will have been lowered by 17 billion. It does look like a thought – it is to become radically cheaper to drive fossil-fueled vehicles while simultaneously braking the electrification. You raise the price of electricity by raising that tax. We are going to rumble into the climate apocalypse, so to speak.

Madam Speaker! Regardless of whether we are talking about electronics tax or about this tax, I think it is important that one keeps what they have promised. We Swedish politicians have a fairly good track record when it comes to this. Sometimes there is the image that we just promise around and keep it thin, but that is actually not the case. We usually keep our election promises. This, however, is a clear betrayal of the voters from the Kristdemokraterna side.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Then I begin to wonder what S wants with the electricity tax. The Social Democrats were involved in introducing it. What was the thinking then? Was that really the goal? What was the electricity tax supposed to be used for when it was introduced?

It is actually also a tax that brings in quite a lot of money to our community and to the budget. One must naturally make a prioritization. As a Christian Democrat, I drive this issue, which I believe has become apparent, but unfortunately, we Christian Democrats are not alone in the government. Just as the Social Democrats had to compromise on certain issues in previous governments, we must do so in this government. Unfortunately, it is not the case that we can decide for ourselves where we want to spend our money.

This is a priority for us, and as a Christian Democrat, I think it is important. We will have it with us moving forward as well.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thought we could talk a little bit about the combination of growth and climate policy.

Sweden introduced a carbon tax in 1991 as a pioneer country.

The years have passed. Evaluations have shown and a unanimous body of researchers says that the carbon tax has been a great success. What has happened in Sweden is that we have succeeded with something called decoupling. We can still have very high growth while simultaneously having a green sustainable development with reduced carbon emissions. We get sustainable growth.

What is a bit strange, given what the research says about the Swedish carbon tax, is that the government is conducting a climate policy that ensures we do not reach our climate goals. The natural follow-up question then becomes: Have the Christian Democrats and other government parties lost faith that it is possible to be a small country far up in the north that both pursues an offensive climate policy with taxes and other steering measures where they are needed and simultaneously has high growth that allows companies to grow from small to large and conduct exports out into the world, so that we can bring in new tax revenues? Have the Christian Democrats lost faith in the combination of an offensive climate policy and an offensive growth policy?

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anders Ådahl for the question.

That we have strong growth in Sweden is incredibly important for our companies but also for our welfare. The greater growth we have, the more we can collect in tax revenue that we can use for school, healthcare, elderly care, and other things that are important to us in our everyday lives. We naturally would like to see that growth continues and that it works with a green transition. I am absolutely not against us having a green transition in Sweden. We see that there is an opportunity to have such a transition while simultaneously maintaining growth.

Then, of course, there are questions where one sees that it is something that does not hit the mark, for example when one introduces a tax that disadvantages Swedish businesses or Swedish households in comparison with other countries. In that case, Swedish growth is harmed rather than benefited. The fact that we in Sweden have previously been good at having a good climate policy and low emissions also means that we might end up in a worse position than many other countries that have a lower level to start from in their system.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Cecilia Engström for the answer, but I will probably not be entirely satisfied. Cecilia Engström speaks of how we in Sweden have had a good climate policy where we have succeeded in combining growth with low emissions. But the government is abandoning this Swedish model. We end up in a situation where we do not succeed in fulfilling a single one of our climate goals. We have established a climate policy council, but the Minister for Climate and Environment does not deign to attend when they are to present their report. I can think it is very unfortunate that we, as a small country that is supposed to be at the forefront of innovations and green transition, can no longer be leaders in climate policy in the world, because it will damage Swedish business in the long run.

The Leader of the Opposition also said in his speech something along the lines of that we must be afraid for our taxes. Then I wonder quite a bit about what is happening in our energy system. Research and reports from the energy companies, Energiforsk, our universities, Svenska kraftnät, and the Swedish Energy Agency indicate that we can have a carbon-neutral energy and electricity system in very many different ways. Still, the government, with the Christian Democrats at the business portfolio, has chosen to lock us into a planned economy model where we are only to invest in a single technology: nuclear power.

What will happen is that the tax-paying collective, we citizens, will have to pay because the government does not choose a technology-neutral path. Research shows, as has been said, that there are many different ways to reach an energy system that has very high security of supply, has low prices, and reaches zero in carbon emissions. Therefore, it becomes so strange that a party that I imagine is market-liberal chooses to opt for a planned economy model where the taxpayers must finance the solution. How does the member justify that?

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Madam Speaker! This is a very difficult question, when one looks at which different means enter the system. We see that the energy production that we have in Sweden does not follow the activity that is actually needed. We have an increased need for energy in our country. To then only invest in the means that do not always stand steady, which means a fluctuation in our electricity supply, is something that affects both our companies and our consumers. There must be something that balances this out.

That the Center Party was involved in phasing out Swedish nuclear power and thereby made us more vulnerable to this is nothing that we think is good. We could have had a stable and good energy production even moving forward if it had not been done. Now, this must be restored so that we can have a good supply of electricity in Sweden even moving forward.

I also wonder what it would have meant if the Center Party had continued to govern with its reduction obligation, which had increased very much. What would it have meant for Swedish households? The propellant would have become much more expensive. With a much higher tax than we have today, it would have been difficult to move around, not least in the countryside, where people actually also live.

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! We shall therefore discuss the excise taxes. We in the Sverigedemokraterna naturally stand behind all our proposals, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 12.

Sweden's tax policy must be characterized by fairness, logic, and respect for people's everyday lives. In our committee motion, we highlight several excise taxes that rather harm than serve society's interests. I would like to specifically highlight the congestion tax here.

Madam Speaker! The congestion tax has become something completely different from what was originally promised. It was supposed to reduce traffic and improve the environment in our large cities, but in reality, it looks different. We see how this tax functions as an extra burden on people who have no alternative to the car. It is a penalty tax for workers, small business owners, and pensioners who struggle to make life's puzzle fit together.

The congestion tax hits low- and middle-income earners particularly hard. For many, the car is not a luxury but a necessity. It is about being able to get to work, drop the children off at school, or get to the health center. The tax makes it more expensive to work, not least for those who live in outer areas or in the countryside, where access to public transport is limited. It is both unfair and socio-economically inefficient. The referendum in Gothenburg also provides an indication of low popular support. We therefore propose that the government considers a gradual phasing out of the congestion tax and seeks other solutions.

Mr. Speaker, the congestion tax is not the only tax that needs to be reviewed. We need to conduct a review of the energy taxation to create fair conditions in the energy market. Subsidies for some and penalty taxes for others create an imbalance that threatens the competitiveness of Swedish industry. We must have an energy taxation based on logic and need, not ideological preferential treatment.

Moving forward, we hope that the government can consider an abolition of the malus tax, which affects those who need to use larger vehicles, for example entrepreneurs, but also people with disabilities who need extra cargo space for, for example, a ramp or a wheelchair. Malus results in fewer people switching to more modern vehicles, which ironically leads to increased emissions. It is time to end this failed system.

Therefore, it would be desirable to have a review of the chemical tax, which in practice is a punitive tax on home electronics. It has minimal environmental impact but a large negative impact on Swedish companies and consumers. The Swedish market is simply too small to influence the offerings of large, global companies. The tax therefore only functions as a surcharge for the consumer without the environment gaining anything at all.

(Applause)

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have just heard Erik Hellsborn speak about wanting to remove all of Sweden's congestion taxes. In the city of Stockholm, a referendum was held on the congestion tax where the people of Stockholm said: This is what we want.

When the congestion tax was then introduced, it became a success. The accessibility for those who have to take the car into the city improved because the traffic decreased. Those who did not need to drive their car into Stockholm did not do so. Additional advantages with this were better air. It became a more pleasant city for everyone who moves on foot or by bicycle or who wants to sit at an outdoor cafe.

The congestion taxes have also brought in large sums that could be used to invest in new infrastructure and, not least, public transport. We in Miljöpartiet believe that more cities should be allowed to decide for themselves. They should have the opportunity to decide for themselves to introduce congestion taxes where they believe it is needed.

The money can then be used, for example, to expand public transport and the railway to make it easier for people to travel when it works to travel without a car.

My question to Erik Hellsborn is: Does he mean that, for example, the people of Stockholm should not be allowed to choose for themselves and keep their congestion tax?

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! There we were again. It brings in money, and that is perhaps the main purpose after all.

Miljöpartiet is very eager to step in and tell people how they should live their lives and what they are and are not allowed to do. If people want to use public transport, they are very welcome to do so. If they want to cycle, they are very welcome to do so. But some people need to take the car to make the puzzle of life fit together.

This matter of congestion pricing is a way to try to force people to live in a way that the Green Party wants them to do. We also see it in the view on fuel tax and the blending of diesel.

We do not want to punish people for arranging their life puzzle in the way that suits them. That is perhaps the great ideological difference between right and left, and then in particular the environmentalist-leaning left.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! We do not want to forbid people from driving cars. But just as people cannot choose for themselves how much they pay for the bus, they cannot choose for themselves how much tax they pay. It is decided collectively.

There are those who need the car. This applies, for example, to those who are tradespeople and need to transport many tools or machines, those who are disabled and need special transport, or for that matter those who are single parents with many children who need to be driven to all sorts of things on the same afternoon. It becomes much better when those who do not have to take the car choose to take the bus instead.

Then one avoids standing in the queues, which I do not know a single person who actually chooses and longs for. That is why the congestion tax in Stockholm has become so appreciated not only by cyclists and public transport passengers but actually by motorists. It is motorists who avoid being stuck in the queues for as long.

The smarter we ensure that we distribute the travelers in the cities in a way that takes up less space in the road network, the faster it will go both for those who get more bus trips when we have more money that we can spend on public transport and for those who have to take the car. It is perhaps above all those who benefit from less congestion.

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! I think the member is nevertheless pointing out a very good point. Who on earth wants to sit in a long car queue? I don't want to, and I don't think anyone else wants to either. In that way, it becomes somewhat self-regulating.

If everyone takes the car, the car will not be an attractive option. Then it will obviously become more attractive with alternative modes of transport. But that trade-off is something the individual manages to make themselves.

Again: Let people piece together their own lives. Do not force them to live according to an environmentalist mold.

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate is about excise taxes. It can be said that we essentially have excise taxes for two different purposes which can, in themselves, be reconciled.

First and foremost, excise taxes are purely fiscal; the state needs the money to use it for various purposes. The second purpose is that the state wants to steer consumption. This can involve reducing carbon emissions, reducing alcohol consumption, or steering towards the use of more environmentally friendly alternatives.

Today we will deal with motions that span a wide area: energy taxes, tax on fuels, vehicle tax, aviation tax, alcohol tax and tax on pesticides, to name a few areas.

Excise taxes do not exist in a vacuum. First, the state levies tax on labor and pensions. Subsequently, the citizens pay, with previously taxed funds, both VAT and various excise taxes.

I can state that the last time the Riksdag decided on reduced excise taxes, it was for the tax on gasoline and diesel, which came into effect on January 1 of this year. It was excise taxes that the citizens did not consider reasonable.

Madam Speaker! In today's debate in the chamber, I intended to focus on the energy taxes. We cannot escape the fact that the state needs money for various purposes, but imposing significant taxes on electricity does not feel like the right priority. The negative environmental impact that electricity can bring, depending on how it is produced, is best resolved through taxes on emissions.

Sweden's energy system has become less robust and predictable through the left-wing parties' unnecessary and premature decommissioning of nuclear power. This led to one of the world's best energy systems, with nuclear power and hydropower as the main energy sources, being significantly weakened.

Sweden was previously self-sufficient around the clock and year-round. It was good for the economy of companies and households, for the climate, and for security policy.

The phase-out has led to a power shortage when we need the electricity the most. Sweden needs a mix of different types of energy, where nuclear power is included as an important part and can be well combined with types of energy that are more weather-dependent.

Madam Speaker! The carbon tax has during certain years been very burdensome for companies and private individuals, especially in southern Sweden. Therefore, the government provided support during a transition period.

There is a broad political consensus that we need to transition our energy system. There have been various reasons why we have a point tax on electricity, from purely fiscal reasons to oil crises and energy efficiencies. Now, the energy taxes should rather be lowered to favor the electrification of Sweden.

Sweden's competitiveness and welfare are based on the fact that there is access to fossil-free energy at competitive prices, which is important for both companies and private individuals.

The Liberals' view is that the energy taxes are too high, and I have understood that even the other Tidö parties have realized this.

One possibility is to start by removing the indexing of the energy tax – a proposal that the government has previously sent out for consultation. Other measures are also possible. The important thing is that we lower the tax on electricity.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! I had actually not intended to request the floor. But it sounds rather as if the member represents the opposition when he speaks about everything that should be implemented. He forgets to mention that it is the member's party that participates in the government's work. Even the Christian Democrats were up here at the rostrum and said: Lower the electricity tax!

Yes, but why don't you do that then? That was exactly what you promised the voters in the 2022 election! Then you came to Rosenbad. Then you started considering that you might freeze the indexing, as the member now mentions. But you didn't do that. You sent out the proposal for consultation, and then you ignored it. Instead, you are raising the electricity tax.

At some point, you have to start taking some responsibility on your part. Why haven't you lowered the electricity tax if it is so important now?

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! I participated in my first debate here in the chamber a few weeks ago. The first question I wonder about is this: The member who then represented the Social Democrats and you, Kalle Olsson – are you even in the same party? He had very many arguments for why it was good to have high taxes. Now you want to lower taxes. It feels like perhaps you should first talk within the Social Democrats.

One has four years to implement one's policy, and one must, of course, implement different reforms in accordance with the economic means available. The Moderate MP previously said that we have started by lowering the tax on work and pensions. This obviously benefits, in the first instance, almost everyone in Sweden, unless one is a child.

We have made a major change to the tax on gasoline and diesel. It is not so strange, because these were point taxes that had no acceptance at all out in the country. I only have a twelve-minute journey from my residence to the Riksdag, but when one finds oneself in other parts of the country, one realizes that that tax was very burdensome. It had no acceptance at all out in the country. Therefore, we have moved forward with it.

In the next step towards the next budget work, which will take place now during the spring and until the autumn, electricity tax is obviously an important tax to lower. The Liberals are not alone among the government parties in that matter, but we heard the member from the Christian Democrats say earlier here that he shares the view that we should now look at the electricity taxes.

We will probably have time to make a change before we meet the voters at the next election. And it is primarily our problem, not yours.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I remind you that we address each other by name or "the member", not with "you".)

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

Kalle Olsson (S)

Madam Speaker! No, it may not be my personal problem, but it is a problem for politics, for democracy, and for the trust in the system we operate within when parties go all out in an election campaign and promise things that they then cannot keep.

We have spoken about the electronics tax, the energy tax, and the tax on electricity. These are clear examples where the currently governing parties have betrayed their election promises. There are more examples. We have had debates here about the great census, which was to be carried out during this mandate period. No census has taken place, and none will take place either.

Furthermore, I heard that the member in their speech spoke about electrification and that it is important to promote that process. To go into the matter a bit more: How does the member view the fact that the Tidö government, the SD government, now as we summarize the mandate period, has lowered the energy taxes on diesel and gasoline by 17 billion while you have increased the electricity tax during the period by 12 percent? It is, therefore, the opposite of what you promised.

How does the member see that balancing? Where does this lead? Does it lead to increased sustainability? Does it lead to us accelerating the transition that our society must undergo? Or does the member see that we are now slowing down the necessary transition because of the broken election promise not to lower the electricity tax while you simultaneously move forward with substantial reductions of the energy tax?

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

Anders Ekegren (L)

Madam Speaker! Broken election promises, members, it can only happen the first day we hold an election in this country. One actually has four years to carry out one's policy.

We have lowered the tax on work and pension. We have implemented changes in a number of other different excise taxes. Now we think it is important and reasonable to also step in and lower the energy tax.

I can partially share the member's argument. It is obviously important to lower the electricity tax to accelerate electrification. Therefore, work is currently underway between the parties and the Government Offices to see how we could implement a reduction of the electricity tax.

I do not know if the member will be satisfied. But I am completely certain that we will deliver a proposal that involves lowered electricity taxes.

(Applause)

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

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! Members! Today we are debating the report Point Tax.

Pig taxes are important as steering instruments, and in my speech I will focus on how we in Vänsterpartiet view the need for steering instruments in the transport area.

I begin by moving to approve the Left Party's reservation 10.

For the transport sector, there are two short-term goals, partly the national 2030 goal, which sets requirements for a 70 percent reduction in emissions by 2030, and partly the EU's binding requirements for halved emissions within the ESR sector, where transport is included, also by 2030.

Transforming the transport sector in the way required to meet adopted goals and keep warming well below two degrees is about achieving a rapid, stable, and well-considered reduction in emissions.

But emission reductions are not enough in themselves; what is required in the coming years is a systemic shift where we phase out and become independent of fossil fuels. It is a major transition at the societal level that also needs to happen quickly but, above all, in an orderly and just manner.

Regarding excise taxes in the transport area, taxation of fuels is an important tool for reducing the transport sector's climate impact; we know that. Conversely, it naturally means that a reduced tax on gasoline and diesel weakens this tool and makes it harder to steer towards reduced environmental and climate impact. But it also weakens the incentives for electrification and transport efficiency.

That a reduction in the tax on gasoline and diesel would produce precisely these effects was noted by the government itself in its impact assessment. But the government carried this out anyway, while we from Vänsterpartiet demanded a rejection of the proposal.

With that said, taxation of fuels is a blunt tool that can have very different effects; one must be aware of that. There is, of course, a big difference depending on whether I am a high-income earner or a low-income earner, and whether I live in a large city with good access to well-developed public transport or if I live in a rural area and simply lack alternatives to a car.

That is why it is important that steering measures are designed in a way that they do not reinforce but reduce gaps between urban and rural areas, and that compensatory measures are implemented to avoid negative distribution effects.

But we also need to expand the alternatives and rectify the deficiencies in equality that exist across the country by strengthening and expanding public transport, so that we actually live up to the functional objective's requirements regarding basic accessibility of good quality throughout the country. We do not do that today. We are retreating in this area and moving further and further away from the functional objective's requirements.

Here, we from Vänsterpartiet are pushing for the state to take greater responsibility for an expanded, accessible, and affordable public transport. In this area, the government completely lacks proposals.

We from Vänsterpartiet also want to investigate the conditions for a geographically adapted road tax for passenger cars, with a higher road tax in large cities that have good access to public transport and a low, or alternatively abolished, road tax in the countryside where alternatives to cars are lacking. A differentiated road taxation of this type has the potential to steer towards more sustainable modes of transport while also contributing to strengthened regional justice.

Madam Speaker! Ulf Kristersson and the Moderaterna campaigned on getting the climate in order. I do not know if you remember the election poster that the Moderaterna had in the last election campaign, with a picture of Ulf Kristersson on a forest walk and then "Now we get the climate in order" in large letters. So here, more than halfway through the parliamentary term, we see that the government's policy has not gotten the climate in order, on the contrary. In fact, the emissions today would have been lower if the government had not made any decisions at all. This means, therefore, that one has actively chosen steering measures that increase emissions.

That the emissions would increase is no surprise to anyone. This has been well aware of the consequences. In March last year, the Climate Policy Council stated that Sweden, with the government's policy, for the first time in 20 years will increase greenhouse gas emissions.

Everything that the government highlighted in its own impact assessment when it lowered the tax on gasoline and diesel also happened during 2024. Emissions from road traffic increased by 18 percent. It is a dramatic trend break. Previously, they had decreased steadily since 2007. The electrification of the transport sector slowed down. New car sales of electric cars decreased by 16 percent, while the export of electric cars from Sweden to other countries increased by 74 percent. It has gone fast in the wrong direction.

Or to quote a previous speaker here today: We are going to rumble into the climate apocalypse. Well said! One could embroider that on a wall hanging.

I initially mentioned the EU's requirements for emission reductions for the ESR sector, that is, the non-ETS sector where transport is included. However, they will only do that for a few more years. In 2027, the transport sector will be included in the emissions trading system, and 2027 is just around the corner, very close in time.

Then one might think that the country that has made itself most independent of fossil fuels until 2027 will have a great advantage, and so it naturally is. But instead of accelerating the transition so that we avoid a shock increase in fuels in 2027, the government drives the fossil [economy] all the way into the ground, counteracts transport efficiency, and reduces the incentives for a powerful electrification of the transport sector. It is a policy that, in addition to going against the climate goals adopted by the Riksdag, also risks creating major problems ahead.

With these cheerful words, I would like to thank you for the floor.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Excise taxes are consumption taxes levied on specific goods and services. In the report, we see that it concerns alcohol tax, tobacco tax, carbon tax, energy tax and so on. Excise taxes aim to both bring in money to the state treasury, the fiscal purpose, and steer development in a certain direction, the steering purpose.

Of the total tax revenues from excise duties, the excise duties on energy and carbon dioxide contribute approximately half. The steering effects of excise duties can, which is also the intention in many cases, be significant.

We in the Center Party want us to use excise taxes with restraint for fiscal purposes and with great deliberation for regulatory purposes. Differences, such as between city and country and between poor and rich, must be taken into account when we design excise taxes.

For example, we want excise taxes to be adjusted so that they do not disproportionately affect the countryside. Increasing the petrol tax without there being realistic alternatives for transport out in the country is not an option for us. We also want excise taxes to be technology-neutral, meaning that one does not favor a specific solution but taxes based on environmental impact regardless of technology.

Madam Speaker! Let us embark on a small historical trip in the promised land of the point taxes.

Last year we had a 100-year anniversary – unnoticed, but still an anniversary. Sweden's first point tax on energy was introduced in 1924. It was a tax on fuels. The purpose then was fiscal: money was needed to finance the rapidly growing road administration. The principle that taxes on fuels, vehicles, and road use should cover the transport sector's socio-economic costs has since been reflected in propositions and investigations through the years, even though we must keep in mind that taxes are not earmarked for specific expenditures.

Tax on electricity and other fuels was introduced in the 1950s to contribute to the financing of rapidly increasing public expenditures, not least within the energy sector. During the 1970s, we needed to reduce oil dependence as a consequence of the oil crisis 1973–1974, and we then raised the tax levels on oil.

But as we have touched upon, energy taxes, in addition to their fiscal value, have also increasingly been introduced to have a steering effect.

The idea of using taxes as environmental steering tools can be traced back to the late 1960s – slightly earlier, a book by Rachel Carson titled Silent Spring had been released. However, it was not concretized until the late 1980s. The environmental fee investigation proposed the introduction of a carbon tax in 1989. As part of a larger tax reform, a carbon tax was introduced in Sweden in 1991. A 2021 research study from Lund University states that the introduction was institutionally well-prepared by utilizing the structures from the existing energy tax system.

The introduction of the carbon tax was combined with a reduction of the then existing energy taxes, and the cost increases for households and industry were thus limited. We had, one could say, during the 1990s carried out an internal tax shift in the excise tax area from purely fiscal taxation to a mixture of regulatory and fiscal taxation without thus, in absolute terms, burdening the tax collective – quite elegant, actually.

Madam Speaker! Add to that, which is particularly important for understanding the nature of governing point taxes, that when we introduce a governing point tax, for example a carbon tax, we do not steer behavior just because we feel like doing so. No, what we do is that we internalize negative externalities in the economy.

How did it taste, Madam Speaker – to internalize negative externalities in the economy? It means that we ensure that, through the tax instrument, the cost is included in the economy for negative effects such as global warming resulting from carbon emissions or hospital care for lung cancer resulting from tobacco smoking. In fact, the governing excise taxes are a way to price negative activities for society.

In that light, the Swedish carbon tax has been a success. We have transitioned large parts of our energy system and our business sector without hindering growth. We have created a win-win in Sweden. Of course, it is with both surprise and concern that we observe how the government is dismantling Swedish climate policy. One does not see what benefit it provides for Swedish business, Swedish growth, and our global competitiveness.

Madam Speaker! We in the Center Party want to see higher ambitions for our economy and growth than the government does. We want to use a large package of measures to use excise taxes to combine green growth with fair conditions for city and country. The path for Swedish growth goes through both electrification and Swedish bioenergy. We want to use Swedish carbon-free electricity production and Swedish bioenergy as a lever into the sustainable growth for the country Sweden.

Sweden must be able to lead the development of biofuels. Bioenergy is Sweden's largest energy source and accounts for approximately one quarter of Sweden's total energy use. This makes green industries a completely neutral player in the climate transition, and we cannot turn a blind eye to that. It is in Swedish forestry and agriculture that we hold the potential for sustainable growth.

Madam Speaker! We must reward those within agriculture and forestry who invest in closing their loops by using residues from forest products or agriculture for biofuels, biogas, heating, and so on – or who use wind and solar power on the land.

Different modes of transport interact in the entire transport sector, and all modes of transport must achieve higher climate efficiency. Even the really heavy transports must transition. One way to reduce emissions from heavy traffic is to fuel the trucks with clean biofuels. A continued tax exemption on clean biofuels is currently crucial for these to be able to compete with fossil fuels. Sweden must therefore be proactive in ensuring that high-blend biofuels receive a permanent tax exemption.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of reservation 5.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating excise duty. It may sound dry and boring, but behind the headline lie some of the hottest political issues in Sweden.

We are talking about the tax on gasoline and diesel. We are talking about the aviation tax. We are also talking about the tax on energy and electricity, the congestion tax, the chemicals tax, and the tax on alcohol and tobacco – as well as the important issue of antibiotic resistance in the form of the Miljöpartiets proposal for an antibiotic tax on meat produced with the help of high antibiotic use.

Madam Speaker! There are many large and important issues, but something that the Green Party's proposal on point taxes has in common is that it is about taxing things that are bad for people and the environment. The purpose is to ensure that the cost to the environment through the environmental degradation caused by, for example, the use of fossil fuels, shall be paid by the one who uses the fuel. In that way, the social cost is included in the price tag for the one who actually uses what is bad for the environment.

We have seen dramatic effects when point taxes have hit the mark. When we, for example, introduced a tax on heating oil for villas, the use of oil to heat small houses decreased rapidly. Old oil boilers were discarded in favor of much more environmentally friendly alternatives. Many were pleased that they had installed, for example, geothermal heating, not least when electricity prices in Europe skyrocketed when fossil fuels became expensive after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

In the same way, we in Miljöpartiet believe that steering measures are needed that mean those who pollute also pay for the environmental consequences. The acute climate crisis we face requires us to take powerful measures to steer away from fossil fuels. Today, Sweden's biggest challenge regarding climate emissions is the transport sector. Still, a large part of Sweden's passenger transport and freight transport is run on fossil fuels, and a number of measures are needed to change that.

Let us begin with freight transport. It is a huge problem that the government has made it even more expensive, even less profitable, for companies to transport goods by rail, which is the most climate-friendly way to transport goods.

We from Miljöpartiet propose that the cost for companies that choose to transport goods by rail be lowered and that it is ensured that those who transport goods by truck traffic, not least the foreign drivers, also begin to pay for the wear and tear they cause on the Swedish roads. For me, it is incomprehensible that the Tidö parties are still opposed to such a fair road traffic taxation, and furthermore, they disadvantage freight transport by rail.

When it comes to passenger transport, we in Miljöpartiet have a long series of proposals. Some of them concern the tax on fossil fuels. The government's response to the climate crisis has been to make it cheaper to burn gasoline and diesel. Miljöpartiet's response is a fair climate transition where we ensure that we steer away from the fossil, make it cheap and easy to switch to electric cars, and finally, that one can use public transport with the Sverigekortet throughout the country for 500 kronor a month. But it is also about introducing an emissions trading system where those who continue to burn fossil fuels incur a higher cost, and where the money paid in can be used to support the households that still need a car. We have talked about the groups living in the countryside, but there are also groups in the cities with low incomes, for example single parents, who need the car to manage the puzzle of life. Those groups shall receive a larger payout from the system.

Madam Speaker! We have also spoken about the aviation tax. Aviation does not stand for its own climate costs today. It is good that much has been done at the EU level, but in Sweden, we have a government that is once again turning a blind eye to the climate crisis and making it cheaper with fossil emissions. It is not responsible. Furthermore, the aviation tax is appreciated by the Swedish people. It is quite unexpected that a tax has such strong support as the aviation tax does. But as a young person once said about the aviation tax: I know that this is not good, so it is needed that someone marks it and speaks out.

For my part, I also think it is incredibly distressing that this government subsidizes people who can afford private aircraft by currently keeping Bromma airport open solely for them. This is furthermore happening at everyone's common expense, because Bromma airport is a total loss-making venture.

Madam Speaker! I naturally stand behind all the reservations from Miljöpartiet, but in order to save time during the voting, I choose to move for approval of reservation 6 only.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 7.)

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