The Government's Climate Action Plan - All the way to Net Zero

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Members of Parliament! We Social Democrats naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I move on behalf of the Social Democrats for approval only of reservation 14, Starting points for a Swedish climate policy, under point 7.

Madam Speaker! It is moving fast now. Glaciers are melting in the Alps, and floods are succeeding one another across our entire continent. Last year was, in many places, the warmest ever recorded.

The climate crisis means that we are experiencing more natural disasters with severe storms, droughts, floods, and heat. Extreme weather is increasing. The summer of 2023 brought a number of extreme weather events. The floods were many and hit several municipalities hard in Sweden as well. The negative records poured in. There were record floods, record heat, record fires, and record droughts. In short, 2023 was the record year, and this year, Copernicus' annual report has shown that Europe's extreme climate continues in 2024.

Sweden has historically pursued an active climate policy both in Sweden and in Europe. We have pushed forward EU's climate policy, but that is no longer the case. This parliamentary year, the EU's climate council announced that the member states are doing too little to reach the agreed climate goals and urged the member states to increase the pace.

Sweden did not turn out to be a leading light. We have known since earlier that the Swedish government has received a number of critical judgments at home, but now we are also failing in the EU. An important message ahead of the European Parliament election is therefore to vote for the climate.

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing the climate action plan, that is, the tool that the government has to compile a policy that seriously achieves the climate goals and ensures that we do our part of the Paris Agreement. We also have an obligation to this in our own Climate Act.

The government's climate action plan - all the way to net zero. That is what it is called. The strategy from the government seems, however, to primarily be to forget, hide, and conjure: forget the climate, forget concrete policy instruments, hide the truth, hide everything in inquiries, conjure with the figures, and conjure with those who rule behind the scenes.

Madam Speaker! Figures are being juggled in the government's climate action plan. The action plan does not lead to net-zero 2045, let alone to us meeting the interim targets for 2030. Authorities have criticized the action plan continuously. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency assesses that neither the long-term goal for 2045 nor the interim targets for 2030 and 2040 will be met with the policy instruments that the climate action plan presents. The same applies to the Climate Policy Council, the expert body that is to review the government's climate policy. They state, for example, that the plan is insufficient to reach the goals and that it is unclear how the plan can lead to emissions decreasing at the rate required.

The Minister for Climate has responded to the criticism by saying that they are open to purchasing emission allowances to meet the goals. The idea that we should buy emission allowances from other countries to meet this type of goal is absurd. There are no negotiations on this; this is speculative.

Above all, it would become extremely expensive for the Swedish people and the taxpayers. Depending on what is included, calculations show that it costs between 15 and 37 billion to buy emission rights. Who is going to pay for it? And above all: Why don't we instead want to invest in Swedish companies, Swedish jobs, and Swedish technology? Why do we want to spend that money on buying emission rights from another country?

To take from the Swedes and give to other countries and not stick to the transition that we are so well known for is fraud with Swedish tax money!

One can also ask which countries would want to sell these emission rights. Is it Poland? Is it Romania? Which countries have come so much further than Sweden? Which would want to offer their surplus to us? This is very speculative.

Some time ago, the undersigned debated exactly this with the Minister for Climate and Environment here in the chamber. At that time, the Minister for Climate and Environment also pointed out that the government is for an effective climate policy and that it is a major change now. This involves, among other things, the change of the reduction obligation, which is said to mean that from Sweden's side we have now moved from being utopian to becoming effective.

Is it effective to buy emission rights from other countries instead of investing in Swedish jobs? That is what we Social Democrats ask. Is it effective to have figures and graphs in the climate action plan we are discussing today that are based on the previous government's inefficient and utopian climate policy? That is what we have seen in the climate action plan. DN showed in a publication that behind the falling emissions curve lies a calculation where the reduction obligation during the period 2027-2030 is raised to a level that then remains until 2045. Figures are, therefore, being manipulated.

Madam Speaker! The government also consistently forgets what role Sweden should play in the world to lead the climate transition. Sweden is now one of the countries that brings climate failures to the EU. With the government's budget, emissions are now increasing for the first time in a long time. For 2024, we see an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of 5.9-9.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents by 2030.

The EU's climate council urged the member states to increase the pace. The Swedish government has received a lot of criticism for not doing so, but I do not think it has been sufficiently highlighted in the debate what enormous emission-generating measures the government is responsible for.

We often hear from the government that the important climate work lies beyond 2030. Still, the government has not stepped forward in the debate regarding the 2040 goal for the EU. We are now in an EU election campaign where several countries have stepped forward and told what they want to do by 2040. But the Swedish government has not stepped forward. A united opposition in the Swedish Riksdag, however, has stepped forward and said what we want to do by 2040. We have taken the 95-percent goal and made it our own.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by stating that in our follow-up motion, we establish a policy that meets the 2030 goals, which stands for net-zero by 2045. Above all, we take a horizontal approach so that the sectors that are lagging behind today manage to increase their pace and reduce their emissions.

The transport sector is such an Achilles' heel for Sweden, and it is important that the government does much more than it does today. We from the Social Democrats would like to ensure that we reach a broad democratic agreement in the Riksdag, which stands up for the climate and ensures that the climate action plan really leads to net zero.

If we take the climate transition and the leadership position that Sweden must take seriously, we must stop hiding, forgetting, and conjuring in climate policy.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring, Sofia Skönnbrink and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (all S) concurred.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! It is deeply rooted in the Moderaternas DNA to safeguard and care for that which we will one day leave behind.

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

This is the second climate policy action plan that the government, in accordance with the Climate Act, submits to the Riksdag. It is also the first bourgeois one. It is called The Whole Way to Net Zero, and it contains about seventy concrete proposals that will either be implemented or started during the mandate period. For the very first time, there is a plan for how Sweden's climate goals can be reached; the whole way to net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest.

By 2045, Sweden is to achieve negative emissions. It must therefore fundamentally be about eliminating emissions. Short-term proposals that only go part of the way are not sufficient. This climate action plan lays the foundation for reaching zero and thereafter negative emissions. Unlike the red-green government's climate policy, our plan places a very great emphasis on popular anchoring and legitimacy. If we are to manage the climate transition, we must have the whole country with us on the journey towards net zero – not just the part of the population that can take the subway or an electric scooter to work.

Madam Speaker! It is clear that the global efforts to reduce emissions need to increase. Sweden is in a unique position. Our electricity has long been fossil-free, cheap, and available for households and companies. It has been one of our absolute most important competitive advantages, and it has given us a head start on this journey. By 2045, we will need approximately twice as much more clean electricity. We see the needs and are doing everything to expand fossil-free electricity production faster. But that is not the case in the rest of the world. Despite clear global warming, countries such as China continue to approve and build coal power.

Sweden has good conditions to manage the transition, but neither Sweden nor the EU can alone brake global warming. Sweden accounts for approximately 1 per mille of global carbon dioxide emissions, and the entire EU accounts for significantly less than one tenth. Sweden also has low emissions per capita, especially if we compare ourselves with developed economies. The Swedish carbon dioxide emissions of about 3.8 tons per capita can be compared with China's about 8 tons per capita or the USA's about 15 tons per capita.

If the investments for the climate are to make a real difference, we must put things into perspective. At the same time as emissions in Sweden, the EU, and the USA are decreasing, global emissions are increasing, especially in growth countries such as India and China. It therefore becomes clear, Madam Speaker, that if we are to manage the transition in Sweden, the EU, and globally, we must pursue a policy that makes other countries want to follow suit. Sweden shall be a green leading country. But unfortunately, no other country in the world will want to follow the Swedish example if the only thing we have to show is high prices, an unstable energy system, and the lowest growth in the EU. Sweden shall be a green leading country by getting other countries to follow suit. If we do not succeed in that, we are poor role models.

Madam Speaker! Swedish climate policy has entered a new phase, partly as a result of developments within the EU, and partly, above all, because the green transition is already in full swing and is driven by the business sector and citizens rather than by national political goals and ambitions. The best climate policy is no longer that which seeks to force emission reductions through legislation, but rather that which creates the best conditions for companies and citizens to transition. That is what this climate action plan does.

A growing economy is not only important for long-term funding for more police and more hands within health and care, but also for having resources to transition and combat climate change. General reforms for strengthened competitiveness and economic growth are also good climate policy. It gives Sweden and Swedish companies resources to carry out the green transition.

In the climate action plan, the following is stated: "Sweden shall pursue an ambitious and effective climate policy. At the same time, it is important that the climate transition occurs with the citizens' acceptance. Without broad long-term support, it is impossible to implement the climate policy. It presupposes that individuals and companies can act, innovate, consume, invest, finance and produce more climate-smart and that prosperity increases. These are fundamentally the same factors that drive growth. The climate transition presupposes growth, but it also drives growth."

Madam Speaker! When symbolic politics is allowed to replace well-considered reforms, it damages trust in Swedish climate and environmental policy. It must, on the contrary, always be purposeful and cost-effective, and constantly be evaluated and reassessed. That tax money is invested in projects without results is always serious, but unfortunately, it is both common and particularly irresponsible within climate policy, which has the task of meeting one of our time's greatest issues of destiny. Since we have limited resources even for the most pressing matters, every climate policy measure must provide as much benefit per krona as possible.

This climate action plan establishes that climate policy needs to become more cost-effective and growth-focused. Anything else would be irresponsible.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's competitiveness and welfare are built on the fact that we have a secure and stable electricity supply. Energy policy must secure electricity at competitive prices and guarantee that electricity is available when and where it is needed. To reduce our emissions and secure future jobs, Sweden needs more electricity that enables increased growth and a competitive industry.

Our energy system is built around hydropower in the north and nuclear power in the south. It has laid the foundation for our robust, fossil-free electricity system which ensures that we have enough electricity for Sweden's households, companies, and other critical societal functions.

It is probably no one who has missed that the Moderates want more nuclear power. The policy that S-led governments have pursued for decades to deteriorate and ultimately phase out nuclear power has been harmful for Sweden.

The Moderate-led government has set a new course for Sweden and guaranteed a future where new nuclear power can actually be built.

But we also agree that more wind power will be needed. The Swedish energy mix has historically attracted many investments to our elongated country. We shall build up cheap, fossil-free, and available electricity with a stable foundation in nuclear power and hydropower, together with all the fossil-free types of power we can get hold of. Our focus must lie on building up a fossil-free energy system that lasts in the long run. The harsh reality is that our electricity demand will double in a very short time. Industry, experts, and authorities have collectively been clear about one thing: Wind power will be needed to meet this challenge.

Mr. Speaker, today it takes an average of nine years to get a new wind turbine in Sweden. It is unreasonable.

The Environmental Code was written in a time when the climate transition did not rank particularly high on the agenda. Today, we have completely different conditions and needs. It is obvious that the Environmental Code needs to be reformed so that it promotes development instead of hindering it.

Reviewing the permit processes is one of the most important measures to create the best conditions for the transition. I am therefore proud of our government, which places a great focus on making it easier for Swedish companies to compete and grow with climate-smart solutions and innovations.

Madam Speaker! It is not enough to want well. Climate policy must be treated with the same requirements for efficiency as other areas and prioritize measures that yield results. Only then can we truly reduce emissions and not just in rhetoric. This climate action plan does not claim to have all the answers - we clearly state that more measures are required, which shall be carefully investigated to ensure that they have exactly the right effect. On the other hand, it lays the foundation for success, something that has been missing for far too long.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! There is an incredible amount that one would like to continue debating. I believe we could continue with that for a while.

But I think like this: There is an election to the European Parliament soon. Helena Storckenfeldt also raised the international perspective several times in her speech. The climate issue is the voters' most important issue.

We lack a climate goal for 2040 at the European level. The EU Commission's expert council has stated that reductions of between 90 and 95 percent are required to reach the climate goals in the Paris Agreement. The Center Party has said: Let us then take 95 percent to be on the safe side.

My question is simple: How much do the Moderates think we should reduce emissions in Europe by 2040?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I have a very simple and perhaps somewhat boring answer to that question, and it is that we have not yet arrived at an exact goal for 2040.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is sad that the Moderates have no answer to the voters' most important question. One does not think it is important enough to set a goal for 2040. One does not even know what it should be. I think it is embarrassing.

Let me then ask one more question. Helena Storckenfeldt said that the climate policy being presented is more cost-effective than the previous one. One can look at the Riksrevisionen's evaluation of the climate policy and look at precisely cost-effectiveness. The most cost-effective is to remove fossil subsidies and set a high price on carbon. The second most cost-effective is to mix renewable fuels into existing fuels. The third most cost-effective is the environmental car bonus and other things that increase the sale of electric cars.

Regarding all three of these things, the government has done the opposite. It makes it cheaper with fossil fuels. It increases the fossil subsidies. It removes the inclusion of renewable fuels, and it removes the environmental car bonus. Far, far down the list of effective measures fall things such as scrappage premiums, which is usually what is highlighted from the government.

I have another very simple question for Helena Storckenfeldt: Can the Moderaterna and Helena Storckenfeldt mention a measure that has been more cost-effective than the things that have been removed?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by mentioning the citizens' council for the climate, which I visited yesterday. They requested just a little less conflict in the debate. That makes me think it is somewhat problematic that Rickard Nordin chooses to twist and turn my words in the way he did.

It is not the voters' most important issue that we have a goal for 2040. I did not say either that the Moderates do not want a goal for 2040. We do want that. We believe it is good to have goals. What I said was that we have not yet decided exactly what level it should be when it comes to the proposed measures.

Let us not put words in each other's mouths, and let us keep this debate a bit more respectful!

I understand that Rickard Nordin would like to debate the reduction obligation again. We have gone through that a number of times. I have said several times that it was extremely clear that it was unsustainable. It would not have been practically feasible. Why does the Center Party then advocate for it as an effective measure?

What we are focusing on are the major structural problems that exist when it comes to actually managing the transition. This involves, for example, getting new nuclear power in place and creating opportunities for new nuclear power in Sweden. We know that this is the foundation of our electricity system. We know that it will be needed.

It is now very few who disagree that we will need twice as much clean electricity by 2045. It is not about small-scale tinkering, such as an electric car premium or electric bicycle subsidies, but about a holistic approach. How do we ensure that all of Sweden manages the green transition?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Member of Parliament Storckenfeldt emphasized the business sector in his speech and the importance of companies taking a leading role in the climate transition. We Social Democrats agree and believe that it is a very important building block in a good climate policy.

In the SNS report "The Role of Politics for the Business Sector's Climate Transition," a number of researchers present what is important for companies to be able to take this leading responsibility. Here, the researchers emphasize the importance of having a policy that breaks down barriers to change but also – perhaps above all – the importance of setting specific requirements that climate policy establishes the direction and speed of the changes.

Politics' primary role is perhaps precisely this: that we show what we want collectively, that we are clear about the objectives, and that we push forward both in a climate action plan but also when it comes to our interim targets for 2030 and the 2040 goal.

Now we have been told that the Moderates do not have an answer regarding the 2040 goal, which is exactly what is an important building block for the business community. But I would like to ask the question to Member of Parliament Storckenfeldt: What other measures are it that are more important than those that the researchers and the business community themselves point out as important for the transition?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I would say that the second part of the research report that Jytte raised is more important, namely removing obstacles. That is exactly what we are doing. We ensure that the green transition is actually possible for households and companies to carry out. We do this by shortening permit processes. It may not be the sexiest measure to talk about, but it is one of the absolutely most important to ensure that the climate transition becomes possible.

I mentioned in my speech that it is not politics that should push and ensure that the emission reductions actually happen. It is the business community and households that do it. It is through incredibly many decisions outside of this chamber that the green transition is actually carried out.

I think it was interesting that Jytte Guteland, in her speech, did not raise a single concrete proposal on what the Social Democrats actually want. She said that the Social Democrats have a plan for how to reach the goals. I wonder: What does that plan contain?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Storckenfeldt, who does not answer the question but refers to another part of the investigation and then asks questions to me instead. She could have advantageously done that after my opening statement.

The Moderates' climate policy leaves a lot to be desired. Both authorities, researchers, and the business community themselves say that we have a passive policy here that, at best, juggles with figures and holds onto old graphs, that is, refers to the previously Social Democratic-led government when they want to appear commendable regarding climate policy. We think that is weak.

We believe much more about Sweden and want to take hold of what the member himself raised, namely that we should be able to cooperate on climate policy. But then one must jump down from SD's lap and instead turn to us with proposals on how we can together drive a truly good business-oriented climate policy.

If anyone wonders whether we have our own proposals regarding, for example, transport issues, I can remind you that I mentioned the transport issues. We have a follow-up motion. Unlike the government, we are pushing for a better reduction obligation, we ensure that we do more when it comes to investments in cheaper public transport, and we stand up for an electrification that will be truly good, also for consumers and the Swedish people.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is quite bold of S to twist the words in this way again. I actually gave Jytte Guteland an answer to the question and then highlighted the permit processes as one of the most important measures, which was part of the report. The question was, after all, what I, if not this, consider to be one of the most important and effective measures, which I answered.

The Social Democrats were in power for eight years. I understand that one feels a certain desperation right now when one has not achieved anything oneself during these eight years and suddenly has a broad palette of things that one would like to do, many of which have also been started by this bourgeois, Moderate-led government.

I understand that it is difficult for the Social Democrats to accept that one is actually no longer in power. But the fact is that one cannot retain power if one continues to fail. That is how a democracy works.

Now we have changed course, and we are focusing on electrification. That requires much more clean electricity.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Helena Storckenfeldt for the speech. It resulted in a whole list of questions for me, not least regarding the electrification that was mentioned just now. I note that the Tidö parties' policy instead risks delaying the electrification.

I intended to ask a question in light of the fact that Helena Storckenfeldt highlights the importance of other countries' climate transition, for example China and India, and that Sweden needs to be a good role model for other countries.

When Miljöpartiet was in government, we laid the foundation for the entire climate transition in Sweden, not least for the industry's transition. We note that the climate transition is a driving force for strengthened competitiveness and a sustainable societal development in the entire country. This has made Sweden a strong example globally. Many countries turn to Sweden when it comes to the climate transition.

Since the Moderaterna took over government power, however, Sweden has lost in prestige. International media write about how Sweden is backing off and losing momentum in the climate transition.

Therefore, my question is partly what the government is doing to reduce emissions in China and India, now that they are being referred to, and partly whether the Moderaterna are prepared to shift their climate policy if it is observed that it is no longer a model for other countries.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have for a very long time now seen a policy that has been a tinkering with small solutions here and there. A holistic approach has not been taken. It is something that we have decided to do. The government's climate action plan is called All the way to net zero for a reason. It lays the foundation for us to actually succeed and be this green pioneer country.

As I said in my speech, one must constantly review and re-evaluate the solutions one comes up with, but I am convinced that the problem with our electricity supply will not disappear overnight. I am convinced that in order to manage this green transition, we will need enormous amounts of clean electricity. I wonder where Miljöpartiet thinks that electricity should come from. It has been made very clear that they are against nuclear power, and in many municipalities, Miljöpartiet actually sits in government and says no to more wind turbines.

There is an incredibly large task here. I believe that the whole thing is based on precisely electricity when we look at the large project of the green transition. It is not through how many who can afford to buy an electric bicycle that we will solve the green transition, but it is how we succeed in maintaining our status as an industrial nation and transition and become a green example for countries like India and China. That is what I am referring to when I talk about that we should be a green pioneer country. If we do not demonstrate growth and prosperity, no developing country will want to follow our example.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When the Green Party was in government, we gathered several parliamentary parties broadly to establish a climate policy framework for Sweden - which the Moderates were part of - with a net-zero goal by 2045, interim goals for 2040 and 2030, and a sector goal for the transport sector. We passed a climate act stating that a climate action plan shall be developed every parliamentary term, and we appointed a climate policy council. Seven parties agreed to introduce the reduction obligation. The Green Party was also part of the energy agreement in 2016.

We have worked very actively to take a holistic approach to ensure that the entire Swedish society can transition in an orderly and sustainable way. Miljöpartiet has climate policy from the entire broad approach to ensuring that we get the right solution in the right place within the different sectors so that we can reduce emissions within each sector. That the Moderaterna stand here and talk about "duttande" [poking/dabbling], I think is just nonsense.

The Moderates have been involved in much of the climate work that the Green Party has driven, but instead of taking this further, they have chosen to leave the energy agreement. They are not pretending here in the debate with the Social Democrats that they were part of it. They have also chosen to leave, for example, the reduction obligation without providing alternative climate policy. In the work moving forward, they have also abandoned the work with broad cross-bloc efforts within the climate area.

When it comes to electricity, Miljöpartiet has presented a broad energy policy to ensure that we can double the supply of electricity ten years earlier than the Moderate-led government.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! What, then, is the result of the Green Party's climate policy? Yes, that the red-green government was not on track to reach the goals. The first climate action plan received much criticism, not least regarding the measurement of the effects of the measures that were to be taken.

One has a nonchalant attitude towards effect and results that is incredibly problematic, Mr. Speaker. This seems to be some kind of environmental party classic.

So, what was the outcome? Well, it became a policy that the population did not buy. It made it more expensive to live in the countryside, it tore down our stable fossil-free energy system, and it threw money at electric bicycle subsidies. I am convinced that that is not how you reach the climate goals, Mr. Speaker.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the speech that the member gave from the rostrum. It is good that the Moderaterna now understand that wind power will be needed in the near future.

I have in previous debates here listened to the Moderates who have so persistently complained that the previous government put all their eggs in one basket regarding the reduction obligation, but now they are doing the same thing when it comes to nuclear power. This has even been noted by the Climate Policy Council in its assessment of the government's climate action plan. Expansion of nuclear power will not bring Sweden closer to the climate goal and the commitments we have in the EU when it comes to achieving the 2030 goal.

As the member mentioned, the green transition is in full swing in Norrland, and it is necessary to invest heavily in wind power and the production of hydrogen. This needs to be done now and not in 15 years. It can also be noted that wind power provides cheap electricity compared to nuclear power and that it is harmless.

I wonder: If one cannot even create acceptance for wind power in many – often moderately-led – municipalities, how is one then to be able to create acceptance for new nuclear power?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Since I myself come from a nuclear power county, I can inform Kajsa Fredholm that there is rarely any opposition to nuclear power in the region. Rather, there is a very positive attitude towards the jobs it creates and what it contributes to the municipality and the county.

I know myself that several from the left side - youth organizations and the like - have been on visits and have been very positive when they left. I hope that the view on nuclear power can change and that we can reach something common here. It would be good for Sweden and the political conversation, I believe.

That we focus too much on electricity production and on nuclear power is an objection one can have. I think it is an absurd objection given the challenges we face and the amounts of electricity we will need to manage the green transition.

Shall we continue to be an industrial nation and continue to manufacture steel? If the answer to the question is yes, we will need incredible amounts of clean, fossil-free electricity. Then wind power and battery storage are not enough, and we will need to build up our foundation. That is why we talk so much about nuclear power. The truth, however, is that it is absolutely not the only thing we have in our plan, but we also talk incredibly much about permit processes and about expanding the charging infrastructure. There are very many baskets for our eggs.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the fact that there are many baskets for your eggs, Helena Storckenfeldt, one would wish that some eggs could fall down towards the 2030 goal a bit more clearly.

It is not that it is considered that there is too much focus on electricity production, but the Climate Policy Council considers that there is a one-sided emphasis on new nuclear reactors that risks obscuring the need for other fossil-free electricity production in the short term.

We in Vänsterpartiet propose a statutory, mandatory production-based economic compensation for wind power, where a share shall go to the municipality where the wind power is built. Incentives for wind power are needed. Investigations have been ongoing regarding this.

I would very much like to know what the Moderaterna's position is on our proposal. Do the Moderaterna agree that it would be reasonable for the municipalities that produce energy to receive back so much that they can, for example, develop their school and care or other services for their residents?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Excellent question, Kajsa Fredholm! This autumn, we in the Moderates adopted a new proposal at our party congress where we established everything more or less in line with the incentive study. We are completely convinced that incentives will be needed for neighbors but also for municipalities as such to increase the acceptance of building more wind power in Sweden.

We see that all parties are part of this and sit in boards that say no. The local acceptance is a problem regardless of party color. I absolutely hope that the incentive study soon becomes a reality.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! The climate threat is acute and complex. Humanity must quickly and resolutely build an economy that does not rest on the use of fossil fuels. This is a major shift that does not happen by itself but which requires major reforms in almost all areas of society.

This is today a major political battleground, where right-wing nationalist parties, without having any solutions at all, are trying to mobilize a resistance against the measures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So that is what our reality looks like today. In this situation, it is central that climate policy is and is perceived as both realistic and positive rather than as a threat.

The Left Party's climate policy does not place the main cost on low- and middle-income earners, on the countryside, or on individual industries. We shall ensure that it is those who emit the most who are to make the biggest changes. We shall ensure that the state takes the responsibility that is completely necessary to be able to carry out a just transition that everyone, including low- and middle-income earners and those who live in the countryside, can participate in.

The climate issue is prioritized in our work in Vänsterpartiet, both in our budget and in our motions. We have the policy to kick-start the climate transition today. It is the richest who emit the most greenhouse gases, and it is the richest who should pay. It is only more left-wing politics that can solve the climate crisis.

Mr. Speaker! 95 percent of Swedes are aware of climate change, and four out of five Swedes want to see a policy that solves them. Despite this, the government and the Sweden Democrats have, since they took power, consistently pursued a policy that increases emissions. It is not just bad climate policy, but it is completely contrary to the will and needs of the Swedish people.

The climate action plan that the government has presented unfortunately shows that this irresponsible policy is not an accident. What the government says there is that they plan to continue to fail, and in practice, they have given up hope that Sweden will meet the national climate goals by 2030.

What is called an action plan consists rather of a number of imprecise assessments and vague expressions of a direction of intent.

The most concrete thing being proposed is that analyses should be carried out and investigations appointed. Actual proposals for how Sweden should reach the nationally decided climate goals by 2030 are lacking.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden will have a very difficult time meeting its climate commitments within the EU. The criticism from the climate movement has, unsurprisingly, been massive, as has the criticism from the Climate Policy Council and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Just recently, the Fiscal Policy Council also criticized the government's climate strategy.

The experts in the Climate Policy Council consider the climate action plan to be misleading and does not provide answers on how Sweden should reach the set climate goals. According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's analysis, the government misses all climate goals. The Fiscal Policy Council argues that the government lacks a coherent and understandable climate strategy and highlights, among other things, that instead of pressing fuel prices for everyone, the government should provide support to particularly vulnerable groups, for example, car-dependent rural residents.

Mr. Speaker! This is not only very poor climate policy, but it is also socio-economically irresponsible. For every year we delay in reducing emissions, the costs of dealing with the problems increase. That the government chooses to postpone measures means that necessary actions will become harder to implement and that the costs for the citizens risk becoming large. This applies particularly to the transport sector, where measures are required immediately.

Since Sweden is failing so significantly in climate measures at home, Sweden risks having to pay several billions to live up to the EU's climate commitments by 2030. Such a policy stands in direct contrast to the very foundation of a climate transition with popular anchoring.

There is, however, another way, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible to implement already today. Sweden has every opportunity to kick-start the climate transition and do so in a way that builds a fairer Sweden, creates jobs and wealth, and ensures that ordinary people get it better while the costs of the transition are borne by those who bear the responsibility. With a more equal distribution of resources, reduced resource use can be combined with a good material standard for all. The transition to a sustainable society must have the greatest consequences for those who have the greatest climate impact and consume the most resources.

Mr. Speaker! In order for Sweden to reach the goals tied to the national climate policy framework and climate commitments within the EU, a strong political course change is required and a package of measures must be initiated as early as during the current mandate period.

To make the just climate transition a reality, we in Vänsterpartiet therefore propose a climate investment program of 700 billion kronor over ten years with historical investments in infrastructure, energy-efficient housing, a strengthened power grid, and significantly expanded renewable energy. We further propose a Sweden ticket for all regional public transport that shall cost a maximum of 450 kronor per month and be valid across the entire country.

We also propose that subsidies to climate-damaging activities be phased out and that the money instead be spent on supporting transition and green investments. When a larger share of the economy goes toward collective investments instead of favoring the overconsumption of high-income earners, opportunities are created to reduce both gaps between low-income earners and high-income earners as well as gaps between city and countryside, while simultaneously reducing emissions. It is good policy for the climate and for ordinary people. Sweden can do better.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: The Government should promptly return to the Riksdag with a new climate action plan whose combined measures lead to Sweden's climate goals and commitments within the framework of the EU's climate legislation actually being met. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 13.

I also move for approval of reservation 15, that Sweden should adopt a carbon budget in line with the Paris Agreement's temperature goal which is based on the IPCC's latest assessment report and a globally fair distribution of the emission space.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! If one reads this report, one sees that Vänsterpartiet wants a ban on fossil fuels by 2035. At the same time, Vänsterpartiet does not want any renewable liquid fuels that work in today's engines. Vänsterpartiet has supported the government when it has instead reduced these ambitions and increased the use of fossil fuels. It becomes an interesting contradiction. One can interpret it as that Vänsterpartiet does not want internal combustion engines at all.

The Konjunkturinstitutet released a report shortly before Christmas where they looked at different scenarios for reaching the climate goals by 2030 and what effects they have on fuel prices. One scenario is quite similar to what Vänsterpartiet advocates, presumably with more electrification and less focus on renewable liquid fuels. To reach the climate goals by 2030, a fuel price below 40-45 kronor per liter was needed during the next parliamentary term. With the scenario that more closely resembles Centerpartiet's policy, with renewable fuels and reduced tax on renewables, we land at approximately 25 kronor per liter.

My question to Kajsa Fredholm and Vänsterpartiet is: What does Vänsterpartiet choose? Will we meet the climate goals by 2030, and if so, is it a fuel price of upwards of 45 kronor that we can foresee?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the question. I do not know if the member, because the Sweden Democrats are not here, is delivering his reply to the Left Party instead. I do not know what he means by that we would not be in favor of biofuels. I suggest that the member reads our motions regarding the climate action plan.

We did not agree to lower the reduction obligation to 6 percent; the members should know that. On the other hand, we thought the current level was too high and that a level needs to be found that is long-term sustainable.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! The truth is that the Left Party went to the election on a platform of significantly lowering the reduction obligation. They wanted to reduce the inclusion of renewable fuels.

If we are not going to have as much renewable fuel and we are not going to have any fossil fuels, we simply need to actively scrap a very large part of the Swedish passenger car fleet to reach the goals for 2030. Alternatively, we need to make it run significantly less. The Konjunkturinstitutet's report shows that a fuel price of 40-45 kronor per liter is needed. That is the effect. People talk about wanting a sustainable level for the reduction obligation, but Vänsterpartiet has voted to lower it. How is that supposed to work?

It is not possible to reach the climate goals by 2030 without a large share of renewable fuels that work in today's engines, but this is what Vänsterpartiet is against. How is Vänsterpartiet supposed to manage? How are we supposed to reach the climate goals? Electrification is not enough. Lowering the reduction obligation to a lower level is not enough either.

How will Vänsterpartiet act to achieve the climate goals by 2030 without getting skyrocketing fuel prices?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was the same question again. I answered it earlier.

As I said, we are not against using biofuels - I do not know where the member has gotten that from - but they must be produced in a sustainable way.

I cannot ask any more questions, but I could rhetorically wonder why the Center Party never talks about public transport. This is something that we really need to invest in if we are to manage the transition in the transport sector.

I wish that the Center Party were a bit more on the ball there. It does need to be expanded across the whole country, and one needs to lower the prices and make it more accessible.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! We can be proud of Sweden and that we are today a leading country in the world when it comes to reducing emissions. Sweden's emissions have steadily decreased and are approximately 37 percent lower today than in 1990. These emission reductions have occurred in parallel with our economy being strong and that we have had significant growth and a growing population.

Despite it being obvious that it is possible to combine reduced emissions with increased growth and improved prosperity, the Left Party continues to have an ideological view on the issue. Therefore, I wonder about one thing, Kajsa Fredholm. You mention that there is another way, which is the Left Party's. You mention that you are going to use 700 billion, a fantasy sum, to solve all problems and create wealth and jobs. But when the companies that have achieved climate successes are owned by shareholders with deep pockets, the different problem formulations need to be weighed against each other.

For example, Volvo AB has created electric trucks that can transform a very dirty part of our society to become clean. That would not have happened if the wealthy owners of the company had not put their money there and invested in the climate transition.

I am becoming very concerned here. Kajsa Fredholm mentions, in fact, that four out of five Swedes want to see politics that solves the climate crisis. Of course they do; everyone wants to solve the climate crisis. The question is only how one does it. Therefore, I wonder what is most important for Vänsterpartiet. Is it to reduce emissions while companies and venture capitalists can make money from the climate, or is it to limit profits and raise taxes, even if that has negative effects on our emissions?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite obvious that we as parties have different ideological starting points. I do not deny that. I maintain that the state needs to take a large responsibility. It is the richest who shall pay.

Then I think that the government's climate action plan is problematic. The Climate Policy Council states in its assessment that the government's and the Sweden Democrats' climate action plan not only lacks concrete proposals but also leads Sweden onto a risky path regarding the climate transition.

It is as I said in a reply to the Moderaterna earlier: The necessary decisions that need to be made during this mandate period are postponed and placed into new investigations. There is a one-sided emphasis on new nuclear reactors which, among other things, risks obscuring the need for other new fossil-free electricity production.

There is also an urgent need to quickly expand wind power. Today, there is a lack of incentives to create acceptance. I would therefore also like to pose a question to the Liberals and the Minister. What is the Minister's position on the Left Party's proposal for a statutory, mandatory, and production-based economic compensation for wind power, where a share should be able to go to the municipality where the wind power is built?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if any of the members in the chamber or the young people sitting in the gallery listening heard any answer to my question. I am happy to answer the member's questions, but there is another time for that. Then one can ask questions about wind power.

Now I asked how Vänsterpartiet stands on us using all the private capital that exists in our society. Just as Vänsterpartiet mentions, billions are spinning around in our economic system. One can ensure that those funds are invested in the climate transition in a market-oriented way. Instead, you want to withdraw the money from those people who, on a sensible basis, invest their money considering what risk and profit they can see in different solutions. And then the state should have 700 billion that has in a magical way been taken from all those people who have earned the money so that the state and the politicians can sit and decide which solutions are best and what should be invested in to solve the climate issue.

It is obvious that Sweden, unlike many other countries, has achieved a combination where the economy grows and emissions decrease. Therefore, I wonder what the Left Party chooses. Do you choose to shift the policy from private capital being able to be invested in the climate transition to capital instead being taken out as tax so that the politicians and the Left Party can decide what is right for the climate and our companies' future? I would like to have an answer to that question.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! That private capital and the market will solve the climate transition has, so far, not happened. Excuse me, but it has not happened. It is going far too slowly.

If the government is going to rely on that and furthermore pursue a policy that increases emissions so that we do not reach the set 2030 goals, I do not understand how it is all supposed to add up. The state needs to take responsibility and make the investments that are required. I am absolutely certain of that.

The government and the Sweden Democrats choose to postpone measures, which means that it will become more difficult to take necessary actions. The costs for the country's inhabitants risk becoming very high in that case.

I can understand that it is difficult to submit proposals that reduce emissions here and now when the government is dependent on the Sweden Democrats, who are mostly occupied with trolling away the climate crisis we are in. We in Vänsterpartiet submit proposals that can start a just climate transition here and now.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report and the rejection of all reservations.

Climate change is global; no country will escape it. We do not live in our own bubble, but we live in a context. Therefore, the climate issue must be solved at a higher level, a global level. Of course, all countries must contribute, otherwise we will get nowhere, but we must still realize that we are a cog in a larger machinery.

Fit for 55 changes climate policy in several ways. For our part, it means that we have a framework at a higher level which, among other things, requires that Swedish national goals are harmonized with EU commitments. Many parts of climate policy must be resolved at the EU level so that we can collectively maintain our competitiveness and our companies' profitability while we can make changes that actually make a real difference.

The Government considers that the global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must increase. The vast majority of countries need to do much more to phase out coal, oil, and gas and to become climate neutral.

Sweden and the EU have taken a leading role through binding goals and legislation that steer towards the goals being reached. All other large emitters need to follow the EU's example. Sweden shall conduct an ambitious and effective climate policy. At the same time, it is important that the climate transition occurs with the citizens' acceptance.

It is clearly evident from both research and the climate action plan that without broad, long-term support, it is impossible to implement climate policy. It presupposes that individuals and companies can, in different ways, act, consume, invest, finance, and produce more climate-smart while prosperity increases. These are fundamentally the same factors that drive growth. The climate transition presupposes growth, but it also drives growth.

The climate issue can only be solved in an economy that is growing and characterized by increased competitiveness, growth, strengthened preparedness and resilience. Swedish companies have been early movers and have found opportunities to benefit from the changes occurring globally. An ambitious, long-term and effective climate policy thus represents an opportunity for the Swedish business sector to take market shares and enter entirely new markets with their fossil-free products, services and technical solutions.

Mr. Speaker! In my introduction, I mentioned that the EU has, in large parts, redrawn the map or perhaps rather paved the way when it comes to the transition to a fossil-free society. The emissions trading system is a completely decisive part. ETS and ETS 2 are cost-effective measures where we have a uniform pricing that provides equal conditions for the countries within the EU. Together with CBAM, we have in these powerful measures that are completely crucial to reaching the goals. With Fit for 55, the need for national measures has decreased in certain parts of the policy. But that does not mean that we can completely rely on what happens at the EU level.

When we are to make changes in Sweden, it is important that greater emphasis than before is placed on enabling measures and feasibility, not just on plans where it is unclear if they can be implemented. The Government sees a greater need to create the right conditions for the business sector to carry out the green transition, because it is the business sector that is the engine in the transition. Without a well-functioning business sector - no transition.

For the phasing out of fossil fuels and the transition to a circular bioeconomy, the use of the forest is required. Here it is clear that we have a heavy task ahead of us to create understanding for sustainable Swedish forestry but then also for the forest's full potential. One cannot just see the forest as a carbon sink and ignore the substitution. Then one misses half the benefit.

Mr. Speaker! The forest and forest issues are a national competence. It has been said many times in this speaker's chair, not least from my side, but I continue to say it. It is my and the Christian Democrats' view on the issue. It is very clear that the competence, in any case, does not exist in Brussels. In this issue, decisions shall not be taken at the EU level.

Another part of the climate action plan concerns how crucial a plentiful supply of fossil-free electricity is for electrification and thus the transition. Here, physics wins over ideology every day of the week. In order for us to succeed in the transition, we need more of everything, and that includes everything, even nuclear power. Yes, it takes time, as does all other construction of electricity production, but nuclear power has the advantage of being reliable regardless of weather and wind. That, Mr. Speaker, cannot be ignored.

We have many projects underway, not least in northern Sweden, which will require enormous amounts of energy. If we want to carry out all of these in earnest, we have no choice. Therefore, the government is working diligently to facilitate new electricity production with the goal that by 2040 we shall have 100 percent fossil-free electricity production. The energy policy direction bill will further pave the way in this regard.

Another supporting pillar in the climate action plan concerns faster permit processes. Therefore, the government is working at full speed on the investigations that have already been conducted, but also on assignments for the future so that we can move forward even faster in this issue. There are many testimonies about how long, complicated, and expensive permit processes really put spokes in the wheels of companies that want to lead the way and want to transition. If they are not allowed to transition their operations, they also have no future.

This is something that is actually one of the low-hanging fruits that remain within this policy area. But today's legislation, not least the Environmental Code, means that even a cherry picker is not enough to reach what should in any case be a low-hanging fruit. Since the government is serious about the transition, solid work is being done even in this part, and that work will continue with emphasis.

Mr. Speaker! High-quality education and research are absolutely crucial both for the transition and for Sweden's prosperity. Through green innovations and world-leading education and research, conditions are created for the new jobs of the future and strengthened competitiveness in industry.

Sweden needs more people with solid knowledge in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Therefore, a so-called STEM strategy spanning the entire education system should be developed. For this to be long-term successful, it is required, among other things, that both women and men choose these educational paths. Sweden is already far ahead today in many research areas, but we must continue to strive forward. Here, the upcoming research bill is also a supporting part to move even further forward.

Mr. Speaker! To summarize: A global issue requires global answers. It is through international cooperation, knowledge exchange, and free trade that we can achieve a successful climate transition. The EU is a central actor both to influence emissions within the union and to push the rest of the world. Without commitment from giants such as USA, China, India, and Brazil, we will not manage the global challenge.

Technological development and a massively increased use of climate-neutral electricity is a prerequisite for the transition in Sweden and in all other countries. In Sweden, expanded nuclear power is the single most important measure for us to be able to reduce our emissions nationally through the electrification of transport and industry. The government's roadmap for new nuclear power is a crucial piece of the puzzle.

The climate transition can only succeed if it occurs in a growing economy. Legitimacy among the citizens is a prerequisite for the transition. The transition is based on the possibility of finding effective policy instruments that ensure that the conditions and standard of living for individuals, households, and companies do not stagnate, and that the entire country and all social groups have equal opportunities in the transition.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! In the latest party leader debate on TV, which I watched, Ebba Busch said that climate policy is a marathon and that we therefore need to bulk, that is, increase our emissions in order to then have better conditions to reach our goals.

All of us who actually run marathons know that it is hard, continuous work that yields results. That bulking would be directly counterproductive in this context.

It is exactly the same thing when it comes to emissions. To increase emissions in order to reduce emissions is directly counterproductive.

In the Tidö Agreement, which I have of course read, it states that climate policy shall be based on science and facts. What facts and what science is Ebba Busch's statement actually based on, Kjell-Arne Ottosson?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I may possibly congratulate Rickard Nordin on a well-executed Göteborgsvarv, if he did run it, he who runs marathons.

Otherwise, questions of that nature should be addressed to the person who made the statement. I did not see the party leader debate myself. Therefore, I cannot provide an answer as to what Ebba Busch based her statement on. I suggest that the member instead pose questions of that nature in an interpellation or a written question to Ebba Busch.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is remarkable that the Christian Democrats cannot answer what the Christian Democrats' policy means. It is fascinating. So, it is the case that Ebba Busch claims that one needs to increase emissions to reduce them. This is totally opposite. It is, however, exactly what the government is doing. One increases the emissions. Then one says that one will reduce them later. But as everyone knows, the climate cares about the accumulated emissions, the total emissions, and they become higher with the government's policy. It does not become easier to reach the climate goals because one increases the emissions. It does not become easier to quit smoking because one starts smoking an extra pack a day. But that is exactly how the government acts.

But we can formulate the question like this, so that Kjell-Arne Ottosson can answer: The government's policy shall be based on facts and science. Now the government is increasing emissions. What facts and what science say that it will be easier to reach the climate goals by increasing emissions?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rickard Nordin for the question. I still suggest that questions regarding Ebba Busch's statement be addressed directly to her.

Of course, policy must be based on science and solid knowledge. An important part of this, Mr. Speaker, is that there must be acceptance for the policy being implemented. Otherwise, we get these large protest movements, which we see down in Europe.

I assume it is the reduction obligation that Rickard Nordin is referring to. It was very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the levels for the reduction obligation were far too high. It was not possible to continue. Even the Swedish National Audit Office said that the design at that time was not feasible. It was very clear that in several parameters it did not work. It was not sustainable economically, ecologically, or socially.

That is why one had to do it over and do it right just to get the acceptance. If we are to get everyone on board, it is absolutely crucial, which I mentioned in my speech. We must have an acceptance for the policy being pursued.

We cannot push through proposals that then put spokes in the wheels for so many people around the country. I believe that actually none of the eight parties want that. But unfortunately, we see that proposals are submitted that nevertheless lead there.

People would rather come up with proposals than see what consequences they lead to. Let us instead look at which proposals we can put forward that have acceptance across the country and where we are in agreement and can move forward correctly. Then we do a much greater service both for the citizens and for the climate.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

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

Global is also local. Something that does not happen locally will not happen globally. The Climate Policy Council submits an annual evaluation of the government's overall policy in relation to the climate goals that the Riksdag and the government have decided upon. It also performs an analysis of the government's climate action plan.

The Council's main conclusions are that the government's policy during 2023 increases Sweden's emissions. This does not lead towards Sweden's climate goals and EU commitments for 2030 being met. With the decided policy, emissions are expected to increase during the mandate period, and the responsibility for reaching the goals is pushed to the next mandate period.

It says that the volatility in politics and the lack of a clear plan in itself risk increasing the socio-economic costs and thus reducing cost-effectiveness. It can reduce the acceptance for the transition that the member spoke about, both in the business sector and among the population at large.

It also says that the government's climate action plan does not live up to the Climate Act and that it lacks concreteness. It ignores the 2030 interim targets that the Riksdag has decided on and, furthermore, lacks sufficient emission forecasts and timeframes for when the policies are to be implemented.

It also says that the claim that the action plan leads all the way to net zero lacks objectivity.

Mr. Speaker! My question in light of this is whether the member intends to pursue the issue of whether the government should return to the Riksdag with a climate action plan that meets the climate goals, or if the member shares the Vice Prime Minister's opinion that it is now time to back down.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for the question!

We have a Climate Act. The Climate Act says that the government shall submit a climate action plan once per parliamentary term. The climate action plan to be submitted for this parliamentary term has now been submitted.

I still cannot help but look back at when the January parties submitted their climate action plan. At that time, criticism also came from various government agencies and, among others, from the Climate Policy Council.

It said that the climate action plan did not meet the requirements of the law, for example. The Climate Policy Council said that even if one interprets the government's climate policy action plan in the best and most generous way, we are not moving fast enough in the right direction, for example.

Now I will just take a few quotes. I have more in my list. It was criticism that was directed at the previous government's climate action plan.

Mr. Speaker! It shows how complicated it is. What is our challenge, regardless of whether one is named Kjell-Arne Ottosson and represents Kristdemokraterna or Anna-Caren Sätherberg and represents Socialdemokraterna, is that we here as politicians must have a helicopter perspective on the issue. We must take into account more parts than the individual agencies and authorities need to do. We shall take everything into account, and then it is a matter of give and take.

Mr. Speaker! That is precisely why we have received criticism in some parts for our climate action plan, just as Anna-Caren Sätherberg and the January parties received criticism for their climate action plan. It shows how complicated it is when you are going to step forward and nevertheless have acceptance, which Anna-Caren Sätherberg also mentioned.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

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

The claim that the action plan leads all the way to net zero - as party members from Moderaterna have said here, as the government has said at press conferences and as everyone has stated - lacks objectivity, says the Climate Policy Council.

I do not know if there was criticism of the previous government. What has happened with the Christian Democrats? It has constantly, and in its principle program, spoken about the stewardship that one has held so highly. Is the perception now: There was criticism before, and then there should be criticism of us? That is not a law of nature. Now you are increasing emissions year after year, and you have no new measures.

On your website, it is still possible to read about stewardship. It concerns the own personal assets, the material values as well as environmental and natural resources. One should act in such a way that one can hand over the fruits of that work with pride. This presupposes that we manage and do not in an irresponsible manner consume finite resources and natural values. It also presupposes that the actions are based on the precautionary principle.

My question is: What has happened to the Christian Democrats' strong view on the stewardship that one has had before? What has happened since then? Do the Christian Democrats need to adopt a new principle program where bulk becomes part of the new stewardship?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anna-Caren Sätherberg, for the proposal!

I must thank Anna-Caren Sätherberg for taking up much of her speaking time to read from the Christian Democrats' party program. It is not often we note social democrats doing so, and certainly not in the chamber of the Riksdag. A thousand thanks for this being broadcast!

It shows how complicated it is, because we have both received criticism. It shows how difficult it is. The idea of stewardship is not a form of preservation, but it is where one should move forward.

If you are to manage to move forward, you must do it where you have the people with you. Otherwise, you will not move forward. If you do not move forward, you also cannot develop the policy in the directions that we must go.

It is extremely important that we involve the population in the changes we are going to make. Otherwise, it doesn't help regardless of what type of stewardship you are engaged in. If you think you are just going to preserve and conserve, you will not move forward.

This is about moving forward, but at a pace such that we see that we get solutions while our citizens are with us. In that way, we build something that is sustainable for the future.

Mr. Speaker! It is truly stewardship when we build something that is sustainable and moreover sustainable for a long time to come.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! When I watched the latest party leader debate on SVT, I recoiled, similar to the member from Centerpartiet and perhaps many others. Ebba Busch – Minister for Energy and Business, and Christian Democrat – said the following: We see the green transition as a marathon where the most important thing is to cross the finish line. If one wants to lose weight quickly, one can starve oneself, but then one cannot run the entire race. Then one must eat correctly. Right now, Sweden is bulking up with emissions, and that is in order to reach zero in 2045. We are putting on a little weight in the form of emissions.

So the minister said in the debate. But it is rather the case that for every year we delay in lowering emissions, the costs increase both economically and in terms of emissions to deal with the problems. I would very much like to have explained what the member's party leader and minister meant.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! In line with what I said in my response to Rickard Nordin, I ask that Kajsa Fredholm direct questions concerning Ebba Busch's statements directly to Ebba Busch. There are opportunities to submit a written question and also opportunities for an interpellation debate. I would therefore advise Kajsa Fredholm to pose the question directly to Ebba Busch instead of going through a proxy.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now, the fact is that the member is a Christian Democrat and that the Christian Democrats are in the government. Ebba Busch is the member's party leader and minister. I believe, therefore, that one should know this if one is in the party and is a member of the Riksdag.

When one bulks out emissions in the form of lowered fuel prices and reduced reduction obligations, and when emissions increase for the first time in decades, it only worsens the climate crisis we are in. It does not help to accumulate the emissions. We have a carbon budget that we must adhere to. We must now invest in measures that reduce emissions and do not increase them. This is also taken up by the Climate Policy Council in its critical report on the government's climate action plan.

The central issues of the transition are handled largely in a reverse chronological order, and the necessary decisions that must be made during this mandate period are postponed and placed into new inquiries. I want to ask the member: Why is the government postponing the decisions until the next mandate period? Is that not quite irresponsible?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! One can do it in two ways. Either one goes fast and forward incorrectly, and then one must redo it and do it correctly. That is exactly what happened with, for example, the reduction obligation, where we saw that it was not sustainable. One had built a curve that did not hold all the way through. One had put all the eggs in the same basket. We were forced to redo it and do it correctly. It is of course not good, but it is better than continuing on something that is wrong. That is one way.

The second way is to conduct proper investigations and produce consequence analyses to see what is effective. What is cost-effective? What makes a difference for the climate and the environment? Based on a solid decision-making basis, one can then make the right decisions that lead all the way to net-zero 2045. That is what we do. We do not go fast and wrong.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the speech and for the interesting exchanges! I have several questions, and I will try to be brief and concise so that we can get through them.

The Christian Democrats mention in their statement that they are in favor of new nuclear power and refer to the climate. I have noted that the government has not chosen to take the initiative for an analysis of how the transition of energy policy, where all fossil-free types of power including nuclear power are now welcomed, affects the climate transition. Therefore, I wonder if the Christian Democrats are prepared to change energy policy if it were to appear that the strategy of welcoming new nuclear power delays the climate transition and worsens it for the climate.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I actually think the answer to Elin Söderberg's question is included in our new energy goal of having 100 percent fossil-free energy. There, nothing is said about what type of energy it is about, but only that it shall be 100 percent fossil-free energy. Then we will see what the market, the industry, and the research say that we should have and proceed with it.

This is important given all the energy we need to manage the transition to 2045 and to manage all the investments being made, not least in northern Sweden. We see how today it is said no to investments in southern Sweden because there is not enough power. That speaks for the fact that we must have enormously much more energy. And we see, just as I said, that we must have everything. The IPCC also mentions in its penultimate report: Yes to everything, and that also includes nuclear power, if we are to manage this.

I understand that one can have different views on different types of power; I have no problem with that. But if we are to have energy, we must build for it, and then we must have something that delivers energy all days of the year, all hours of the day, regardless of weather and wind. We cannot rely on a system that only has renewables holding up, because such a system does not exist - not today in any case. Then perhaps research will advance even there, but we are not there today, and we must make decisions based on the basis we have today.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think it was somewhat unclear. But if it is the case that the Christian Democrats' will to welcome new nuclear power is specifically about the climate issue, I think it is highly relevant to analyze the effects on the climate transition of the government welcoming new nuclear power.

I can state that there are several analyses showing that an electricity system where new nuclear power is welcomed risks leading to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to a delayed climate transition. Doctors of economics have, for example, written that the government's investment in nuclear power raises the electricity price and increases the risk of electricity shortages before 2035.

Since low electricity prices and access to electricity are crucial for the industry's climate transition, does such a development involve great risks for the climate transition? There is also a report from Chalmers which highlights that electrification could be delayed.

Therefore, I would like the Christian Democrats to answer my question. If the reason for being in favor of nuclear power is the climate argument and if it appears that it becomes worse for the climate if one works with new nuclear power – are the Christian Democrats then prepared to change their position?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thought I answered Elin Söderberg in my previous speech. We have said that we are to have 100 percent fossil-free energy. What it is that will then emerge, we shall see. That is what the market, the research, and our industry must decide.

It becomes a bit of what is called cherry picking in New Swedish, that is, that one selects which research reports one wants to read. Regardless, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that if we do not have an energy policy that provides the energy we need, and furthermore clean energy, we also have no climate policy.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! There are three problems with the government's climate action plan: it lacks climate, it lacks action, and it lacks a plan.

The government's own expert council calls it misleading and argues that it lacks objectivity. The Fiscal Policy Council says that decisions or notifications regarding measures to reduce emissions are missing. The Council further states that a political leadership is needed that clearly describes why the climate transition is necessary. The National Institute of Economic Research warns that with the government's policy, we will have fuel prices over 40 kronor per liter already in the next mandate period.

The government itself writes in the Tidö Agreement that policy must be checked against research and be based on facts. My question to the government and the Minister for Climate is: What research and facts are you going to check against? All instances say the same thing. All research and facts point in the same direction. The government's policy is not sufficient. It is not anywhere near being so. It is misleading, and it lacks objectivity. Stop playing ostrich and burying your head in the sand! Start acting! Start leading!

All the government is doing right now is trying to gaslight the entire Swedish population. It is working poorly. A small scrappage premium does not solve the fact that the use of fossil fuels is increasing by 4 million liters a day. More charging stations do not help against the fact that electric car sales have plummeted since the government removed the environmental car bonus and shock-raised the electricity tax.

The Minister often speaks of a broad palette. In the Minister's palette, however, there seems to mostly be grey, black, and above all, Sverigedemokratiskt brown. That is, more money is being spent on increasing emissions than on reducing them. The red color, which was supposed to draw lines against populism, climate denial, and racism, the Minister seems to have left at home when she entered Rosenbad. The promise that the Liberals would stand up for the climate goal turned out, just like so much else, to be nothing but empty words. It is shameful.

The Russian gas is still flowing across the Swedish borders, despite Jan Björklund's winged words. We cannot account for the origin of 30 percent of our oil, which in practice means that it is likely to come from Russia. Despite this, the government is proceeding with a policy that increases our oil dependency and accelerates emissions on a scale not seen in modern times, and this in a security policy situation where Russia is the last place we want to send our money.

The government's policy plays right into Vladimir Putin's hands.

The climate transition, Mr. Speaker, is not only necessary; it is absolutely crucial for Sweden's competitiveness, for our rural development, for our security, and for our health. When more electric and biogas cars roll on our streets, particulate emissions decrease and our children's lungs develop better, while fewer die from cardiovascular diseases caused by poor air. When green carbon atoms from soil and forest replace fossil counterparts in plastics, paints, fabrics, and fuels, the money stays in the Swedish countryside instead of ending up in Putin's pockets. When innovative Swedish companies get a strong domestic market, conditions are created for export when the rest of the world transitions, and hundreds of thousands of new jobs can be created here at home. When we produce more electricity, fuels, and raw materials for industry on our own, the vulnerability in global supply chains is reduced, and we avoid sending money to rogue states such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Russia.

All these opportunities exist in the climate transition. It is truly something to fight for. But the government, with full knowledge, makes decisions that make us more dependent on fossil fuels, that increase emissions, that send more money to rogue states and that damage children's lungs. All of this is fact and established science, exactly what the government says it bases its decisions on. These are, therefore, completely conscious actions that harm the Swedish population.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Swedish energy prices skyrocketed. This applied to both electricity and fuels. For almost a decade, I have warned against becoming dependent on Russian oil. Under the slogan that we would rather fuel with renewables from Piteå than fossil fuels from Putin, the Center Party has pushed for increased Swedish production of renewable fuels. When prices became unsustainably high—because they did—such production could have eased the burden. Together with tax cuts on renewables and adjusted fees, it could have lowered the price just as much as the government did when it scrapped the reduction obligation and increased the fossil share.

So, apologizing by saying that the voters wanted lower fuel prices is not enough. Saying that we must create acceptance for the climate policy and therefore must increase emissions is not sufficient. There are other proposals that would have lowered the prices just as much without increasing emissions. A poor choice has therefore been made, to deliberately increase emissions when one could have created acceptance in another way.

The voters also want a tough climate policy. And they are not alone: A united business community wants sharp climate goals to be met. Hitachi has secured the largest industrial order in Swedish history for delivery to renewable technology. It is actually simple logic: When the rest of the world transitions - and it will happen - we want Swedish companies at the forefront that, thanks to an ambitious domestic market, have been able to innovate and can now sell their products to the rest of the world.

When the government instead wants to do as little as possible, our companies will lose in competitiveness. Then we will have to buy from the rest of the world, and our companies will of course move there where the conditions are better.

That threat is no fabrication but a real threat. A report from this week from Västra Götalandsregionen shows that 25,000 jobs are threatened in Western Sweden alone if the electricity demand by 2030 is not met. Despite this, important decisions are being dragged out in the government's long bench. The talk about shortened permit processes does not seem to apply to the government's own climate work. There, important parts are being pushed into the future. New climate proposals shall therefore not arrive until the next mandate period – then we won't even know which government we have. Completed proposals and applications are lying and gathering dust while emissions increase, companies are looking for other places to establish themselves, and the money continues to be sent to Putin's Russia or Saudi billionaires.

The climate transition is possible. We have everything to gain from it. Why is it not happening then? The technology exists. The will exists. The solutions exist. It is the political leadership that is lacking.

There is no long-term perspective from the government. There is no clear direction. One day, the market for renewable fuels is withdrawn. The next day, green credits are granted for the expansion of the same thing. A new emissions trading for transport is being prepared which reduces emissions by raising the price. At the same time, it is said that all price increases shall be fully compensated. The government seems to be chasing its own tail. The only result is that the climate work stalls and the bureaucracy increases.

There must be more action and less talk. Sweden is at the bottom when it comes to circular solutions. A deduction to facilitate sharing services should be implemented immediately. Reusing and repurposing before recycling must become more profitable and be prioritized. Efficiencies that can free up both electricity and materials must be implemented immediately, as it is one of the fastest ways to release the resources we need in the short term. Furthermore, it reduces the need for the use of virgin raw materials. Introduce the proposals we jointly developed in the Environmental Goals Preparation regarding consumption-based and export-related emission targets!

The will for and the profit from the transition must increase. Here, politics can make a big difference. Fossil fuels will become more expensive. This will affect some. Instead of tricking people into thinking it will not happen, which the Fiscal Policy Council practically says the government is doing, the government must facilitate for people to get out of fossil fuel dependency. Reintroduce the environmental car bonus, support the conversion of vehicles to biogas, support those who do not have public transport nearby, and help households that are struggling!

Centerpartiet has launched a green check to break the fossil dependency. Those who want to refuel with renewables instead of fossil fuels, install solar cells on the roof, buy an electric car, or do other environmentally smart things must receive substantial support. Those who instead choose to continue refueling with fossil fuels, especially oil of unknown origin, or use Russian gas must pay for it, especially if they have public transport nearby.

When the public sector purchases goods, it must of course be climate-smart - therefore I move for approval of reservation 95. The Center Party has proposed making it mandatory in all relevant procurement to have climate requirements. It is not strange, but it is a fantastic consumer power. Reintroduce the travel deduction, which would benefit public transport in the countryside and which the government abolished! Also reintroduce the proposals regarding procurement that were on the table and which the government also chose to abolish!

Mr. Speaker! We have long pushed for shortened permit processes. The investigations that were commissioned during the previous government, I have personally driven forward. The government also says it wants to shorten lead times. A good start would have been to begin with its own department. Finished proposals on reduced bureaucracy took two years to present, even though they were ready. The proposals on compensation to neighbors who host new electricity production are still gathering dust after the referral period. One year has now passed without action – despite us hearing the Moderates say that they support this, despite us hearing the Christian Democrats say that they support it, despite us hearing the Liberals say that they support it, and despite us even hearing the Sweden Democrats say that they support it. Still, the government does not present the proposals. What is the problem?

The most serious example is probably still that the Minister for Climate and Environment says that one should compensate for the now skyrocketing emissions with something that will not arrive until the next mandate period. The government rushes through legislation regarding privacy-damaging visitation zones because it is urgent to handle gang crime, but does not seem to think it is urgent to handle the climate crisis and strengthen Swedish competitiveness. This is harmful. It is harmful for the climate, for the citizens' health, and for the Swedish companies.

Mr. Speaker! To curb crime and to follow laws and rules, written as unwritten, this government preaches to us citizens. But to follow the Climate Act, the government completely ignores. If the government itself does not follow the law, what signals does it send to the rest of society?

If the Liberals had had some backbone, they would have stood up against petropopulism. If the Moderates had had the interests of the business sector in mind, they would have met it head-on and made substantial climate investments. If the Christian Democrats had a Christian perspective, they would have taken care of creation. If the Sweden Democrats had Sweden's best interests in mind, they would have made Sweden independent of Russian energy.

We in the Center Party are prepared to do all of this. We know that the technology exists. We know that the will of the population exists. We know that it is possible to help those who are hit hardest economically. We have a policy that reaches the goals, that strengthens competitiveness and that looks out for the whole country. We hold the line against both populists and Russian energy.

Mr. Speaker! For those who want a policy that can handle the climate and strengthen Sweden's competitiveness, there is only one choice. It is a green, liberal and conservative party. It is the Center Party. And that choice everyone has to make on June 9.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, the Swedish people and many Swedish organizations, business representatives, and others want to reach climate goals. This observation from the speaker's chair is quite obvious – it is clear that everyone wants to reach climate goals.

The question is how we reach the climate goals, not whether we should. There is no one arguing against us achieving the challenge we face, but it would be somewhat reasonable to also mention that the question is how we get there. That is what we should discuss, for example here today, and even though it sounds like exciting proposals with reuse and energy efficiency, we all know that it is not enough.

Mr. Speaker! Despite major media statements that the Center Party had shifted to being in favor of nuclear power, the Center Party voted no to the government's proposition on new nuclear power and to proposals that are completely necessary for new nuclear power to be able to be built in Sweden at all. The Center Party has a long history of opposition to nuclear power in its party's DNA, and it is out of fear for where the Center Party actually stands that the industry and the business community are pleading for long-term, cross-bloc decisions in energy policy.

Let us therefore contribute to curbing this anxiety and give the Swedish people clear answers! Will the long-term plan for the expansion of all fossil-free electricity production that the government is now presenting remain in place even if the Center Party gains influence during future terms? Can the Center Party once and for all give the assurance that the government's decisions regarding new nuclear power will not be overturned with the Center Party's help in the event of a change of power?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! If the government wants long-term perspective in energy policy, a hot tip is to invite cross-bloc energy talks on just this. It facilitates things if one actually tries to reach agreements by inviting and negotiating on them rather than thinking that one presents them in the Riksdag and hopes for the best.

It is also what the business community is demanding – not that one takes a single decisive action, throws out a few proposals and hopes for the best, as the government seems to be doing.

We can also listen to Vattenfall, which says that if you want new nuclear power, the best thing you can do right now is to invest in land- and sea-based wind power. Without that, no new nuclear power will be needed, because then the companies will have moved somewhere else.

The climate goals and energy goals for 2030 cannot be reached with nuclear power, because there is no new nuclear power in place by then. In that case, we need other power production. We need efficiencies, which the minister ignored. We need bioenergy. We need land-based wind power. We need offshore wind power, which the government seems to refuse to make decisions about. Nothing is happening regarding any of these things.

If you really want to discuss energy policy in its entirety, the minister is welcome back to the debate on Thursday, which is about exactly that. Then I would very gladly discuss even more nuclear power if that is the case. Here, I am focusing on the climate issue.

If we are to solve the industry's need for the transition to electricity by 2030, I believe the blindfolds regarding nuclear power must be loosened a bit, because one won't manage to solve the problem by then. The best solution if one actually wants more nuclear power is to invest in more wind power, paradoxically.

My question back to the Minister is that if one now desires long-term perspective in energy policy, as is being requested here, is the government then prepared to invite such conversations? That is what is needed, and that is what the business community is requesting.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Rickard Nordin seems to want an invitation card instead of giving notice to the Swedish people from a rostrum in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag as to where he stands.

People only talk about offshore wind power. I can gladly inform Rickard Nordin that this government has approved more offshore wind power than the previous government managed to achieve during eight whole years. We are criticized for the pace of wind power when we are doing everything we can to expand all fossil-free power sources. But Rickard Nordin refuses to speak about the absolutely fundamental base power, which needs to be expanded so that the power system can deliver for the climate transition.

I note the outstanding messages and hope that the member succeeds in giving me a clearer statement in the next point.

Centerpartiet's Member of the European Parliament Emma Wiesner recently came out and demanded that all countries take responsibility for their historical emissions. With great pomp, this announcement was made, and Rickard Nordin stands here and proudly proclaims that 95 percent by 2040 is a reasonable EU goal.

Then I wonder if the Center Party has made any analysis of what this would require of the Swedish agricultural sector. Has Rickard Nordin made an analysis of what is concretely required of Swedish farmers and forest owners to meet this level of ambition? Or is it just these big, pompous words with hard rhetoric in the speaker's chair about climate goals? They can damn well be tossed up to 95 percent!

This government chooses to look at the referral responses that come in, not least from Swedish farmers and forest owners, on how it is seen that these goals can be achieved in a concrete way.

I wonder if the Center Party has a plan for how the agricultural sector can compensate for all its historical emissions and for this incredibly ambitious 95-percent level. Is there a plan? Is there a thought? What does the Center Party require of the Swedish farmers and foresters?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can inform the Minister that since 2009 it has been permitted to build new nuclear power in Sweden. The Centre Party has stood behind that since then. We signed that energy agreement then.

What we do not stand behind are multi-billion subsidies to nuclear power. We already have 400 billion when it comes to credit guarantees, and now the government wants to add even more.

When it comes to the 2040 goals, this is what is required to reach the Paris Agreement. If we do not reach the climate goals, the consequences for agriculture will be catastrophic. We will be able to produce significantly less food, not only in Sweden but in the rest of the world, so reaching them is completely fundamental for the food sector.

What is the big problem and my great concern is not 2040. It is 2030. We are not even close to reaching the 2030 goals that exist, and the government now chooses to prioritize increased emissions in the transport sector. Then only the agricultural sector remains. The government will obviously force agriculture and forestry to reduce emissions, because that is the only thing left to do when the government allows increased fossil emissions with oil from Russia.

This is the big problem and the big threat to the countryside – that one does not manage to prioritize. One prioritizes driving in large cities, for me in Gothenburg where we can take the tram instead, and in Stockholm where the subway exists. Instead of compensating those who truly need the car, one invests billions in reduced fuel taxes in large cities. Instead of helping agriculture to transition, one makes it cheaper with fossil fuels and shock-raises the electricity tax.

This is what is truly serious and truly worrying. It is the Swedish countryside that will have to pay for the government's failed climate policy if we do not reach the goals by 2030, and no expert body says that we will. No one else says it, except possibly the government itself.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, dear colleagues, for a very interesting debate! I will likely exceed my speaking time somewhat, I can say already now. I can also begin by moving for approval of reservation 13. We in Miljöpartiet want the government to present a completely new climate action plan. This one is not sufficient.

Mr. Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet want Sweden to become the world's first fossil-free welfare state and to be a driving force in the global climate transition. The climate transition can and shall be a driving force for a strong and just social development in the entire country, where the business sector's transition leads to strengthened competitiveness and secure jobs. Sweden shall become a world exhibition for innovations, new technology, and how sustainable societies are planned and what they look like. As the first fossil-free welfare state, we develop society in balance with the ecosystems and create pleasant social environments that contribute to good public health.

The green transition must and shall be precisely green and environmentally and socially sustainable. Against the background of several major societal challenges, Sweden needs to carry out a green societal transition in order to meet the climate crisis and the nature crisis and build a robust society with freedom and security within the planet's boundaries. Miljöpartiet therefore wants to build a socially and ecologically sustainable society where Sweden has the world's best climate work, biological diversity is strengthened, welfare is available for everyone where it is needed and where equality is a given; a safe and free society within the planet's boundaries. It is a historical commitment we must make, where we listen to the science and do what is required to reach the sustainability goals in Agenda 2030.

Mr. Speaker! We can observe that we cannot achieve any justice without transition. Nor can we achieve any transition without justice. The climate transition must be just and contribute to social development throughout the entire country. The rapid social development that the climate transition entails requires robust social safety nets that ensure economic basic security for the population, and a labor market policy and education policy that create security in the transition and conditions for lifelong learning.

We in Miljöpartiet have presented a complete, alternative climate action plan as a follow-up motion to the government's communication. The content of our action plan is limited to emission-reduction measures, but the majority of our reforms both reduce emissions and increase equality. Our strategy for a just climate transition is, however, much broader than the content of just the climate policy. The entire policy needs to create the conditions for a just climate transition.

An example of a measure that is not emission-reducing in itself and therefore is not included in our plan is our proposal for reduced tax in rural and sparsely populated areas, but we also have several measures that reduce emissions and also have a distributional policy profile.

We want to provide support in the form of an income-tested leasing check to people so that they can lease an electric car. We want a higher bonus when purchasing an electric car or a biogas car for those living in rural areas than for those who live in cities. We also want a distance-based and transport-neutral travel deduction, as there were proposals for, but which this government has scrapped. We want to introduce a Sweden card so that it becomes equally cheap to travel by public transport throughout the country.

We want to see long-term support for energy efficiency where the state covers 60 percent of the costs for energy-saving measures for households and property owners.

Mr. Speaker! We need an electricity system that supports the climate transition. In order to enable the phasing out of fossil energy, renewable energy production needs to be expanded and electricity must be released that can replace the fossil energy we import today. Increased electricity production in itself does not lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. To contribute to the climate transition, the increased electricity production must replace the import of fossil energy.

The Tidö parties have unfortunately reduced environmental policy to climate policy, among other things by abolishing the Ministry of the Environment. They have reduced climate policy to energy policy and to a very large extent reduced energy policy to the issue of new nuclear power. But today, Swedish industry is at a standstill. If we talk about the industry's climate transition, we need to deliver terawatt-hours before 2030, and in that case, nuclear power is completely irrelevant.

We in Miljöpartiet want to see concrete planning goals for 2030 and 2035, not only for 2045, as the government has decided. We want to make twice as much electricity available by 2035, that is, ten years before the government's plan. We want to do this through a powerful expansion of renewable electricity production and energy efficiency measures. We shall, of course, utilize the entire potential that exists for profitable energy efficiency measures. That is how Sweden can fastest and cheapest release more electricity, not least for the industry's climate transition.

The renewable electricity system shall rest on a stable foundation of green baseload power. We want to set a planning goal for green baseload power of 10 gigawatts by 2030. Specifically, this concerns energy storage in the form of hydrogen, pumped storage and heat, high capacity in hydropower, more flexibility and capacity from combined heat and power, gas turbines powered by renewable fuels, and demand flexibility such as smart control of electric vehicle charging and heat pumps.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has made a realignment of the energy policy. It is clear that the most important focus in that realignment is to create the conditions to build new nuclear power in Sweden. The Government has, however, not taken the initiative for any analysis of the effects on the climate transition of this realignment of the energy policy. Without having analyzed the effect on the climate, the Government has thus highlighted the realignment of the energy policy as one of its most important climate measures. But there are plenty of analyses that show that an electricity system with new nuclear power leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions due to delayed transition.

In December 2023, two doctors of economics wrote in Svenska Dagbladet that "the government's investment in nuclear power raises electricity prices and increases the risk of electricity shortages before 2035." Since low electricity prices and access to electricity are a prerequisite for the industry's climate transition, such a development obviously entails great risks for the climate transition.

In a report from Chalmers 2023 comparing a future electricity system with and without nuclear power, it states: "If, furthermore, an excessively one-sided focus is placed on facilitating nuclear power specifically, electrification risks being delayed and market actors must wait for the costs of nuclear power to become more predictable, while investments in wind power – where there is currently a large investment interest – risk being omitted."

That the electrification is postponed is relevant from a climate perspective in that it means that the cumulative emissions over time increase more than with a policy that can ensure we achieve a faster electrification.

Mr. Speaker! The criticism of the government's climate action plan, this document, has been massive. The Climate Policy Council writes that the government gives a misleading picture of the action plan's expected contribution to the goal being achieved and that the claim that the action plan leads all the way to net zero lacks objectivity.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency writes in its latest report that the target for 2045 is not reached with the decided policy measures and that the gap to the target is around 22 million tonnes.

The Fiscal Policy Council writes that a coherent and understandable strategy is needed so that individuals and companies can make the right investment decisions at the right time and thereby transition in a cost-effective manner. According to them, the government's climate action plan does not provide clear and concrete information on how the climate goals are to be reached. It rests on hopes that future measures will lead to the goals being achieved.

The Energy Agency assesses that it is not possible to reach Sweden's goals for renewable energy within Fit for 55, given the government's reduction of the reduction obligation. And if the EU goals were to be extended to after 2030, the announced expansion of nuclear power risks leading to the share of renewables not increasing to a sufficient extent or even decreasing.

Mr. Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet have presented a complete alternative climate action plan, a green climate action plan for Sweden.

I would like to move for approval of reservation 17.

Our action plan contains overarching and supporting measures. It contains measures for emissions within Sweden's borders, measures for increased carbon sequestration in forest and land, measures regarding consumption-based emissions, and measures for negative emissions.

We want to expand the climate policy framework with an annual emissions budget for Sweden until 2040 with a sharp goal of reaching near-zero emissions already in 2035. We want to adopt a goal for consumption-based emissions in line with what science shows is required to meet the Paris Agreement. I hope it will not be so difficult, as it is not long ago that all eight parties were able to agree on goals for consumption-based emissions. But the government has not yet presented any bill on this.

We want the climate college to be re-established in the Government Offices, something that the Climate Policy Council has also highlighted.

We would like to appoint a national coordinator for the implementation of Sweden's climate goals within the framework of the LULUCF Regulation. Measures are needed now for us to reach Sweden's commitments to increase carbon sequestration in forest and land.

We also want Sweden to show leadership within the EU and internationally so that the Paris Agreement can be reached.

When it comes to industry, Miljöpartiet laid the foundation for the industry's climate transition when Miljöpartiet was in government. The industry's climate transition in Sweden is for the benefit of the climate, Swedish competitiveness and Sweden's economy, and it contributes to a strong social development in all of Sweden. The industry's climate transition simultaneously involves the development of technologies and products that contribute to the global climate transition.

There are some things that we particularly want to focus on. It is faster permit processes, electricity in the near term, and competence supply. Industry is screaming for this to manage the climate transition. Despite that, the government is not delivering in terms of what the business sector demands.

We in Miljöpartiet want, as I have mentioned, planning goals for electricity in the near term and to quickly expand electricity production. When we were in government, we worked out the investigations regarding faster permit processes. The government has instead let this lie on the back burner.

When it comes to the supply of skills, initiatives in housing construction, educational efforts, and better conditions for labor immigration are needed so that we can ensure we get personnel for all activities. Initiatives on infrastructure are also obviously needed, and the work with Industriklivet, Klimatklivet, green credit guarantees, and Fossilfritt Sverige, which we established when we were in government, must continue.

When I listened to some of the previous speeches, I reacted to the fact that the transport sector was hardly mentioned. But it is the sector where we have very high greenhouse gas emissions today and where emissions are increasing sharply as a result of the government's policy.

We in Miljöpartiet see that measures are needed for an efficient transport system. It is about us electrifying, replacing the vehicles with fossil-free driven vehicles, and that we manage the emissions from the existing vehicle fleet by reintroducing and developing the reduction obligation.

The conditions for transition within the transport sector look very different in different parts of the country, in different households, and in different operations. Technological development has also progressed to different extents regarding different types of transport modes – passenger cars, trucks, shipping, and aviation. The transition of the transport sector must therefore be carried out by finding the right solution in the right place, so that we reduce emissions as quickly and effectively as possible.

Agriculture, which was mentioned in a previous exchange of remarks, is one of the areas hit hardest by the consequences of climate change. Today we see parched harvests or rain-ruined harvests. We see an increased risk of diseases and insect infestations as a result of climate change.

Food production in Sweden needs to increase. It is a good measure to strengthen Sweden's crisis preparedness, but it is also a climate adaptation measure. When harvests in southern Europe cannot deliver, we have the conditions to increase our food production here in Sweden, but then political measures are needed to give all farmers the conditions to transition agriculture. It is also about us doing this where we get synergy effects between biodiversity, climate adaptation, and reduced climate impact.

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes it sounds as if we have these climate debates for the sake of the climate goals. But we are facing extreme challenges. There is no business as usual scenario without consequences. In the current situation, we are heading towards a world that is closer to three degrees warmer already by the year 2100. That is when today's middle school students, who are walking with their backpacks over their shoulders, are in their 80s. Throughout their entire lives, they will see the development of climate changes and their consequences – for food production, for migration, for the spread of diseases, for security policy, and for the economy. Everything is affected by whether we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions fast enough and meet the Paris Agreement or if we cannot do so.

At the same time, it means huge opportunities to make the climate transition, halt emissions, and meet the Paris Agreement. In Sweden, the climate transition means strengthened competitiveness, more pleasant urban environments, better public services in rural and sparsely populated areas, cleaner air, and better health. It is a no-brainer that we should carry out the climate transition. Despite this, we see enormous differences between the eight parliamentary parties when it comes to how much emissions will be reduced by our policy.

The consequences here in Sweden, if we do not transition, are several. It is about flooded basements, about destroyed homes, about washed-away roads and railway tracks, about landslides and rockslides, about heatstroke in elderly care homes, where the elderly have to lie and suffer, and about forest fires that force people to flee from houses and homes. All of this, of course, leads to great costs for Swedish households and companies.

Climate risks are not just something far away, somewhere else. They affect us in Sweden here and now. It will definitely affect us all if we do not reduce emissions, curb climate change, and adapt to the changed climate.

Mr. Speaker! There are a number of things that this government is doing. It is often mentioned that a number of wind farms have been approved. We in the Miljöpartiet think that is good. When we were in government, we laid the foundation so that conditions would be established quickly for, for example, new offshore wind power.

The government is also continuing Klimatklivet, Industriklivet, and green credit guarantees - so far. That is good. We laid the foundation for the industry's climate transition. It needs to be scaled up and taken further.

The government has introduced a scrappage premium, something that we in Miljöpartiet campaigned for in the 2022 election. It is a good proposal, but it actually does very little for the climate. It is not at all possible to weigh it against the emission-increasing measures that the government is taking.

The government tried to manage the increased energy prices resulting from Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine by lowering gasoline prices. All parties presented different ways to handle the shock prices that came after Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

We in Miljöpartiet stood firm on climate policy. We moved forward with leasing checks, lowered food VAT, and lowered taxes in rural areas - solutions to ensure that households are protected in a difficult economic situation, while we continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The government chose to increase the fossil dependency, increase the blending of fossil fuels, and shock-increase greenhouse gas emissions.

It has also been mentioned here that even the climate action plan of the Green Party and the Social Democrats was insufficient. However, the differences in the criticism are enormous. I agree with the Climate Policy Council even regarding the criticism we received – criticism that the impact calculations should have been clearer and that the measures should have been stronger to reduce emissions faster.

But if the Tidö parties thought that criticism was relevant, one would have taken it further when laying down a new climate action plan. Instead, they have chosen to have no impact assessments, and instead of ramping up climate policy, they have thrown it overboard and shock-increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Overall, the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, Liberalerna, and Sverigedemokraterna have all actively chosen to stand behind policies that shock-increase greenhouse gas emissions and a memorandum with a climate action plan that pushes the entirety of the climate work onto the next government.

One refers to Fit for 55 and the EU's climate work but conducts a policy that ensures all EU commitments under Fit for 55 are missed here in Sweden. In its action plan, the government writes that Sweden shall conduct an ambitious and effective climate policy. But until now, the government has lowered the ambitions to such an extent that Sweden is now judged to miss all international, European, and national climate goals.

It takes a great deal of imagination to describe a climate policy that increases emissions and misses all goals as "ambitious and effective." It is simply irresponsible.

(Applause)

(TALMANNEN: I note that the speech was three times longer than the reported speaking time. Speaking times are an important planning tool when we plan, organize, and staff the chamber. I would therefore appeal to the members to report the time they actually intend to speak.)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is possible to throw a small stone in one's own glass house, but instead of just fossil emission rights, perhaps we should start with oral ones too – that might have seemed limiting!

Mr. Speaker! To return to the point itself, there is a great deal that Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet share. We both, for example, want to increase timber house construction to reduce fossil-intensive materials such as steel and cement. We want to replace fossil materials with biological ones when it comes to everything from plastics to fuels. This we are in complete agreement on.

The big question, however, is where the carbon atoms will come from. Here, I perhaps share earlier views in the debate on valuing the forest's climate benefit, while Miljöpartiet would rather reduce the use of the forest.

But if we are now going to harvest less, how will we then get more timber to increase wood house construction? When there is less bark and sawdust and residual products, how will we then be able to produce more renewable plastics and renewable fuels?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks, Rickard Nordin, for the question!

Miljöpartiets starting point is that we need to halt climate change. In that case, we need to both reduce fossil emissions and ensure that the carbon sink, that is, all carbon bound in forests and vegetation, is not released into the atmosphere.

That is why we have highlighted in our policy, among other things, that we want to see more bioeconomy. We welcome, for example, the reduction obligation. We see that bioenergy has been used in several places in a good way to reduce fossil emissions. But we must also start from the fact that the forest is a limited resource and that we therefore need to manage it in a responsible way.

We want to see more resource efficiency, more circular economy and more conditions for long-lived products so that the green carbon atoms can create as much social benefit as possible as many times as possible. We want to see a more sustainable use so that there is more climate adaptation when it comes to the forest and so that the forest becomes more resilient to the new challenges that come as a result of climate change but also that we can continue to have a sustainable extraction for socially beneficial activities.

We also want to work on ensuring that demand does not just keep increasing and increasing. If we are to be able to manage our forests in a responsible and sustainable way, it does not help if it only leads to logging in another country; we must ensure that we achieve a more resource-efficient circular economy and long-lived products.

We must also work with other measures, for example waste heat in heating, solar heat and other technologies that ensure that the biomass we extract from the forest can be used where it provides the greatest climate benefit and not anywhere where we could have used other technology instead.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Many of these things are good, such as more bioeconomy and other things. It is absolutely excellent. That is something we also pushed for within the framework of the January Agreement, but then had quite a difficult time reaching an agreement because we saw completely differently on the forest's role.

If one is to bind carbon in long-lived products, then house construction is perfect. We bind more carbon in long-lived products, such as a house for example, so that new forest can grow up and bind new carbon. It becomes a double effect of that.

However, one cannot get around the fact that if we are to build more in wood, more timber is needed. Replacing the combustion of wood chips - as it often is in combined heat and power plants - with solar heat and other sources is nothing bad, but one does not burn timber in the combined heat and power plants. One does not burn a log or fine planks in them. The chips come as a byproduct of timber production. If we want more wooden house construction and do not want to import from other countries with poorer sustainability requirements, we must harvest Swedish forests. That is the only way to get the timber!

Here, the Green Party's policy does not add up. One cannot both increase timber house construction and reduce logging. Timber is the basis for all of this. Then we need a forest policy that also involves logging so that new trees can grow and so that we can bind carbon in, for example, timber houses, which are long-lived. How are we going to do that if we are not going to log as much forest now? How will we then get more timber? There is no magic way to pull it out of the combined heat and power sector. They do not burn timber, they burn the residual products after timber production.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! With a forest policy that allows us to have trees that grow for a long time and become high-quality timber, we can also ensure that a larger share of what we harvest in the forest actually goes towards these long-lived products, such as house construction. It is therefore absolutely possible to maintain forestry and ensure that what we harvest, i.e., take out of the forest, goes towards as many long-lived and climate-smart products as possible, while simultaneously working with more resource-efficient and circular economy.

I would, however, like to have an answer on one thing. If one only looks at an increased extraction of the forest without considering that the forest is a limited resource, it leads to consequences in the form of reduced biodiversity, to the forest becoming less resilient to climate change, and to the net uptake in forest and land decreasing so that we do not reach our binding goal in the EU. We then also release more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and thereby worsen the climate. I do not see the Centerpartiet adhering to this fact if one only looks at that we should extract more from the forest.

What we in Miljöpartiet want to do is to start from the fact that the forest is a limited resource. We must ensure that we do not increase emissions from either forest and land or from society so that we use this biomass in a balanced way. Within those frameworks, we ensure that we achieve a good economy and that the forest owners in that system receive good compensation for the benefits they create.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Member Söderberg refers to a Chalmers report whose methodology has extensive problems, to say the least. In the cost-optimal scenario referred to in the report, there is a share of wind power of 63.5 percent. There, of course, various cannibalization effects arise which mean that the expanded wind power never pays off, that is, the electricity price when it is windy becomes so low that the investments do not pay off. If one assumes that a power system becomes that cheap because the expansion of production is carried out by producers who are running at a loss, the calculation simply does not add up.

It is precisely this, Madam Speaker, that is the fundamental dividing line in our reasoning on how the power system should be put together, namely: To expand by the equivalent of two-thirds of our current electricity consumption over the next five years and our entire electricity consumption in ten years is unrealistic and impossible in practice due to the laws of physics, if this is to occur solely with renewable power sources such as wind and solar.

The Green Party says nothing about hydropower, whether we should exploit our national rivers, or how it should go regarding, for example, all the potential renewables given the land area we have. How should one protect valuable nature? How should one respect property rights, not least for our indigenous peoples, if an expansion is to be made in the way that the Green Party intends?

My question, Madam Speaker, is therefore: What is the credible plan to succeed with a completely unrealistic massive expansion in a short time, given all the land area that would then need to be claimed? How is the calculation going to add up, given that the Chalmers report absolutely does not suffice as an explanation?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have accounted for our energy policy goals, the planning targets for 2030 and 2035, and green baseload power to ensure the entire electricity system.

What I find remarkable here is that we have a Minister for Climate and Environment who proceeds with thoughts on new nuclear power and that the government speaks of enormous subsidies that affect the entire electricity market and its actors without this having been preceded by any analysis of how it affects the climate transition.

In Miljöpartiet's energy policy and unified energy policy, all the different goal conflicts that exist are considered when it comes to biodiversity, how environmental issues should be handled in the permit processes, and that we have good consultations with the local population as well as the consultation order when it concerns the indigenous people, the Sámi, to ensure that we handle goal conflicts and can quickly expand the electricity needed to de facto meet the climate transition.

The Minister for Climate and Environment has not taken the initiative for any analysis of how the realignment of energy policy affects the climate transition. I would instead like to ask in return: Why has the government proceeded with this realignment without it being preceded by an analysis of how it affects the climate transition? All questions can be added there: What will be the consequences for the local population, for the indigenous peoples, and for the environment? There is talk of uranium mining in Sweden - have the effects of this been analyzed?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Have the effects of uranium mining been analyzed - please, someone! Uranium is mined today in Sweden, but because of Miljöpartiet, this uranium must be handled as waste that one must get rid of. Instead, uranium is imported from countries that have much lower environmental requirements than Sweden.

The Green Party and its spokesperson in their own person do not realize what effects the policy they pursue has on Swedish nuclear power and our clean power system. What the companies that are transitioning primarily demand from us is clean electricity so that they can continue to operate in Sweden and avoid moving to other countries, and clean electricity so that we can transition from the fossil to the electric.

It is very nice that Miljöpartiet talks about droughts and floods and all the terrible things with the climate crisis, but if one does not talk about what actually is the solution to the problem, it becomes totally unsustainable. It is this that seriously worries me.

The situation in Germany seriously worries me. Look at what happens when green governments shut down nuclear power! This is one of the primary reasons why I feel secure sitting as climate minister in a government that does not shut down functioning clean electricity. This is what, above all, companies are desperately demanding for the climate transition.

They also demand a planning perspective in energy policy. It is very good that the Green Party talks a lot about goals and that the answer to my questions here is that the Green Party has a planning goal, but this is of no consequence if one does not know how to achieve this planning goal or if one cannot provide answers on how, according to the laws of physics, one can live up to the goal that is set.

The truth is that it is not enough with only the renewables, but all fossil-free types of power need to be welcomed. Here, Miljöpartiet stands at a historical crossroads where the dogmatic attitude towards nuclear power truly becomes a historical mistake. This is noted, not least by young climate activists, who are increasingly turning against the criticism of nuclear power.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is fascinating how Germany and how the conservatives in Germany made Energiewende ends up on the Swedish Green Party. We had zero and no influence over it. It was the Christian Democrats in Germany who made Energiewende.

What we in Miljöpartiet in Sweden have, however, spoken about for a very long time is that we shall rid ourselves of fossil fuel dependency and that we shall rid ourselves of the dependency on Russia. But that is not what Germany has done, instead they made themselves dependent on Putin's gas imports, something that we directly oppose and which now turns out to have led to major consequences.

I can account for our entire energy policy if desired. In that case, I would exceed my speaking time much more than I already have. What I have accounted for are our planning goals and that we have a unified policy to ensure that we get more electricity in place in the near term and a doubling of electricity production ten years earlier than the government.

When Romina Pourmokhtari speaks loudly about the need for clean electricity for the climate transition, I am completely on board, but we have a policy to get more clean electricity ten years earlier than Romina Pourmokhtari and the Tidö Government do.

I still have not received an answer as to why Romina Pourmokhtari and the government have chosen to stick to the new energy policy without it being preceded by a consequence analysis for the climate transition. This should be highly relevant because the biggest argument used for nuclear power is the climate transition.

Despite this, it has therefore not been analyzed what the effects on the climate transition will be if we proceed with new nuclear power, if we start working with subsidies for new nuclear power, and if we start changing the regulatory framework to try to get someone to perhaps consider building nuclear power at some point in the future in Sweden. What will the effects on the climate transition be? This has not been analyzed, and it is deeply concerning.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I will continue the debate and speak a little about nuclear power. I know how much it is appreciated.

As I said in my speech, we will double our electricity demand by 2045. It was not so long ago that both S and MP voted no to allowing more nuclear power in more places in Sweden, so it is very clear what Miljöpartiet thinks on this issue and what the consequences will be of a potential change of government ahead where they join a social democrat-led government.

In large terms, the climate issue is an energy issue; few have not realized this by this point. We will need incredible amounts of fossil-free electricity to manage the transition, to convert the entire transport sector, and so that we can continue to be an industrial nation.

Shall we continue to produce steel in Sweden? If the answer is yes, we need more electricity, and it must also be clean.

I, who come from a nuclear power county, can inform Elin Söderberg that in 2014 there were plans for new nuclear power at Ringhals. As soon as there was a change of government and the Social Democrats and the Green Party joined the government, however, the discussions were halted. Furthermore, we saw how emissions increased when the two reactors at Ringhals were shut down prematurely.

I am convinced that it is not leasing checks that will solve the climate transition. Where will the stable base power come from, Elin Söderberg?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, the need for electricity will double. And yes, I want the Swedish steel industry to remain in Sweden. I want to ensure that they get electricity for their climate transition, and I want to ensure that the electricity is clean. That is why I drive the Green Party's energy and climate policy.

If we do not get more electricity on-site in the near term, the industries will pack up and leave. Then there will no longer be a need for doubling, because the operations will no longer exist. It worries me deeply that the Moderaterna reduce environmental policy to climate policy, climate policy to energy policy, and energy policy to nuclear power. This risks leading to the Moderaterna pushing forward a policy that causes Swedish industry to move abroad, that Swedish competitiveness is damaged, and that Swedish business development stagnates.

Miljöpartiet has an energy policy that aims to deliver significantly increased electricity production as early as 2030, with concrete goals for 2030 and 2035 - not only for 2045, as the Moderaternas policy. We want to make twice as much electricity available by 2035 - ten years earlier than the Moderaterna.

We have a plan for the entire electricity system to function with a stable base of green base load, energy storage in the form of hydrogen, pumped power and heat, higher capacity in the hydropower plants, more flexibility and power from combined heat and power, gas turbines powered by renewable energy and demand flexibility.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if the Green Party has truly understood what a baseline is, but what was just described is not a baseline. It will not be enough - not even close.

What Elin calls reducing policy areas is rather presenting real solutions. From the IPCC, it has been incredibly clear that nuclear power will actually be needed. Now we see how several green parties across Europe have begun to turn in this issue because it is so clear. Climate policy requires an energy policy - without such, the climate policy is non-existent.

I wonder why the Swedish Green Party cannot do the same reality check as the rest of the greens in Europe have done and realize that nuclear power is actually needed.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! The climate transition needs electricity for the industry's transition, and electricity production only contributes to the climate transition if it replaces fossil energy. Miljöpartiet has an energy policy to increase electricity production in Sweden more and sooner than the Moderaterna. It is obvious that the Moderaterna do not agree, as they are fixated on new nuclear power.

To manage the climate transition, we need to look at Swedish conditions. What conditions does Swedish industry need to manage its climate transition? If the government starts investing in the expansion of new nuclear power in Sweden, this risks delaying the climate transition and electrification rather than if we start investing in rapidly expanding renewables, improving energy efficiency, improving power allocation, and making electricity available for industry now.

The Moderates, however, do not want to do this. The Moderates actively oppose several of the reforms that could enable faster expansion of electricity production. They do not want to move up the veto when it comes to wind power. They clipped the wings of the entire incentive study, which could have provided resources to the municipalities that build wind power. They do not want neighbors to be given the conditions to become shareholders in wind power. Point by point, the Moderates sit on their hands while the business community screams for electricity in the near term.

When it comes to the climate transition, we obviously have very different opinions regarding energy policy. However, energy policy alone is not enough to achieve the climate transition. Helena Storckenfeldt has not mentioned a single word about how the transport sector should transition. At the same time, her party is leading a historic increase in emissions from the transport sector.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In her long speech, Elin Söderberg spoke about sustainable transition. When we talk about sustainable transition, we usually say it is about three legs. Elin Söderberg mentioned social sustainability and ecological sustainability, but the third leg was not mentioned. Whether it was a Freudian slip or a common slip, I do not know, but I noted that economic sustainability was conspicuous by its absence.

One might ask if Miljöpartiet is possibly doing this to manage the castle in the air they blew up when they presented their budget proposal for 2024 and onwards. They want to borrow 100 billion kronor per year for ten years. I believe, Madam Speaker, that most in this chamber can agree that it is not economically sustainable.

We have been in a situation with quite high inflation and prices that have surged quite significantly, but we have now begun to get this under control again. Does Elin Söderberg and Miljöpartiet themselves believe that this, if it were to become a reality, would even be feasible? Elin Söderberg has several times today, both in the presentation and in the replies, spoken about consequence analyses. Has Miljöpartiet made any analysis of what a loan of 100 billion per year for ten years would mean for Aktiebolaget Sverige and for Sweden's citizens?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for a very relevant question!

Yes, we have made such an analysis. We noted that Sweden is moving from a situation with a very serious economic situation as a result of the inflation that occurred due to Putin's invasion of Ukraine and as a result of the lack of availability of various components after corona.

We can observe that Sweden has a very low national debt. The debts of the population and of several municipalities are high, but the national debt is low. There are therefore good conditions to borrow for investments in society. Loans are not to be used for general operations, tax cuts, or the like. We see, however, that it is highly relevant to make important social investments in the near term. Therefore, we proceed with the position that we want to see that 100 billion is borrowed per year for ten years to make the social investments required to manage the climate transition.

It is about infrastructure investments, investments in energy systems and the like.

We have made that analysis, and we also see that our policy provides very good conditions for a strong economic development in Sweden. Several of the reforms that we highlight regarding investments in, for example, railway infrastructure and energy infrastructure are also such things that are demanded by the business sector and which can lead to a very strong economic development for Swedish companies.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is very easy to have a climate action plan with a multitude of proposals based on an economic policy that is certainly not sustainable. I want to remember that from the time I read Kalle Anka, the money was called "fantasy-illions" when Joakim von Anka sat and counted them. This is well in parity with Joakim von Anka's fantasy-illions.

Which parties does Elin Söderberg think she will get on board to implement this climate action plan when you are going to borrow 100 billion per year for ten years? Who does Miljöpartiet think is going to pay for this? Well, it will ultimately be the ordinary citizen, and then the question arises again: Is it sustainable? Yes, possibly ecologically, but the social and economic sustainability would then truly be conspicuously absent.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! It would have been welcome if Kjell-Arne Ottosson had explained how central social investments would harm social sustainability.

We in Miljöpartiet pursue a responsible economic policy to ensure that we also manage the climate transition in a sustainable and just way throughout the entire country. Accordingly, we have also developed our economic policy to back that up.

What I have not seen any good account of is how the Christian Democrats, together with the other Tidö parties, have intended to handle the investments in new nuclear power. How will it be subsidized? The ideas that are flying around are rather about planned economy models. What will the consequences of that be for the business sector and the state treasury?

At the same time, we see that the worsened situation for climate work in Sweden as a result of the Kristdemokraterna and the other Tidö parties' policies risks leading to enormous fines from the EU because we do not reach our climate commitment by 2030. It risks leading to us having to buy emission space from other EU countries at who knows what costs. For me, that is not responsible economic policy.

We in Miljöpartiet want to ensure that Sweden has a stable economy in order to be able to carry out a stable climate transition and protect the entire population from the most serious climate-related consequences and preserve all the opportunities of the climate transition.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Elin Söderberg gave a long speech with many strong words, but I will focus on some of what was said during the exchange of remarks.

I think the Green Party is providing a good consumer warning here. This is something that people should be concerned about. We really hope that is not the case, but the risk always exists that the Green Party could end up in a negotiation for a new government. In that case, one will therefore enter with a starting value of borrowing 100 billion every year for ten years.

We have a neighboring country to the east that had a social democratic government which also thought that one had a very low debt level and that it could be attractive to invest. What we saw there was not increased growth but a debt spiral that they still have not managed to get out of, despite the fact that the current Finnish government is working very hard. We cannot risk having such a development in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The reduction obligation often comes up when Miljöpartiet wants to criticize the government's and Sverigedemokraternas climate policy. It is said to have led to increased emissions. Elin Söderberg mentioned a bit of this in her speech. She addressed the difference between climate goals and climate work. When the Swedish reduction obligation is now lowered, the renewable fuels are not used solely within the transport sector. They can be used at sea, in aviation, or in other countries.

In what way does the lowered reduction obligation contribute to emissions in the world increasing? Are global emissions affected by the Swedish reduction obligation at all, which perhaps would have made people pay 10 kronor more per liter? We would have had the world's most expensive transport in our country. Does the member mean that it would have reduced emissions?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Martin Kinnunen for the question. To begin with, we see that fuel prices have gone down recently. This has occurred as a result of the world market price for oil having gone down. The entire price reduction that has occurred is not due to the fossil content having increased in existing biofuels. If the Green Party's policy had been allowed to continue—the policy that seven parties here in the Riksdag actually agreed on—fuel prices would also have gone down, but emissions would not have increased in the same way.

We advocated that in the extraordinary situation that arose when energy prices skyrocketed, we should have introduced other measures to support households and companies.

Regarding the climate benefit of the reduction obligation, the transition is about ensuring that the renewable alternatives become cheaper than the fossil ones, because we must transition. The fossil must decrease in favor of the renewable. The reduction obligation was a clear statutory intervention of renewable fuels in order to phase out fossil.

Now we see in report after report that greenhouse gas emissions have increased sharply here in Sweden as a result of the Tidö parties, with the Sweden Democrats at the forefront, having significantly reduced the reduction obligation. I have not seen any account from the Sweden Democrats and definitely not from any serious organization that researches climate impact that emissions would automatically decrease somewhere else when one significantly increases the emissions of greenhouse gases in Sweden.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Elin Söderberg for the answer. The member does not understand how the emissions could not increase. Then I want to ask the member: What happens to all the biofuels that we had on the Swedish market? What happens to them now? Does Elin Söderberg believe that there has been reduced production of HVO and ethanol in the world? Does she believe that production in Sweden has decreased? That is not the case, Madam Speaker. The production of biofuels in the world has not decreased. Production in Sweden has not decreased. But consumption within road transport in Sweden has decreased.

Madam Speaker! We could see the consequences of the lowered reduction obligation overnight. Hundreds, yes probably thousands of people spent January 1st photographing gas stations. They could see that the price had suddenly dropped by over 4 kronor on diesel.

By comparing the prices of gasoline and diesel, we can see that the effect has increased since January 1. We can probably say that it amounts to just over 5 kronor. We now have a normal price on transports in Sweden compared to out in Europe. People who are going on a car holiday will no longer focus on refueling in Denmark and Germany, but they will fill up the tank just as one should do, that is, when one needs it even if it happens in Sweden.

This is, therefore, a positive development. And it has in no way contributed to increased emissions.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Martin Kinnunen has no support for his claim that a lowered reduction obligation would not lead to increased emissions. On the contrary, report after report shows that the Tidö parties' policy leads to a shock increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

I obviously understand Martin Kinnunen's theoretical reasoning. I understand how he thinks. The point is that we in Miljöpartiet, when we sat in the government, worked actively for a climate policy that drove the climate transition. One part was the reduction obligation. It increases the demand for sustainably produced renewable fuels while simultaneously prohibiting parts of fossil emissions. It is a clear political measure to reduce the use of fossil fuels. It is not that that policy has now in some magical way moved to another country, so that a certain volume of fossil emissions is prohibited there; rather, as a consequence of the Tidö parties removing the reduction obligation, more fossil emissions are allowed globally, in order to apply Martin Kinnunen's theory.

At the same time, this reorganization of the policy leads to the driving force for increasing the production of sustainably produced biofuels here in Sweden disappearing. The business community needs to receive a clear direction and a goal towards where society is heading: We shall carry out the climate transition. But that leadership disappeared. Investors became more uncertain. Should we invest in sustainably produced biofuels? No, maybe not, because this government does not seem interested in it anymore, they reasoned. This delays and postpones the climate transition. Consequently, the accumulated emissions, the sum of emissions over time, increase, and the climate crisis worsens.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! The Government has begun a new chapter in Swedish climate policy. For the first time ever, there is now a plan that gives Sweden the conditions to meet our climate goal and reach all the way down to net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest. The Climate Action Plan, which we are debating here in the chamber today, contains seventy measures for the climate that will either be initiated or fully implemented during this mandate period.

This is the first time that a climate action plan is based on an expanded electricity production where all fossil-free power sources are welcomed. It is one of the reasons why it also provides the conditions to reach Sweden's climate goals by 2045, which was not calculated to be achievable with the content of the previous climate action plan. This government knows that it is hydropower, nuclear power, wind power, and solar energy that together constitute the most important climate measures, because energy policy is the backbone of the climate transition.

Our focus during this mandate period is to do the heavy lifting, which lays the foundation for a climate transition that completely eliminates emissions and phases out fossil fuels. Sweden's ambitious goals, which the entire government base now stands behind, commit us to maintaining a high pace in the climate transition. We have neither the time nor the resources to engage in inefficient symbolic politics. Instead, we are now implementing the necessary and far-reaching measures required to achieve a real effect on Sweden's total emissions in both the short and long term.

If one wants to achieve a real effect on global emissions, Madam Speaker, one must also resist the use of measures that only generate nice graphs on paper but lead to carbon leakage in reality. When Swedish businesses are shut down or moved abroad, the emissions certainly disappear from our statistics. But the emissions still occur, just somewhere else. The products are imported here to Sweden, but without a carbon footprint that we can report. The only thing that has practically decreased is our competitiveness, our tax revenues, Swedish jobs, and Swedish economic prosperity. That is not sufficient, Madam Speaker.

The red-green climate policy focused very much on one policy instrument to reach the climate goal in the short term. The others were missed. This government is now reversing this policy instrument. It was a measure that in itself looked good in our statistics but in practice affected emission leakage when we bought up a large share of the entire world's supply of the biofuel HVO, which really needs to provide great climate benefit in many sectors and in many countries' climate transition.

The red-green parties put all their eggs in one basket, which made the level of the reduction obligation completely unsustainable, both from a climate perspective and from a fairness perspective, as well as considering the popular acceptance, Madam Speaker. It became unpopular with the population because it made it difficult for people to manage their everyday lives and restricted completely the wrong things. It restricted people's ability to travel, get to and from work, pick up and drop off the children, visit family, and discover new places. These are fundamental things that need to function in our society.

It is the emissions that are the problem, not the journeys. Therefore, we must ensure that we transition and do things in a different way, not limit people's ability to do things, travel, discover new places, visit family, and pick up and drop off children. We need to ensure that the car, the bus, the moped, the motorcycle, and the truck run on electricity instead, so that people can continue to get around without emitting.

When we talk about public acceptance, I also think it is important to remember, on the other hand, that it is not biofuels or emission reductions in themselves that lack acceptance among large parts of the population today. We know that people want to transition and want Sweden to achieve its climate goals. The question is only how we ensure that our way of getting there is accepted by the Swedish population.

If one means that the method which allowed the previous government to reach one of Sweden's climate goals, the short-term one, was fully accepted, one can ask why so many parties, including the party that was most pleased with the previous reduction obligation model, have backed away from that model and now presented either different levels of the reduction obligation or complementary compensatory proposals.

We know that we need to have more than one answer on how we should reduce emissions. We need to have a broad palette of several measures and ensure that individual groups or sectors in our society are not affected in an unfair way. One simply maximizes the effect for the climate but harmonizes the consequences for households and companies. It is a perspective that we believe Sweden has lacked, Madam Speaker. It is a perspective that this government contributes with in our climate action plan.

This government also chooses to focus on measures that generate zero and that bring us closer to Sweden's climate goal of net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest - that climate goal which the previous government missed. In that case, it is a matter of not only focusing on temporary solutions that look good in the short-term statistics, because they do indeed reduce emissions but only to a certain limited level.

I am therefore proud that this government chooses to phase out the type of symbolic political measures that have no proven effect for real emission reductions. We do it because it is the only right thing to do. We do it despite the risk that the opposition uses this as a political whipping boy to present alleged evidence of reduced ambitions, which it now also chooses to do.

Let me therefore be very clear: It is not about reduced ambitions. It is about a much-needed combination of the ambition that we are so good at and the efficiency that we have lacked. We are shifting the policy to truly transform Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We have started the work of obtaining more efficient, fast, and predictable permit processes. In doing so, we are removing a major obstacle that for many years has slowed down the industry's and the business community's climate transition. This is an issue that several of the parties that have previously spoken in the rostrum have highlighted, Madam Speaker. It has been pointed out that we would have dragged the issue out, even though the previous government over six years did not appoint the investigation that we have now had to handle.

It was only at the end of the period that the investigation was appointed, which one argues that the current government has let sit on the shelf, even though we have now delivered the results from it.

Madam Speaker! We are creating the conditions for a true and powerful expansion of fossil-free energy production that includes all fossil-free types of power. We do this, in particular, by stating a goal of 300 terawatt-hours by 2045 and through the historic decisions that, for the first time in several decades, enable new nuclear power in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The question is whether previous speakers in this debate mean that it has been fully possible to expand new nuclear power in Sweden when there have been formulations in the Swedish Environmental Code that, among others, the Center Party has contributed to to a large extent. There it states that one may not have more than ten reactors in operation in Sweden and that one may not apply to build new nuclear power in places other than where it already exists. If one means that it has been fully possible, the Center Party must answer for that. These are, in fact, laws that I, on the first day of taking office in this government, ensured were handled immediately in order to enable new nuclear power in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We have, as has already been pointed out, approved more permits for offshore wind power than the red-green parties managed to do during their previous eight years in power. We are maintaining a high pace in the expansion of offshore wind power. It is precisely to meet the electricity demand that has now been ignored for so many years and which, instead, has been managed by decommissioning nuclear power, decommissioning clean, functioning production.

Instead, we now need to act quickly to ensure that we expand our electricity production both in the short term and in the long term. We do this, in particular, by managing good incentives for the processing of the permits that exist for offshore wind power and through a good dialogue with all the parties affected when trade-offs are to be made for permits for offshore wind power.

We also do this by ensuring that the process for building offshore wind power becomes much more modernized than it was during the red-green government's years in power. It is a matter of ensuring that the permit process in the market where one is to operate, in order to be able to reduce emissions and deliver the electricity needed to phase out the fossil, is sufficiently modernized to live up to the needs.

We know that the electrification of the industrial and transport sectors is absolutely crucial for Sweden's climate transition. If we are to reach all the way down to net-zero emissions, it is only electrification - which is an example of the ways and methods we can apply to completely eliminate emissions all the way down to zero - that is relevant.

That is why we are carrying out a historic investment in charging infrastructure across the entire country to support the shift from fossil-fueled to electric-powered regarding cars, trucks, work machines, and others through several different new supports that the government has established.

There are a number of examples of when the government has pursued a more ambitious climate policy than the red-green parties did in government. But it rarely receives much attention. Let me therefore take the opportunity to mention some of these areas.

I mentioned earlier that I understand that the opposition takes the opportunity to use the phasing out of political measures that do not generate emission reductions and that do not generate reduced emission leakage as political ammunition. I understand, Madam Speaker, that the opposition, in the position it is in, resorts to such tools, but I regret it.

It is courageous climate policy to dare to change the policy that does not work and which generates large expenditures from our budget for climate and environment to instead allocate those funds to what we know works.

We can take as an example something we know works, Klimatklivet. We see that Klimatklivet has room to be expanded when we take over power over Sweden. We see that there is room to expand the measures that can be subsidized from the state side. It also provides a high additionality.

We see that these are measures that would not have been implemented if the money were not there. That is exactly why Klimatklivet is now larger than it has ever been before. The same applies to Industriklivet.

We have introduced a new market introduction support for electric trucks because we see that the heavy vehicle sector has high prices for the clean vehicles and is not transitioning at as rapid a pace as is being done for the passenger car fleet.

We see the effects that occur when one reduces the emissions from the vehicles that roll for many hours a day on our roads. They also roll with heavy loads, which means they consume more fuel. Transitioning that part of our transport sector is something that the previous government paid far too little attention to, Madam Speaker. Therefore, the government is pursuing a more ambitious climate policy than the previous government.

We are making a historic investment in restoring wetlands. These are efforts that we know can provide manifold environmental benefits. They do so by contributing to the carbon sink that can be created, but also through the biodiversity and species richness that can be built up from them.

Madam Speaker! The transition that Sweden is now facing is at least as great a shift as industrialization and digitalization were. Just as back then, Sweden also needs to be at the forefront this time and generate new world-leading companies that can create that change worldwide, and we are doing that.

Our climate transition lays the foundation for increased growth and increased prosperity in our country. The reason that this perspective is allowed to characterize our climate policy is that a just transition is also a fundamental principle for our climate policy.

It is not possible to implement a climate policy while ignoring the needs expressed by the Swedish people. Of course, the Swedish people express that they want us to reach climate goals. Of course, it is valuable that many refer to the will that exists to carry out the climate transition and reach climate goals. The question is not whether we should do it, but how we shall do it. What are the tools that take us all the way down to net-zero emissions?

Madam Speaker! The Government argues that we only reach all the way down to net-zero emissions by carrying out a sustainable climate transition. It is a climate transition that does not dope figures and take the easy ways out to quickly reduce emissions and then stop there.

A real, sustainable transition is a climate policy that ensures that people's everyday lives are not restricted and that their opportunities and freedoms are not limited. It is about implementing measures that have broad legitimacy among the population and that create conditions for all people's opportunity to transition, Madam Speaker. It is not only about those who choose to be over-enthusiastic about the climate transition.

We must ensure that the climate transition does not only reduce emissions but also leads to a better and more modern future. It is a future that is cleaner but also has increased growth and increased prosperity throughout our entire country. Only then will we achieve a truly sustainable climate transition, and only then will Sweden reach its climate goal of net-zero by 2045 and net-negative thereafter.

(Applause)

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I note that the Minister used more than 100 percent beyond the reported speaking time.)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! There were very many words. There is perhaps a bit less action. I am a little curious about things that the Minister has said in relation to the climate action plan.

The Climate Policy Council had a brutal sawing, one might say. I believe it was called the mother of all sawings at the subsequent seminar.

On March 21, the Minister held a press conference where she commented on the Climate Policy Council's report. At that time, Romina Pourmokhtari said: The Government Offices and the government and our non-political civil servants, who make calculations based on the authorities' assessments of emission forecasts and the government's adopted policies and decisions, assess that our climate action plan provides the conditions to reach net zero by 2045.

That the government believes in its policy even though researchers, authorities, and not a single assessor do the same is to be expected. But normally, it is not up to the non-political civil servants to take their own positions. Their task is to follow the government's wishes regarding texts and graphs. It is therefore highly remarkable that precisely those non-political civil servants, according to the minister, have said that, in their own opinion, zero will be reached by 2045.

I am very curious about this, and my question to the Minister is: In what way has it emerged that the non-political civil servants themselves have made the same assessment as the government? The Minister is welcome to specify.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Rickard Nordin asks if officials have said that we will reach zero by 2045. I have not said that we will reach zero by 2045. No one, Madam Speaker, has said that we will reach zero by 2045.

I mean that it is dishonest to suggest that one can know if one will reach a goal that lies several decades ahead. It is not possible to know that one will reach zero by 2045. What can be known, Madam Speaker, is whether one has the prerequisites to reach zero by 2045. That is the government's assessment. The government does not make assessments without evidence and a basis from civil servants. Civil servants do not comment on whether we have the prerequisites or not, but the government does. The government makes our assessment.

The Government's assessment is that we have the conditions to reach net zero by 2045 and net negative thereafter if we welcome all fossil-free power sources and expand wind power and nuclear power in Sweden so that our industrial and transport sectors can be converted to electric at a sufficiently high pace to reach Sweden's climate goal of net zero by 2045. It is nothing that one can know; no one can know this.

The previous government proudly proclaimed that the 2030 goals would be reached with a reduction obligation path that says if we only have a 60 percent reduction obligation by 2030, we have reached the goals. Rickard Nordin no longer stands for that policy, if I have understood correctly. I think it is rather that which is dishonest here. It is to mislead the Swedish people.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Now I have quoted the Minister, so the Minister's words about what I have said are not somewhat irrelevant in this context.

As I interpret it, the non-political civil servants have not expressed their own opinion on whether the conditions will be met to reach net zero by 2045, because that was what the minister himself said. If these opinions have not been expressed, why did the minister then say that at the press conference?

The Minister explicitly said: The Government Offices, the government and our non-political civil servants, who perform calculations and so on, assess that our climate action plan provides the conditions to reach net zero by 2045.

Have the non-political civil servants made that assessment or have they not? Have they made their own assessment, or is it the government's assessment? That is my question. It is not about the duty to reduce or not; we can have another debate about that later. I want to know: Have the non-political civil servants expressed their own opinion in line with and in exactly the same way that the minister himself said at the press conference? That is what I am interested in.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Rickard Nordin stands at the rostrum and says that the officials in my quote have said that net zero will be reached in 2045. That is what Rickard Nordin stands here and says. I mean, Madam Speaker, that no one has said that net zero will be reached in 2045. Thus, the quote that Rickard Nordin refers to is simply not correct.

I do not quite understand if there are any ambiguities here, but I think mostly that the member prefers to talk about goals and figures here and there rather than talk about the real climate policy and the real solutions that are needed for Sweden to reach its climate goal of net zero 2045.

With this government, we welcome all fossil-free power sources, in contrast to the Center Party's history of, since Thorbjörn Fälldin's time in the 70s, working to shut down functioning, clean energy and functioning, clean electricity. It is precisely that which our business sector and our companies, which are in the middle of the transition right now, demand, request, and desperately need in order to succeed in achieving the climate goals.

It is sad that one chooses to discuss details, trifles, word choices, analyses and goals - goals, goals and goals - instead of how we are to reach the goals. It is merely a distraction from the lack of policy that, not least the Centerpartiet, has within the climate area. I can only regret it.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the report on the climate action plan! I nevertheless wish to ask a number of questions in light of this statement. We have had the opportunity to debate and say what we think about the climate action plan, but the statement from the Minister does not make things any clearer.

We were told that it is about real emissions and a real effect for the climate. At the same time, authorities that are supposed to review the government's policy, such as the Climate Policy Council, but also the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, say that it is the opposite. Emissions are increasing, and this does not lead us toward our interim targets for 2030. The expert agencies are therefore saying one thing and the minister another.

I have a question, perhaps especially in light of what the Climate Policy Council said when the climate action plan was presented. The Council said: That significantly weakening existing policy instruments without having concrete plans on how they are to be replaced means that the problems are pushed into the future.

I wonder what the government wishes to say to the Climate Policy Council in connection with the statement.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Jytte Guteland for a legitimate question and begin by pointing out: If the quote from the Climate Policy Council is correctly rendered, I wonder which instruments are being referred to. If one means that the instruments do not exist and that there are some instruments that are completely abolished, I wonder: Which ones then?

The reduction obligation is lowered from the path that the previous government proposed, where a 60 percent reduction obligation for diesel would solve a short-term climate goal. It is now changed. Right now, the reduction obligation is six percent. It exists. This six percent reduction obligation will be discussed at an appropriate time when we see the opinion that exists among the Swedish people and when the climate transition can again be developed for the transport sector. There are formulations in the memorandum regarding the reduction obligation stating that it takes into account how the price for fuel develops.

If one means that we would have abolished the reduction obligation, that is not correct. It exists. It is moving forward at full speed with 6 percent. It is there, and it is working. Just as the government has pointed out many times, there is still a reduction obligation, but it is not the only way forward to reach the goals. We should not put all our eggs in one basket.

The same applies to the carbon tax, namely that we continue to have a carbon taxation. It is about a change of the fuel taxes that we have.

If the quote is correct, I mean that it is simply incorrect. We have not abolished the climate policy that was driven precisely for steering measures on fuels. However, it is changed, and the government will this year appoint an inquiry to look at what the plan for development moving forward looks like: In what ways can the steering measures for exactly the fuel be developed so that they contribute in a fully satisfactory way to reaching the ESR goals?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I must ask if the Minister heard what I said or if I in some way said something I had not written down. What I said was "strongly weaken existing steering instruments". I also said "concrete plans on how it shall be replaced". That was exactly what the chairman of the Climate Policy Council said.

It is a number of steering measures that have been weakened, but no new ones have been added. That is why the high level of tail-wagging from the government when it comes to climate policy is so surprising. We have a reality with actual emissions that the authorities see and speak about. Then we have another reality from the minister, and it is difficult to know who supports the minister's statements.

Speaking of that, one can also ask what my colleague from Centerpartiet raised, namely how it is that the government has these concerns that ministers say things about the civil servants' statements that do not seem to match. Here we would like to know what applies. It is difficult to understand what the minister means when she refers to the Government Offices. What is it that has actually been said? We would like to hear more about that, because it sounds a bit like sorcery.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if the Speaker thinks it is appropriate that there is a whole crowd here just giggling at the debate we are having right now. I think it is unserious, to be honest, and I am glad that it is now noted in the chamber minutes. While we have a climate debate that is about how we are to stop a climate crisis in Sweden and ensure that the Swedish people have affordable prices at the pump and can make their everyday lives work, while at the same time we succeed with a transition of our transport sector, two members of the Left Party, Kajsa Fredholm and Andrea Andersson Tay, are sitting and giggling, laughing, and whispering to each other in the benches. It is unserious.

Madam Speaker! Jytte Guteland is asking legitimate questions about what is at issue. I will try to explain as clearly as I can how it works in the government.

The government makes the assessment that Sweden, with its climate action plan, has the prerequisites to reach the climate goal of net-zero 2045. We are on the right track. We are on the right course thanks to the fact that we welcome all fossil-free types of power. This gives us the capacity we need to get our industry and transport sector to electrify and transition from fossil to electric-driven. That is the assessment that the government makes. Only the government makes that assessment.

The government has to prepare the materials provided by all possible sources, for example, the Government Offices' officials and our agencies. These people do not sit and make assessments or politicized statements about what is correct and what is not. I can only regret the confusion. I sat for over an hour with Dagens Nyheter to try to explain this in the best possible way. With printed email conversations with all our officials, I tried to make this as clear and distinct as possible.

I do not appreciate that the work carried out by civil servants is politicized. They do what they are supposed to do. They provide the underlying data, and then the government makes the assessment.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

The Speaker naturally controls the work in the chamber. I assume that we will stick to the subject when it comes to the climate policy action plan and that it is that which the debate concerns. I hope that we do not see such a development in this debate that we have reason to scrutinize it specifically.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! It is difficult to overlook the discussion that the Minister has just had regarding the non-political civil servants. I think it might not be harder than this: Since there is no actual basis from experts or authorities for the statements that the government makes regarding the effects of the climate action plan, one wants to create some form of increased credibility in what is said by mentioning the non-political civil servants during press conferences. Is it not in that way that the Minister can deny it?

Otherwise, I am struck when I listen to the Minister's presentation that we Social Democrats and especially the Liberals, but also in large parts this government, at least when it comes to the rhetoric, have very similar views on what is required to manage the transition - not in all parts, but in general.

The Sweden Democrats, on the other hand, whom this government is completely dependent on, have long criticized, for example, the Paris Agreement and the EU's Green Deal, initiatives that the Liberals strongly support. It therefore seems unreasonable that both parties should be satisfied with the government's climate action plan.

The Sweden Democrats have been clear that they do not intend to accept measures that lead to increased fuel prices. The question then arises: Is it simply against the background of that knowledge that the Minister for Climate and Environment accepts that the investigation into new policy instruments shall not present proposals until the next mandate period? Is this the reason why we have to wait?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I shall try to answer Member Järrebring's two questions during these two minutes.

I deny that I would, in order to give strength to my arguments – improperly and falsely, if I understand the member correctly – refer to information that does not exist and evidence we do not have. I mean that it is a very improper and polarized debate on the climate issue that is taking place right now. I believe that it will be very clear in a few years who is responsible for having contributed to that polarization, what political effects it has for the climate issue, and which parties benefit from the debate being polarized in this way.

That is why I try in different ways to emphasize that it is not made up when the government makes statements and that we do not make them without basing them on the facts we have in front of us. We do not sit alone in the political leadership and reason around them but in dialogue with our agencies, which provide the underlying data.

For example, we have heard in this debate that the reduction obligation would be the reason why targets could be reached. So, I have pointed out several times that it is not. All these misleading claims worsen our climate policy debate, and that is what makes me concerned and worried.

When it comes to the climate action plan, it is simply a matter of there being a basis for cooperation in a coalition government. Not everyone gets exactly what they want. The government parties' policies can be read on the parties' websites. Then you negotiate, cooperate, and try to find a way forward that everyone can vote for, but which is also good both for Sweden and for the development we want to see in the world. That is simply how we have reasoned even regarding our climate action plan.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! We are facing an acute climate crisis. But instead of powerful measures to reduce emissions, we see a government that compromises and yields to climate-denying forces within the Sverigedemokraterna. This has led to a climate policy that does not even come close to meeting the goals required for Sweden to contribute to limiting global warming.

The Sweden Democrats have consistently been critical of and opposed powerful reforms such as the EU's Green Deal and have campaigned on dismantling the established climate policy at the EU level. This stands in stark contrast to the Liberals' stated ambitions to make Sweden a pioneer in climate work and the need for offensive climate work at the EU level.

The measures now proposed in the climate action plan are insufficient and clearly show the compromises the government has made to retain the Sweden Democrats' support. Is it not time, Romina Pourmokhtari, to admit that your watered-down climate policy action plan is the price you have paid for government power?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a pioneering country. Sweden has reduced its emissions by 37 percent since the 90s and at the same time made its economy grow. Sweden has shown that economic growth can go hand in hand with emission reductions. It has not happened in any magical way. It has happened because of several different initiatives which, among other things, have laid the foundation for a clean electricity system.

While my ministerial colleagues talk about how they will get rid of the oil, coal, and gas from their electricity system, I can proudly proclaim that Sweden expanded its nuclear power during the 80s and there laid the foundation for a clean electricity system that has significantly reduced our emissions.

I do not share this image that Sweden would not be a pioneer country, that Sweden is no longer a role model. And it certainly does not share the view of my colleagues around the world, whom I meet at regular intervals to rather discuss how Sweden can help in their climate transition and not least how Swedish companies can help with all the clean products and services that they export across the world every day.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I shall be brief, because I actually only have one question. It concerns wind power.

And with the green industrial transition now having started and being in full swing in Norrland, we need to invest heavily in wind power to produce hydrogen for the industry. This is what is being done now; one cannot wait to expand wind power. Wind power provides cheap electricity, which can be used to make hydrogen. It is much cheaper compared to nuclear power. It is also harmless.

Then we need incentives to create acceptance. The minister spoke about this earlier – that it is important to create acceptance.

We in Vänsterpartiet have proposed, or we propose, a mandatory economic compensation so that a portion can go to the municipality where wind power is built. I wonder what the Minister's position is on that proposal and if the Minister agrees that it is reasonable that the municipalities that produce energy should also receive back so much that they can, for example, develop their school and care or other services for their residents.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! The Prime Minister and I have several times spoken about that we want to introduce incentives for the municipalities to build land-based wind power and that these incentives shall come from the profits that the wind power companies make on their production.

These are proposals being prepared within the Government Offices.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for a brief answer! It was very good.

My follow-up question is when we will see a proposal.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! The Government Offices are working on preparing the proposals. As soon as that preparation is completed and we can move forward with our proposal, the government will, of course, do so.

Work is being carried out in full in accordance with the order that exists within the state apparatus.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I would like to thank the Minister for Climate and Environment, who mentioned that Sweden has reduced its emissions very significantly since the 1990s while we have seen economic growth in Sweden and that it has made Sweden a pioneering country.

A large part of this time, Miljöpartiet has sat in government and contributed to Sweden becoming the model that the Minister for Climate and Environment mentions.

During a certain part of that time, the Liberals and the Green Party also cooperated within the framework of the January Agreement. We worked very much so that we would have an ambitious and effective climate policy.

Since then, the Liberals have chosen to leave the cooperation with the Green Party and to cooperate with the other Tidö parties. The words "ambitious" and "effective" are mentioned, but I can state that they are not reflected in the government's actions. Today, more resources are being allocated to reforms that counteract the work of reaching the climate goals than to reforms that contribute to the climate goals being reached.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister for Climate and the Environment if she has the opportunity to elaborate on the definition of and thoughts regarding "ambitious" and "effective" and what it is that one sees could be developed in that area moving forward.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks to the climate policy spokesperson Elin Söderberg from Miljöpartiet, who is obviously passionate about these issues and wants to discuss exactly what the effectiveness of our policy is! I will gladly tell you that.

We see that the inefficiency, which we criticize when we bring efficiency to the agenda, consists of measures that possibly made a difference at the start of a certain development within an industry – one can take the sale of electric passenger cars as an example – but which at a later stage can contribute to cementing a high price level and burden household finances through the portion that is to finance this. For example, the expenditure for the car bonus was 7 billion, while the malus did not bring in enough to make the reform self-financing as it was originally intended.

We believe this is an example of a situation where climate policy fulfilled a function previously, but where the development has moved in a direction where these funds can be taken so as not to reduce the size of the climate and environmental budget, but instead be invested in a market introduction support for heavy vehicles so that the truck fleet can undergo the same electrification that we see developing within the passenger car sector.

We can see that when this is done, even the electric car companies that produce these cars step forward with cheaper models and other things that ensure that the sector still moves in the right direction.

We can also introduce scrappage premiums to provide further incentives for the right development and in this way lay the foundation for a more effective policy.

It is just one of many examples that I would like to mention. One that I mentioned earlier was Klimatklivet with the additionality that the measures clearly show an effect on.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Reforms such as Klimatklivet and Industriklivet, the climate premium on work machines and heavy vehicles which the current government calls market introduction support, the restoration of wetlands and also investments in charging infrastructure are effective climate policies that the Green Party introduced in government and which remain with the current government.

But several reforms that we introduced, such as the electric car bonus, are now being phased out with reference to them being inefficient. This has not been preceded by an analysis of when the phasing out should occur or what the effects will be on the climate transition.

Several of the things that have been significantly reduced by the government, such as the carbon tax on fuels, the reduction obligation, and also the electric car bonus, have shown great climate benefit. They have been effective from a climate perspective.

The government might have wanted to propose other measures from a cost-effectiveness perspective. That is how I perceived it, given that reference was made to the fact that the electric car bonus was a large cost for the state treasury.

In order for climate policy to continue to be effective from a climate perspective, a reorganization of the climate reforms should be preceded by an analysis of what the effects will be on the climate transition or, in this case, on the electrification of the transport sector.

Alternative measures must also be introduced so that emissions are reduced by the same amount. Otherwise, it is not climate-effective. It is climate-ineffective to remove measures that have climate benefits and instead increase emissions.

Please elaborate on that more!

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! When we use the word efficiency, we mean climate efficiency. We mean emission efficiency. We mean that the funds we allocate for climate benefit need to generate large emission reductions in parity with the money that goes in. They are not a symbolic measure that perhaps prompts some lifestyle change or something else and does not generate real emission reductions. Abandoned forestry and agriculture is neither climate-efficient nor cost-effective for Sweden.

Everyone is free to choose their favorite arguments, but I mean that much of the activity taking place in Sweden conducted by companies within agriculture and forestry contributes to climate benefit through the export benefit it generates as opposed to when that activity is located elsewhere – i.e., the issue of carbon leakage. It was rare that I heard previous Ministers for Environment and Climate mention carbon leakage as a concern. During their time, the focus was on how Sweden should reach its goals in the short term through substantial reductions with the help of a 60 percent reduction obligation for agriculture.

I mean that it is very important that we have an industry that succeeds in transitioning and does not move away from here. We should not have lost jobs or missed investments in Sweden, because I mean that is not good for either the climate or the cost-effectiveness.

When we mean that we conduct an effective policy, we mean that we remove the bureaucratic hurdles that sit in the wheels of the environmental assessment. We make large investments in charging infrastructure so that the entire country will be made accessible for the electrification of the transport fleet that is ongoing and implement, for example, ETS 2 early and broadly. It is policy that is effective in terms of the emission reductions it generates, in contrast to such as an e-bike bonus.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I agree with what the Social Democratic member Jytte Guteland said in her speech and with the demand that the government must return to the Riksdag with a climate action plan that lives up to the Climate Act.

I listened very carefully to what the Minister for Climate and Environment said, and everything sounds very nice in the rhetoric, but there is a big problem, and that is the practice. Yesterday, all parliamentary parties were invited to the presentation of the final report from the national citizens' council on the climate. The seven parties that voted yes to Sweden's climate law prioritized being there.

The Citizens' Council was appointed on March 9. 60 people were selected through a scientific method with the aim of creating the greatest possible representativeness based on place of residence, gender, education, income, party-political preferences, and climate concern. With the help of the research, they have succeeded in carving out common proposals which, after they had weighed in all conflicts of interest, were presented to us yesterday. If the Minister for Climate and Environment has not seen them, I will gladly help her gain access to them. The Speaker may wonder why. Yes, so that the Minister can find measures that reduce emissions here and now. Perhaps the Minister can find inspiration from the Citizens' Council.

The climate action plan that the government and the Sweden Democrats have presented is a counterpoint. During the government's mandate period, the melody is to have emission increases - to bulk, which is the incomprehensible method that the Vice Prime Minister advocates. According to the Prime Minister, the climate goals are still to be reached, and the Minister for Climate and Environment says that the action plan provides the conditions to reach net zero by 2045. But upon review, the Climate Policy Council says that the action plan is not a plan to reach either Sweden's climate goals or the EU commitments. The responsibility for reaching the goals is pushed over to the next mandate period.

The Climate Policy Council also says that they have reviewed the government's action plan and concluded that the claim that it creates the conditions to reach all the way to net-zero emissions by 2045 is misleading and lacks objectivity.

The Fiscal Policy Council says that they are critical of the government's climate policy on several points. This concerns both measures taken so far during the mandate period and the lack of a plan to reduce emissions to reach the goals that have been set. Instead, the emission reductions are pushed into the future. An investigation is not to propose new policy instruments until 2027.

The EU's climate targets refer to accumulated emissions, so delayed measures mean that powerful emission reductions will likely be required at the end of the 2020s for Sweden to reach its EU commitment by 2030.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency says that they assess that neither the long-term goal for 2045 nor the interim goals for 2030 and 2040 will be reached with the currently decided or the proposed measures.

The government's agencies and councils are all saying the same thing: Kristersson's government's climate action plan is insufficient.

Madam Speaker! Climate is the defining issue of our time. Sea levels are rising. Ice is melting. Droughts, floods, fires and other consequences of a changed climate are already hitting very hard today against people's opportunities for a good life.

The earth is getting hotter. Last year was the warmest year ever recorded, following eight years of heat records. In Italy, Algeria, and Greece, fires raged. People lost their lives. Many were evacuated. In Slovenia, bridges and roads collapsed as a result of flooding. In Beijing, there were rain records with several dead in the downpours. In the Alps, it is estimated that one-tenth of the glaciers melted in a year.

In France, nuclear power plants were shut down so that the water cooling the reactors would not become too warm. In total, 2023 became the worst year ever for French nuclear power, and for the first time in decades, more electricity had to be imported than exported.

Sweden was no exception. Heat, heavy rain, and rapid snowmelt hit Småland and also caused the Torne River to overflow. The drought in May and June hit agriculture in many places in Sweden, and the harvest became much poorer. Downpours hit my home region Åre, Rättvik, Gothenburg, Jönköping and many other places in the country at great costs to society. Västmanland's farmers, Madam Speaker, were hit by both drought and floods, and on top of that came the African swine fever and the flood mosquitoes.

It is not possible to close our eyes. It is serious, in Sweden and in the whole world. It is actually not possible to close our eyes and leave a mess for our children and grandchildren. We Social Democrats want Sweden to once again take the lead. We want Ulf Kristersson's government to take responsibility here and now and show the leadership that Swedish entrepreneurs and the Swedish people are demanding. A first step, Madam Speaker, is to return to the Swedish Parliament with a climate action plan that is not just rhetoric but concrete practice.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring (S) agreed.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! In my speech, Anna-Caren Sätherberg mentioned something about a citizens' council in Huddinge yesterday. Seven parties were represented there, but it is correct that I was not there. One may ask why it was the case.

Madam Speaker! I reasoned in the same way as the parties in the Riksdag on the issue of the conference on Europe's future. At that time, the parties in the EU Committee were fairly in agreement that the system of establishing different types of citizens' councils, having a complex selection process, and then presenting their proposals with some kind of democratic legitimacy is not the way forward. The purpose of this is, after all, to undermine the democratic, parliamentary process. I do not think it is serious to participate in such a forum and give that group of 60 people that weight.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to assemble a council and come up with proposals, but 60 people represent 60 people. We can talk about how it happened. It was 7,000 people who were selected. Approximately 95 percent were dropped. 60 people remained. Then another 10 were dropped. One can, therefore, reflect on how representative this council was.

I would like to ask Anna-Caren Sätherberg how it is that the Social Democratic, then-current government was so critical of such citizen councils. Now that one of them comes forward with alleged criticism of the climate policy, it is, on the other hand, considered to be a good council.

The same can be said about the Fiscal Policy Council. When Magdalena Andersson was in government, she called it the Fiscal Rhetoric Council. Now it is said that the Fiscal Policy Council's assessments are very important.

The question is: Is it the measures that the Social Democrats like, or is it the opportunity to attack the government that is what is important?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I think like this: The government's agencies and councils and their recommendations and criticism must be handled by the government itself. Regardless of which government it is, it must take note of the criticism that its own councils or agencies provide.

But regarding this citizens' council where we all parties were invited. They had worked out proposals. I can also read in the climate action plan that we are debating today and in the communication that Member Martin Kinnunen stands behind how important it is with the popular acceptance - otherwise, nothing will happen.

This is part of creating acceptance. Here, 60 people met. It was a selection that was scientifically anchored, which was well described. I see that the member has made posts on X about this. But one has still received answers to the speech.

These 60 people managed, despite their differences, to chisel out proposals. I think this is something that the government and the Sweden Democrats, the largest part of the government base, should look at if one describes that all proposals must have popular acceptance. How has one intended to achieve that acceptance? That is my question back.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! We have elections in Sweden every four years. Every five years we have elections to the European Parliament - it is almost time for that. That is how we determine the popular mandate.

The Sweden Democrats became the government's largest party, in terms of the number of votes, which means that we have influence on Swedish politics today. It is part of the popular anchoring.

That the reduction obligation is being lowered is precisely because people did not think very much of the reduction obligation. The Social Democrats have also realized this. They changed their minds late, but they have finally realized this. What they want instead is very unclear. They want some kind of floor for the reduction obligation. Then they want to be able to tinker with some kind of ceiling.

One presents a model so that one can counter the government's basis' policy, but at the same time, one does not tell the voters what the alternative will be. One does not tell how much more expensive it will become to transport oneself in our country. It will not work to have a floating ceiling and to suddenly crank up the level. How often is it to be done? Is it to be done once a year? The companies will need to know this a number of months in advance so that they can make the transition.

The question is: How much higher should the reduction obligation become if the Social Democrats get to decide, and to what extent should the other parties in the left-wing opposition be allowed to decide? Is it to become a religiously based climate policy à la Miljöpartiet, where we have to borrow 100 billion kronor? One could ask that. Where is the pain threshold for the Social Democrats? How much more expensive will it become to transport oneself in our country?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I may have to start with the religious. I think perhaps there is a larger part to look at in the collective government basis than in anything else, if that is what one is wondering about.

I also want to speak about how it was when we went to the election in 2022 - all parties. At that time, there was nothing other than a promise from the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberaler that one would meet the climate goal and that one would have an ambitious climate policy. I believe that Moderaterna were the ones who pushed the hardest for the green vote within the conservative side.

It is not this we see now when we have a climate action plan before us and a government and a government base that choose to prioritize increasing emissions.

Then there was this matter of it becoming expensive for ordinary people. That is nothing that the Social Democrats want. It is clearly shown that if we do nothing now, it will, with the accumulated effects, become - excuse me, Madam Speaker - extremely expensive at the end of the 20s, if we are to meet the goals for 2030, if we are not to pay fines or emission rights.

When it comes to the cost and acceptance, it is exactly this that is said. Things must be done now if one does not want it to be more expensive for ordinary people later.

Yes, we have presented a Sweden fuel, and it is because we want to see the forest residues in Sweden used. We also commissioned a bioeconomy investigation when we Social Democrats held the government power to see how we could get more biofuels from Swedish production in the tank instead of being dependent on dictatorships and the fossil fuel.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! In recent months, we have first seen young people and then parents gathering in demonstrations outside the Riksdag. They have expressed despair regarding the climate crisis and mistrust toward the political system. It is easy to understand why. Last year was the warmest ever recorded. The world's countries have promised to try to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees, but already in 2023 we were almost up to that. Fires, droughts, and floods are destroying places all over the world, Europe, and Sweden. Extreme heat is killing more and more people.

Fear of the climate crisis and frustration over the lack of political action is not limited to the youth, parents, and others who have taken to the streets to protest. It is widespread throughout the entire population. The climate is the most important issue for Swedes in the EU election. Support for the fact that we need to carry out the climate transition is therefore fundamental.

The big question is: Why is so little happening then? The answer is that there are dark forces working against the transition. The fossil industry lives on pumping up oil and digging up coal from the ground. Destroying the climate is their lifeblood, and for decades they have worked to sow doubt regarding the climate crisis and delay measures.

But the climate crisis is also fueled by a small elite of super-rich individuals who live in a completely different world than the rest of us. They fly around the world in private jets. They spend their time on enormous luxury yachts. Their emissions amount to thousands of tons per year.

In this situation - with a climate crisis created by the fossil industry and inflated by the super-rich - we would have needed political courage and decisiveness most of all. We need politicians who dare to make decisions to depart from old principles in order to enable a transition of society - away from fossil emissions and away from the economic inequalities that divide us.

This is what we should be able to expect from the government that rules the country. But instead, we have a government that increases fossil emissions and that drives people apart by giving more to those who have the most and taking away from everyone else.

The Climate Policy Council stated in its review of the government's climate action plan that it is misleading and lacks objectivity. In other words: It is not enough that the government pursues a policy that increases emissions and does not bring us closer to the transition we need. They also want to trick us into believing that they have a plan to solve everything. Ulf Kristersson and Romina Pourmokhtari are trying to buy time by constantly postponing the messages on how the transition is to take place.

Madam Speaker! There is a statement by the Minister for Climate and the Environment that I find particularly telling regarding the government's climate policy. At a press conference on June 12, 2023, Romina Pourmokhtari said as follows: "Had it been possible for the policy to remove the emissions, it would have happened a long time ago." I have later heard both the minister and her State Secretary repeat the same message in different contexts.

This actually says everything about the neoliberal position in climate policy that Romina Pourmokhtaris party stands for, where the state is a fundamentally powerless actor whose only role is to pave the way for companies that make market-based decisions.

In combination with the Sweden Democrats' stance, that the climate transition is a greater threat than the climate crisis, the parties in the government base have created a perfect storm that has led to Swedish emissions now increasing at a time when they should be decreasing faster than ever. The greatest threat to humanity is met by the government with a shrug of the shoulders.

In contrast to the government, we in Vänsterpartiet believe that the state is the only actor that can drive the climate transition. It is a political responsibility that what needs to be done gets done, and we want to take that responsibility.

In order for emissions to decrease, sharp requirements are needed for the companies and individuals responsible for the large emissions, but also a massive investment program that corresponds to the extent of the crisis. Not least, an active distribution policy is needed that distributes costs and profits in a fair way. It is the large emitters who should pay the most for the green transition.

Our future prosperity and people's health depend on the climate transition being carried out at record speed. The parties in the government base advocate for a policy that threatens everything we hold dear, but to all those who despair over the situation, I want to say: There are alternatives. With a different policy, we can manage the transition together.

(Applause)

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! We are finally approaching the end of this debate. Even though we have not quite heard all the parties' statements yet, I still think it is possible to reflect a little bit on what has emerged during the debate.

The government, supported by the Sweden Democrats, has presented a plan that at first glance may seem impressive, but which upon closer inspection proves to be covered by a thin veneer. Behind the shiny surface, we find a plan filled with beautiful words but which lacks concrete measures.

The government has time and again spoken about its high ambitions and great visions regarding the climate transition. But let us be honest – ambitions without action are like a car without an engine. It may look good on paper, but it will not take us anywhere. The government's action plan is full of promises but lacks the concrete measures required to achieve the goals that they themselves have been involved in setting.

The Climate Policy Council has clearly pointed out that the government's plan does not live up to the goals of the Paris Agreement. They say that the government's action plan lacks the concrete measures required for us to be able to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement, and that without clear and measurable goals, we will not be able to reduce emissions at the rate required.

Madam Speaker! Is this really the level of commitment that we have the right to expect from our government? The government's measures are vague and insufficient. We see proposals that are either to be investigated and perhaps lead to measures only in the next parliamentary term, or proposals that lack concrete timeframes and necessary funding. It is almost as if the government hopes that the problems will solve themselves, which unfortunately is a strategy that works poorly when it comes to climate change.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has also expressed its concern. Their analyses show that the current proposals will not lead to the necessary emission reductions. They argue that Sweden, with the current proposals in the climate action plan, will not reach its climate goals and that significantly more ambitious and concrete measures are required to reduce our emissions sufficiently fast.

There is, therefore, a clear discrepancy between what the government claims and what they actually deliver. It is like painting a picture of the future without having the paint and the brushes to make it real. The government speaks of creating the conditions for households and companies to make the decisions required to reach the climate goals. Without concrete measures and guidelines, however, these conditions become nothing more than empty words.

Madam Speaker! I believe this debate has clearly shown that the government's climate action plan is not sufficient. Behind the shiny varnish of beautiful words and promises, a lack of concrete measures and real ambition is hidden. We need a government that does not just talk about being a global role model, but that actually acts as one.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! The government's and SD's climate action plan points out a new direction for Swedish climate policy - a direction towards reduced emissions, economic growth and, not least, towards popular anchoring, which is now an explicit basis for climate policy. This is very important, and it is mentioned in the first section of chapter 7, Prerequisites for the climate transition.

Without popular anchoring, politics will not be possible. This has been the Sweden Democrats' most important priority when it comes to Swedish climate policy. The reduction obligation has here become the primary symbol - the reduction obligation that made Sweden the most expensive country to transport in, the most expensive country to transport food to grocery stores in, and the most expensive country to operate agricultural machinery in.

We have lowered the reduction obligation. It has been noticed quickly. It is rare that political decisions have such a rapid effect, but here it happened quickly.

It should also be pointed out in this context that the lowered reduction obligation does not mean that we are contributing to reduced emissions in the world. Biofuels continue to be produced in Sweden, and new projects are started annually. Not a month goes by without me meeting companies and industry organizations that speak about the plans they have for the future.

Madam Speaker! The climate action plan has been criticized, but I think one should be honest here: It will never be possible to lay a climate action plan the year after an election that is completely investigated, completely concretely calculated, and that can predict technological development and the future.

Climate policy should be reflected in budget bills, in housing policy, in foreign policy and in environmental policy in a long series of bills. To collect everything in an action plan directly after the election and believe that one will be able to present all solutions there concretely will not work.

Madam Speaker! Swedish climate policy has been successful. We have a sustainable forestry of absolute world-class standard that contributes to replacing fossil with renewable. We phased out the fossil from our heating, and we have built up a fossil-free electricity system. In addition to this, we have an environmentally conscious population.

We can observe that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency as recently as a month ago stated that the distance to the climate goals has decreased. We therefore have a better situation today, in terms of the possibility of reaching the climate goals, than we had under the Social Democratic government.

Madam Speaker! This debate revolves around two different things. In the best of worlds, it is the same thing, but that is not always the case.

It is about reducing emissions in the world, because that is how we reduce the risk of consequences due to global warming. But it is also about meeting goals. The goals are political, and politics is rarely perfect. We have problems with goals both at the Swedish level and at the European level.

Now that we are heading towards an election to the European Parliament, one can take up some of the goals that are directly destructive. We have an energy efficiency goal at the EU level that impairs our opportunities to manufacture green steel, for example. We have the renewable target which makes it harder to transition to fossil-free electricity systems. We have the LULUCF target which makes it harder to use renewable products from our forestry - to take a few examples.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Now we are approaching the end of this long debate, but it has been important. We are in a climate crisis, and the possibility of limiting the warming to 1.5 degrees has decreased dramatically. Last year was the warmest that has been recorded.

The sector that primarily requires measures now is the transport sector, which needs to be electrified but also made more energy-efficient. This means that more goods need to be moved from road to rail. This also requires a well-developed public transport system throughout the country so that more passengers can take the bus and the train to work.

Those who live in our urban areas need to be able to travel by public transport to a much greater extent. In order to be able to choose public transport, it is required that one invests in it, both in expanding it and in lowering the price so that more are enticed to leave the car. We in Vänsterpartiet have submitted proposals for this. A monthly pass in public transport shall cost 450 kronor in all of Sweden. We call it Sweden prices.

My question to Martin Kinnunen is: Why are the Sweden Democrats so uninterested in investing in Swedish public transport?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa Fredholm, for the questions!

The Sweden Democrats are in no way interested in refraining from investing in public transport. We can state that in Sweden, approximately half of all costs for public transport are tax-financed in some way. It may sound attractive to put forward proposals to increase this subsidy in various ways, but then one must remember what form of redistribution it is that one is proposing. What Kajsa Fredholm and the Left Party, and probably also the Green Party and perhaps some more party, what do I know, are proposing is an enormous redistribution from the countryside to the big city.

The tax funds that we manage here in Sweden when we make decisions about the budget come from all our citizens. If we are to spend money on public transport in this way, it will primarily go to our metropolitan regions. This means that money is taken from the countryside and sent primarily to Stockholm's city center, which perhaps uses public transport the most. I do not think that is a fair policy.

When it comes to the transport sector, we are on the right track today. The transition is underway, but we must create the conditions for this transition. One can look at the statistics to see who today has the possibility to switch to an electric car, for example. The biggest problem there is that the possibility does not exist because one cannot charge their car near their home. We have trucking companies that want to switch to electric power but where there is no capacity in the grids to build a charging station that can handle a truck. That is where we have the primary challenges, and that is where we must invest the resources.

It looks good. It might not go as fast as one would like, but we are on the right track. We must start by building the infrastructure, and we shall not redistribute enormous amounts of money from the countryside to the big cities.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. This is a bit backwards. In what way would it be to distribute money from the countryside to the big city? It is a very strange reasoning. Then one can also say that when the Sweden Democrats lower the high fuel prices, it is those who take the car and who live in big cities who get the greatest access to it, since that is where the most people drive cars.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that economically weaker groups should be compensated for the effects of high fuel prices, but at the same time, taxes on fuel prices are an important tool to be able to reduce the climate impact of motoring. Compensatory measures are also needed for those who lack access to buses or trains. Trafikanalys has, for example, suggested targeted support to households in rural areas in the form of an income tax deduction.

I now understand that Jimmie Åkesson said in the latest party leader debate that instead of further subsidizing public transport, it is better to lower the costs for people to drive cars. I would like to have a real answer: Why do the Sweden Democrats hate public transport?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa Fredholm, for the repeated questions! I will say it again: We believe that one should invest in public transport.

A subsidy of 50 percent is very substantial. The largest costs for public transport are in the metropolitan regions, and if we pour even more subsidies over them from the state level, it is a matter of redistributing money from those who use public transport the least to those who use it the most, i.e., from the countryside to the city. It is an unfair policy. The Sweden Democrats naturally cannot accept such an enormous subsidy at the expense of the countryside.

Madam Speaker! That a lowered reduction obligation benefits car drivers is true, and we think that is good. We can state that a lowered reduction obligation also benefits our agriculture so that we get more climate-smart Swedish food. It also benefits our forestry so that we get more climate-smart products, as well as our public transport, as it will contribute to hundreds of millions in reduced costs for public transport in our country.

In principle, almost all regions in Sweden run their buses on renewables, and what happened to renewables when we lowered the reduction obligation? Well, the price of renewable diesel dropped more than fossil diesel. How is that possible? Well, we had a very poorly functioning market, so when the price of regular diesel dropped by just over 4 kronor per liter, the price of HVO 100 dropped by more than 6 kronor per liter.

Just overnight, we therefore lowered the annual costs for public transport by hundreds of millions of kronor. This was to the benefit of public transport, Kajsa Fredholm.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Initially, Martin Kinnunen mentioned something along the lines of that it is not possible to present a climate action plan that leads to the climate goals being met at the beginning of a mandate period. I do not know if those were the exact words.

When the government took office, there was material that the authorities had been tasked to prepare for the climate action plan that was known to be presented at the beginning of the mandate period. It was material from the county administrative boards, from Tillväxtanalys, and from Naturvårdsverket which contained a long series of proposed measures to build upon the climate policy that already existed or, in some cases, develop it. There were, for example, proposals to adjust the reduction obligation as it looked then.

When the Sweden Democrats, together with the government parties, have now presented a climate action plan, they have actively chosen not to include several, or almost any, of the measures where the basis existed. There are therefore conditions to do very much more.

Martin Kinnunen also began by saying that the climate action plan led to reduced emissions, economic growth, and popular anchoring. I mean that the Green Party has a climate policy that leads to much more reduced emissions, a much stronger economic development, and a broader popular anchoring. Just acceptance is a central issue.

The Climate Policy Council says that there is a lack of both analysis and strategy for how the government intends to work to achieve increased acceptance and cost-effectiveness in climate policy. My question concerns the popular anchoring and acceptance. What is it that Martin Kinnunen means is found in the climate action plan when it comes to this?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not quite understand the question. Popular anchoring is based on the fact that we have elections to the Swedish Riksdag. We choose people to sit here in the chamber as the people's primary representatives. Then decisions are made based on the politics they ran on in the election. It is precisely this that is happening now. We have authorities that come with input, tips, and proposals. It is a very good process, but we have popularly elected representatives who decide on the policy. They try to ensure they act according to what their voters cast their vote on.

That we carry out what we promised the voters to do is the basis for the popular anchoring. A majority of the parties in the Swedish Riksdag went to the election on a platform of lowering the reduction obligation. The majority of the parties in the government base went to the election on a platform of lowering the reduction obligation to exactly the level it ended up at or lower. That is popular anchoring for my part.

If the Green Party's policy had been built on popular anchoring, and if all people saw the climate threat and the climate issue as the most important thing and were prepared to burden future generations with debt, the Green Party would have been a significantly larger party. I understand that the Green Party has difficulty understanding popular anchoring, because that is not what the Green Party's policy is built on.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Initially, Martin Kinnunen answered what popular anchoring means. He meant the following: When we have elected politicians who develop a climate policy, it has popular anchoring in that it is based on what the parties ran for and were subsequently elected on. With that definition, all climate policy that has existed under all previous governments has had popular anchoring, because it has always been democratically elected governments.

It does not clarify what in the government's current climate action plan would contribute to public anchoring. This reinforces the Climate Policy Council's conclusion that there is a lack of both analysis and strategy regarding how the government intends to work to achieve increased acceptance for climate policy.

I can state that the Sweden Democrats have not worked actively to increase support for a climate policy that ensures we reach the goals and reduce emissions sufficiently to protect the population from the most serious climate-related risks.

Martin Kinnunen mentioned something in his answer about future generations and the costs for them. Miljöpartiet can only state that the costs for future generations will be enormous if we do not reduce emissions and manage the climate transition. It would have been very desirable if Sverigedemokraterna could actively start working to create acceptance for climate policy instead of actively opposing it.

I want to conclude by thanking everyone for a very long but also very rewarding climate policy debate.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! One problem has been that previous governments have not built their policies on popular anchoring. They have not gone to elections on introducing a reduction obligation and have not told what it will lead to. Instead, they have gone to elections with a then-finance minister candidate, Magdalena Andersson, who spoke about how it was already too expensive to refuel and that they would not raise the fuel taxes.

What did Magdalena Andersson do afterwards? Well, she raised the fuel taxes. When the reduction obligation was introduced—this happened when Miljöpartiet sat in the government—a significant reduction in the diesel price was made at the same time, so people didn't even realize that the reduction obligation had been introduced. The costs for more HVO in the tank offset the tax reduction on diesel by just over a krona, so people noticed nothing.

I would like to assert that one simply tried to mislead the voters and the people. They did not state what policy they actually intended to implement. That is also why this policy capsized. That is why we have Social Democrats who now admit that the policy did not have popular support and that it did not benefit ordinary people.

With this, I thank you for a long and pleasant debate.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 22 May.)

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