The National Audit Office's report on international climate actions

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We have now reached tonight's highlight when we get to discuss an exciting report from the Swedish National Audit Office regarding climate investments in other countries.

Here in the chamber of the Riksdag, it is often forgotten that climate policy is fundamentally a global issue. Greenhouse gases have no borders. People have borders and need borders between one another to protect our societies and maintain our way of life. But for greenhouse gases, there are no borders, and there is no point in trying to spread an image that they have borders.

Despite this, Swedish climate policy has come to be characterized by nationalism. It is very foolish because this is one of the few policy areas where nationalism rather counteracts the solution to the problem.

Mr. Speaker! We are debating, as stated, the Riksrevisionen's audit of the state's work with international climate investments. Riksrevisionen notes in its audit that the work has the potential to contribute to climate work in a cost-effective manner. It is naturally positive that Riksrevisionen notes that there is a great benefit in investing in other countries.

International climate investments are simple in theory. By making investments in other countries, one can succeed in reducing emissions at a significantly lower cost than if the measures are taken in Sweden, where the most effective measures have already been implemented. The Swedish National Audit Office acknowledges this picture in its review.

Mr. Speaker! What complicates the work is that the global framework is still in its infancy. The problem from a Swedish perspective has constantly been that the market is underdeveloped. First, we had projects within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol, and now we have gradually moved over to the Article 6 framework in the Paris Agreement. The Swedish National Audit Office sees potential to streamline the work with clearer goal-setting and improved evaluations. I think those are perfectly reasonable recommendations, and they are the kind of recommendations the Swedish National Audit Office usually has when they review different policy areas. But it is easier said than done, given that it is difficult to achieve a perfectly functioning market with good access to projects today.

This is a long-term task, and the market is not fully developed. It is difficult to set a goal regarding exactly what one should achieve when one cannot ensure access to projects. It is a complicated story when one is to design the framework. There are many countries and actors that have different perceptions. I can imagine that it would have been simpler if one could have focused on investing in fossil-free energy in many of these countries and accounted for that. But now it is important that one can demonstrate that one immediately removes emissions instead of focusing on creating potential for greener growth in these countries. It is significantly more complicated when one has to replace existing energy, which is what it usually involves.

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Government agrees with the Swedish National Audit Office's recommendation to strengthen the conditions for assessing the cost-effectiveness of the measures. The Government emphasizes that it intends to give the Swedish Energy Agency a mandate with the aim of strengthening the reporting of how Sweden's international climate measures achieve the goal of cost-effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker! The main problem when it comes to the international efforts is that we have many parties in Sweden that would like to put a spoke in the wheels of the work. Either one does not like it at all, or one wants to limit it in different ways. One seems to be driven by the idea that efforts must be carried out in Sweden for us to somehow feel better about ourselves. There is, unfortunately, among a good number of actors and political parties in Sweden, a need for emissions to necessarily be reduced in the country in the world that perhaps has the lowest emission intensity in relation to GDP. There is a kind of need for self-flagellation, a need to conduct a self-destructive climate policy. I hope that we can move away from this and instead focus on how we can solve this global problem in the best way forward.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Martin Kinnunen praises efforts globally to reduce emissions rather than reducing them in Sweden. Of course, there is no contradiction in doing both.

The interesting thing is that Martin Kinnunen also says that there is no functioning market and that the follow-up is difficult. But what conclusions do the Sverigedemokraterna draw from that?

Is it not a reasonable conclusion to draw that if there is no proper market, if it is difficult to follow up, to take as many measures as possible at home? Furthermore, we get interesting benefits in the form of increasing our security when we reduce our oil dependency, and we get more jobs and companies in Sweden because we put the money here instead of in efforts in other places. Is that not also worth investing in instead of taking measures in other places when it is difficult and uncertain with the follow-up?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions from Rickard Nordin.

It is clear that the easiest thing, if anything is difficult, is to run away and not care about it. But now that we have a global problem that affects the planet collectively, and we are constantly looking for how we in Sweden can make a difference, then it is to participate in the most relevant international work that exists, that is to say, to create a global market for climate investments in different countries.

I think there is a great point in continuing to work with this precisely because it is an underdeveloped market. Sweden can be an actor that can contribute to achieving a more developed market, and we can expect it to become a significantly more developed market in the future.

We have seen how the negotiations regarding the EU's 2040 goals have proceeded. There will be several billion euros on the market if we just wait a few years. We will probably see a ketchup effect in many more projects participating in the future. Until then, we shall conduct a responsible work. That does not mean that one necessarily has to jump on all possible projects, but there is no reason to brake or not contribute in the international cooperation solely because it is in its infancy right now.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! It will become very difficult to continue working with these measures after Martin Kinnunen's party colleague Oscar Sjöstedt said today in Dagens Nyheter that you should zero out aid and shut down Sida. It will become very difficult with climate aid and international climate efforts and to continue working with other countries to develop regulatory frameworks if we have no money to do so.

You are also going to cut back on the climate measures. Oscar Sjöstedt was very clear about that. How is one supposed to work without money? It is difficult to carry out climate measures without having a budget for them.

This is typical of the Sweden Democrats. Someone else is going to do something somewhere else, and then when one tries to do it, the resources have been withdrawn so that there is nothing left at all.

Isn't it better, Martin Kinnunen, that you say it as it is, that is to say that you do not prioritize the climate issue? You don't give a damn about it instead. Be honest about it! Don't pretend as if you are going to make efforts where it has the most effect; you want to remove all the money that we have spent on climate aid.

You want to zero out the aid and shut down Sida. Then there will be no climate actions abroad. It is better to be honest about that so that we can have a real debate in the Riksdag.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have not seen the interview, except that I saw headlines about closing Sida.

What concerns our committee now is expenditure area 20. It is absolutely nothing to do with the aid budget. This is a separate appropriation within expenditure area 20, and it actually has nothing to do with Sida's activities. It is the Swedish Energy Agency that works with the international work regarding climate investments.

Otherwise, I have nothing further to add, Mr. Speaker.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is exciting to listen to MP Kinnunen when he speaks about the climate. One can get the impression that there is a will to work with climate policy, but it is often someone else who is supposed to do the work, not us in Sweden.

It was also exciting to listen when Kinnunen described the National Audit Office's report. One might wonder if we have read the same report.

What we could take from the Riksrevisionen's report was that in the international interventions, the actual climate benefit is often more difficult to measure and follow up compared to Swedish interventions. Furthermore, there is a risk that the interventions are primarily directed at easy projects instead of more long-term measures that could have led to a structural transformation.

The National Audit Office also mentions that administrative costs are not included and that it is therefore not comparable with climate policy on Swedish soil.

My question to Kinnunen is: Why do the Sweden Democrats think it is good that money is invested in non-transparent projects that are not easy to assess and which, according to the National Audit Office's report, take money away from Swedish jobs?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for the question!

This is actually quite simple. We can listen to the authorities. They are very clear that the cost of reducing emissions through these projects is significantly lower than carrying out reductions in Sweden. We therefore get more climate benefit per krona by making such investments.

It is naturally a challenge when one performs work in other countries; it becomes more difficult to evaluate it. This is at least a problem within the framework of Swedish aid. There, it is often very difficult to evaluate what benefit has been gained for the several hundreds of billions during the recent years.

Now we must remember that the international climate investments are at a completely different cost level. Instead of a full billion-roll, just over 100 million kronor is being invested in these projects.

What the National Audit Office clarifies is that it naturally becomes more difficult to evaluate this in its current form. At the same time, the potential to do great good with a small investment is much higher, which is the reason why we in Sweden engage in such projects and why there has at least previously been a broad consensus in Swedish politics regarding the benefit of complementary measures in other countries.

Now it seems that some parties have shifted a bit and become significantly more skeptical. I think it is a shame. There is great potential to avoid very high costs in Sweden and instead make significantly smaller and smarter investments in another country and achieve the same or greater benefit for the planet.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! In response, I am told that although the projects are not transparent, it is a small proportion of tax money that is to go to projects where we do not know if they work. It does not matter to Member Kinnunen that it is Swedish tax money that is to go to projects that are difficult to evaluate and where transparency is non-existent.

Is that how I am to interpret Kinnunen in his analysis of the international climate credits? I think it sounds very unprofessional, and it does not sound like a responsible way to handle Swedish tax money.

Would it not be smarter to invest in projects where one knows what will happen and which have a good effect for Swedish jobs?

With the Tidö and SD government, we have received extremely high unemployment. There have been 100,000 more unemployed. Svenskt Näringsliv and Teknikföretagen are also calling for clarity regarding climate policy, because investments cannot be made if one does not know that it will be profitable in the future.

That is why it is very difficult to understand why the Sweden Democrats think it is better to waste money on a project market, where one does not know what will happen, than to invest in secure Swedish jobs that can break the unemployment that the Tidö and SD government have created.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I was difficult to understand, but I absolutely do not understand how I could be interpreted in this way.

I explained that it is more difficult to evaluate what happens with projects occurring in other countries. In the same way, it is much more difficult to evaluate what happens with interventions within the framework of the aid budget. The Social Democrats have, however, never considered this to be a reason to cease aid.

The Social Democrats want instead to increase aid and take it from somewhere in the state budget and add an additional 10–20 billion to aid for projects in other countries that are difficult to evaluate. It is always harder to evaluate things in other countries where we do not have Swedish authorities. It is always a challenge when one operates at another level.

The same applies at the EU level. It is much more difficult to evaluate what happens with the money that we send to the EU project in Brussels. The Social Democrats have always thought that it has been a good idea to send money to Brussels anyway.

Mr. Speaker! I find it somewhat difficult to understand the notion that the Sweden Democrats would think it is positive that it is not possible to evaluate measures. It is more difficult to evaluate measures in other countries; that is correct.

It concerns a sum of money that we contribute to the international work to build up an infrastructure for global climate investments. After negotiations at the EU level, this will also be one of the foundations of the EU's climate policy.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Martin Kinnunen mentions in his speech that it is difficult to plan because there are few projects and that it is one of the reasons why it is difficult for the Swedish Energy Agency to plan for initiating such projects.

I have, together with Martin Kinnunen and several others here in the chamber, sat in the Environmental Goals Preparation Group. There, we discussed the issue of climate measures quite a bit. There, after long negotiations, we finally reached a conclusion that a smaller part of the complementary measures could be used internationally in Article 6 measures if one does not meet their own climate goals.

I think it would have been much easier for the Energy Agency to plan if they had had the Environmental Goals Commission's proposal on the table, where it has been framed how large the measures should be. It would have given a much clearer direction, and it was also something we came to in the Environmental Goals Commission: One needs to plan forward to get a clearer steering.

This report has not arrived yet. I do not know if Martin Kinnunen, as a representative of the government today, can answer where it is. But I just want to know: Would it not have been simpler to plan ahead? Do the Sweden Democrats stand by what was negotiated in the Environmental Goals Commission, that it is a smaller part of the complementary measures that can be used for international climate efforts?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Katarina Luhr, for the questions!

Yes, this was one of many things handled in the Environmental Goals Preparation recently. Let me remember what we wrote in there. There is a wording regarding that one should limit the use of the complementary measures.

That it was possible to reach a consensus on this in the Environmental Goals Preparatory Committee is because the limitation that is proposed will have no significance whatsoever, as it is completely unrealistic that it would be possible to identify more projects within that timeframe. That is why it was possible to agree on the limitation. It is because it will have no effect whatsoever in terms of influencing reality in any way. In environmental goals preparations, there are sometimes slightly exciting discussions that perhaps do not change that much but result in certain sentences that are important for different participants in the investigation.

But I do not judge that the proposal contained in the Environmental Goals Preparatory Group's report will change anything regarding how Sweden works with international climate investments.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Martin Kinnunen, for the answer! It was very interesting, because what I perceived from Martin Kinnunen's first speech was that there was very great potential to make large emission reductions abroad. It was one of the technologies that the Sverigedemokraterna saw as a way to significantly reduce emissions. Now Martin Kinnunen says that there is actually no potential at all to work with this – it is such a small part that it will not make any difference at all.

I do not quite understand the reasoning here. I had actually intended to ask how much money the Sverigedemokraterna are prepared to invest in this, if one now wants to make the large emission reductions abroad. I would still like to know that.

But I become very curious as to whether Martin Kinnunen believes that we can use international efforts to achieve large emission reductions or if there is no potential at all until 2030 to utilize international climate efforts abroad.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the follow-up questions from Katarina Luhr.

As I said: I have not said that it is not possible to do good, but Sweden de facto contributes to reduced emissions in the world with these investments within the framework of the appropriation within expenditure area 20. What I stated was that we had a meeting in the Environmental Goals Preparation. I explicitly asked the secretariat: Is there any possibility that we can exceed this by 2030? I received the answer from the experts that there is not. There will not be that many projects available on the market by that year. It is unrealistic.

Therefore, the wording that exists in the Environmental Goals Commission means that the possibility for Sweden to continue working with international climate investments will not be affected. It will not be limited in any way precisely because there is a limitation in the market. There is also, in the short term, a limitation regarding how much money and how much work one can devote to this area. That is how reality looks.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, this is a fundamental ideological issue. It does not matter where in the world the emission reductions occur. If we are to work to reduce emissions on a global level, it is just as relevant to reduce emissions on all our continents. If one has succeeded in reducing emissions very significantly on one continent, in Europe for example, there are likely significantly lower-hanging fruits on the other continents. Then there is absolutely potential to reduce emissions there more easily and cheaply. It is also definitely a task that Swedish and European companies could benefit very much from and also benefit from today.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! For the sake of clarity: I move for approval of reservation 1 in our motion.

The climate crisis means more natural disasters: severe storms, droughts, floods, and heat. It drives species extinction, shakes up agriculture, creates conflicts over scarce resources, and ultimately drives people into flight and poverty.

The heatwaves we are experiencing now are also felt in Europe – they are taxing for many. That it is 35 degrees in London in May is not normal at all. Even in Sweden, we have been affected in recent years. There have been climate-related fires and floods, and many farmers have seen their harvests go up in smoke.

The British report Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security has been produced by, among others, MI5 and MI6. The report states that ecosystem collapse constitutes a real threat to the national economy and security. It warns that ecosystems risk collapsing around 2030.

We Social Democrats see this, and we want to lead the transition. We see it as necessary for the planet, good for Swedish jobs, and important also when it comes to climate justice.

Sweden has an extremely important role in the transition that we are in the middle of. We play a role when it comes to supporting investments in industry, fossil-free energy systems, and transport infrastructure. When the state takes that role, the right conditions are provided for companies to develop green technology. It is good for Swedish competitiveness.

When it comes to the international efforts we are talking about here today, the actual climate benefit is often significantly harder to measure, and it is harder to follow up compared to what happens within Sweden's borders. This does not mean that the efforts should not be made, but it means that if we want to be sure of the results and ensure that Swedish jobs benefit, we must ensure that we make the large emission reductions here at home. With the so-called Article 6 policy, there is indeed a risk that we invest in projects that become short-term and difficult to follow up, and which thus mean Swedish tax money is wasted.

For us Social Democrats, it is important that the international projects contribute to a long-term transition in the host country. It is also important that the host country, the state we invest in, has sufficient administrative competence, capacity, and stability to ensure that the emission reductions become real and truly make a difference for the climate – and of course also for the country where we invest.

We Social Democrats believe that the use of international credits should be clearly limited. That is also what the Environmental Goals Board has said. We also think it is important to listen to the National Audit Office when they describe that the costs for the international climate investments must be reported more transparently. It is also about Swedish tax money. Administrative costs also need to be included in the calculation so that we know what the real costs are and what the opportunity cost is – that is, what we could have instead invested in Swedish jobs, in Swedish companies, which are currently crying out for clarity in climate policy.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish companies are concerned about the weak climate policy in Sweden right now. The government has prioritized uncertain projects internationally instead of investing in the capable Swedish companies that we have in this country, which are already far ahead in technological development. This means that Swedish companies become uncertain: Will the investments pay off, and will they be of use? Or should we refrain from it altogether or postpone it?

This is dangerous for Sweden. It means that we will not become the leaders in the climate transition. And our history is built on the fact that we lead the transition and that we believe in the future. Nostalgia and clinging to old technology will lead to a very poor development for us, and Swedish companies will suffer. The Swedish people, who are currently unemployed with the SD-Tidö government, will also be affected, not least.

We in the Swedish people place the climate high on the agenda. The climate is one of the political areas that evokes the greatest engagement in civic life and creates concern in our country right now. People are worried that the government is not doing enough. At the same time, as has been said, the government's policy is limited, unclear, and regressive.

For a long time, people pointed at the Steering Funds Inquiry. They actually spent all the years pointing out that the eggs come in the basket that the Steering Funds Inquiry is now to report on. Today we received the message: The eggs in the basket are mostly about doing as we in the opposition have said, not least when it comes to being clearer about the reduction obligation. The government will not listen to this. We already know that.

So, one has postponed something for almost four years, and after that, one does not want to listen to the investigation. It is scandalous, actually! This must be said in a debate on climate policy.

No, it is time for a new climate policy – a clear, ambitious and just climate policy that does justice to the planet, that does justice to the Swedish people and that means we invest in the green technology that makes our companies winners in the transition.

We do not have a day to waste. It is time to replace this government and ensure that this becomes a reality.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for the speech! The topic of the day is the National Audit Office's report on the international climate investments. Then Jytte Guteland also touched upon some other matters as well.

When it comes to this matter of the investments, the Social Democrats seem to mean that one should not conduct international work with them. Is that correctly understood? That is a question.

Let me come to question number 2. If one is not to use the funds for these investments – it is just over 100 million, which is quite limited compared to the entire climate budget – one shall therefore invest them in industry. What types of investments do the Social Democrats want for these 150 million kronor?

We know, for example, from before that the Social Democrats would like to help their party comrades who were involved in the Northvolt project to push even more tax money into what ended in perhaps the worst bankruptcy ever. The Social Democrats wanted to pour even more money into that project. Is this an example of what should be done with the money instead?

We politicians are not to be businessmen and invest in different types of companies. Instead, we are to create the conditions for companies to grow and operate.

Mr. Speaker! Another part of Jytte Guteland's speech concerned the Styrmedelsutredningen. The member seems to be upset that representatives of the government base do not agree with all the investigator's proposals. Is it correctly understood that Jytte Guteland, Socialdemokraterna, thinks that the proposals contained in the Styrmedelsutredningen should be implemented?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to MP Kinnunen for the commitment to our climate policy! There is a lack of commitment to climate policy in the SD government, the Tidö government, so it is exciting to follow the debates. It is difficult to understand what the Sweden Democrats want.

We are clear. We say that we want the emission reductions to occur in Sweden and benefit Swedish companies and Swedish jobs. It is good for the planet that we lead the way, not least when it comes to the technology that is the most difficult – the one that the Sweden Democrats seem to want to neglect and which seems to make them want to bury their heads in the sand.

We think that we need more time and that it is therefore important that the capable companies and industries in Europe come first. What is worrying about the international credits is that they take place outside the EU. Even if each country invests less, it still results in quite large parts of the EU's climate policy being outsourced outside the EU's borders.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to help with technological development in international projects in countries that have a need for it, but then it must be seen as a seasoning that goes beyond what we do at home.

The difference between us Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats is that we believe the transition is good for our opportunities to be at the forefront when it comes to innovation and new technology. We also believe that it leads to more jobs. Most investigations point in that direction. The EU's impact assessment regarding the transition shows that there will be positive effects for Swedish jobs.

My question to the Sverigedemokraterna member is why Sverigedemokraterna at all costs want to invest Swedish tax money in uncertain projects instead of investing in Swedish jobs.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I am in some kind of parallel reality, because we are discussing projects for 150 million or something of the sort. I do not remember the exact figure, but it is approximately this amount that it concerns.

I am told here that it is catastrophic that these funds are invested in other countries. At the same time, Jytte Guteland represents a social democratic party that wants to shock-increase the Swedish aid by approximately 20 billion kronor. These 20 billion are to be taken from somewhere in the state budget and added to the aid, that is, projects in completely other countries that we have more difficulty evaluating.

So, here it is said that it is a big problem that 150 million is invested in other countries. But then we have 20 billion, and it is no problem at all to plow these funds into all sorts of corrupt nations in the world. I absolutely do not understand this. How can this smaller investment in climate investments within the framework of the Paris Agreement be a huge problem? It is about something that all countries in the world have agreed on, and the Social Democrats have also said they stand behind the Paris climate agreement. But perhaps that has changed. I don't know.

We are investing 150 million in climate projects in other countries. It is a big problem. But 20 billion spread across corrupt countries in the world is a major priority. I do not understand this.

Mr. Speaker! Another question concerned the Steering Means Inquiry, which Jytte Guteland touched upon. I still want an answer to the question of whether the Social Democrats stand behind the proposals in the Steering Means Inquiry. If fortune should be on our side and the Social Democrats end up in a government position, will you then want to implement proposals in that direction?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Kinnunen's contribution shows that it is easy to become tunnel-visioned when one has power. It is easy to think that 150 million is a small amount of money when one moves at those heights. But for many of us, 150 million is still a lot of money. They could have been invested in a transition that benefits Swedish jobs and for the opportunity for the unemployed to get jobs in Sweden.

But for Kinnunen, 150 million is something, but it can be wasted away in non-transparent and insecure projects. That's what happens sometimes when power becomes a bit hazy and one thinks: It doesn't matter anymore.

I believe that most Swedes think it is an insane amount of money.

Regarding transparency, we believe that all projects should have it; we fight for it. But here, the Sweden Democrats suddenly think it is unimportant when it comes to a project. Which other projects is it unimportant to have transparency regarding? Is it only when the Sweden Democrats themselves think something is good? Does it not need to be transparent then? Is that how we are to interpret it?

Whether it is a lot or a little also depends on what more countries do. It is not just about Sweden. If all EU countries do it in the same way, it becomes a lot of money. This will become a way to outsource climate policy and thereby outsource the opportunity to be at the forefront of technological development, with the jobs that could lead our continent to greater success. Is it not more important for Sverigedemokraterna that Swedes get jobs and that we invest Swedish tax money in the projects that we know are profitable and that provide Swedish jobs, rather than getting to have fun with climate policy?

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! The climate transition is one of the greatest challenges of our time. But it is also one of the greatest opportunities of our time. For the Moderaterna, climate policy is about combining high ambitions with economic growth, technological development, and faith in the future. We do not believe that people should live poorer so that emissions will decrease. We believe in innovation, investments, and competitiveness.

The Moderates' climate policy is hopeful and solution-oriented. We are convinced that through technical progress, research, and entrepreneurship, humans can solve the problems we face. Sweden has already shown that it is possible to combine reduced emissions with increased prosperity. Since the 1990s, Sweden's economy has grown significantly while emissions have decreased by over a third. It is a testament to strength, and it is precisely that type of development that we want to see globally.

But, Mr. Speaker, we must also dare to be honest about one thing. The climate challenge is global. Sweden's emissions correspond to approximately 1 per mille of the world's total emissions. That does not mean we should do less, but it means that we must focus on the measures that actually make the biggest difference for the global climate.

Emissions do not care about national borders. It does not matter if carbon dioxide decreases in Sweden if it increases somewhere else. Climate policy must therefore be about reducing global emissions, not just about looking at the Swedish figures. That is why international climate efforts are so important.

We must invest where the emission reductions are greatest per invested krona. In many developing countries, an investment can provide a significantly greater climate benefit than a corresponding sum invested in Sweden can provide. It is both rational and responsible to view climate policy in this light.

We all stand behind the Paris Agreement, which states that we shall keep global warming well below two degrees, with a goal of limiting it to one and a half degrees. Within the Paris Agreement is Article 6, which enables cooperation between countries to reduce emissions where it is most cost-effective. It is about investments, exchange of knowledge, technological development, and trade with carbon credits. It is simply about using resources more smartly to achieve greater global climate benefit. To limit the use of international climate investments is therefore to opt out of effective emission reductions. It also risks making the climate transition more expensive, more difficult, and less legitimate.

Mr. Speaker! We Moderates stand behind the ambition that Sweden should reach net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest. But if Sweden is to be a pioneer, it is not enough that we only reduce our own emissions. We must also contribute to ensuring that other countries can and want to transition. That is where our true strength lies. Swedish companies are far ahead, and the global climate benefit of Swedish exports already corresponds to approximately half of Sweden's own emissions today. This shows the enormous potential that exists in combining climate responsibility with growth and competitiveness – also globally. The best climate policy is, in fact, no longer the one that forces, but the one that creates the best conditions.

Mr. Speaker! International climate investments under Article 6 are therefore not an exception to an ambitious climate policy. They are a natural part of an ambitious, effective, and credible climate policy.

For the Moderaterna, it is ultimately about results, about reducing emissions where it makes the most difference, about getting more countries to raise their ambitions, and about creating a green transition through technology, innovation, and international cooperation that actually works all the way to net zero.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Climate change does not wait for political processes. It does not wait for the next mandate period. It does not wait for the government to feel ready.

We know that the climate transition also entails opportunities. Sweden can become a world leader in this transition. We can create jobs, strengthen competitiveness, and build a robust society for the future. In that case, the climate policy must rest on a very simple principle: We shall reduce emissions for real, and we would like to do it in Sweden. That is why the Center Party has reserved itself in this report. I move for approval of reservation 2.

The Swedish National Audit Office's review is clear. The judgment is harsh towards international climate efforts and emission credits. It is stated that the results are uneven, that the follow-up is lacking, that the goals are unclear and that the development forward is uncertain.

Of course, international cooperation is needed. The climate crisis is global. Sweden shall contribute internationally, share technology, share investments, and share knowledge. But it must never, ever become a shortcut away from our own responsibility.

International climate credits are based on the idea that emission reductions in one country can be offset against emissions in another. It is based on the idea that it is possible to make things more efficient somewhere else. In theory, it may sound smart, but in practice, there are significant risks, just as the National Audit Office has concluded. How do we ensure that the emission reduction actually occurs? How do we know that it is permanent? How do we avoid double counting? And above all: How do we avoid international credits being used as an excuse to postpone the transition that we know must take place here at home?

When the government increases emissions in Sweden and simultaneously says that we should do things more efficiently elsewhere, it sounds very false. Furthermore, they have dismantled all the measures in Sweden that, according to the National Audit Office, have proven to be just effective.

The Center Party's answer is clear. We want to phase out the use of international credits step by step in favor of domestic measures that guaranteed reduce fossil emissions and build permanent carbon sinks. It is not about us stopping climate aid or making efforts in other countries. We should just stop using it as an excuse for not taking measures ourselves.

Actually, it is a very bourgeois principle. The one who has ownership over something also has a reason to care for it. If countries have responsibility and control over their own measures – regardless of who supports them; Sweden must be involved and do it – they will be better cared for. Then less worry about continuity is needed. Double counting will not occur. It will result in order and clarity as well as reduced emissions.

Climate policy is not just about reaching figures in an Excel sheet. It is about building a fossil-free society, about electrification, about fossil-free industry, about sustainable transport, about innovation, about bioeconomy, about strengthening the role of forests and land in climate work, and about giving people and companies the tools to transition. None of that do we achieve here in Sweden by outsourcing the climate work and trying to buy our way out.

One does not need to be a nationalist to think it is madness to make investments in emission reductions in other countries instead of putting the money here, especially not when we know anyway that we will need to make the investments here at home later.

We know that Swedish industry stands ready. Companies are already investing billions in green technology. The countryside can be the engine of the transition. Biogas, biofuels, electrification, and sustainable forestry are not just climate policy. It is future policy. It is security policy. We get rid of fossil dependencies. We won't do that if the money is spent elsewhere. That is why it is wrong when the state leans on uncertain credit systems instead of focusing fully on reducing emissions at home.

The National Audit Office also points out that the government needs clearer objectives, better governance, and better monitoring of cost-effectiveness. These are important conclusions. We who are on the right side usually guard the taxpayers' money, but this government does not listen to the criticism. Climate policy must be transparent, efficient, and long-term sustainable. That is when we have control over it, not when it is outsourced to other countries.

There is a perception that climate policy and economic development stand in opposition to each other. We do not share that view, and neither does the research. It is precisely the opposite. The green transition is our time's greatest economic opportunity. The countries that lead the climate transition will also lead the technological and economic development. Sweden shall be such a country.

Now we have low growth and increased emissions. It should be exactly the opposite. Emissions must go down, and jobs must increase. But to get there, it requires courage to set demands and courage to prioritize long-term goals over short-term solutions. We need less climate accounting and more real climate benefit, less focus on buying ourselves free somewhere else and more focus on making a real transition.

The climate crisis requires international cooperation, but it also requires national responsibility. Sweden shall contribute globally. We shall do our homework. We shall help other countries. We shall increase our climate aid when the government has lowered it and the Sverigedemokraterna want to abolish it entirely.

We in the Center Party will push for a climate policy that reduces emissions here at home, strengthens Swedish competitiveness, and builds the sustainable society of the future. We will continue to support climate aid and development in other countries. The climate transition is ultimately about what kind of Sweden we leave behind – a Sweden that ducked or a Sweden that took responsibility. We in the Center Party choose responsibility, because we know that Sweden can do more.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I am a person of associations. At the moment, time does not allow me to be involved so very much in association life, because I spend so much time here. But otherwise, there is a great deal of association life. What strikes me is the fear – perhaps that is the right word anyway – of the auditors. For me, it is utterly strange. We have auditors as help so that the association shall function – partly so that one shall do right, partly so that one shall fulfill what one has said one shall do and that it shall go in the right direction. Then there is that matter of auditing finances and so on, but that is only one part. Auditors have a much greater responsibility, and it is that we shall take advantage of.

What we have to debate here today is a report from the National Audit Office. We receive these reports so that they should help the government develop the operations, so that they run even better. In this case, it concerns international climate efforts and the acquisition of emission credits. In some of the debate contributions so far, it has almost sounded as if nothing is to be done at home. But what tonight's debate is about is precisely international climate efforts. That is what the report concerns, and therefore it becomes very much about the international. But of course, things shall also be done at home. There is no doubt about that.

This review is ultimately about an important question: Does Sweden succeed in using these tools in a good way that both reduces global emissions and contributes to our climate goals being reached in a cost-effective manner? The National Audit Office finds that the work partially achieves its purposes but that the results are uneven and that there is a lack of follow-up. These are important conclusions that we need to take seriously, Mr. Speaker.

To reach Sweden's long-term climate goals, we need complementary measures. This includes bio-CCS, i.e., the separation and storage of biogenic carbon dioxide. It is also about carbon uptake and storage in forests and soil, as well as international climate actions. The international climate actions mean that Sweden cooperates with other countries to reduce emissions where it is sometimes faster and more cost-effective to implement measures than at home. But one should not displace the other. It can involve Sweden acquiring emission credits from projects in developing countries and counting these against our national climate goals.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, to remember that the climate issue is global. The atmosphere does not care where the emission reduction occurs geographically. One ton less of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere matters regardless of whether the emissions are reduced in Sweden, Africa, Asia, or South America.

In the report, the Swedish National Audit Office points out several problems. It is considered that the government's governance of the Swedish Energy Agency has been too unclear and that it is therefore not possible to determine whether Sweden is acquiring emission credits in sufficient extent for us to reach our climate policy goals. The Swedish National Audit Office provides a number of recommendations that should be taken very seriously and which are very reasonable. The government also shares several of these assessments.

But there is also an important realism in the government's response. The market for international climate actions under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is still under construction. It takes time to establish functioning systems, agreements, and long-term collaborations. Perseverance and long-term planning are needed. However, it does not change the fundamental conclusion – without complementary measures, Sweden will also not reach the climate goals. All approved complementary measures are needed, and they are included in the same toolbox.

The Christian Democrats support the Paris Agreement, and international climate efforts are part of the Paris Agreement. It is therefore obvious that Sweden should take advantage of those opportunities. We must pursue a climate policy that is both responsible and effective, which reduces emissions globally and uses taxpayers' money wisely.

The climate challenge does not stop at national borders. The climate issue is global, and it is here and now. Therefore, we must use solutions that work regardless of whether the emission reduction occurs territorially in Sweden or through international cooperation that contributes to reducing global emissions, which is what we want to achieve. The report from Riksrevisionen helps us go even further in that work.

I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the reservations.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Ottosson for the speech. For me, it is important to speak with a member whose party is in government on this issue.

The National Audit Office shows that the international climate credits have major flaws today. There are difficulties with transparency. We have concerns that the administrative costs are not reported and that it therefore is not comparable with corresponding Swedish projects. The National Audit Office also emphasizes that it is difficult to assess the long-term nature of the projects – one can invest in electric scooters in Ghana that might become technological waste a couple of years later; one does not know what will happen in the future with gasoline prices and so on. Other concerns that the National Audit Office highlights are that there is an opportunity cost when it comes to Swedish jobs.

Given all this in the National Audit Office's report, I want to ask the member why the government insists on thinking that this is a significant part of Sweden's climate policy. These funds could do so much more good at home.

I am also thinking specifically of the Christian Democrats, who actually hold the position of Minister for Climate and Enterprise. Unemployment is sky-high, and bankruptcies have been piling up. Is there not an interest from the Christian Democrats to reverse this development and invest in a climate transition that can lead to more jobs in Sweden?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Jytte Guteland for the questions.

As I began my speech by saying, I see auditors as friends. Auditors are not the big bad wolf, but they come with help so that the operations can become better. That is exactly what this National Audit Office report is also intended to do. A number of things have been pointed out that are considered not to be working, and that is done so that we can address the concerns that Jytte Guteland mentions in her reply. It is done so that we can manage them and specifically achieve security, long-term perspective, transparency, and so on.

We may possibly have slightly different views on how important the international climate efforts are, but I believe we are broadly in agreement that the money should be used in the best possible way when it is used. The money should have as strong an impact as possible. I am therefore in complete agreement with Jytte Guteland that we should take note of what the report points out, precisely so that it can become better.

We still have a framework stating that the remaining 15 percent – when we have reached 2045 – can be covered by complementary measures. It does not say that we should not do things in Sweden, but it is a combination. We continue to reduce emissions in Sweden, but according to the framework, we may also use complementary measures. However, it is important that the complementary measures actually work so that it does not become a miscalculation, which Jytte Guteland touched upon in her reply.

I don't actually think there is such a big difference in the view on how we use the money. What sets us apart is the view on whether we should make use of international climate efforts or not. We say: Yes, please – both!

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the explanation.

It is of course clear that auditing is important. It is important to take note of what the audit says and change the policy based on that. Now, this was a rather large cut of the international projects, so it might rather be about moving these funds home. How the government intends to follow up on this would, however, be interesting to hear. What new directives will we see to ensure that there is order and clarity in this non-transparent area?

My second question was about the jobs, and I received no answer there. We have sky-high unemployment in Sweden. There are 100,000 more unemployed with the SD-led government, and it has been very difficult times both for ordinary wage earners and for entrepreneurs, who see their life's work going down the drain. There are very many bankruptcies. The question is why the government chooses to put such a large part of the eggs in a basket outside Sweden's borders instead of investing in what could be an engine for transition and for Swedish jobs.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The opposition will, of course, always say that it is too little and too late – that is, so to speak, part of the job description.

I am not quite sure if I share the interpretation that the Riksrevisionen's report is a major "sawing" (scathing critique), as Jytte Guteland said. Things have been pointed out that work and things that do not work and need to be corrected. That it is called a major sawing can perhaps be put on the opposition's account.

There is no doubt that we want to achieve as large emission reductions as possible for the money, and if it is so that we get that by helping developing countries, we are killing several birds with one stone. Then we get the emissions down while simultaneously helping developing countries.

Then, as I said, there is no doubt that we shall, of course, do the work here at home, in Sweden, that can be done here. But here at home, we have already picked all the low-hanging fruit, and it is considerably more difficult to take the last parts down. It will require quite a lot. However, there is no doubt that we will do what we can.

Then we have another challenge. Yes, unemployment is too high. However, very many of those who are unemployed today stand very far away from the labor market. The question is whether they have the opportunity to take the jobs that in some way can lead to lower emissions in the transition, or what type of jobs are they? In Sweden, we are pioneers in that sense because we have our engineers. It is with Swedish expertise that we make a huge difference in the transition. We make a difference with our expertise and with all the goods that we manufacture in Sweden.

Thanks to Swedish ingenuity and thanks to Swedish engineers, we push out a lot of CO2-intensive material and products from other countries, because we manufacture this in Sweden with, for example, products from the forest. It helps us very much more in the climate work.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Kjell-Arne Ottosson said that one must not overshadow the other, but yet we are to deduct measures in other countries from our climate goals. Then one does, by definition, overshadow the other. I find it a bit difficult to understand how Kjell-Arne Ottosson thinks that it does not, because it is, by definition, the result of deducting a climate goal. He is more than welcome to explain that.

The second thing I want to bring up is that Kjell-Arne Ottosson said that we should use the taxpayers' money wisely. Despite all the criticism that the National Audit Office puts forward, one might imagine that there are measures on the climate side that are more effective to carry out in other countries. But how does an outsourced climate work reduce Swedish oil dependency? How does it reduce our vulnerability? How does it increase Swedish competitiveness? How does it reduce Swedish air pollution? What happens with other synergies that arise as a result of a reduced oil dependency and improved climate work if we outsource it?

How is it to protect Swedish taxpayers' money to outsource this and support electric mopeds in Ghana? I find it very difficult to understand, and Kjell-Arne Ottosson is welcome to explain it to me.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to have a briefing on these electric mopeds in Ghana. I have, in fact, heard an enormous amount about them, but I have never received a briefing on how things actually stand. I might have to ask Google.

It was possibly an unfortunate choice of words; what I mean is that we will, of course, make investments at home, but we stand behind the Paris Agreement, where international climate efforts are a part. It is one of the complementary measures that we must utilize. We will, therefore, utilize both parts.

Just as I said in the exchange with Jytte Guteland, there is no doubt that it is not when we outsource the climate policy – that is Rickard Nordin's choice of words – that we really make a difference. When we, on the other hand, use our Swedish products and export them out into the world, the footprint becomes much smaller. It is very important that we use Swedish expertise and our Swedish engineers, and that must continue.

No one has said that we should outsource the climate work. What we are saying is that international climate efforts are one of the tools in the Paris Agreement, along with some others. Let us use the whole toolbox! Climate change is, in fact, happening in full. It is happening here and now, and therefore we must make a difference here and now. Let us therefore use what we actually see makes a real difference!

We see how the EU has done a great job. The problem is that the large emitting countries are not keeping up. That is where we have the biggest challenge: How are we going to get the largest emitting countries on board with the transition? That concerns me much more than Sweden's international climate efforts.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! How do we increase Swedish expertise, if we are to use it, with electric mops in Ghana or forest plantations somewhere else? The answer is: Not at all.

If we are now to make use of these climate credits – not "may", as it stands in the regulatory framework – the big question is how the Christian Democrats are to make it work. The Sweden Democrats want to zero out aid and significantly cut back on climate initiatives. This is a party that is expected to receive approximately half of all ministerial posts after the election and which has obviously already gained very strong traction when it comes to cutting aid. It is in aid and climate initiatives that these funds are available to be retrieved. The conditions for doing this are very poor with the Tidö government and the cooperation that is expected after the election.

So we are going to use Swedish expertise to increase Sweden's exports and competitiveness. How does that go together with making efforts somewhere else entirely? It would have been much better to spend the money on Swedish climate measures that reduce our oil dependency, strengthen our security, manage our competitiveness and our expertise, and ensure that we reduce air pollution and other problems that arise when we burn fossil fuels. We miss all of that. It is not using tax money wisely. It is not conservative politics. It is just a policy for shifting blame, and I believe Kjell-Arne Ottosson knows that.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It seems to be very difficult to understand when I say "both." I mean "both," not just international climate efforts. To Rickard Nordin, it sounds like I am only talking about international climate efforts, but I am still saying that it is both.

The emissions that the EU has reduced over the last 20 years through the climate work that has been done there have been nullified more than four times by the emissions in China. The emissions that the EU has reduced during the period after the Paris Agreement was signed have been nullified only by India. It shows that we must get the large emitting countries on board if we are to truly manage the transition.

For the Christian Democrats, there is no doubt. It is perfectly fine to go in and read our party program and our policy program. We clearly stand behind the one percent goal for aid; I want to clarify that there is no doubt about what view the Christian Democrats have regarding the aid issue.

We use Swedish expertise when we have technological developments that we can export, when we manufacture fantastic products from the Swedish forest – we are world leaders in that market – which we can export and thereby displace CO2-intensive material, and when we can use paper fiber instead of plastic and glass. That is where Swedish expertise makes a real difference, and that is what we shall continue to do.

This is what is meant by "both and".

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Mr. Speaker! International climate efforts – unclear goals and uncertain outcomes is the name of the report from the National Audit Office that we are talking about today. That might suffice as an entry in the debate. Since the climate issue is so complex and there is so much to say about Sweden's climate work, not least about climate work in other countries, I will however – surprise! – not be satisfied with this.

For Miljöpartiet, it is clear that Sweden should be a leading country in international climate work. The climate crisis knows no borders. Emissions in one country affect people in another. Droughts, floods, and extreme weather hit hardest those who have contributed least to the problem.

In summary, the Swedish National Audit Office states in its report that the work with international climate measures partially achieves its goals, but that the results of the measures are uneven and that the follow-up is deficient. It also notes that weak goal management from the government means that it is not possible to determine whether the Swedish Energy Agency creates a sufficient amount of emission credits in relation to the Swedish climate policy goals or if we get the effect we want.

The Swedish National Audit Office assesses that the Swedish Energy Agency's work could become more efficient through clearer goal-setting from the government towards the climate goals and that neither the government nor the Government Offices have taken any holistic approach to follow up and evaluate the fulfillment of the measures' goals in relation to the intentions. This is serious, considering that the government is pushing so hard on the fact that these measures are important.

What then are Sweden's intentions? In the autumn, the Environmental Goals Commission submitted a proposal on Sweden's climate goals for 2030 which all parliamentary parties backed. The result was a give-and-take. The Commission proposed, among other things, that complementary measures could be used if the emission reductions for the goals are not quite achieved. The Commission's proposal was that at most 10 percent of the emission reductions could be covered by complementary measures and that at most a quarter of these 10 percent could be international climate measures according to Article 6.

The current government has not yet presented any bill following the Environmental Goals Preparation's work, which makes it even less clear which commitments the Swedish Energy Agency is to work from.

Miljöpartiet fundamentally does not believe that we in Sweden should be able to buy our way out by refraining from taking our own measures here and instead sending money so that other countries can do the work. We need to do our own work. However, we do need to help other countries in their transition, and therefore there may be a point in that while we work on seriously and quickly reducing Sweden's emissions, we also address how we can best contribute to emission reductions abroad, not least in those countries that have the fewest resources for transition.

The National Audit Office points out both strengths and deficiencies regarding Sweden's international climate work. It is good that Sweden has long had a high level of ambition regarding climate aid and has contributed significant resources to international climate work. But the report clearly shows that there is a need for improvements in governance, monitoring, and clarity, not least if the intention is that we should simultaneously achieve specific emission reductions. We need to take this seriously.

When we have large sums invested in climate measures – regardless of whether they are to be counted towards our own climate goals or if it concerns support to other countries – we need to ensure that they really lead to real emission reductions, climate adaptation that makes a difference, or sustainable development in the countries concerned. In order for us to be able to know if the support provides the results we want to see from climate measures, transparency and follow-up are absolutely crucial.

The National Audit Office's review is important so that we can make the measures more efficient, fairer, and more long-term, and so that they can truly lead to a climate transition, regardless of where the money is used. The report also points out the problems with other countries making measures that are to be credited to Sweden, not least when it comes to how the effects are to be ensured.

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet has some principles that are crucial for Sweden's international climate work.

As I have already said, climate measures in other countries should not be taken so that Sweden can avoid doing its own job at home. We need to reduce our own emissions while simultaneously supporting other countries in the climate transition.

The countries and people who are hit hardest have often contributed the least to the emissions. Sweden, as a wealthy country with historically high emissions, has a responsibility to contribute more. Our international climate efforts are therefore not just about efficiency but also about climate justice. This means that support for climate transition and climate adaptation needs to be prioritized.

Contributing to ensuring that all countries can quickly phase out fossil fuels shall be an important part of Sweden's international work. Helping societies to manage drought, rising sea levels and extreme weather saves lives here and now.

We also want climate financing to be precisely climate financing; the money should not be taken from other important aid objectives. We need to ensure that climate money does not erode efforts for poverty reduction, health or education, but instead complements them.

Not least, we want international efforts to contribute to actual, measurable, and long-term reductions in greenhouse gases. Here we really need to strengthen both governance and monitoring, just as the Swedish National Audit Office points out. It is about avoiding double counting, ensuring quality in projects, and following international regulations.

Now I come to the problems with trying to offset climate actions abroad against Sweden's own emission reductions. If these measures are to be used at all, it is of course crucial that one ensures that emissions actually decrease. Here, I particularly want to address Kjell-Arne Ottosson.

There are some examples from the Swedish Energy Agency which show that the work we are doing today is not good enough.

Here, the examples from Ghana are specifically highlighted. This includes, among other things, 48,000 new electric mopeds that Sweden is investing in, which are intended to reduce emissions in Ghana by 250,000 tons. There are also projects here where solar energy is being built. But the problem is: Does the solar energy replace fossil energy sources, or is one just expanding the new electricity production? Do the electric mopeds replace fossil mopeds, or is one just paying for many more mopeds on Ghana's streets? We do not know that.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish National Audit Office's criticism regarding the unclear governance and the unclear goals must be taken seriously. It must be clear what Sweden wants to achieve with its efforts. If we want to use international climate efforts to reduce emissions, it must be ensured that the measures permanently remove fossil emissions in the amount we plan for. We also need to be clear about what the plan is for the various efforts. Is the goal specifically emission reductions, technological development, long-term climate transition, or climate adaptation? How shall we be able to measure and follow up the results when the measures do not take place on Swedish soil?

To ensure that our own climate goals are achieved, we must take care of our own emissions on our own land, and we do not do that today. The National Audit Office's report clearly shows the difficulties of using international climate actions to replace national emission reductions, and this is important to take to heart.

We must not lower our ambitions and back down from our responsibility here, but at the same time, we need to increase the governance and the effect and understand the major challenges and problems. We cannot rely on other countries' emission reductions instead of our own.

I therefore move for approval of reservation 4.

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! As a long-time civil servant at a state inspection authority, I see exactly like Kjell-Arne the importance of auditing. The National Audit Office's reviews are important and a good support for the work ahead, and precisely the report we are now debating is an important part of the continued climate work. It constitutes a good basis and gives us insights into how important it is with the implementation of cost-effective international climate measures.

The government does not share everything that is said in the report but highlights the importance of trying to ensure that the Swedish Energy Agency receives clearer guidance. Effective government governance is very important, just as important as effective climate measures. Inefficient governance is generally bad.

Mr. Speaker! When listening to the general debate, it is sometimes difficult to believe that Sweden is a pioneer in climate work. The tone is high, and gloomy scenarios are painted. But Sweden plays and will continue to play an important role in international climate work.

It is, however, important to keep in mind that it takes time to get international climate efforts in place. It is also important to have a long-term perspective in this work. Article 6 is important but still in its infancy. The potential is, however, great. As a liberal, I see clear advantages for both Sweden and the countries where the efforts take place. It is an important complement to the climate work. It is not a way to exempt oneself from measures at home, but it is part of the whole.

As a liberal, I perhaps have the most positive view of international cooperation of those of us now sitting in the chamber. It is not difficult to find a liberal who speaks warmly for increased international cooperation. Cooperation drives development, and Sweden has much to contribute. It is also not difficult to find a liberal who speaks warmly for the EU's role in most things, including in climate work. The EU shall take the lead, and Sweden shall be a driving force in the EU. Emissions do not stop at national borders, as many have said to me here tonight, and neither do the solutions.

When Sweden works for cost-effective international climate actions, we can also spread all the good examples that exist here. We want more to follow suit and for more to be able to share in the knowledge and the tradition of innovation that exists in Sweden and Europe. It is good for the climate, and it is good for the countries where the actions are carried out.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Nilsson for the speech. It feels important to speak with Member Nilsson about climate policy since it is the Liberals who hold the position of Minister for Climate and thereby the responsibility in the area.

There are many questions to ask regarding the international climate credits, not least because the acting Minister for Climate is also responsible for the labor market. Unemployment has increased during the sitting government, and Sweden has had 100,000 more unemployed. At the same time, very few labor market policy interventions and investments are being made on what could reverse the development.

The business community has expressed that the climate policy is unclear and that it hinders the possibility of investing for the future because the investments can become costly if the companies that do not invest benefit from the policy. It becomes an opportunity cost for the companies.

My question is therefore: How can it be smart to invest in uncertain international projects instead of investing in Swedish companies that have the technology and lead the development, just as Member Nilsson said from the rostrum? Why does one not want to sharpen the technological development that Swedish companies have, eliminate the high unemployment, and ensure that tax money is invested wisely and not outside Sweden's borders in projects that are not transparent?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for the questions! I see two tracks, and I will try to manage to answer during the time I have.

I will start with unemployment, even though that is not exactly the issue. But the member raised it, so why not.

Yes, Swedish unemployment is high, but we see a brightening. It fell in April. We have incredibly many long-term unemployed, and we are doing a great deal to address that. We are investing heavily in schools. We are restoring the work principle. We are reducing the regulatory burden for companies so that it will be easier to expand and hire more. We are ensuring that it pays to move from benefits to jobs. These are very important things. They do not have much to do with the climate debate, but it is the answer to the question.

Regarding the second part, uncertain projects abroad and projects in Sweden, I actually see no contradiction between investing in international climate aid and what we are debating here today – Article 6 projects – and investing in green transition in Sweden. We can do both.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

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

It is a contradiction, because it is tax money that is not being invested in Swedish jobs and Swedish companies but is instead spent on projects that the National Audit Office currently assesses as uncertain and non-transparent, and which furthermore are not assessed on a fair basis, because several parts of the costs we see in the projects are not measured, such as administrative costs.

I also want, on a day like this when the Steering Fund Investigation has been presented, to refer to the fact that the Minister for Climate, who will now re-enter the role, has many times said that she wants to see that one spreads the eggs and has several eggs in the basket, and that it is the Steering Fund Investigation that is to provide the eggs. But the eggs that the Steering Fund Investigation has presented are very similar to the eggs that we have advocated for when it comes to, for example, electrification.

The government dismantled the electric car bonus. Those who wanted to invest in a new electric car felt that the economic climate and this dismantling, which was not followed by anything else, became a double blow. And now, after having talked about those eggs for four years, you come and say: "We want that egg." But it was a basket of eggs, and none of them seem to appeal to the member's party leader – possibly electrification, but she could have asked us about that from the very beginning. It is simply a matter of copying our policy.

Instead, the Liberals have sat in the lap of the Sweden Democrats. Perhaps that is where the shoe pinches, for it seems that the Steering Committee Investigation has also become a mess for the Liberals.

My question is: What shall the member and her Liberals do to reverse the emissions that have increased under this government?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have only one reflection before I proceed to the answer. It must be incredibly flattering for Martin Kinnunen to sit here and receive credit for everything the government has done during nearly four years. We have a very well-functioning cooperation where we solve things together, for example, new nuclear power. The answer to many of the questions and challenges we face is, in fact, new nuclear power.

The member's party wavers quite a bit on whether they want nuclear power or not. They are assembling a government basis that they say they want to cooperate with after the election, but which diverges in all possible directions. It looks like a starry sky when you look at it. There is no clear message from that side about securing electrification through new nuclear power.

It is unfortunate that the member cannot answer now, but this morning I stood in a panel debate about precisely climate policy together with another representative for the Socialdemokraterna, who, when asked a straightforward question about whether the Socialdemokraterna want to increase the reduction obligation and raise petrol and diesel prices, answered no. Now this becomes a rhetorical question, but is that so? In that case, the Socialdemokraterna are indebted to the answer.

If one now holds the Steering Means Inquiry in high regard, does it mean that one is prepared to increase the costs for Swedish households by raising the prices of petrol and diesel? This is something I really want an answer to, but we will have to take that another time.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 3 June.)

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