The National Audit Office's report on the state's work with evidence and evaluation within the climate policy framework
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
S considers that climate reports must become more transparent and that assumptions should be reported openly to avoid decisions based on incorrect grounds 1. S argues that the government has misled the people by presenting unlikely emission forecasts as pure lies 1. C considers that the government's policy is characterized by contradictions and that they have dismantled effective measures 2. C wants a climate policy that is cost-effective, technology-neutral, and decentralized 2. SD considers that scenarios are too uncertain to be called forecasts and that more scenarios or more money to Naturvårdsverket does not improve the conditions 3. MP considers that the government chose the most optimistic scenario 4. MP argues that Sweden has increased its climate emissions during the mandate period 4. MP considers that there is a lack of transparency in the government's underlying data and that Naturvårdsverket needs resources to produce accurate data 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Åsa Westlund (S)
Madam Speaker! We have been clear in our special statement: The quality of the climate reports must improve. Assumptions and uncertainties must be reported openly and transparently. Otherwise, we risk making decisions on incorrect grounds and, in the worst case, underestimating which measures are actually required to reduce emissions.
There is a clear area for improvement for the authorities to undertake. It is very good that the Swedish National Audit Office has conducted this audit and pointed out the deficiencies that exist.
When rather large uncertainties are nevertheless quantified, which often occurs in climate contexts, there is a great risk that forecasts, scenarios, or whatever one calls them appear to be much more certain than they actually are. It is required that the assumptions made are truly as good as possible and do not build on wishful thinking. It is also required that the scenarios are presented in a way that makes it easy for the recipient to see what the conclusions are actually based on.
The authorities can improve here, especially when they refer to one another. As the Swedish National Audit Office describes, it otherwise easily becomes a circular argument in the end.
But then, of course, it is also required that Sweden's government uses the authorities' underlying data in a serious manner. Here, unfortunately, there is even more to be desired. I will raise two short examples that we Social Democrats consider so flagrant that we have chosen to report the government to the KU.
The government chose for a fairly long time to communicate that Sweden would reach the climate goals without disclosing the calculations on which this was based. Then it was claimed that one started from a kind of main scenario, when in fact it turned out there were several scenarios that showed several completely different outcomes. The government had simply chosen the scenario that was most favorable for advancing its own policy, not something that was more likely than the others but simply that which suited best.
To assert with absolute certainty that it will happen in one way, despite the underlying data saying that it could happen in a completely different way, is actually to mislead the Swedish people. Therefore, I submitted a report to the KU regarding the government for these statements on behalf of my colleague Anna-Caren Sätherberg.
When the Prime Minister has been criticized for the government's failed climate policy, he has firmly asserted that emissions in 2026 will still be lower than in 2022. But the government's own forecasts practically show unchanged levels. When the Prime Minister first claimed that emissions would be lower in 2026 than in 2022, he admittedly had the decimals – and there were many – slightly on his side. Nevertheless, it was a completely unserious claim because the different scenarios practically showed exactly the same results in 2026 as in 2022.
Furthermore, he continued to claim that emissions will be lower in 2026 than in 2022 when there were updated figures from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency where the decimals were no longer on the Prime Minister's side. At that point, it went from being completely unserious to becoming a pure lie. Therefore, I have filed a report with the KU against the Prime Minister for that statement.
Madam Speaker! Everyone outside the government's immediate sphere is in complete agreement that the government has failed to achieve what the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna promised the Swedish people, namely to meet the climate goals. The government should, of course, take responsibility for this and describe reality as it is instead of manipulating figures or even outright lying, as I have demonstrated here in the speaker's chair.
When uncertainties are downplayed, when alternative scenarios are not presented, and when marginal differences are presented as clear improvements, the public conversation becomes completely detached from reality. We risk obtaining a climate policy based on pure wishful thinking or false scenarios.
Madam Speaker! This matter, however, is mostly about the authorities' underlying data. Even here, we can therefore see the need for improvements. Therefore, we emphasize in our special statement that the climate reports must be accurate, transparent, and of high quality. Even if it would not prevent the government from pursuing a poor climate policy, it would in any case facilitate the work of investigative journalists and the opposition.
The National Audit Office is therefore completely right that the agencies' work needs to be improved. In addition to that, however, a government is required that takes the climate issue with all its dimensions and difficulties seriously and also handles the scenarios developed more seriously than this government has done.
Rickard Nordin (C)
Madam Speaker! Sweden needs a climate policy that is long-term, credible, and anchored in reality. The climate transition is not a special interest; it is a necessity for our country's competitiveness and our energy security, and it is our responsibility towards future generations.
That is why it is serious that the government's policy in this area is characterized by contradictions, over-optimistic assumptions, and a communication that risks misleading both the Swedish people and the business community. Unsubstantiated claims, graphs that are corrected, cherry-picking of scenarios, and outright lies are what this government has engaged in during the mandate period.
The government says that the climate goals remain in place, but at the same time, they are implementing reforms that significantly increase emissions here and now. Fossil fuels are the energy type that has increased the most during the mandate period, through completely conscious decisions.
At the same time, the government tries to give the impression that climate policy is not significantly affected. Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson claims that the budget amendment reduces emissions, but some of the calculations for the claim are not presented. Furthermore, several times things have been claimed about the opposition's policy. They refer to calculations at the Government Offices, calculations that they then do not release.
This is not sustainable. It is unserious, anti-intellectual, and directly dangerous. In a world of fake news, gaslighting, and disinformation, it would have been honorable if it were at least possible to trust the government. Be honest instead. Say that you do not prioritize the climate issue. Then we could have debated it – for real. In a previous debate, we heard Lars Beckman from M take this one step further than the government has managed to do. It is unworthy of Swedish democracy.
To claim that the climate goals will be met, while simultaneously weakening central steering measures without credible replacement measures, creates uncertainty. The Government claims that it is pursuing an effective climate policy. The only thing it has effectively done is to dismantle the effective measures.
The calculations presented rely largely on future technologies, control measures that are not yet in place, and assumptions about emission reductions that appear all too optimistic. Climate policy is not based on wishful thinking or political accounting. Therefore, I move for approval of the reservation in the report.
The Centre Party shares the view that climate policy must be cost-effective and work across the entire country. The countryside, households, and companies must be given reasonable conditions in the transition. But the solution is not to back down from climate responsibility. The solution is to reform policy instruments so that they work better, while emissions actually decrease.
We therefore need a policy that combines realistic climate measures with strengthened competitiveness. We have world-leading companies in Sweden. Without a strong domestic market, the companies move elsewhere. That is exactly what is happening with this government. We have seen how world-leading electric aircraft manufacturers are leaving Sweden. One does not get competitive conditions. We see how the expansion of biofuels production has stalled and been pushed into the future due to blocked opportunities.
We have a fantastic potential for the production of sustainable biofuels, faster electrification, better charging infrastructure and reforms that make it possible for more people to produce and use their own fossil-free energy.
The transition must also be democratized. It should not only be those who own their own house who can invest in solar power, charging, or energy storage. We have just debated the possibility and the right to have a charging station at home without having to take on the entire investment cost.
Centerpartiet wants to make it easier for more people to contribute to energy communities, better opportunities for charging in multi-family buildings, shared energy use, and local solutions that strengthen both household finances and the robustness of the energy system. This is important in a time of uncertainty, when the morning moods of authoritarian leaders can affect the price of fuel in the afternoon.
It is also about credibility. Sweden needs a government that is honest about the consequences of its decisions. If emissions increase, it must be said. If climate goals are made more difficult, it must be acknowledged. And if new policy instruments are required, they must be presented, not with hopes but with realism.
Centerpartiet stands for a climate policy that takes responsibility for both the climate and people's everyday lives. With our policy, you get more in your wallet, while emissions are reduced. This has been calculated by the Riksdag's investigation service – which is independent. We are happy to share those calculations.
We believe in innovation, technology neutrality, entrepreneurship and decentralized energy production. And we also believe in political accountability. We are ready to take our responsibility for this policy and for future generations. We can reach our climate goals. But then we cannot say one thing before the election, do a second thing after the election and then claim a third thing.
Sweden clearly needs a new government. We need less symbolic politics, less misleading rhetoric, and significantly more concrete action. The climate transition is not achieved through empty promises; it requires reforms that hold over time, create investment security, and actually reduce emissions. Sweden can do more!
Martin Kinnunen (SD)
Madam Speaker! We are debating today, as mentioned, a report from the Swedish National Audit Office, which has examined whether the government and the responsible authorities have conducted effective work in producing underlying data and evaluations within the climate policy framework. It is, therefore, a rather dry product that focuses on the bureaucracy surrounding various scenarios.
The focus has been on investigating whether the climate reports and climate action plans presented to the Riksdag rest on a reliable and scientific basis. The review has covered the government's governance, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's coordination of underlying data, the Swedish Energy Agency's scenario work, as well as the Climate Policy Council's statutory evaluation. The purpose of the National Audit Office's review has been to ensure that decision-makers have a correct picture of whether current policy is sufficient to reach the set climate goals.
The Swedish National Audit Office considers that there are deficiencies. It is noted that the underlying data are not so secure, and it is thought that there are uncertainties. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's underlying data contain large uncertainties and technical assumptions. This, in turn, could risk creating insufficient policy. Not all agencies do things in exactly the same way. Then, the Climate Policy Council does not do any of its own work with the scenarios because they do not have the resources.
The National Audit Office recommends that the work should be developed. But, Madam Speaker, we are talking here about the agencies' scenarios. They are not forecasts, but they are far too uncertain in their form to be called forecasts. They are, therefore, scenarios.
We cannot escape the fact that the short-term development is difficult to predict. This is due to external factors, for example, the global economy, legislation, war in Iran, and domestic demand. If one is to develop a scenario, one must always work with assumptions. From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, it is desirable that the authorities continue to develop their working methods. However, presenting fifteen different scenarios showing that the development could turn out however it wants would not improve the conditions for politics. It is therefore not self-evident that even more scenarios, even more curves and graphs, and even more money to Naturvårdsverket would improve the possibilities for a government to conduct climate policy.
Madam Speaker! Since the future is uncertain and since it is even more difficult to assess the future in the short term, the fundamental problems will always be there. The solution is not even more money for Naturvårdsverket. There will be uncertainties, and it is fundamentally a political assessment to value how important it is to reach an exact emission level.
If one wants to ensure such an outcome, one must have large safety margins. Large safety margins in all activities cost a lot of money. It then becomes a political assessment whether one wants to work to exceed what the scenarios show one will end up at, or to reach what the scenarios show. Safety margins are not free either when it comes to climate policy.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! In August 2024, there was a major discussion about the government's so-called golden solution. The Minister for Climate and the Minister for Finance presented together at a press conference that Sweden would reach the EU's climate goals by 2030 by the government once again raising the already significantly lowered reduction obligation from 6 percent to 10 percent. Here, a major debate immediately arose about whether it would really be enough to reach the climate goals.
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency had indeed prepared several scenarios, and the government had chosen the most optimistic one. That is something one can absolutely do when one is a politician. Politics is about making choices. What was problematic, however, was that the Minister for Climate and Environment, when the question was put to him, refused to discuss the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's second alternative, namely the scenario that showed that we could also end up far from the goal.
The government also refused to disclose the underlying data for how it was assessed that the goal would be reached, and both ministers used the word main scenario when it was revealed that Naturvårdsverket had actually prepared two different scenarios. The Climate Minister also claimed that only one had been presented to her.
I think this example underlines the importance of both the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the government needing to report what they have calculated, where they have obtained their figures from, and why they have chosen a certain scenario over another.
Today, all assessments show that the golden solution did not solve the problem at all. We are not projected to reach the climate goals by 2030. It was likely that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's second rejected scenario was the most correct.
I think this is a good example. Sweden has increased climate emissions during this mandate period while the EU as a whole has reduced its emissions. We have not contributed the part that we promised. It is important that Sweden does its part of the work so that all EU countries together will reduce their emissions at a sufficient pace. That is also why the countries that do not contribute are fined.
The Climate Policy Council points out in its report that Sweden's fines if we do not fulfill our part of the work and miss the targets by 2030 are estimated to be between 8 and 40 billion kronor. Regardless of whether one is interested in reducing climate impact or not, it is important for all taxpayers to know about it. It is also important to be able to hold responsible governments accountable for the decisions that have been made. I therefore do not think it is such a dry product as SD thinks.
Madam Speaker! According to Sweden's Climate Act, the government's climate policy work shall rest on a scientific basis and be based on relevant technical, social, economic, and environmental considerations. The work shall always proceed from the long-term, time-bound emission targets that the Riksdag has established. And the government shall set the other emission reduction targets that are needed for us to be able to reach the long-term target.
The Swedish National Audit Office highlights in its report the lack of transparency and clarity in the underlying data used for the climate reports and climate action plans. The report also notes a lack of reporting on different scenarios and what can lead to one outcome or the other.
I want to emphasize that climate policy is truly not easy to get to grips with. Climate calculations can also be quite difficult material to get to grips with. This means that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has an extremely important role in terms of being able to explain pedagogically to both politicians and citizens what different decisions can mean and what uncertainties may exist in the various underlying documents that are prepared. The documents that exist also need to be made accessible to everyone who themselves need to be able to form an opinion on whether the political decisions being made seem reasonable or not.
The National Audit Office points out in its report that there is a risk that the government has underestimated the need for effective measures to reduce emissions. For us outsiders, it is difficult to determine whether it is due to the government not having understood the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's basis or simply having chosen the best-case scenario because it was the easiest and cheapest. Therefore, I fully agree with the National Audit Office's statements regarding the need for the government to more clearly report which assumptions and uncertainties they were aware of when they made the decisions that, at the current moment, have significantly hindered the possibilities of reaching the 2030 goals.
From the preparatory work for the Climate Act, it appears that the government is responsible for ensuring that the law is followed and that the Government Offices and the state administrative authorities shall be central actors in the government's work to ensure this.
The National Audit Office's criticism is important because crucial decisions are based on the underlying data. And the decisions concern reducing emissions, reaching the climate goals, and following EU legislation. The decisions thus affect Sweden's economy and future development. The data that form the basis for decisions on measures therefore need to be as clear and correct as possible. And the government needs to be able to understand them in order to be able to account for the uncertainties that may exist in the data.
Therefore, it is of great importance that the underlying materials, regardless of who has prepared them, are of the highest quality and as close to reality as possible. We know that uncertainties in both calculations and future scenarios need to be clearly described, and calculation models and assumptions need to be clear and transparent.
We think it is of great importance that the work to produce accurate underlying documents is further strengthened and that Naturvårdsverket also receives the resources it needs to produce the best underlying documents it can perform. It is also very important that uncertainties and assumptions that exist and will always exist in calculations and future scenarios are clear, both in the relevant authorities' underlying documents and in the government's climate reports and climate action plans.
Madam Speaker! Climate calculations are difficult to perform. They depend on many different external factors, which can also change. But the underlying data need to be clear and correct, and they need to show what could be changed. And all decision-makers need to understand what it is that one is deciding on.
It is also important that others can access the underlying documents that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and other authorities have and how they have calculated, but also how the government has taken in the information and why the assessment that was made was made. It is something that both the Swedish National Audit Office and we believe needs to be improved moving forward, not least so that it is clear to everyone when it is the politics that have decided not to do enough.
Therefore, I want to move for approval of our reservation in the report.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.