The National Audit Office's report on the state's work with Agenda 2030

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the government's communication regarding the Swedish National Audit Office's report on Sweden's implementation of Agenda 2030. The Swedish National Audit Office's review concerns the years 2015–25.

I actually want to start with some introductory public education about what Agenda 2030 actually is, because there are many misconceptions about this.

Agenda 2030 is a document that was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015. In December 2020, the Riksdag adopted goals for the implementation. Agenda 2030 contains 17 different goals. They concern, for example, the fight against poverty and hunger, the promotion of good health, education and equality, access to clean water and sanitation, sustainable energy, decent working conditions and economic growth, sustainable industry, sustainable cities and sustainable consumption and production, combating climate change, protecting oceans, ecosystems and biodiversity and protecting peace, democracy, the principles of the rule of law and human freedoms and rights.

Agenda 2030 has sometimes been criticized for being extreme, and there are quite a few strange conspiracy theories and misconceptions about what these goals actually are. I believe that most of us can agree on the majority of the 17 goals regardless of where we stand politically. Furthermore, the goals themselves are quite broadly formulated, and it is up to each country to design a policy to achieve the goals.

Agenda 2030 explicitly states that all goals have the same value and that the 17 goals are indivisible. As the Swedish National Audit Office notes in its report, however, there is a great risk of goal conflicts as a result of different goals being able to conflict with one another. I will say more about this a bit later, but this introduction shall serve as the background to the rest of my speech.

In the communication, the government expresses its view on the Swedish National Audit Office's review. It agrees with some parts but not others. Briefly summarized, the government considers that the work with Agenda 2030 takes place within the framework of the ongoing budget process and is followed up within the framework of this. The government sees no reason why Agenda 2030 specifically should be treated separately in the government's work.

The Tidö Agreement between the four parties in the government base regulates how policy shall be designed to give Sweden a better development and to address the societal problems. At the same time, the Tidö Agreement also constitutes, in relevant parts, the framework for the government's ambition to fulfill Agenda 2030. The Committee on Finance considers that at the current time there are no reasons to propose additional measures concerning the work with Agenda 2030.

Mr. Speaker! One of the Swedish National Audit Office's observations is precisely that there is a risk of conflicts of interest in the work with Agenda 2030. Agenda 2030 explicitly states, as said, that all goals have the same value and that the 17 goals are indivisible. That sounds good, but the fact is that some of the goals can in practice conflict with one another. This applies, not least, perhaps to the goal of combating climate change, which can clash with other goals. An all-too radical climate policy can, of course, threaten the goal of economic growth, the goal of sustainable energy, the goal of the fight against hunger and poverty, or the goal of equality.

We see today that both the USA and Europe are taking a clear step back in climate policy, because parts of the policy have had such serious consequences for both the economy and energy supply. Even in other countries, an overly extreme and ill-considered climate policy is being questioned. To question the climate goals in Agenda 2030 because they threaten other goals in the same agenda is therefore nothing strange. It only illustrates that unfortunately, not all goals in Agenda 2030 are always compatible.

Bearing parts of the Tidö Agreement concern re-establishing a functioning electricity system with increased electricity production and electricity prices as low as possible, as well as enabling what is designated as an efficient climate transition. When it comes to this work, there are certain bearing parts in the agreement that differ clearly from the previous government's irresponsible poster politics.

Firstly, there is no longer any fast track for climate policy. All proposals in climate policy that affect the state budget shall be treated in the ordinary budget process and weighed against other important interests and needs.

Secondly, the Tidö Agreement stipulates that all proposals in climate policy shall undergo proper impact assessments and be evaluated comprehensively.

Thirdly, the government has changed the energy policy goal from 100 percent renewable to 100 percent fossil-free, which enables an investment in nuclear power.

For the fourth, the agreement prescribes that climate and environmental policy shall be combined with a safeguarding of Swedish competitiveness.

For the fifth time, it is explicitly stated that the policy shall be fact-based.

For the sixth, it is established that the utility and effect of the pursued climate policy shall be evaluated and reported on repeatedly.

These points in the Tidö Agreement hopefully mean that, over time, there will be an end to populism and meaningless, or in the worst case purely harmful, symbolic politics. It also means that the risk decreases that climate policy will push aside other pressing goals in Agenda 2030, i.e., precisely what the National Audit Office warns against, because climate policy is no longer prioritized over other important political goals.

Today's government sees the whole of the policy. It is good for Sweden, and it is therefore in line with what Agenda 2030 prescribes.

We also see now that failed so-called green industrial initiatives cause great costs for society. Northvolt's bankruptcy results, for example, in large losses for our pension funds.

There is every reason to reflect on how the boards of these funds have acted under previous governments and on whose instructions. We are also now seeing major problems for other companies within the green energy sector that have either gone bankrupt or have major financial problems.

When it comes to the wind power sector, it is astonishing to see all the new investments at the same time as existing wind power facilities often run with very large deficits. Where is the economy?

Mr. Speaker! One of the goals in Agenda 2030 is equality and justice. Even here, there are conflicts with an overly one-sided climate policy without consequence analyses. For example, it was offensive that low-paid rural residents who were completely dependent on the car were forced to pay unreasonable fuel costs just because the previous government wanted an unreasonably high reduction obligation.

The proposal on worsened travel deductions would, if it had become reality, also have been a direct blow to the countryside and thus against both the green industries and food production, which is also part of Agenda 2030.

Now this is history, thanks to our new government. Fuel costs have decreased instead of continuing to increase, which they would have done if the reduction obligation had been turned up according to the plans we scrapped after the 2022 election. Furthermore, we have significantly improved the travel deduction.

Right now, fuel costs are rising as a result of war in the world, but in any case, the cost would have been at least 6–7 kronor higher for diesel and 3–4 kronor higher for gasoline, regardless of other market prices, if we had not reduced the reduction obligation and lowered the fuel tax.

If the planned increase of the reduction obligation, which year after year had continued to increase the price per liter, had become a reality, the price would have been even higher today.

There is every reason to remind people of this. Today's high fuel price would have been extremely much higher without the government's policy. The question every voter should ask themselves before the election is whether they want to pay 35–40 kronor per liter for diesel or today's 17 kronor. It is a choice one has on election day.

Mr. Speaker! Even in the EU, there are obvious risks that energy and climate policy harms other important societal interests. Some of this we have already seen.

During the Swedish presidency of the EU, Sweden's government succeeded in highlighting competitiveness as an important issue. We have also been able to take part in Mario Draghi's report on the problems with the EU's competitiveness compared to other parts of the world. The causes of the weak competitiveness are many, but it is evident that some countries' decisions to prematurely phase out nuclear power and thereby increase dependence on Russian gas have driven up electricity prices. This, in combination with a very far-reaching climate policy and associated bureaucratic regulations, is an important reason why we have lost competitiveness.

The increased dependence on gas directly hits electricity prices in Europe when gas prices rise as a result of the war in the Middle East. With maintained nuclear power, it would not have been so.

Not least German industry suffers from today's energy and climate policy in the EU, and that is the reason why Germany has succeeded in pressing the EU to ease some of the decisions taken in recent years. But more easing is needed – the EU cannot pursue a completely different energy and climate policy than the rest of the world, because then we will destroy our entire European competitiveness. There is reason to remind that two of the goals in Agenda 2030 are precisely economic growth and access to sustainable energy. Both of these goals are threatened by the policy that has been pursued in the EU in recent years, and it is not compatible with Agenda 2030.

One must remember that large parts of the rest of the world, including the four most populous countries China, India, Indonesia and now also USA, do not place any major weight on climate policy. If the EU chooses to continue as before or even tighten its climate policy, all of Europe is in danger. We will lose even more of our competitiveness, and it will definitely become almost impossible to reach the other goals in Agenda 2030.

The previous argument that the EU benefits in the long run by leading in climate policy is very questionable today. If other large countries in the world have no interest in following suit, there is no point for the EU to lead. The only thing we do then is drive up our own costs and destroy our competitiveness without the global climate being affected even measurably.

The EU needs, in the same way as Sweden, to look more at the overall policy and ensure that other goals in Agenda 2030 receive the same weight as climate policy, just as the countries agreed when Agenda 2030 received support in the UN General Assembly in 2015. It was stated there, as mentioned, that all goals have the same weight. It is high time that we open up for a discussion within both Sweden and the EU about what level of climate goals is reasonable in the short and long term so that the climate goals can be reconciled with a positive development for the EU's competitiveness and the possibility of reaching all goals in Agenda 2030.

The costs of climate policy must also be put into relation with other important societal tasks. Spending tens of billions to vacuum carbon out of the atmosphere can hardly be reasonable in a situation where we need a lot of money to equip our defense.

Mr. Speaker! There are several motion proposals linked to this document. Unfortunately, many of them in practice aim to return to the previous, rather socially harmful symbol politics and the inability to think of consequences in climate policy. I therefore move for the rejection of all motion proposals and for the approval of the Finance Committee's proposal in the report.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe everyone should save this little sequence on riksdagen.se, where Jan Ericson talks about the true moderate climate policy. When one has listened to Ulf Kristersson or Ebba Busch talking about how Sweden should invest in the green industry, that Sweden should lead Europe, that Sweden should stand up for the climate and that the climate issue is urgent and real, one can then look at this debate sequence and note that the EU is not to be led at all.

We are not to go ahead of China, and we are not to go ahead of Trump, it is said. It is not possible – why should we do it? They are not talking about the climate. Swedish industry cannot lead. What are all these projects for nonsense? They don't work; they just go bankrupt. Wind power, no, why should we build it?

Did I hear that correctly? Do you also have a completely your own interpretation of Agenda 2030? It is not at all what the UN says, that is, that it is good if we manage the climate issue if people are to be able to sustain themselves through agriculture and be able to get food and if we are to avoid deserts, extreme weather and all such things. If one believes in the climate issue at all, these goals must naturally go hand in hand, says the UN, and that is part of the criticism in the report.

I am utterly shocked. Has it gone this far in the Moderates, beyond the facade? Are you totally abandoning all forms of climate policy and the idea that Sweden should lead the way and stand for the green brand and green growth? Has the large Moderate party completely abandoned everything regarding the belief in Sweden as a climate role model and Europe as a force to stop the climate catastrophe in the world?

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think Martin Ådahl listened very poorly. I gave a rather long speech, and if Martin Ådahl had listened instead of fixating on a few words, I think he would have understood the whole.

I mentioned that climate policy is one of 17 goals in Agenda 2030 and that these 17 goals are indivisible, which means that the climate goals are included in Agenda 2030 and are one of the things the government is working for us to achieve. But we also have 16 other goals that are to be achieved.

With Martin Ådahl's policy, we may achieve one goal, that is to say, we can show that Sweden is reducing its emissions, which, in isolation in the world, means nothing at all for the climate. We both know that. But then Martin Ådahl will most likely miss the other 16 goals.

The government's policy means that we have the same weight on all the 17 different goals and that we work with all 17 goals simultaneously. That was the decision at the UN, and it was the decision in this chamber in 2020. I find it very difficult to see the problem with that.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I listened very carefully, and what I heard was that a leading representative for the government party that holds a lot of key positions really does not believe in climate policy at all. He does not believe in the green industry. He does not believe in wind power. He does not believe that we can lead the way. I did not hear incorrectly. The EU cannot continue to lead the way, said the member.

What is actually happening? Has SD crawled so far under the shirt that you no longer stand for anything when it comes to the climate?

Wouldn't we reach any goals? Excuse me – it would take a lot to say that in a situation where the government misses all its climate goals and even phases them out because they are not being reached. And then you are proud of it! Don't come and talk to us about not reaching any goals! You aren't achieving anything! Our entire green brand in the world is about to disappear.

Don't come and talk to us about how diesel is so cheap! It doesn't cost 17 kronor; it costs 19 kronor. For a while, it cost 21 kronor. You have made a lot of households totally dependent on fossil fuels, because with your policy, they cannot afford to choose anything else. You took away all opportunities for ordinary people, and introduced no others, to switch to green and get away from Iran's, the Gulf states', and Putin's oil.

Now we are sitting here in the fossil trap. Yes, we will of course lower the costs for households. That is what we in Centerpartiet stand behind. We have clearly and explicitly stated that we will not raise the costs again.

Give people the opportunity to switch! This is completely indescribable! You are proud to have placed Sweden in a situation where a lot of households now have very high heating bills and very high electricity bills because you are not getting any energy out. No investment is being made in wind power right now. You have stopped that.

I must say that I am shocked that one so openly here in the Riksdag's rostrum abandons all climate policy.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is still fun to make Martin Ådahl a bit shocked. I think that brightens my day.

It is a bit strange that Martin Ådahl, without being sure that the rest of the world will follow, is so convinced that it is right for the EU to lead in politics. The question is whether we should spend very large amounts of money, perhaps tax money, on leading with very expensive technology to compete with other countries and believe that we can be an example for others through green technology.

We can be an example if it turns out that in this way we strengthen our economy and build a stronger country. But if it hits our social economy, our jobs and our public finances, no one will see us as an example. Then no one will want to follow. It is only if we can do these things in a thoughtful way that withstands the public finances and that withstands the economic growth that we become an example. It is only then that the world will follow.

That is something Martin Ådahl should understand, and that is precisely what the politics in the Tidö Agreement is: We shall do the right things, well-thought-out things, proper consequence analyses and proper evaluations of what we do, not just throw money at things that provide no benefit and for which there is no point. Then we can become an example. Martin Ådahl's and the red-green side's politics, which only involve throwing out money on just about anything to show that we have finished the money in a climate budget, do not, on the other hand, make us any examples.

Furthermore, Martin Ådahl can go and check the diesel price. I just checked what diesel costs today before this debate, and it is 17 kronor per liter. If the red-green side's policy had been pursued over these four years, diesel would have cost between 35 and 40 kronor today.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! If the previous government's policy had been allowed to continue, we would be significantly less dependent on diesel and gasoline today, and the green transition could have continued.

I must agree with Martin Ådahl that it was a very interesting speech by the Moderate Member of Parliament. It was clarifying but, I hope, not truthful regarding the Moderates' climate policy. We have seen that the Moderates have wavered a lot during the last parliamentary term, but it was not so long ago that I heard them say, after they promised it in the two most recent elections, that they are to be a climate party. But it is now clear that they no longer have any such ambitions.

So much was said that I find it difficult to know where to begin. The member stated that the previous government, in which Miljöpartiet was included, pursued a socially harmful symbolic policy in the climate area. A climate policy can obviously be conducted in any way, as this government has proven, but one still believes that it should be about reducing emissions. Emissions must be lowered – not as a freely chosen task or as one of the goals, which are indivisible because they are dependent on each other. If we do not handle the climate changes, there will be no other policy left to pursue.

Even though Jan Ericson did not say it, it sounds like he believes that climate change is something that can be handled later. That is not the case. Recently, a report came from MI6, that is the British intelligence service, about what climate change and what we do with biodiversity will lead to for Europe's security and our opportunity to get food and everything else we depend on to survive.

How do the Moderates view the climate threat as a major security threat? Do they believe in it or not?

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is almost a bit tragicomic to hear this unreasonable criticism of the emissions policy when one knows that Sweden has the EU's lowest emissions. Sweden has long had the EU's lowest emissions and still has them after four years with a Moderate-led government. That still says something.

Janine Alm Ericson says that with a red-green policy, fewer would have been dependent on diesel and gasoline and households would have had it easier. But who would have been less dependent on diesel and gasoline? Who in Janine Alm Ericson's world can afford to buy electric cars? In the countryside where I live, people cannot afford it, at least. There, people drive in quite old cars, because they cannot afford to switch to very expensive electric cars.

Janine Alm Ericson speaks for a small minority in Sweden who are very well off and can afford to buy expensive electric cars. Ordinary people cannot. Ordinary people are dependent on diesel and gasoline cars, and so it will be for a long time to come, at least until cheaper used electric cars appear on the market, if people dare to buy them. That is how it looks.

We have a world and a country that must function, and then people cannot pay 35–40 kronor per liter of diesel. With such prices, people cannot get to work, farmers cannot run their machines, and the forestry companies cannot harvest in the forest. None of this will work if one is to pay such a gigantic amount for diesel as 35–40 kronor.

Everyone in Sweden knows this except for Miljöpartiet and Centerpartiet, who think it is very fun to raise diesel and gasoline prices and almost break the Swedish economy. But we will never agree to that; we will always fight against it.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Now Jan Ericson is speculating a bit. We have no proposals whatsoever to raise diesel prices to 35–40 kronor per liter, it is just a nasty way to debate.

What I find tragicomical is a government that increases emissions, does not take the climate threat seriously at all, and engages in whataboutism – no one else cares about it, so why should Europe? But it is of course incredibly important that we care about it. Furthermore, I can inform you that China is making quite large investments to reduce its emissions. They are reducing coal power plants and expanding wind power.

The expansion of wind power is something Sweden also would have benefited greatly from doing during this mandate period, because then we would have had more electricity in our systems and could have lowered the prices. It is not only gasoline that is a problem right now, but also electricity prices, which is due to the fact that the government has not made any investments in green base power or wind power. But for a long time, the Moderates' climate policy has been reduced to nuclear power and to what gasoline is going to cost.

We in Miljöpartiet are also concerned about people's finances, but not only about the finances for those who drive petrol or diesel cars. We are concerned that single mothers have difficulty putting food on the table for their children and therefore want to, for example, increase the child allowance.

Now this has become a debate solely about the climate goal in Agenda 2030, but the discussion is broader than that. We see how the government, area by area, is not delivering. If one thinks that climate policy is nothing, perhaps gender equality policy might be something. But we see that the government's economic policy has increased the economic gaps between women and men. Is there any area where the government has the ambition to actually achieve the goals in Agenda 2030?

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say to those listening to the debate: Janine Alm Ericson says that 35–40 kronor per liter of diesel is not correct, but it is. The Miljöpartiets spokesperson has even stood in TV debates and said that the goal is for diesel to cost 40 kronor per liter.

If one starts from today's price and adds the cost that would have been incurred if we had not reduced the reduction obligation and lowered the fuel tax, and if one also adds the increase in the reduction obligation that Miljöpartiet pushed for when they were in government, the price would already today have been somewhere between 35 and 40 kronor. What price it could be at the end of the next mandate period I do not even want to think about, but it would probably be over 40 kronor.

Sweden actually has the lowest emissions in the EU today. To then claim that the government is not taking climate policy seriously is actually quite strange.

It is easy to blame the electricity prices on the government. But the analyses that exist show that if nuclear power had not been prematurely decommissioned, which the Miljöpartiet was driving, Sweden would have had lower electricity prices today. This is well-documented by research. The decommissioning of nuclear power in Europe, including in Germany and partially in Sweden, has made Europe much more dependent on Russian gas, and we see what that leads to. To pretend that this policy has not increased the dependence on Russia is a bit strange.

Finally, I want to correct the member. China builds new coal power every week. Yes, they build other things too, but they build a very large amount of new coal power. It is a myth that China is a role model when it comes to climate policy. They run their own energy production with coal and export solar cells and wind turbines to Europe. That is how it looks.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! Just over ten years ago, the UN member states adopted Agenda 2030. It is an action plan for the transition to a sustainable society for people, the planet, and prosperity. Agenda 2030 contains 17 global goals and a clear promise of social, economic, and environmental sustainable development. No one shall be left behind. It is a promise that should carry great weight in every serious government.

What we are debating today is how the Swedish government is performing in terms of living up to the commitment. The grade cannot be anything other than a fail, and that is putting it mildly. We see it in the management. We see it in the follow-up. We see it in the organization.

The National Audit Office is very clear in the audit report that we are now debating together with the government's response to it: The government has not pointed out a clear direction, the government has not steered actors so that they are given the conditions to contribute, and the government has also not organized a unified follow-up on how Agenda 2030 is progressing in Sweden. The overall conclusion from the National Audit Office is quite simply that the state's work with the agenda has not been effective.

Mr. Speaker! The government's total capitulation regarding development policy affects all 17 goals in Agenda 2030, but during this moment, I intend to devote myself to a few of them.

I will begin with the goals concerning environmental and climate work. In that regard, the government has fully deliberately chosen to pursue an inefficient and insufficient policy. Climate emissions are increasing in Sweden, and we are at the bottom of the league in the EU when it comes to changes in emissions.

The SD-government's own budget bill for 2026 also shows that Sweden now appears to be missing all climate targets, both in the EU and nationally. This risks leading to expensive fines and damaging Sweden's credibility internationally. In that situation, the government chose to actively push climate policy forward by appointing the so-called Styrmedelsutredningen at a very late stage, which will not submit a proposal until May this year. This means that an entire mandate period has been lost, and it implies a debt of emissions that will become more expensive to pay in the future.

Mr. Speaker! Agenda 2030 is also about equality. People should be able to live secure lives, with education, healthcare, and care according to need, not according to wallet or zip code. When municipalities and regions are given weak conditions to operate, it strikes directly against the welfare – and hardest against those who already have the least margins.

In schools, we see increasing segregation and inequality. In healthcare, the staff is under pressure and the queues are illegally long. Elderly care is characterized by tough working conditions and anxiety among the elderly and their relatives. An entirely special stain of shame is child poverty in Sweden. Save the Children's child poverty report for 2025 describes a completely new reality in this country: 276,000 children are judged to be living in poverty in Sweden today.

When child poverty increases, when the welfare safety net is thinned out and when politics favors those who already have the most, one violates the very core of Agenda 2030: to reduce inequalities and ensure that no one is left behind.

Mr. Speaker! What I am talking about here and the criticism that the National Audit Office highlights in its very critical report is not just about technicalities, it is about politics. Now that the government has chosen to remove steering and follow-up, Agenda 2030 ceases to be a compass and is reduced to a brochure.

The requirements for authorities to report on their Agenda 2030 work have been progressively removed in the regulatory letters. The deprioritization of follow-up has rightly received criticism. But the government has not stopped there, but has also phased out central functions and cut the ambition in practice. It is a change of course that is noticeable and that will come at a cost.

Agenda 2030 requires a political leadership that holds Sweden together, not a government that looks the other way and hopes that someone else will solve the issues. In that situation, Sweden loses both momentum and credibility.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has for a long time had a prominent role in the work for sustainable development, both nationally and internationally. This position is now at risk of being lost, if it has not already done so. The current SD government has step by step dismantled the structures that were previously built up to ensure the fulfillment of the goals in Agenda 2030. The government has completely shut down the Agenda 2030 office.

The authorities no longer have to report on their work with Agenda 2030, and the budget for follow-up has been drastically reduced. This will contribute to a reduction in Sweden's opportunities to reach the goals.

This is not something that has happened during the last half year or year, but it has been a continuous prioritization and a reduction from the government for a long time. Now, in practice, there is no national Agenda 2030 work left. Precisely for that reason, I move for approval of our Social Democratic reservation. It is actually possible to choose another path, if one wishes.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: Agenda 2030 requires a coordinated action where, among other things, climate, welfare, economy, industry, education and aid pull in the same direction. But the SD government has instead done the opposite. It has weakened the coordination, eroded the governance and made the follow-up less sharp. It is precisely what the National Audit Office warns against.

Sweden should be a country that leads, not a country that rules away its credibility. We demand that the government re-establishes a serious Agenda 2030 work, with clear steering, requirements for follow-up, coordination, and political measures that hold climate policy and equality policy together. In this way, we can get a better Sweden and a better world. In this way, we can also make the promise we have given each other within the framework of Agenda 2030 mean something. No one shall be left behind.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! After this description of misery from Peder Björk, I shall remind you a little bit about how it actually looks, for real.

Sweden today, together with Luxembourg, has the EU's best-managed public finances and the lowest public debt. The public debt is lower today than in 2021, when the S-government passed its last budget in the Riksdag. Sweden has the EU's most stable pension system. It is separate from the state's budget, which means that politicians cannot use the pensioners' money as a seesaw in this budget.

Sweden today has a world-class innovation climate, which attracts people to start new companies in Sweden. We have the EU's best-functioning capital market, which makes it easier for startups and growing companies to obtain capital.

Sweden has lowered the tax burden to the lowest level in 50 years. At the same time, tax revenues are increasing.

We have the best productivity in the entire EU, and Swedish growth is predicted to be one of the highest in the EU this year and in coming years.

Sweden is today one of only nine countries in the world that has the highest credit rating from all the major rating agencies in the world. One of the nine best countries in the world – that is how well the Swedish public finances have developed in recent years.

The only bottom entry in the EU is on the list of emissions, where Sweden is at the bottom with the lowest emissions.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not quite perceive any question from Member Jan Ericson, but I understand that he chooses to reply to my speech. Jan Ericson does not want to talk about the National Audit Office's report, because the National Audit Office's report is a total savaging of the government's policy in this area.

To contrast with the picture that Jan Ericson is trying to paint, we can only state that child poverty, as I said in my speech, is increasing sharply. Poverty in Sweden in total has doubled in recent years.

This government ensures that taxes are lowered for those who have the very best. This SD-government has chosen not to increase the child allowance during a time when households are under severe pressure. This SD-government has ensured that medicines become more expensive. This SD-government has chosen not to invest in welfare. And this government received, as recently as a few weeks ago, the worst criticism any government has ever received from the Fiscal Policy Council because one chooses to take measures despite not being able to show what results they yield.

My question to you, Jan Ericson, is therefore: What is your view of the National Audit Office's report, which is what we are discussing in this debate, and of the massive criticism regarding the implementation of the Agenda 2030 goals, which we have actually agreed on previously here in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag?

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by reminding Peder Björk that the Swedish National Audit Office's review concerns the years 2015–2025. That is, eleven years. Of these eleven years, the Social Democrats governed for eight years. It is this that the Swedish National Audit Office criticizes. It is therefore not today's government's policy but the policy during all these eleven years, and that is the review period in the Swedish National Audit Office's report. Peder Björk shakes his head, but it is a fact and is explicitly stated in the Swedish National Audit Office's report. I am the chairman of the Riksdag's council for the Swedish National Audit Office and am well aware of what their reports look like.

I also want to object to the talk from the Social Democrats about the sharply increased poverty. The reports are actually talking about income inequalities, not real poverty. It is relative poverty, and it is a huge difference. It is not the case that poor children in Sweden go to bed hungry, but it is about economic differences in society. It is a completely different issue.

When it comes to improvements for households, it is true that the Social Democrats wanted to increase child allowances. We chose to lower taxes instead. We believe that it is better. The tax cuts that we have made during our years, both in previous governments and when we forced the Social Democrats to follow our budget on some occasions and during this period, have provided enormous reinforcements to Swedish households. An ordinary nurse has received approximately 4,000 kronor less in tax with all the tax cuts that we Moderates have pushed through during our years in government. That is quite a lot of money, and it beats your child allowances by miles.

Peder Björk is speaking about the Fiscal Policy Council's report. The Council criticizes that we are borrowing for defense investments and support for Ukraine. I wonder if Peder Björk does not stand by what the Social Democrats have been involved in making decisions about.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! With all due respect: I actually did not think the member was as out of touch with reality as the member now gives the impression of being here in the Riksdag's speaker's chair.

Has the Member of Parliament not taken note of the reports from recent years, which clearly show that there are families with children who actually have to go to bed hungry?

Has the member not received the reports stating that families with children are forced to forgo buying winter clothes for their children because they cannot afford it?

In a country like Sweden, it should not have to be this way. That is why we Social Democrats during recent years have pursued policies and presented proposals concerning supporting vulnerable households in Sweden. Among other things, we would gladly have ensured that they received increased child allowances. We would also have ensured that unemployment was pushed down with our policies so that people would have jobs to go to and actually be able to support themselves on their income. With Social Democratic policy and with the latest budget that we presented here in the Riksdag, which Jan Ericson and several others voted against, nine out of ten Swedes would have received more in their wallets than with the SD government's policy. That would have made a difference for ordinary people in everyday life.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! This debate has been, to say the least, clarifying.

We are debating Agenda 2030. It may sound like a technical term, but it is about the most important goals that the UN has set for the world's population.

It is not just about poverty, which has been discussed here today, or about climate, which I will focus on particularly – we do have a reservation, which I move for approval. It is also about such things as food security, another goal that we in Sweden ourselves have moved further away from, even if everyone – hopefully but perhaps not everyone – in our country has food on the table.

Here comes the National Audit Office with harsh criticism that it is inefficient and insufficient. The government's official response is that they make a partially different assessment and that this is now finalized.

This is in line with how it has been with almost all expert reports. One might think from the government's side that the experts do not know what they are talking about or that one knows better oneself. One has met some party colleague who knows how it actually is. But it is the same pattern all the way through. The experts at the National Audit Office? Eh, that was nothing. The Climate Policy Council? No, no, no. The Fiscal Policy Council, which completely saws down the government's fiscal policy? No, that is a petition.

I do not recognize the governing Moderaterna that we once cooperated with. This is something else. This reminds me of other countries and other types of politicians, who snort at what experts say and sometimes, as someone pointed out, at reality. One has come to a conclusion on social media about how things actually are.

You must take note of this. Jan Ericson is an auditor; he knows that is why we have a National Audit Office. That is why we have these audits – so that it doesn't go completely wrong.

Now we come to the core of this debate. Here we have a representative for the government parties expressing what is actually being thought, namely that the climate goals are not so important. They think "yeah, okay" about "all that green stuff."

I would say that the Agenda 2030 goals are not just a little important right now. They are very important for the world and for Sweden. We now have a new war ongoing in the Middle East, and energy prices all over the world are skyrocketing. We see now how the fossil dependency affects people in their everyday lives and their livelihoods. It also affects households in Sweden.

I want to point out two things in the National Audit Office's Agenda 2030 criticism that really strike at the heart of all households affected here and now in Sweden. One is what the Moderate parliamentary colleague unexpectedly took up, namely that we were a country that had strong growth and where emissions fell. It was our example for the world.

To that can be added all our fantastic industries. I do not know how much one is allowed to mention brands here in the speaker's chair, but Scania, Volvo and Hybrit – which is coming now – sell the green transition and are at the forefront of technology. They are a pride for Sweden, at least for me and for my party Centerpartiet. They lead the development towards a fossil-free world against this background.

With this policy, where the government abandons all goals and all ambition to be an example in Europe and all ambition for Europe to be an example for the world, we lurk and sink. We unfortunately drag our country's fine, green brand a little bit into the mud. To furthermore not even take the criticism that one is not fulfilling the goals seriously does not feel serious.

The second very concrete everyday matter is the one that everyone is experiencing right now. Yes, it was wrong to have too high living costs, especially for people in rural areas who are dependent on the car. We in Centerpartiet have acknowledged that, and we have learned from it.

We said at the same time what is obvious to everyone now: If, because of this government, one has not been able to afford – and God knows how many are in that situation – to switch to a hybrid, an electric car, or a gas car, or perhaps has not even felt that it is worth switching to an ethanol car, one is now sitting with diesel prices that are almost as high as when we started. We are back to square one.

It is possible to be very proud that it "only" costs 20 kronor per liter, but imagine if people had been given the chance to lease an eco-friendly car, as in our proposal. It doesn't have to be a new or expensive car – on the contrary! The intention is that ordinary people should be able to fully participate in this through a used hybrid, a used electric car, or a used gas car. In this situation, they could have reduced the bill for refueling in a completely different way than those who are stuck in what can only be described as a fossil trap that people have been placed in.

It is the same with electricity. People talk about electrification, but there is a fee hysteria surrounding electricity right now. Some have had their grid fees increased by 30 percent, but that does not stop the government. That is where the capacity fee would be placed, but perhaps that will be stopped now. They raised the electricity tax – now they have lowered it again, but it was a shock when it applied. You cannot pay out the electricity support. They are coming up with different models for it.

People are stuck in this situation with the Iran crisis. They are stuck with the dictatorship's oil in their everyday lives. That is why it is so important with this type of goals, strategies, and well-thought-out politics that do not lock people into a fossil trap.

This is not for everyone who might sit in the Riksdag and have a large salary and still want to buy a Tesla, despite Musk. Someone else wants to buy an ID.7 or whatever the next one is. This is for those who do not have those opportunities. We at Agenda 2030 reach out to people in the world. Together we reach the goals, and together we take the lead.

In Sweden, we shall make it possible for ordinary households and for people who struggle and work hard to switch away from the expensive fossil fuels and over to the cheap and fossil-free in all the ways that are at all possible. One should be able to be a part of the fantastic green transition that takes Sweden into the future, whether as an entrepreneur, as an employee, or as a developer.

It is not enough to simply answer that one is making a different assessment, that it is now finalized, or that one cannot be bothered to listen to the experts. Either one stands by what the Moderaterna expressed from the rostrum, namely that one actually doesn't care about any of it, or one does one's homework – for Sweden and for our citizens who are now affected by these fossil prices and this fossil dependency.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! When the world's countries adopted Agenda 2030, they did something historic. They agreed on a common plan for humanity's future. It is a plan to stop the climate crisis, eradicate poverty, reduce inequality, and build peaceful societies. Agenda 2030 is more than just a list of goals. It is a promise to future generations that no one shall be left behind.

There are now only a few years left until 2030, and the agenda has faced great difficulties. This means that it is even more important that politics delivers now and not later and that every country takes its responsibility. When one reads the government's communication, however, it is difficult to feel the urgency that the situation actually demands. This has also been underscored in today's debate.

At the same time as the government says that Agenda 2030 is important, we see time and again how the policy in several areas is moving in the opposite direction. It is serious. Agenda 2030 is also based on a central principle that the policy should be coherent. The goals are interconnected, and the policy must work with them together and not just as individual goals. All policy areas must contribute to sustainable development and not counteract it, but here the government's policy fails.

I want to highlight three areas where Sweden is moving further away from Agenda 2030 instead of closer. One is the climate. We have debated that here earlier today. Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement are closely linked, and without a powerful climate policy, we also cannot reach the other global goals. The government has, however, chosen to weaken central parts of Swedish climate policy.

Emissions have increased, the reduction obligation has been lowered, and the transport sector's climate goals are being missed and now risk being scrapped. This decision goes in the diametrically opposite direction of goal 13 to combat climate change and against several other goals that are also affected.

The second is global development cooperation. Agenda 2030 is a global commitment, and Sweden has for a long time been a strong voice for international solidarity and sustainable development. During this mandate period, we have unfortunately seen major changes in Swedish aid policy. Sweden's climate ambitions have been reduced and aid has been scaled back.

Aid has decreased significantly in relation to GNI, and is now heading towards a level below the UN's goal. Resources have been reprioritized, and important institutions and collaborations have been weakened. This implies a risk that one is not doing its best to ensure that Agenda 2030 still moves forward and that the work is instead hindered, not least when it comes to fighting poverty, strengthening equality, and promoting democracy.

The third area concerns the management of the Agenda 2030 work itself. Previously, there were structures for coordination, follow-up, and analysis, but much of that work has been dismantled. Resources have also decreased. Coordination has become increasingly weaker, and it is unclear how the government ensures that the policy actually contributes to reaching the goals. We have heard today that an evaluation is taking place – apparently that is known – but there is nothing to indicate that. Previously, there were structures for coordination, follow-up, and analysis, and we need to return to those.

Agenda 2030, however, requires more than fine phrasing in a document. It requires systematic follow-up and political will. We must strengthen the follow-up, because statistics and analysis are crucial to understanding how the development is progressing and where more interventions are needed. We in Miljöpartiet therefore want SCB to receive a clear and long-term mandate to follow up on Sweden's work with Agenda 2030.

Coordination was, however, needed. Agenda 2030 concerns all policy areas – climate, economy, education, equality, business, and aid – and without clear steering, the work risks getting stuck in a stalemate between departments and agencies.

Civil society also needs to be given a stronger role, and municipalities and companies need to be involved again. The Agenda 2030 coordinator did a good job, which is now not being taken into account at all. Many of the most innovative solutions for sustainable development come from municipalities, organizations, companies, and local initiatives, and conditions must be created to take care of their work.

In a time when democracy is being challenged in many parts of the world, the climate crisis is accelerating and inequality is growing, countries like Sweden are needed more than ever. Countries are needed that stand up for international cooperation, for human rights and for global justice. Here we could have done great work with Agenda 2030, which is precisely such a framework that is needed. The Agenda binds together the climate, the economy and people's rights in a common vision. It also shows that sustainability is not a special interest but the foundation for a strong and long-term society.

We only have a few years left. That means that every year – actually every month – counts. If Sweden is to continue to be a pioneering country, the policy for sustainable development and Agenda 2030 must move from words to action. It requires political leadership, it requires consistent policy, and it requires that sustainable development is once again placed at the center of nation-building.

In the end, Agenda 2030 is about something very simple: What kind of world do we want to build, and what kind of world do we want to leave behind? Do we want a world with increasing inequality and an increasing climate crisis, or do we want a world where people, the planet, and future generations get a chance to flourish?

We in Miljöpartiet know what world we want to see. Therefore, we will continue to push for Sweden to live up to the promises given in Agenda 2030.

I vote in favor of reservation 3.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 21.)

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