Reduction of the reduction obligation for gasoline and diesel

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal, which means that the reduction obligation will be significantly lowered in about a month.

This will mean significant relief for motorists, companies, and in the long run everyone who is in need of freight transport. That is all of us, for example when we shop in a grocery store. The vast majority, if not all products there, have at some point arrived there in a truck.

It is also about agriculture. Swedish food will contribute to reduced emissions and, in the long run, cheaper food.

Mr. Speaker! We now have a week where we here in the chamber are making a number of very important decisions. Today we have made decisions on the budget frameworks as well as nuclear power, and tomorrow we can finally change the reduction obligation legislation.

The reduction obligation is rooted in the environmental goals preparation that was commissioned during the first half of 2010 and consisted of seven of the Riksdag's current eight parties. The Sweden Democrats were therefore not involved and were also not invited to the preparation after entering the Riksdag.

We know what happened next. The Environmental Goals Commission decided on a very ambitious transport goal, which was to be largely solved with biofuels. Referral bodies warned of enormous price increases, but the parties chose not to listen at that time. One hoped for something else.

The question was investigated further, and in the 2018 budget bill, the proposal for a reduction obligation law was included.

No consequence analysis worthy of the name was ever carried out by the Social Democratic government, and when we questioned how expensive it would become to transport oneself in our country, they turned a deaf ear.

The enormous import of biofuels - many of which are directly bad regarding climate emissions - would decrease, the Social Democratic government claimed. The market price would go down, the Social Democrats hoped.

The government also chose, in connection with the introduction, to significantly lower the diesel tax so that voters and consumers would not notice that the reduction obligation had been introduced.

But, Mr. Speaker, the imports did not decrease. The price of biofuels did not go down, but what we saw was a Sweden with the world's highest diesel prices. This in a sparsely populated and large country that is dependent on reasonable prices for the transport of both goods and people.

Mr. Speaker! The reduction obligation law can serve as an example in history books of bad and ill-considered politics where one chooses to listen to pious hopes and ignores the consequences. The reduction obligation law was never sustainable. People were never consulted. People were never told what consequences this policy would lead to, and it could be seen early on that there was no tolerance.

Mr. Speaker! What we are seeing now is the result of a process where parties such as the Sweden Democrats have long pushed, but where other parties have responsibly been prepared to reconsider policies that have proven not to work.

Civil society has also been active. Hundreds of thousands of people have engaged themselves for reasonable prices on fuels. It ended with the voters saying their piece in the polling stations. This is, despite the early social democratic failure, a fantastic example of how democracy is intended to work. A social democratic government makes bad decisions. People come together and work very hard to achieve better legislation, and now we can reap the fruits of this - also here in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker! When we vote on the reduction obligation law tomorrow, it will be a matter of yes or no to this bill. I note in the report from the Committee on Environment and Agriculture that the four opposition parties want to join forces and vote down the proposition. That button press will have great significance for Swedish households and companies.

The difference in money between pressing the green or red button is more than 5 kronor per liter if one is to believe the non-political civil servants who have calculated this. For those who are in need of a car, it is a matter of thousands of kronor annually. Those who are slightly more economically literate understand that it will also have significant effects on the inflation development and, in the long run, also our interest rates.

My message to the four parties is therefore that they should exercise restraint and consider the consequences if they were to win that vote.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Consequences are something I would really like to hear a bit about from the member. In the bill, there is, in fact, nothing about the consequences.

This debate is about the biofuel that is to be mixed into diesel and gasoline to reduce emissions. But it is also about getting more Swedish production of biofuels from Swedish forest residues started, about increasing our self-sufficiency, and about creating more Swedish green jobs.

If we do not reduce our emissions in the transport sector, for example, forestry and agriculture are concerned about the consequences that the government has chosen not to report. They could be that we have to pay billions and billions in the form of emission allowances or fines to other countries if we do not reach the EU's goals.

Before the election, the Sweden Democrats promised a price reduction at the pump of 10 kronor per liter for diesel and 6.50 kronor per liter for gasoline. The question to the member is whether the promise that the Sweden Democrats gave the Swedish people was merely a fuel bluff.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

The Sweden Democrats said before the election that we would work for lower fuel prices. Ever since Sätherberg's party introduced the reduction obligation law, we have said that we must change it, that it is crazy politics. It has created the world's highest diesel prices.

What we are doing now is exactly what we said we would do. We are now going to see a significant reduction in the reduction obligation. We have seen significant tax cuts on diesel as well. And we are going to see significantly lower prices on diesel next year than it was when the Social Democrats were in power.

My question to Anna-Caren Sätherberg is: How do the Social Democrats intend to act in the vote? Now we have two choices. We know that the difference between yes and no to this bill, according to non-political civil servants, amounts to 5.50 kronor at the pump. We can never know exactly how much it will amount to, but in the absence of anything else, we must rely on the non-political civil servants who have calculated that consequence.

Now the Social Democrats can choose. Either one wants it to become 5.50 kronor more expensive at the pump, or one does not. Then, of course, one can work for changes to the legislation in the future. But now it is a critical situation. One can choose to place that cost on Swedish consumers. Those are quite substantial socio-economic costs.

We consume more than 5 billion liters of diesel in Sweden today. We can multiply this by these kronor and see a cost that affects different parties in society. Would it not be good to avoid adding the 25 billion in costs to companies and households given the economic situation that prevails right now?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can inform the member that the Social Democrats always say no to bad proposals. We have our own proposal that the Sweden Democrats are welcome to look at. If we had been asked before, we could have looked at it together. It is a proposal that is also found among most of the referral bodies. In fact, it is not very many of the referral bodies that say yes to the SD government's proposal.

I am still curious. There is no impact assessment of what should be done instead. And today we can read in Dagens Nyheter about the new climate action plan and the proposal for a Swedish emissions trading system. When it is to start taking effect, the price of diesel and gasoline will suddenly be raised.

My question is: What does the SD government want? Is it biofuels that you are against? Is it that we should have a bio-industry in Sweden, more green jobs and self-sufficiency instead of being dependent on rogue states? We can, for instance, read in Dagens Nyheter in the next second that one is prepared to introduce increased costs for diesel and gasoline but with a Swedish emissions trading system instead.

Mr. Speaker! I truly hope that the member can explain what is wanted and how they want to do it, and also report to the Swedish people the consequences that the proposal entails. What is the calculation of the costs for, for example, buying emission rights or for fines from the EU?

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One consequence of us passing this bill is lower prices at the pump. It will become cheaper to transport oneself in Sweden. It will become cheaper to produce Swedish food. It will become cheaper to transport that food to our Swedish stores. These are very clear consequences of the proposal. Therefore, I also want to urge the Social Democrats to support it.

Mr. Speaker! I have fact-checked the member. She claims that the Social Democrats never say yes to bad proposals. That is unfortunately not true. Right now, we are dealing with this reduction obligation legislation; the Social Democrats came up with that there should be a reduction of 66 percent by 2030. I can state that the member herself now thinks it is a bad proposal, because the member no longer wants the reduction obligation at that level. So, it is not correct. The Social Democrats unfortunately say yes to bad proposals all too often.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Martin Kinnunen of the Sweden Democrats mentions that better legislation is now being put forward than that which applies to the reduction obligation. In that case, I expect better policy that reduces emissions just as much as the reduction obligation does. Otherwise, there is no better policy, as the same purpose is not achieved.

What policy is Martin Kinnunen referring to? I have not, in fact, seen any policy from Sverigedemokraterna or the government parties that reduces emissions as much as the reduction obligation does.

The consequences of the Sweden Democrats' proposal to lower the reduction obligation, together with some other measures, are that emissions from the transport sector are expected to increase by 50 percent just next year. It is an extremely large increase in emissions. According to the Climate Policy Council, this government, which governs with the support of the Sweden Democrats, is the first in at least two decades to increase greenhouse gas emissions through political decisions.

The consequence is that we now appear to not reach our EU commitments regarding the ESR targets. This means we risk losing up to 38 billion from the EU's recovery fund. We have already today heard the debate about the government wanting to withdraw emission allowances from the ETS sector to compensate for its climate failure within ESR. That costs up to 6 billion. It is also unclear how many billions this involves for the state in fines or expenditures to other countries to compensate for this climate failure.

What better policy is Martin Kinnunen talking about?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is positive that Elin Söderberg claims to have a great commitment to the climate. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the world. But the Swedish reduction obligation does not contribute to reduced emissions, at least not where it matters. It does not contribute to reduced emissions in the world.

The biofuels produced here in Sweden will continue to be produced even next year, when this legislation is in place. The biofuel producers that we import from will continue to produce their biofuels.

However, we will redirect. We in Sweden will not take a very large share of the world's biofuels, but they will be spread out. In the aviation sector, for example, it is difficult to find fuel today. One pays mandatory fees – also a bad law that the Social Democrats have enacted; I am fact-checking that as well. We need these fuels in different places. We need them in industrial processes, for example.

A reduction obligation in Sweden of 6 or 60 percent will not do anything for the climate. It has absolutely no significance for the global climate.

Since then, we have a completely different situation when we are to discuss regulatory frameworks for different goals, the EU emissions trading system, and what happens if the goals are not achieved. I have been able to read that approximately 27 out of 27 countries are judged to face major problems in achieving their ESR commitment. We do not know, for example, where CCS will be placed with this regulatory framework. There is much more work to be done.

But the members of the committee can feel secure that Sweden will be able to contribute to reduced emissions, with or without the reduction obligation. Whether the emissions are accounted for will in any case not play any role for the world's climate.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! No, the Sweden Democrats do not have any policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the world. It is clearly stated in black and white in the government's budget bill that with the policy they are pursuing, greenhouse gas emissions increase.

Martin Kinnunen says that one should reduce emissions where it matters. We are on a planet. Regardless of where the emissions occur, they matter. Regardless of where they occur, they will also affect us here in Sweden, with worsened climate-related consequences.

Sweden, just like all other countries, needs to reduce our emissions, and it is the Swedish government's responsibility to take a climate leadership to reduce Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions. When the government and the Sweden Democrats now back down and increase greenhouse gas emissions, they are shifting the burden onto other actors, future generations, and other countries.

If it is also the case, which it is, that it is not an easy challenge for other EU countries to meet their ESR commitments, one also does not expect to be able to buy emission allowances from any other country. Then the collective result will be that we do not meet the EU's joint commitments. It will result in increased emissions from the entire EU and an exacerbated climate crisis as a result of this government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, being unable to take responsibility for Sweden's transition and protect the entire Swedish population from climate-related risks. It is extremely serious.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Biofuels are a finite resource. It makes no difference for emissions whether we consume a lot of biofuels in Sweden or distribute these biofuels in more countries. The amount of biofuels on the market will not be affected by the reduction obligation being changed. Consequently, it has no effect on the climate in the world.

It will, however, have an effect on the national calculations, but that is something else. It is not about global climate impact, but about political regulations, which in this case have no connection to global climate impact.

The transition in Sweden will be driven by electrification. We made a very important decision regarding nuclear power here in the chamber today. We will see more decisions regarding nuclear power in the coming years. We need more predictable energy. We need to establish a better regulatory framework for hydropower so that we do not lose it.

So there is a lot to do, but it is electrification that is the key. The dead-end of using massive amounts of biofuels so that we get the world's highest transport costs in a sparsely populated, large country is not the solution. The solution to reduce emissions from the transport sector is electrification.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Our country is currently being pressured by several parallel crises: war in our vicinity, brutal and escalated gang violence, a healthcare crisis where resources are not prioritized in the budget, a cost crisis in the form of higher food prices, with cost increases that are higher than in Finland, Denmark, and Norway, higher interest costs and higher electricity and fuel prices that make it difficult for ordinary people, and on top of this, a climate crisis with climate changes that are already tangible and threaten future generations and Swedish prosperity. A captain is needed who does not turn a blind eye to all the parallel crises but sees the big picture when it comes to steering the Swedish ship forward.

Today we are debating the government's proposal for a significant reduction of the reduction obligation - a proposal whose consequences are not reported. After an election campaign where the Tidö parties bingo-bid election promises over one another, with a reduction of the diesel price by as much as 10 kronor at the pump and 6.50 for gasoline, we are now here.

Mr. Speaker! The reduction of the biofuel blend according to the SD government's proposal will significantly increase emissions and can also lead to severe restrictions for Swedish citizens. We have all already heard of various proposals such as using congestion charges in more places or introducing speed limits or car bans on certain days. It has also been about reduced logging of the Swedish forest or about agricultural emissions being reduced at a faster pace to compensate for the increased emissions.

The government's proposal also risks resulting in fewer jobs, lost investments, a continued dependence on oil from rogue states, and a risk of environmental fines from the EU in the billions.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats have our eyes wide open when it comes to managing and navigating Sweden's parallel crises and move for approval of reservation 2.

Our proposal is Sverigebränslet, for many reasons. Sweden needs a new way forward. We must make it cheaper for ordinary people to use the car, especially where access to public transport is non-existent, while simultaneously firmly pressing down emissions and creating new green jobs in the industry and strengthening Sweden's preparedness.

Approximately 5 million cars are on the road in Sweden. Of these, 4.1 million have internal combustion engines. Half of all these cars run on gasoline, and about one-third run on diesel. In the cost crisis, it is, of course, also the fuel that affects ordinary people, and it is clear that we can no longer be dependent on oil from rogue states. It is not reasonable that a stranglehold should be maintained on ordinary people's wallets.

We propose instead a stable blend of biofuels, which is fixed over time and increases predictably and stably. Starting from 2024, the level of the base blend shall be 19.3 percent for diesel and 7.8 percent for gasoline.

This is a way forward that gives Sweden the opportunity to reach the 2030 goal, and it also gives the industry and the fuel industry the stability and the planning conditions required for people to dare to invest in Sweden. Collectively, we can also save billions of tax kronor that would otherwise go towards buying emission rights or paying fines to the EU. There are, we Social Democrats believe, many other priorities one can choose to make for the many billions instead of paying for Sweden's emissions to other countries.

Mr. Speaker! It has become apparent during both the pandemic and Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine that the existing systems we have had have not been sufficiently flexible. We therefore believe that the right way forward is that a part of the Sweden fuel is a so-called supplementary blend. When the price on the world markets goes up, the blend can be reduced, and when the production of biofuels in Sweden starts on a larger scale and the price becomes cheaper, the supplementary blend can be increased.

We also believe that a number of other measures are needed to create a more stable situation regarding fuel prices. In today's regulations on the reduction obligation, there is a sanction fee for those actors who do not achieve the prescribed blending. This fee has come to have a pricing function in the market rather than being an alternative cost to make the actors comply with the reduction obligation. We want to see a lowered reduction obligation fee, as that would also have a certain price effect.

We also propose that Sweden switches to the European diesel standard mk 3. Sweden is the only country in Europe that uses mk 1. A transition to European diesel enables fuels sold in Sweden to be procured on a European market to a greater extent and vice versa, which can also have a price-dampening effect.

We also consider that Sweden must work hard to enable a differentiation of the tax on sustainable biofuels and fossil fuels at the EU level. It is a fundamentally important issue that climate-smart fuels should not be taxed in the same way as fossil fuels.

Another important measure we Social Democrats want to see is that the state takes greater responsibility in the biofuels market.

This winter, we proposed a major reform of the energy market: folkhemsel. It is based on the state stepping in and signing long-term contracts and then auctioning off the electricity at reasonable prices. With our proposal regarding Sverigebränslet, regarding long-term contracts, and regarding considering the proposals that the Bioeconomy Commission submitted this spring on revenue guarantees for the production of renewable fuels, we will be able to stimulate domestic production that creates Swedish jobs and turns Swedish by-products into Swedish renewable fuels. In this way, we increase Sweden's self-sufficiency for its own fuel supply.

Mr. Speaker! In summary: Sweden needs a new way forward to handle all the parallel crises. Our model for biofuel blending in Sweden, which we call Sverigebränslet, is important for reducing emissions. Together with our other budget proposals, Sverigebränslet makes it easier for ordinary people's everyday economy while we build up Sweden's preparedness and self-sufficiency, and we get more jobs when the green industry chooses to invest in Sweden.

Climate change is here and now and requires action. It is not possible to conjure away 4.1 million cars with internal combustion engines. The more increased emissions today that remain in the atmosphere for a long time, the tougher, more expensive, and more intrusive measures are needed.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Malin Larsson (both S) agreed.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have been insistent when it has come to the introduction of the reduction obligation. Today's reduction obligation law mandates a reduction of 66 percent in 2030. Today, the reduction is approximately 30 percent.

What we do tomorrow is vote on these questions. There, the Sweden Democrats, together with the government, have submitted a proposal to significantly lower the reduction obligation. The consequence analysis of that proposal shows that the price at the pump could go down by approximately 5.50 kronor compared to if current legislation is maintained.

The Social Democrats state in the report that they intend to vote no to our bill, which, according to the non-political officials, would have the direct consequence that the price at the pump increases by 5.50 kronor. Have I understood correctly that the member's party will vote no to this proposal and thereby drive up the price by 5.50 compared to our proposal?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I noticed that the member did not answer my question regarding the fuel bluff that the Sverigedemokraterna promoted during the election campaign. It was about 10 kronor less for diesel at the pump and 6.50 for gasoline. According to the debate article that you wrote together on March 15, the gasoline price was 19.84. That is then supposed to be reduced by 6.50. The diesel price on that very day was 22.76, but it was 22.10 the day after. The member therefore has a bit to do if he is truly going to fulfill what he has promised his voters. In Sverigedemokraterna's communication, they have constantly spoken about the exact price at the pump and nothing else.

Once again, I was asked what the Social Democrats are going to do. Well, we Social Democrats have already presented our proposal, which I think is good and reasonable and takes responsibility for both the climate and ordinary people's wallets. In our budget proposal, we also have a "tankrabatt" (fuel discount) that is not aimed at men who drive large SUVs in Stockholm, but at people who live in sparsely populated areas and the countryside, where one truly needs the car. We also have other things that level the differences when people are having a tough time: an extra child allowance, no "funkisskatt" (functional tax), and a lot of other things that ensure ordinary people can cope with this crisis, which is large and has many dimensions.

But the answer to the question is, again: Yes, the proposal that the government has put forward together with the Sweden Democrats, the Social Democrats will vote no to.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

A consequence analysis has been requested. I can present a consequence analysis of what will happen if the Social Democrats' proposal wins in the vote, and it is, if one is to believe the calculations from the non-political officials, that we will get a shock increase in the diesel price. I think that is a disappointing message from the Social Democrats.

I have read the Social Democrats' follow-up motion to this bill, where they speak about the so-called Sweden fuel. The Social Democrats wish to see a reduction obligation that is significantly higher than the one that we, hopefully thanks to our proposal, will receive next year. They want a level that is 300 percent higher, and that is only a floor.

People talk about us having more involvement, but the Social Democrats cannot account for how much more involvement it should be. They want to carry out some kind of procurement from the industry. They have simply thought that we should pay a huge amount of money to the biofuels industry, and there I wonder a bit. I have debated these issues for many years with the Social Democrats here in the chamber. In the debate we had before the debate before the election, one debated with a Social Democratic politician, and today that same politician is found in the biofuels lobby, who has surely pitched this proposal to Anna-Caren Sätherberg.

My question to Sätherberg is: How does one view the credibility issue of politicians going directly to the biofuels lobby and then proposals from the Social Democratic Party emerge to inject a lot of money into this industry? Does Sätherberg see a trust problem here?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must answer the member that I actually do not know who he is talking about. I may not have been a politician long enough to know it. It must be some specific person that the member is referring to.

The calculation that we are presenting, we have not received from any lobbyists; instead, it is from RUT, the Riksdag's investigation service. Both the member and I should probably consider it a perfectly okay instance to use.

The member speaks about the non-political civil servants, who have said that there would be a significant consequence if the Social Democrats do not follow exactly what the member wants. But what have the non-political civil servants said about the consequences of this?

The non-political officials I have spoken with say that it is everything from 15 to 50 billion if the other measures regarding fines and the emissions trading system are not included. In that regard, the Sweden Democrats are obligated to provide an answer. What is it that you intend to do instead? Nothing is stated about that.

When we submitted a proposal for a committee initiative - we wanted a consequence analysis - the Sweden Democrats voted it down. The non-political civil servants who speak about what the price of gasoline and diesel will become must also have told the Sweden Democrats and the government what this proposal entails and what costs it incurs at the other end.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! The reduction obligation is an issue that engages. Regardless of whether one has heard of it or not, I am convinced that everyone who owns a petrol or diesel car has at some point during the last few years had discussions regarding how terribly expensive it is to refuel. The prices at the pump have been palpable.

Yes, the reduction obligation is undeniably an issue that engages people because of its effect on gasoline and diesel prices but also because it is a way to reduce emissions. The reduction obligation involves a certain blending of biofuels in order to lower the emissions from our transports. It places requirements on fuel producers to reduce emissions, which is fundamentally good.

Mr. Speaker! We must reduce emissions as quickly as possible, and we must do it in a way that is long-term sustainable. We know that global warming is caused by humans. Few question nowadays whether this should be done. The question is rather when and how.

Reducing emissions to zero is, Mr. Speaker, actually quite simple. One only needs to prohibit all emissions within Sweden's borders by law. It is something we could do during the next vote. But where do we stand then? Introducing a so-called climate dictatorship, as some activists advocate, is not the way to go. It is certainly not the path the voters choose, and democracy is nothing that the Moderaterna are willing to compromise on.

To reach net zero, both growth and high climate ambitions are required. We need a competitive business sector that moves us forward in the green transition, and we need everyone to be part of that journey.

To back out into the future is the wrong way to go. To introduce prohibitions and coercion that stand above the people's will would strike down our business sector and make us all extremely poor. It would halt all development and take us back to a time that I do not believe very many want to see. It actually was not better before.

This government received a mandate a little over a year ago. It was a mandate for change, and the reduction obligation stood high on that list.

The Moderates are a hopeful party. We believe that it is possible to get ourselves out of the climate crisis in a smart way, a way that makes other countries follow suit and want to strive for net-zero emissions. We see the green transition as a competitive advantage. It should also be treated in that way - seriously and with faith in the future.

Humanity has faced decisive challenges before, and we have solved them through curiosity and innovative power. I am convinced that we will do so again.

I began by saying that the reduction obligation is a way to reduce emissions that is fundamentally good. We know, however, that the level at which the reduction obligation stood was far too high. The level led to Sweden vacuuming up the market for biofuels – a fuel that could be used to transition the sectors that are more difficult to electrify, for example aviation. Yesterday, we saw a historic first flight across the Atlantic with a sustainable aviation fuel. The transition is happening, very clearly, here and now.

The criticism regarding the reduction obligation for passenger cars came from many different sources, not least from the Swedish National Audit Office, which in June this year stated that there were significant risks in relying to such a great extent on the reduction obligation to achieve Sweden's climate policy goals. The review also showed that the current design of the reduction obligation was not feasible. It is quite natural, then, that a rethink is being made. Not daring to question old truths is a dangerous path to take in politics.

Mr. Speaker! There must be an acceptance in climate policy. The people who are affected, that is to say the entire population of Sweden, must feel that they are part of the transition, that they trust it and that it is reasonable. We can observe that the high levels of the reduction obligation did not win any resounding acceptance.

That biofuels are not used in our passenger cars is not crucial for the global climate. They will do great good in heavy machinery - in aviation and in ships - in the sectors that are much more difficult to electrify. For passenger cars, it is of the utmost importance that we now focus on electrification. This means having a stable and functioning energy system that meets the growing needs and that the charging infrastructure is being expanded, which the government is investing heavily in.

The government proposes that the reduction obligation should be 6 percent between 2024 and 2026 and be abolished for 2027-2030. The Swedish National Audit Office notes, once again, in its review that the reduction levels proposed by the previous government were based on deficient impact assessments. The Moderate-led government intends to return to the reduction levels for 2027-2030. It is evident that a more in-depth analysis is required.

Many factors play into the price of gasoline and diesel. We live in a restless world, but for Sweden alone to move forward with the highest requirements in the EU is not to take people's situation seriously. Many households and companies are still under heavy pressure, not least from inflation. It is disrespectful and irresponsible to force a part of the population who are dependent on the car to foot the bill. It also erodes trust in the climate policy.

We want to follow a more long-term sustainable path, a path that implies that the transition is a competitive advantage and that makes other countries want to follow suit. The climate issue is global, and therefore the solutions must also be global. We shall both reduce Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions and encourage other countries to raise their climate ambitions. The only way to do that is to demonstrate the prosperity that can be built through climate-smart and long-term sustainable measures.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a green pioneer country. But unfortunately, no other country in the world will want to follow the Swedish example if the only thing we have to show is high prices, an unstable energy system, and the lowest growth in the EU. Sweden shall be a pioneer country by getting other countries to follow. If we do not succeed with that, we are poor role models.

We promised to lower the prices at the pump. Step by step, it is now becoming a reality. Rebuilding the legitimacy for climate policy will not happen overnight. But it is time to change course, and this is a part of that.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is wonderful that Helena gets the entire opposition bingo card filled. It may be because we are talking about quite serious issues.

The EU has set tough climate goals for the union in general and Sweden in particular. We are to reduce our emissions in the ESR sector, i.e., the sector that does not trade emission allowances, by 50 percent. This concerns the transport sector, construction machinery, and agriculture and forestry.

When the government now chooses, according to its own calculations, to abolish or significantly reduce the reduction obligation and increase the sale of fossil gasoline and diesel by 4 million liters a day, it is the case that the emission reductions must come from somewhere else. Electrification is not enough. Not even if all cars were electrified from tomorrow would we reach the goals. Then there is only one sector left, and that is agriculture and forestry. It is about reduced food production and reduced logging in the forest.

How have the Moderaterna actually intended to make it work? There are no emission rights to buy from other countries, because they do not exist, and there are very few countries that even seem to be reaching the goals at all. Sweden was one of the few countries that did, but it will not be cheap - if there is anything to buy at all. Electrification is not enough. How is one supposed to solve this if one now chooses to focus on fossil gasoline and diesel in the future in the transport sector? Emissions increase by between 6 and 10 million tons, according to the government's own budget. How is the calculation supposed to add up?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think Rickard Nordin has a point here, and I believe and hope that we all in this chamber agree that emissions must be reduced. That we then choose to do so in different ways is another matter.

There is no doubt that the government will reduce emissions. That we choose to do it in a different way does not mean that we do not have high climate ambitions. We choose long-term solutions that will ensure that this holds up across the board in a way that the reduction obligation could not have done. This has been very clearly stated by, among others, the Swedish National Audit Office.

We also know that 27 out of 27 countries will not be able to fulfill their commitments. It is a difficult situation. Everyone must increase their commitments, reduce their emissions and do a better job here. For our part, it is about changing course properly and fundamentally, and for us, it is about electrification. Electrification is the key. For it to work at all, fossil-free energy production is required, and for us, that means nuclear power.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Let me correct the member on a couple of points. For the first, five countries were on track to reach the goals, according to the EU's own assessments that came out last year. Sweden was one of them, until the government changed the policy.

The opposition says that emissions should be reduced and that the government simply chooses to do it in a different way. But the government and SD do it in a way that increases emissions. If you are to reduce emissions but do it in a way that increases emissions, you have fundamentally gone wrong somewhere.

I share the ambition for electrification. The problem is that it is not enough. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's and the Swedish Energy Agency's own underlying data and reports show that even if all new cars sold from tomorrow onwards are electric cars, it is not enough. What is enough, however, is the electricity. Last year, we exported electricity equivalent to approximately three times the needs of Sweden's entire passenger car fleet, if it had run on electricity. It is therefore not a problem. To start talking about nuclear power in this debate is simply to mix up the cards.

What is most relevant here is that if one does not achieve the emission reductions in the transport sector, it is agriculture and forestry that will take the hit. EU's climate targets are, in fact, binding. The alternative is possibly heavy EU fines, and that means we will have to pay money completely unnecessarily without any benefit whatsoever and furthermore without it lowering climate emissions. It is waste and inefficient policy. That, if anything, many have shown, not least the climate researchers.

My question is once again that if we are not going to do this in the transport sector - because electrification is not enough - how will we then ensure that it is not agriculture and forestry that are affected?

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! The truth is that Sweden was not on track to reach net zero. One was possibly on track to reach the 2030 goal, but I believe it is very short-sighted and irresponsible to put all eggs in one basket and expect everyone to applaud and think one is clever because a certain goal has been achieved. At the same time – excuse the language – one simply doesn't give a damn about the rest.

The goal of net zero by 2045 is the absolute most important. It is what we must achieve. It is the big goal for all of us. We have a plan for it, and it is about building up the energy production which, during the last parliamentary term, under the previous government, has been decimated.

I know that it irritates the Center Party somewhat that the Moderates continue to talk about nuclear power. I am aware of that. But fundamentally, this is a question of energy. The largest emitters in other countries in the world are precisely the energy producers. We have not had that problem in Sweden. Since the 70s, we have succeeded in reducing our emissions thanks to our fossil-free energy mix. Therefore, the government chooses to place the focus there and build up what was once destroyed.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Climate Policy Council has previously stated that the announced sharp reduction of the reduction obligation is the single measure that has the absolute greatest negative impact on the possibilities of reaching the climate goals by 2030. Even a majority of the referral bodies were negative towards the proposal that is on the table today. AB Volvo assesses that a reduction of the reduction obligation in accordance with the proposal creates a short-term climate policy that risks, among other things, undermining the conditions for long-term industrial investments.

My questions to the member are what the government intends to do to reduce the emissions gap that arises from the current reduction levels being lowered and what other measures they intend to take to compensate for the gap that is now being created.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are now discussing the reduction obligation and know that one side thinks it should remain high and the other - that is, the government side - wants it to be lowered to the EU's minimum level. We know that. We also know what the petrol and diesel prices would have continued to be and how they would have looked with the left-wing parties in power. I know that the left-wing parties are in disagreement on their side of politics, but the direction is clear and distinct.

I am curious about how Kajsa Fredholm can justify the extremely high gasoline and diesel prices to her voters in this situation, which is very difficult for many people, households, and companies. How can she justify them to the voters when the government now so clearly has a mandate to lower gasoline and diesel prices at the pump? Is that being questioned? I understand that it is questioned whether this government is in power and that we think differently—that is politics—but is the voters' opinion and what the voters actually want being questioned? How does one justify that in that case?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I note that I received no answer at all.

More measures are needed to compensate and reach the goal within the transport sector. If the reduction obligation is reduced as much as it is, that is to say so that emissions increase by 50 percent just during next year, are there other measures within the transport sector that can be taken? What I would like to know was what plans the government had and what is intended.

We in Vänsterpartiet have, for example, presented a number of proposals to reduce and streamline the transport of both goods and people. This involves, for example, investing in the railway, making it cheaper to travel by public transport, and expanding public transport. It is about streamlining usage and achieving lower emissions. We have also proposed a new mode-neutral travel deduction that favors those traveling by public transport, but we want it to also compensate those who live in the countryside and who do not have access to trains or buses.

These proposals - these were only some of them - are furthermore proposals that would benefit households with lower incomes. More compensatory proposals were certainly needed. We are also presenting a budget with a number of proposals that compensate households for the crisis we find ourselves in.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have chosen to change direction, and we are focusing on the system perspective – that which makes a difference on a large scale. We would like to see that from the political side, one stopped tinkering a little here and a little there and instead saw the system perspective: How can we ensure that we transition Sweden as a whole? And it is fundamentally about energy.

I hope that the Left Party is willing to review the issue and take it more seriously in the future. How are we in Sweden actually going to get a proper energy production started? We know, after all, that it is electric cars and charging infrastructure that are the most important when it comes to reducing emissions from our passenger cars.

Then it is not the case that the biofuels will disappear. They do not disappear into thin air just because they are not put into our passenger cars, but they will be used in aviation, in ships and in industry. There will be an enormous need. They will be of great use, but in other places. We see that as something positive, because it is once again a matter of going back to the system perspective: the right measure at the right time and in the right place.

All good forces will be needed, but we choose to take a step back, raise our gaze and see the system.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by addressing something that the Swedish National Audit Office writes in its report. They assess that a steering measure such as the reduction obligation has the potential to contribute cost-effectively to the goals of climate policy.

Then I would like to point out that the member made a statement about making a transformation of the climate policy. But no measures are being reported yet, other than increased emissions. Everyone in this chamber must understand that time is important, Mr. Speaker. It is about what is being released now and stored up in the atmosphere. It will become more expensive and a bigger problem if we do not reduce the emissions now.

Mr. Speaker! I also intended to speak a little bit about what the referral bodies say regarding the SD government's proposal on the reduction obligation.

Scania writes that they reject the proposal. One can also read in the media that Scania has made multi-billion investments in electric trucks, and the company is, as many know, one of the country's largest private employers. Many jobs are therefore at stake in the transition. Scania says that we need bold political decisions that make fossil fuels more expensive, that it becomes cheaper to switch to electric vehicles, and that we get power grids and charging infrastructure in place.

Sveriges Åkeriföretag does not believe that the reduction obligation for diesel should be lowered to 6 percent. The Transport Agency writes that the pace of the transition and the important electrification risk being slowed down if it becomes more favorable to drive fossil-fueled vehicles than to drive electric vehicles, and AB Volvo says the same.

What have the government representatives actually taken into account from the responses from all of the referral bodies that have answered the question of how they want the reduction obligation to be designed?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Biofuels can make a big difference - but elsewhere, not in our passenger cars. It is not there that we see the biggest difference, but there we see that electrification will play a decisive role. We know that.

We also know that what the Social Democrats call Sverigebränsle would have resulted in a shock increase in the price of both gasoline and diesel. I ask exactly the same question as I did to the Vänsterpartiet: How can one justify this to one's voters? It is still too expensive to refuel - even with our reforms, which aim to reduce the costs for fuels. With the Socialdemokraterna, it would become even more expensive.

There must be a legitimacy in the climate policy. There must be an acceptance of the climate policy being pursued. People must feel that they are part of the transition. I do not know how many voters would feel that with the Social Democrats' proposal, which would increase prices. We are in a difficult situation, and we know that all policy must stem from the current situation. It is tough economically for both households and companies, and then the policy should not make it even harder.

What is needed instead is a policy that takes people's situation seriously, and that is what our government is doing.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think the member answered anything regarding the views from Scania, AB Volvo, Transportstyrelsen, Transportföretagen, and Sveriges Åkeriföretag. I do not think she answered anything regarding the analyses that have been submitted and which show that electrification will slow down when fossil fuels become cheaper. The member answered nothing to any of that.

I want to see the Swedish jobs here in Sweden, and I want to see the electrification. All those who have responded to the referral, however, say that this halts the electrification – which is nevertheless what the member says shall solve the problem. One is therefore conducting a policy that slows down what one wants while simultaneously increasing emissions.

I must also ask the member what I asked the Sverigedemokraterna about Dagens Nyheter's article. We were, in fact, standing here today and debating the biofuel blend. From the Moderaternas side, it is clear that it is not about climate considerations but about reducing the price, but in Dagens Nyheter today it says about the climate action plan and that a Swedish emissions trading system will be introduced which will increase the prices of the fossil fuel - that is to say, gasoline and diesel. The question therefore becomes: What is it that they want?

What is the answer to Scania and AB Volvo? What is the answer to the question of how we are to manage the electrification when one chooses to lower the price of fossil fuels? And what is the answer regarding wanting to introduce a Swedish emissions trading system that increases the prices that you are standing here and saying you want to lower?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are standing here debating the reduction obligation. The bill we are presenting and which we will vote on tomorrow means that the reduction obligation shall be lowered to the EU's minimum level, that is 6 percent, between 2024 and 2026 and that it shall then be reviewed how it should look between 2027 and 2030. That is what we are discussing right now. It is therefore the answer to the member's question.

When it comes to the other point the member highlighted, we see that a very large proportion of electric cars are being sold today. That shift is happening right now today. It is about having a policy that does not hit a certain group of people who are dependent on the car, not least in the countryside.

Once again, there must be an acceptance of the climate policy. If we do not have the people, Sweden's population, with us, no form of climate policy will work. One must start from the democratic situation, the democratic dialogue, how the voters have chosen to vote and what the voters want.

Lowering the reduction obligation is very clear according to what the voters want. We are now choosing to do it. It is what we have promised, and it is also what we are doing. The biofuels will not disappear just because we lower the reduction obligation to the EU's minimum level.

It is about Sweden being able to maintain good competitiveness so that our climate-smart products and innovations can reach out into the world and make a greater difference than they would have done just here at home. We must look up, see the holistic perspective, and take the climate issue seriously.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! When the Green Party and the Social Democrats were in government, we initiated a green industrial revolution with a strong social development throughout the country. We achieved the EU's lowest electricity prices through a massive expansion of Swedish electricity production so that Sweden is today the EU's largest net exporter of electricity, and we reached our climate goals for 2030.

I am deeply concerned when I hear Helena Storckenfeldt from Moderaterna. Helena Storckenfeldt claims here that we have different ways to reach the climate goals. But that is not at all how it is. When Miljöpartiet sat in the government, we had a policy that makes us reach the climate goals. Now we have a policy that makes us increase emissions so that we do not reach the goals. We do not have a debate about how. We have a debate about whether Sweden shall reach its climate goals.

Thus, we also have a debate on whether we should accept even more serious climate-related risks for the Swedish population. I choose to reduce emissions, reach the goals, and protect the population from climate-related risks. It is about seizing the opportunities for strengthened competitiveness, increased domestic biofuel production, and ensuring that we have a strengthened domestic crisis preparedness.

There are fantastic opportunities with the green transition. But the government's policy ensures that we increase emissions. When we entered government, we created the first climate policy action plan. At that time, the emissions gap to 2045, when we are to have net zero and come down all the way to net zero, was approximately 40 million tons.

With our climate policy action plan, we reduced the emissions gap to approximately 20 million tons. It is the same now. The government is of no use for the climate in the current situation.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet succeeded with low electricity prices because one had Ringhals 1 and 2 helping out at the time. Now we no longer have that luxury. It is something that we are focusing on building up again.

Today we have a shattered energy system that increases prices and increases emissions. Under the S and MP government, we saw the lowest growth in the entire EU, a shattered energy supply, increased emissions, and we were not on track to reach the 2045 goal.

There was a lost legitimacy for the climate policy. It was a catastrophic failure. What is it that makes Miljöpartiet believe that their proposals would work this time?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! We must remain objective in the debate. It is not possible to come and claim that we had increased emissions of greenhouse gases. When we were in government, we pursued a policy that led to us reaching the climate goals.

The Climate Policy Council clearly states that the Moderaterna government is the first in over two decades to increase greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden through political decisions. In the government's budget, it is stated in black and white regarding the consequences of increased emissions as a result of the government's policy.

When it comes to the electricity system, it is important to keep electricity and energy separate. We still have a large use of fossil energy within both the industrial and transport sectors. When it comes to the electricity system, we had the lowest electricity prices in Sweden as a result of a substantial expansion of renewable electricity production.

We can absolutely have an energy policy debate about what kind of electricity system we should have in the long term. But when it comes to the climate, the central thing is to ensure that we get an increased production of electricity by 2030 only during the coming years.

Energy efficiency measures, rapid expansion of renewable electricity production, and improved power allocation are required for the industry to be able to switch from fossil fuels to hydrogen through electrolysis. But the government has no answers on how to increase domestic electricity production in the short term now until 2030.

Time and again, people only highlight nuclear power. It is not the answer to the climate-related question. An energy policy debate about nuclear power can absolutely be held. But to solve the climate crisis, electricity is needed now in the near term.

Instead, the government opposes that which can deliver electricity in the near term. It is support for energy efficiency, better conditions for the rapid expansion of wind power, and improving the support for electricity production from solar. There we can truly do good, and above all, reform the power allocations. But the government does not solve that.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The Moderate-led government has approved more offshore wind power in just the first eight months in office than the S- and MP-government did over a period of eight years. It is very clear that we are not only talking about nuclear power. It is absolutely a favorite topic because there is such a clear contrast in that issue. Not only we but also the IPCC has stated that it is an important type of energy and that it will be needed.

What the previous government did was unacceptable. It was to prematurely shut down nuclear reactors in, among other places, my home county. It has caused problems, and among other things, it has increased emissions.

Those in Miljöpartiet are happy to speak warmly about taking climate responsibility. But at the same time, they do not take responsibility for their own budget. It is not even fully funded. They beat their chests because they spend so incredibly much money on the climate, but it is not funded. It is 220 billion kronor in deficit. There is nothing to be proud of.

It is not taking responsibility, especially not in this difficult economic situation. But unfortunately, it is the behavior to expect from the Green Party, who seem to believe that money grows on trees. We as Moderates do not have the luxury of believing that.

We believe in new technology and innovation, and we are hopeful that the climate transition will succeed. The way Miljöpartiet sometimes expresses itself makes me wonder what the responsibility actually looks like. As I see it, a prerequisite for being able to invest in the climate is that one takes economic responsibility.

How does Miljöpartiet intend to finance its proposals in the long term? How does one justify high requirements in the EU to its voters?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Vänsterpartiet moves for the rejection of the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas bill on reduced reduction obligation. This is reservation 1.

We also move for approval of our reservation 8, which means that the government shall return with an action plan to reduce the emission gap that arises from the current reduction levels being lowered.

Madam Speaker! There is much to say about the proposal to lower the reduction obligation. The climate crisis is here and now, with extreme weather such as prolonged droughts followed by heavy rains with major flooding. At the same time as emissions of climate-damaging greenhouse gases must be significantly reduced, Sweden has a government and a supporting party with a climate policy that is so harmful that it would have resulted in fewer emissions if they had done nothing at all.

Madam Speaker! The summer of 2023 was by far the warmest ever recorded in the world. Even the sea temperatures were at record levels. Immediate and powerful actions are required from all countries, including Sweden, to reduce emissions and limit the effects of a changed climate.

Sweden must accelerate the pace of the transition to reach the national climate goals by 2030 and fulfill its climate commitments within the EU by the same year. According to the Left Party, these goals must not be abandoned. Emissions from our transport must decrease significantly during the remaining years until 2030 for the goals to be reached.

The Climate Policy Council has previously stated that the announced sharp reduction of the reduction obligation is the single measure that has the absolute greatest negative impact on the possibilities of reaching the climate goals by 2030. This applies in particular to Sweden's interim target to reduce emissions from domestic transport by 70 percent by 2030. Furthermore, the possibilities for Sweden to meet its commitments towards the EU to reduce emissions by 2030 are worsened, which risks also having economic consequences.

An increased national production of renewable fuels would strengthen Sweden's self-sufficiency regarding fuels during a transition period before the electrification of the transport sector is completed. Vänsterpartiet considers the reduction obligation to be one of several necessary measures for this to be possible. A drastic reduction of the reduction obligation according to the government's proposal is, in our opinion, not compatible with reaching the established goals.

We are, however, critical of the overly one-sided focus on the reduction obligation as the sole steering measure to achieve a fossil-independent transport sector by 2030 that the previous Social Democratic and Green Party government had. The previous government put all their eggs in one basket to an excessive extent. Instead of fundamentally steering Sweden's transport system towards sustainable transport and creating a more transport-efficient society also through other measures and steering mechanisms, they chose to rely on a reduction obligation with very high reduction levels until 2030 without having a clear understanding of the future availability of sustainable fuels in the reduction obligation at reasonable prices during the period.

It is not sustainable that Sweden has to such a large extent based its climate policy on a high proportion of biofuels which presupposes the production of raw materials in other countries.

Madam Speaker! The Left Party has for a long time proposed a number of measures and investments to reduce emissions by favoring sustainable modes of transport and increasing the electrification of road traffic. These measures for a more transport-efficient society reduce emissions sustainably and simultaneously reduce the need for bio-based raw materials for the reduction obligation.

There are a number of measures that are possible to implement within a relatively short period of time and which should be prioritized.

Vänsterpartiet has proposed a common Sweden ticket that should cost 450 kronor a month for all regional public transport in all of Sweden.

We want to introduce an annual state support to public transport of 5 billion kronor in order to be able to expand public transport and also invest in new vehicles.

We want to introduce targeted support for electric cars and a reformed climate bonus, so that it can be utilized to a greater extent by those with lower incomes.

We need to increase the pace of the electrification of road traffic. A more intensive expansion of charging infrastructure and infrastructure for hydrogen is needed.

Within Klimatklivet, support is provided for public charging infrastructure and charging of heavy vehicles. In addition to electrification, Klimatklivet also provides support for the transition of the transport sector with new fuels such as green hydrogen, e-fuels, and sustainable fuels. Besides reducing emissions, this strengthens our national supply and self-sufficiency of fuels. Therefore, we have proposed that Klimatklivet be expanded to 7 billion per year and extended until 2030.

We also want to introduce a new mode-of-transport-neutral travel deduction that benefits both public transport and those who live in rural areas and do not have the possibility to travel by public transport but are forced to have a car in order to be able to get to work and business.

We want to introduce a conversion premium for used cars in order to be able to transition from gasoline and diesel to operation with renewable fuels. We believe that a ban should be introduced on the sale of new cars powered by fossil fuels after 2025.

We need to strengthen the state support for the urban environment agreements in order to achieve an increased share of passenger transport by public transport or bicycle traffic. The municipalities and regions that are granted urban agreements should be obligated to work towards reduced car traffic.

We want to introduce a distance-based tax on heavy trucks with differentiation based on climate and environmental impact.

Madam Speaker! We also need to introduce a goal-oriented infrastructure and operations where the climate goals are paramount and constitute the governing principle for the infrastructure of the future.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now it is 2023. Last year was 2022. Then there was an election, and in the election campaign, the parties say different things. I listened to P1. On February 4, Nooshi Dadgostar was interviewed, and she spoke about precisely the reduction obligation and about wanting to lower the intervention levels. This affects people with small economic margins, said Nooshi Dadgostar. Then the Left Party had a congress, and there Nooshi Dadgostar said roughly the same thing.

Fredholm's party leader also gave an interview with Dagens industri, where she said that Vänsterpartiet wants the government to proceed with significantly lowering the reduction obligation. She also said that the reduction obligation does not contribute to a sustainable transition and that there is no control over how sustainable this is.

The Left Party said before the election that one should care about people with small economic margins and that the reduction obligation should be lowered significantly. Now that we are doing what the Left Party wanted before the election, the Left Party is against this.

Why did the Left Party say one thing before the election and something else now after the election? People with small economic margins were important before the election, but now after the election, it is electric car bonuses and other things that the money should be spent on. How is that?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! If Martin Kinnunen listened to my speech, he could hear me explain that we have seen problems with high levels of blending of biofuels, and we have also stated that previously.

I therefore do not know how much we have changed our minds now, but we are in any case completely certain that we think 6 percent is far too low. On the other hand, we have not agreed that the previous high levels have been sustainable.

So, we are in agreement there.

We want to increase the proportion of Swedish-produced national biofuels, and it is true that they need to be used where they do the most good. In my speech, I listed a long series of proposals on what we want to do to streamline the transport sector, and several of those proposals would also benefit low-income earners and those who live in rural areas. Then we also have an economic policy where we contribute to making life easier for households with lower incomes.

After hearing Martin Kinnunen here in the debate, I am curious about what other measures one wants to take to compensate for this reduction in the reduction obligation. Emissions do need to be lowered for the transport sector to reach its goals. Does one want to, for example, invest in railways or public transport, or what does one want? It would be very interesting to hear.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! What we will do tomorrow is vote on this bill. One can vote yes to it, and then the reduction obligation is lowered significantly, as Nooshi Dadgostar wanted to do during the election campaign. One can also vote no, and then the reduction obligation is raised from 30 percent to 40 percent – a significant increase, a significant decrease.

To me, it sounds more like Vänsterpartiet promised a significant reduction of the reduction obligation, because that was exactly what Nooshi Dadgostar said.

Nooshi Dadgostar also spoke about a price cap on gasoline and diesel. It was to be 18 kronor. But in the Left Party's follow-up motion, one finds nothing about these proposals for lowered fuel prices. One does not even find any writing about the fact that the reduction obligation must be lowered significantly. On the other hand, one finds a motion that one should say no to the Sweden Democrats' and the government's proposals to do exactly what Nooshi Dadgostar wanted to do before the election.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! We agreed to a temporary reduction in prices for three months because it was a very difficult situation for households. The reduction was temporary, so it no longer applies. It ceased to apply last autumn, I can inform Martin Kinnunen now.

I still have not received any answer on how you intend to compensate for the fact that emissions will increase by over 50 percent within the transport sector next year, which they will do with your policy. I would like to know how you intend to streamline the transport sector.

I asked earlier if you want to invest in more public transport. Do you want a changed travel deduction? Do you want to compensate low-income earners who live in the countryside and also in other places in a way that does not involve increasing fossil emissions? I would very much like to know that.

It was a bit cheeky to ask the question that way, but I asked it rhetorically. We will have to return to it in another exchange of remarks.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! "The review shows, however, that the current design of the reduction obligation is not feasible."

"The government's calculations were non-transparent and gave an incomplete picture of how the reduction obligation could affect fuel prices."

In October a year ago, a liter of diesel cost 28 kronor and 52 öre.

The two quotes are taken from the Swedish National Audit Office's report *Reduktionsplikten - risker för genomförande och effektivitet* which was released during the summer, and these three initial arguments are certainly good enough to make a change to the reduction obligation. The idea behind a reduction obligation is good in itself, but putting too many eggs in the same basket when it turns out that the bottom of the basket does not hold is not a good idea. Even if the idea is good, it does not help; it must also be correct.

Let me quote from Dagens industri: "But there are limits to how much our green PR may cost. A green conscience, for example, will play less of a role for the southern Swedish haulage contractor who risks bankruptcy because Danish competitors tank significantly cheaper."

I have now, during my first minute and twenty-two seconds of the speech, mentioned several parts that were absolutely not right, at least not from a Christian Democratic point of view. Therefore, we decided to redo it and do it right. Decisions had been made on incorrect and unclear grounds. The National Audit Office points out in its report that it was deficient consequence analyses that formed the basis for the then-government's proposition.

The Swedish National Audit Office also agrees with my analysis regarding the eggs in the basket, even if they phrase the words somewhat differently. They write that there are "significant risks in relying to such a high extent on the reduction obligation to achieve Sweden's climate policy goals."

Furthermore, we can read in the review that "in order for the reduction obligation to be effective, it should contribute to achieving the climate goals at reasonable costs and with reasonable consequences for society."

Connected to this, in the bill we can read the following: "In the 2019 control station, which forms the basis for the requirements in current legislation, the reduction levels were however not designed with sufficient consideration taken to the rapid increase of electric cars in new car sales and the effects of other conceivable instruments, or to the socio-economic consequences of that the proposed reduction levels were expected to give significantly higher prices on fuels in Sweden compared with other countries and thereby affect the availability and the business sector's competitiveness. The proposal was not designed in a way that contributed to popular acceptance for the climate policy."

Madam Speaker! I believe everyone in this chamber knows that if you want to take the people with you, it is absolutely crucial that you do not punish them if they follow the path that the Riksdag and the government point out. We often speak of how the transition must be sustainable in three aspects: ecologically, economically, and socially. That is not the case with the reduction obligation as it was designed, but for several parties, it seems not to matter.

In the scenario regarding emissions from domestic transport, where the reduction levels were calculated based on, it was not assumed that any additional policy measures would be introduced for increased electrification, more energy-efficient vehicles, or increased transport efficiency that could be more cost-effective measures. It was assumed that the electrification of the vehicle fleet would develop very slowly. For example, the proportion of electric cars in new car sales was ten times higher in 2021 than what was assumed in the scenario that formed the basis for the reduction levels.

To immediately meet the counterarguments regarding the government removing the climate bonus and, according to some, therefore being behind the decline in new car sales, the cost of owning and driving a rechargeable car is becoming more comparable with the cost of owning and driving a gasoline or diesel car. A state market introduction support is therefore no longer justified. This was what the government said upon the removal of the climate bonus. Even the Swedish National Audit Office was critical in its report on the climate bonus.

Now, fewer newly registered cars are generally being sold, but there the economic situation certainly plays a significant role. Of the new cars that are still being sold, despite poorer times with inflation and higher interest rates, rechargeable cars account for just over 50 percent of those sold during the spring. Of these, 35 percent were pure electric cars.

Madam Speaker! Many of my neighbors in the Värmland countryside have not been kind regarding the reduction obligation and fuel prices. Swedish agriculture is and will in the medium term be dependent on the diesel price for its competitiveness, and several other goals for sustainable development are dependent on a business sector with good competitive conditions.

According to the government, all of Sweden must be given the conditions to function, to travel to work, travel with family, and so on. It is completely fundamental. The government believes that the reduction levels should be lowered to facilitate for households and to maintain the competitiveness of Swedish companies. Unfortunately, companies have already been shut down when diesel prices became too high. One of them whom I have spoken with and who does not live so far from me was, of course, extremely distressed at having to shut down his haulage operation. He became even sadder when he saw that his transports were taken over by trucks from Eastern Europe.

We must give our Swedish companies the opportunity to compete on equal terms as others in Europe. The world does not become better by us shooting ourselves in the foot out of our own goodness.

The proposal for reduction levels of 6 percent for petrol and diesel 2024-2026 would mean that the levels are lowered by 1.8 percentage points for petrol and by 24 ½ percentage points for diesel compared to the reduction levels that apply this year.

What consequences does the reduction have on the price? The reduction and the new lower level shall apply during the mandate period, and it means that it could be approximately 5.50 cheaper per liter of diesel, including VAT, to refuel as early as 2024 compared to if the reduction obligation had been maintained at the current decided level. For 2025 and 2026, the diesel price could be over 6 and 7 kronor lower respectively compared to if we had done nothing. However, those figures are uncertain, but they are the figures available.

Madam Speaker! The Government considers that the previously decided reduction levels for 2027-2030 should be scrapped pending a renewed analysis in which other socio-economically effective policy instruments are also considered. As I said in my introduction, with current legislation, disproportionately great weight is placed on the reduction obligation contributing to reaching the interim goal for domestic transport without taking sufficient account of the consequences for other societal goals. The high levels would thus lead to unreasonably high costs for households and businesses with a risk of serious impact on Swedish companies' competitiveness and hit the countryside and the green industries very hard. Those who, therefore, would largely provide the raw materials for the high reduction obligation levels would have been penalized before they could begin delivering in any significant extent because the agrarian industries are being penalized already here and now. It is, Madam Speaker, not sustainable from any point of view.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report and against all reservations.

(Applause)

In this speech, Magnus Jacobsson (KD) agreed.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! We heard here in the speech about deficient impact assessments and about not putting all eggs in one basket.

Now, the situation is that the government's bill contains hardly any impact assessments at all, which has also been pointed out by referral bodies. The only answer we hear from the government on the question of how to lower emissions is electrification. I think the member should consider removing the beam from his own eye before he starts criticizing others.

The National Audit Office is quite rightly critical of the cost-effectiveness of a number of measures, and that is because they are comparing it with raising the carbon tax, that is, the tax on gasoline and diesel, the same tax that the government is lowering. If one looks at the cost-effectiveness otherwise, the reduction obligation is the second most cost-effective, and the third most effective is to have environmental car premiums. What is among the least cost-effective is to only invest in charging stations. There are simply no cars to charge if they haven't been gotten out onto the market. Cost-effectiveness is, therefore, something this government has problems with.

When the government increases sales by approximately 4 million liters of fossil diesel per day, emissions also increase radically. The EU has binding climate goals that include transport, agriculture, and forestry. Can Kjell-Arne Ottosson guarantee that the increased emissions that the government now deliberately stands for in its own budget will not burden the green industries in reduced food production and reduced logging? If so: How?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Just as Rickard Nordin was pointing out, we must take the beam out of our own eye.

We, just like the Centre Party, stood behind the reduction obligation when it was adopted. We did that because we, to some extent, believed in what was written in the documents we received, what was written in the bill.

Since then, it has shown that it was not sustainable. The National Audit Office says that the current design of the reduction obligation is not feasible. Therefore, changes must be made so that it becomes feasible. The challenge is when all the eggs - in any case many of them - have been put in the same basket. Then it turns out that the bottom of the basket does not hold and that all the eggs fall out. What do you do then?

What would the Center Party have done if this had continued and it had turned out that it was no longer possible? In what way would the Center Party then have acted? Then we would have come even closer to 2030.

Yes, there are goals to strive for. I believe that Rickard Nordin and the undersigned have exactly the same view on agriculture and forestry. I do not think there is any difference in our view on this, rather we see how incredibly crucial it is for Sweden, for Swedish residents, for Swedish forest owners and farmers that there are green industries that function and are competitive worthy of the name. We can ensure that they can continue. The problem is that with the high fuel prices, we are punishing them out, and that helps no one.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It would have been good if Kjell-Arne Ottosson had read the continuation of why it is said that the current design is not possible. It is because the fuel quality requirements state that there should be a maximum of 50 percent blending.

Then one can read the proposals that C has put forward. We have said that we maintain the current blending, and then we increase the sale of high-blend biofuels instead. It works perfectly well. It is an excellent alternative for the government, and it can lower the tax on the renewable fuels. We have shown that one can lower the cost at the pump by 4 kronor. We have acted - exactly what Kjell-Arne Ottosson called for.

What I do not hear from Kjell-Arne, however, are any guarantees. He says that he protects agriculture and forestry. Yes, absolutely! We both do. But when the EU has binding climate targets for transport and green industries combined, and the government chooses to increase emissions in the transport sector, then someone else must pay. Electrification is not enough. Not even if all passenger cars were electrified starting tomorrow would they be enough to reach the targets. There are no emission allowances to buy from other countries. That path is also closed.

What is the government going to do? I asked to receive guarantees from Kjell-Arne Ottosson that production reductions in agriculture and forestry will not be forced. I would like to hear Kjell-Arne Ottosson say that. Right now, it is the only way for the government to meet the emission targets if we are not to pay billion-dollar fines. It would also have been valuable to hear, as some such money does not exist in the government's budget.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Rickard Nordin has high thoughts about the undersigned, it seems. However, I do not sit in any government, even though my party does. I cannot say exactly what the government is doing. Rickard Nordin knows that very well.

But there is no doubt that the Christian Democrats' path is very clear. Swedish agriculture and Swedish forestry must absolutely be protected. It is absolutely crucial for us to manage to produce our own goods as far as it is possible.

The Committee on Environment and Agriculture visited the Baltics at the turn of August/September. There are countries there that have truly been caught out in a winter night before. They were very clear that the goal was that as much as possible of what could be produced within the country's borders should be produced within the country's borders. It is completely the right way to go, and that is the way I also want to go.

What concerns me instead is whether Rickard Nordin holds the same view on self-sufficiency but chooses to take the position of the Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet. They clearly want to be involved in dismantling Swedish sustainable forestry and do everything they can so that the EU will take even greater measures regarding Swedish forestry. They cheer when proposals come from the EU that want to destroy Swedish rural industries. That concerns me.

It is just like this, exactly as we have heard earlier: Regarding ESR, all countries are struggling. Regarding LULUCF, all countries are struggling - except possibly Finland, which had a good starting position and managed to negotiate well. Otherwise, all countries are struggling there. That shows that a very large number have a way to go, and then we must find solutions that actually work. Unfortunately, the reduction obligation was not a solution with such high levels of involvement.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats' party leader usually says that she has succeeded in bringing ESR and other agreements to port, so if it is such that one is struggling, one must well turn to one's party leader and ask how to solve it.

Madam Speaker! I also intended to touch upon a bit of what Member Rickard Nordin began with regarding the referral bodies that have responded to the bill.

LRF writes as follows: "In the memorandum, an analysis is missing regarding how a lowered reduction obligation affects agriculture and forestry. LRF considers that the proposal risks leading to production-inhibiting measures, obstacles to green transition and/or erratic rules for agriculture and forestry companies."

The forest industries write as follows: "We nevertheless request again that the design of the reduction obligation better balances related political goals based on a solid impact assessment."

The Swedish Forest Agency writes that they "consider that analyses and considerations of other measures that are socio-economically effective instruments should precede the proposed changes."

Södra Skogsägarna writes as follows: "The reduction obligation is a good steering tool to reduce total emissions from transport."

What the Riksrevisionen wrote in its report was that the consequence analyses were too poor. But now we have received a new proposition that has no consequence analyses. I must ask if the member does not think it is a weakness that the proposal does not speak about the consequences it may have for agriculture and forestry or that the consequences it may have are that we are to pay very expensive emission rights or fines to the EU.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if the member was busy preparing their reply and did not quite hear what I said regarding ESR. I said that what we know now is that it is actually all countries struggling with ESR. It is not just the Christian Democrats who are struggling with ESR. That is how it sounded to Anna-Caren Sätherberg because she said that I should go to my party leader. It is actually all countries of the 27 that are struggling with it.

Regarding the referral bodies, one must of course listen to and incorporate what they say. Then one has a direction that one wishes to go in, but one must take in good input.

As I was pointing out, it is very clear that it was not done when the reduction obligation was introduced. It clearly states in the National Audit Office's report that it was based on deficient impact assessments.

It is an even greater risk when we are to develop that which truly helps us reach the goal. If it then turns out that it was not this, we have really put ourselves on the edge. It would have been interesting to hear Anna-Caren Sätherberg answer. If we had proceeded with the reduction obligation and within some year it turned out that no, it is no longer possible - in what way would we act then? Then we have even less time to act.

I do not know if Member Sätherberg was at IVA yesterday and listened to the lecture there. They were very clear about the technology and technological development. We see a rapid technological development in these issues. Does Anna-Caren Sätherberg see that technology can be involved and help us, or is it only the reduction obligation that can help us?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! You are looking at an industrial socialist, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, and we are the concrete party. We definitely do not believe that industry is basically gone, but we believe in new technology. We invest in it. We started together with Miljöpartiet Industriklivet and Klimatklivet - all of which is now pressing down emissions while simultaneously creating jobs across the entire country. The answer to that question is therefore yes, of course I embrace new technology.

But that is not the question here. Here, one is not promoting biofuels. One says that one does this here to lower prices at the pump, but I read DN. I don't seem to get any answer to that today. Dagens Nyheter says in an article that the new climate action plan contains a Swedish emissions trading system which would naturally increase the price of diesel and gasoline.

Madam Speaker! It is impossible to understand what the SD government actually wants. Is it only the biofuels and the development of that industry that one wants to stop?

With one hand, one wants to remove the reduction obligation. With the other hand, one should have a Swedish emissions trading system. Should we have nothing? Then we will have to pay billions in fines to the EU or try to buy emissions trading allowances.

If we don't get that, then it is forestry and agriculture that must bear it. That was why the Environmental Goals Secretariat once upon a time was in agreement that now we must take it on the transports - because agriculture needs more time, and we need our forest production and the revenues it provides.

Madam Speaker! The question is really what the SD government wants.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by informing Anna-Caren Sätherberg that it is the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna who sit in Sweden's government.

It is good that Anna-Caren Sätherberg embraces new technology, because I believe that is exactly what will be what helps us through this. It is new technology.

It is incredibly important there that Sweden is a pioneer when it comes to new technology and expertise, because it is when we export it that we can truly be part of making a big change. When we get the large emitting countries to follow suit, we make a real difference.

Then there is no doubt that biofuels are one of the solutions. But it is not the solution in the singular, but it is one of the solutions. We see now how, for example, Toyota says that the electric motor is already dead. They have moved on - they are into ammonia-driven engines and are seeing if that is what will help. We also see Swedish companies that are into the same line of thinking with Volvo and Scania. Biofuel is important, absolutely, but it is not the solution in the singular.

We can, for example, look at large ships and what my colleague Helena Storckenfeldt was touching upon earlier. Apparently, there were more than just me who were on Flightradar24 yesterday and followed Virgin Atlantic's flight from Gatwick in London to JFK in New York to see the first fossil-free flight. Or it was slightly wrong – it actually wasn't the first, but it was the first with such a large plane that crossed the Atlantic. So, there is no doubt that it will be needed.

The EU adopted targets for aviation quotas not so long ago. By 2050, it should be at least 70 percent, so biofuels are naturally needed. This shall be done, among other things, with residues from the Swedish forest. But then we must be allowed to use the Swedish forest. That is what I am more concerned about when the Social Democrats join a government with the Green Party and potentially the Left Party. What will happen then?

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! There is so incredibly much to address here. I will try to manage to get to everything.

To begin with: Just because there are other sectors where there will be a demand for biofuels does not justify that one is now lowering the reduction obligation and significantly increasing greenhouse gas emissions. In that case, the Christian Democrats, the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Sweden Democrats must return to the Riksdag with their own policy on how to reduce emissions in the transport sector.

It is as several previous speakers here have mentioned: If we do not manage the transition in the transport sector, we will not reach the ESR goals, and then it will result in very high costs for the state budget. Alternatively, agriculture and forestry will have to take the hit.

Miljöpartiet has a policy to increase domestic food production, strengthen Swedish agriculture and create more business opportunities for Swedish agriculture, among other things through increased biofuel production.

Miljöpartiet also has a policy to develop Swedish forestry with more business opportunities, so that one will receive credit for the biodiversity and the increased carbon sequestration in the forest, and for more multi-use so that we also get an increased moose population and better opportunities for hunting.

But by increasing emissions, the Christian Democrats are now putting both agriculture and forestry into uncertainty. Are they going to make up for the government's climate failures?

Kjell-Arne Ottosson previously mentioned that the transition must be sustainable - ecologically, socially and economically. That is very true; I agree. The entire societal development needs to be sustainable. But I can guarantee the member that we will not get any sustainable development, whether economically, ecologically or socially, if we increase emissions and worsen the climate crisis.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! There is no doubt that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions even more than we have done. That is simply the case. We must do it in order to meet the climate goals. On that, we are in complete agreement.

Regarding own policy, as Elin Söderberg requests, a climate action plan is well on its way to being presented here in the Riksdag. New policy will be presented there. This is only a starting point to then continue and carry this forward.

We see that in the climate area, technical innovations are coming in rapid succession – new inventions are appearing time and again. Here, the challenge is rather to see what we actually should invest in.

As I said earlier - putting far too many eggs in the same basket when the bottom of the basket turns out not to hold does not work. We must have solutions that actually work for real. This is extremely crucial. Otherwise, we could be placed in an even more difficult situation.

Elin Söderberg spoke about domestic food production and Swedish forestry. It may have emerged in my previous exchanges that if there is something I am concerned about, it is that Miljöpartiet would once again get their hands on the wheel in Sweden's government. I am extremely concerned about what would then happen to domestic food production and Swedish forestry. We see how, from Miljöpartiet's side, they truly applaud all proposals coming from the EU Commission, where they try to get their claws into Swedish forestry. We see how, in their own proposals here in Sweden, they try to put spokes in the wheels of Swedish food production and Swedish forestry. This is very serious, Madam Speaker, if we are to keep the green industries in Sweden.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not that all the eggs were laid in one basket. When Miljöpartiet sat in government, we put many eggs in many baskets. Already from the FFF investigation during the Alliance period, it was clearly stated that in order to transition the transport sector, we need to both streamline transport, replace the vehicles through for example electrification, and replace the fossil fuels in the existing vehicle fleet.

The reduction obligation aimed to increase the transition in the existing vehicle fleet. But we also had an electric car bonus to electrify the transport sector, charging infrastructure support with one hundred percent subsidies for charging infrastructure in rural areas and in sparsely populated areas, and several measures for more efficient transport. There were urban environment agreements and a reformed travel deduction - the list can be made incredibly long. There were very many baskets to achieve the entire transport sector's climate transition.

The government is scrapping the reduction obligation with this decision. But it does not stop there. Almost every single basket has been removed. They have reformed the travel deduction so that it favors fossil fuel motoring and disadvantages rural areas and the countryside. They have removed the electric car bonus. They are lowering the petrol tax.

The effect of this is also that one worsens the conditions for electrification – which is what the government claims it wants to do. It is quite simple. If we are to transition the transport sector, the renewable must be cheaper than the fossil. But what the government is effectively doing now is making the fossil cheaper than the renewable. Thus, one locks the entire Swedish population and all businesses into fossil dependency and dependency on imports from oil countries with volatile oil prices. This is extremely serious, for the climate but also for the entire societal development.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Elin Söderberg mentions import dependency. Is there any area where we have truly been import-dependent, it is when it comes to biofuels. Sweden ranked a good second in terms of net imports; it was only Canada that imported more. Sweden came in second. We vacuumed the world of not least slaughter remains, which have been turned into biofuel. We should have had a domestic production from the beginning instead – then it would have been something else. But when we are also dependent on imports there, we make it very difficult for ourselves.

Just as I said, however, biofuel is one part; electrification is another. That is why we are investing in expanding the charging infrastructure. That is why we are investing in new market introduction support for light trucks and similar new support for heavy trucks, for example. We must get this into the market.

But as I mentioned, Toyota's CEO says that the electric motor is dead. Perhaps the development is moving even faster so that something else will soon turn out to be the solution. We must be open to this so that we are truly in the game and ensure that we position ourselves correctly for the solutions that come and do not lock ourselves into biofuels, which I perceive that people have done. It is said that it is only and exclusively biofuels that will save the world, but that is not the case. It is part of the solution. But again – it is not the only solution. We must be able to agree on that.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! The Riksdag will soon make a decision to increase the use of fossil diesel in Sweden by 4 million liters of diesel - per day. It overturns the long-term perspective for the transition that has existed, the long-term perspective that the business community so eagerly demands in order to be able to make their investments. Almost all referral bodies are critical of the government's proposal and criticize the lack of impact assessments.

I know that this government, which is governed by SD even though they are not in it, takes my words lightly, so I thought instead to ask them to listen to their own words.

Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari describes the emissions of 5.8 million tons from the Nord Stream sabotage as "a climate sabotage that causes great damage to our planet." These are, therefore, emissions that are less than those that the government itself causes completely deliberately.

Or take Daniel Westlén, currently State Secretary to the Minister for Climate and Environment. He has said this: "The reduction obligation is our tool to reach the climate goals in the transport sector. The alternative is prohibition and rationing or abandoning the climate goals. I hear no one arguing for that, only against the reduction obligation."

Or take for that part the Moderate Jessica Rosencrantz, who was the environmental policy spokesperson until the election. She has said: It is good that the requirements for the inclusion of biofuels in our cars are increasing. It is important for the transition and something the Moderates have demanded for a long time. But it is unclear why it has taken the government over a year to reach the same levels that the authority proposed, so that the increase is postponed by half a year. Today, 85 percent of our biofuels are imported. Now we need to get a domestic production of sustainable biofuels started.

What happened next, then? Well, Russia invaded Ukraine, and prices rose. After such a Russian action, it is natural to think that we should reduce the dependence on goods imported from countries like Russia, which is a major oil nation. That SD, with its history of Russian infiltration in the Riksdag and its inability to choose between Putin and Biden, chooses to serve Russia's interests is hardly surprising. But that the colleagues in M, L, and KD do so surprises me even more, especially considering the previous statements.

That fuel prices increase in times of uncertainty is known. A good way to tackle this would have been to lower the tax on renewable fuels, where we are less import-dependent than we are regarding fossil fuels. When it comes to fossil fuels, we are 100 percent import-dependent, and I would rather import offal from Germany than fossil oil and gas from Russia.

One can, therefore, lower the price and the tax on the renewable parts, preferably in combination with the investments in renewable fuels that Centerpartiet has long requested and which the Moderaterna also actually highlight. But the Bioeconomy Inquiry's partial report, which arrived already this spring, is still lying on the government's desk and gathering dust. It has not even been referred.

Instead, they are now lowering the tax on fossil fuels, spread out over the entire country so that it only leads to a few cents. The majority of the money ends up in metropolitan areas where there is ten-minute public transport. The same thing is now also happening with the reduction obligation.

The problem is that this will hit straight in the heart of the countryside and against the green industries. Sweden has tough climate goals that seven of eight parties stand behind, but the EU also has tough climate goals, and there emissions must be reduced in the transport sector and the green industries combined. If that is not done in the transport sector, it is agriculture and forestry that are affected.

I asked for guarantees from the Christian Democrats that they would not do anything to reduce food production or to log less in the forest, but there were no guarantees that could be put forward. The rhetoric that they have vacuumed the world market of biofuels is strange. If Kjell-Arne Ottsson's vacuum cleaner at home only picks up 1.6 percent of the dust, I think he should replace it. In the same way, one should replace their rhetoric and their policy.

It is also about the basic knowledge in economics and business economics regarding supply and demand. We have heard it said several times here today: Yes, but this will be used somewhere else. But if demand is reduced, supply will not increase either, and then it becomes even harder to achieve self-sufficiency.

People have talked about self-sufficiency when it comes to food. But what happens with self-sufficiency when it comes to fuels? Agriculture's machines will stop after one or two weeks because there are no fuels in a crisis or war situation. There is so much rhetoric in this debate that is poorly substantiated and not based on facts. That would need to change.

Even if all new cars sold from tomorrow onwards were electrified, it would not be enough to reach the climate goals. The government's talk about electrification is simply not enough.

When one now turns their back on the renewable fuels - they do work in today's engines - only two paths actually remain: reduced logging in the forest and reduced food production or possibly, as State Secretary Westlén described it, rationing and bans. But even if the government now wants to investigate and perhaps scrap the Swedish climate goals, the EU goals are binding. If we do not live up to them, there will be hefty fines, and that is paying money completely unnecessarily. It does not strengthen Swedish competitiveness, and it will cost Swedish taxpayers considerable sums.

The government also speaks many times about an effective climate policy. The question is what is effective other than increasing emissions. When one looks at what is effective when it comes to reducing emissions from transport, both the National Audit Office, the National Institute of Economic Research, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Energy Agency have said that the most effective thing is to raise the cost of fossil fuels. The government is lowering it now. The second most effective according to the National Audit Office's report on the reduction obligation is precisely the reduction obligation. The government is lowering it now. The third most effective according to the National Audit Office's report is investments in electrification in the form of environmental car bonuses. And the government has removed the environmental car bonus.

Investing in charging stations doesn't really help when we see how electric car sales to private individuals have completely bottomed out. In that case, more charging stations are not needed, and furthermore, one mostly charges at home – everyone who has an electric car knows that. That makes it a bit difficult, because without electric cars, you will not be able to lower emissions.

And if one talks about Toyota's ammonia engines, I think one is getting quite lost. If not, the ammonia should also be renewable in that case. There, one is once again held accountable because one is not making any investments in renewable fuels.

Point by point, the government's policy is condemned by research and science, the same science that the Tidö Agreement says one should follow. It simply is not sufficient!

Let me summarize. The only thing the government does effectively is to increase emissions. They are taking out a promissory note for future governments and taxpayers to pay with interest. The Climate Act is clear: the government shall conduct a climate policy work that is more focused on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But this government is going in the opposite direction.

We could have instead done as the Center Party wants and focused on refueling Swedish and investing in the renewable fuels. That is exactly what we propose in reservation 3, which I want to move for approval. Then we could have lowered the price at the pump. We could have lowered the emissions. We could have created tens of thousands of jobs, but the government does not seem to be interested in that.

This and many other decisions go in a completely opposite direction. To quote the Minister for Climate once again: It is a climate sabotage that creates great damage to our planet.

The government refers all the time to the fact that the climate action plan is to be ready before the turn of the year, but nothing indicates that they will have a chance to make up for the emissions that are actually increasing.

I do not believe that one will introduce either bans or rationing. Possibly, one will abandon the climate goals.

Finally: the Centre Party conducts a policy that makes a difference, which is anchored in research that lowers both emissions and costs for the citizens, which strengthens our security policy position and creates jobs. Such a policy should be pursued by every party that calls itself conservative.

Prove it now, the government! Deliver in the climate action plan! Otherwise, we will move a motion of no confidence as surely as Putin laughs all the way to the bank at the SD-led policy.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall reach the climate goals. Emissions must be eliminated, and climate change must be stopped. And the climate transition can only succeed when it is carried out by free people in a growing economy.

Access to fossil-free energy is the foundation of the climate transition. We need both solar energy, wind power, and nuclear power on a large scale, and we need electrification.

The historical experience of managing environmental problems shows that the transition will only succeed if it is made in an economy that is growing. It is free people in prosperous economies who solve environmental problems, and growth is fundamentally about smarter solutions.

This is also the core of the climate work. The transition requires reliable access to fossil-free energy. That is where the great weakness lies in Swedish climate policy. Therefore, nuclear power is absolutely crucial. Therefore, the decision we made earlier in the chamber today is very important. Therefore, one cannot leave nuclear power out of the debate we are having here tonight.

Another important factor in this context is that the climate policy we are implementing has broad support among the general public, even among people with small economic margins. For it is actually each and every one of us here and across the country who share responsibility for this.

For the transition to take place, the prerequisites must be in place. A transition that must involve the entire society and that is to proceed over decades must have broad support. The measures and steering mechanisms must be perceived as sensible and well-considered by the vast majority. The changes must occur in a controlled manner. They must not turn everyday life upside down for people or drive fundamentally sound companies toward ruin.

Madam Speaker! We have a reality outside this chamber to deal with. At the same time as we meet the climate crisis with powerful means, we have a difficult economic situation to take into account, a situation that makes it difficult for many to make ends meet.

Part of this is obviously the high fuel prices. People are struggling to put food on the table, and they cannot afford to drive their children to school or to extracurricular activities. It is a reality that we now choose to address. That it generates increased emissions is regrettable, but the effort is so that household finances can balance and so that people can make their reality work. And it is not at the expense of people who need to make their reality work that one can conduct a truly long-term climate policy that is sustainable. Therefore, we present this decision now.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! My question is quite simple. I have tried to get an answer to it from three other parties, but I think the member can certainly answer the question that I have.

We are discussing today the issue of significantly lowering the biofuel blend. The biofuel blend increases Sweden's self-sufficiency and creates many new Swedish jobs. Swedish forest residues are used. And this means that we have opportunities to reach the goals and that we perhaps do not need to pay emission rights and fines to other countries.

But, Madam Speaker, today we can read in Dagens Nyheter about the new climate action plan, which Dagens Nyheter has obtained. We in the Swedish Riksdag do not have it. The media, however, do.

In this, Madam Speaker, it clearly states that there is a desire to introduce a Swedish emissions trading system. The emissions trading system would increase the price of diesel and gasoline. The reason we are standing here today is that the government wants to lower the reduction obligation.

Madam Speaker! My simple question is: How are we to interpret the government in this matter? Today, it is said that one wants to lower the price of petrol and diesel. But when we read Dagens Nyheter's article about the new climate action plan, we see that one wants to increase the price of petrol and diesel. My question is: What does the government want?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! Yes, what does the government actually want? We want to reduce emissions. We want to find long-term solutions. We have high ambitions. And we have, just as Member Storckenfeldt said earlier, properly changed course. We want to increase fossil-free energy production. We are therefore moving forward with building more nuclear power.

Regarding the information in the media, I can neither deny nor confirm it. There is no actual proposal yet to take a position on. I have not received the news. Furthermore, one should be a bit cautious with what one reads in the media that is not confirmed. I have no idea whether it is true or not. It remains to be seen.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, member, for at least trying to answer the question that the other three parties did not want to answer!

The Speaker said in his speech here that one is introducing powerful means to meet the climate crisis. The only thing we see is that emissions are increasing. What are the powerful means?

Madam Speaker! I also wonder if the member can report on the consequences that this proposal has on forestry and agriculture, given that it is emissions in the transport sector we are talking about. I also wonder about the consequences that Saab, AB Volvo and others warn about: When we lower the price of fossil fuels, the pace of electrification decreases, and then they sell fewer cars. They have invested so much in electrification.

I would like to have some short comments on Saab's and AB Volvo's referral responses to the government. This view was also shared by Trafikanalys, Trafikverket, and Transportstyrelsen. This will slow down the electrification.

And what powerful means to meet the climate crisis is the member describing? We only see that emissions are increasing.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I share the view that it is problematic that emissions are increasing. That is why we want to take powerful measures. Electrification is an important step in this, but it is also about the entire green transition, about industrialization and about creating new jobs so that people get better off, so that they can make better decisions and so that they can buy an electric car. In that regard, nuclear power is very important.

Regarding the referral response, I do not have sufficient knowledge to answer that question, so I must leave that unsaid. I will have to return in another discussion. Then, perhaps I missed something.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! We hear Elin Nilsson, Liberalerna, begin with: Sweden shall reach the climate goals. But what the Liberalerna, together with the other Tidö parties, are now doing is effectively dismantling the climate policy and increasing emissions so that Sweden does not reach the climate goals.

Elin Nilsson also says: We want to reduce emissions. We want to have high ambitions. We shall have an electrification. One should be able to buy an electric car. The green transition is also important.

But the policy that the government is pursuing does not reduce emissions. They are increasing. These are not high ambitions; they are lowered ambitions. It is not an accelerated electrification. It is a transition to increased fossil fuel dependency. It is not simpler and cheaper to buy an electric car. They have made it more expensive to buy an electric car.

The green transition is slowing down. The business sector is crying out for electricity in the short term, skills supply, and faster permit processes. But the government has not implemented the Klimaträttsutredning's proposals for faster permit processes. Instead, they have commissioned a new investigation, where the first point is about lowering environmental standards in Sweden to the EU's minimum level. They have made labor immigration more difficult, which worsens things for the industry when it comes to their recruitment needs. And when it comes to electricity production, they are investing in nuclear power that might be ready at some point in the future. No one wants to invest in that, as it looks now.

One does not deliver in the matter of a rapid expansion of renewable electricity production. One stops the investigation regarding white certificates and energy efficiencies just months before it is completed, and one clips the wings of the Incentive Investigation.

It is not enough to wish. The Liberals must deliver policy.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Söderberg, for the questions! Yes, we want very much. We also do very much.

Our most important goal is net zero 2045. That is what we are aiming for. We will achieve it. We are also working towards 2030, of course, but that will be harder. That is how it is.

Then it concerns renewable energy. We need energy on-site quickly. We need new energy production in Sweden. Alongside nuclear power, much wind power and solar power is being built. And it is actually the case that the government, during its short time in power, has approved more offshore wind power than the previous government did during its entire time in power. It is therefore not true that we are doing nothing.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, what measures are being taken to try to reach net zero by 2045? I have not received any concrete reform proposals from the Liberals regarding this. What we have seen presented from the budget so far is that, for example, one extends Industriklivet, green credit guarantees, and such as the Green Party introduced when the Green Party was in government.

Then one is obviously now ready to say: But we do not seem to be reaching the 2030 goal.

I see no plan from the government on how to handle the fact that we do not fulfill our ESR commitment and what it means for the black hole being dug in the state treasury - nor for the fact that we lose the recovery fund from the EU and what consequences that may entail for Swedish dairy farmers if they are to try to compensate for the increased emissions in the transport sector.

When it comes to nuclear power, wind power, and solar power, it is good that something is being done for wind and solar. It is good that some offshore wind power has been approved. It was not the case that all those applications were on our table when we were in government. It is a bit difficult to approve them then. On the other hand, we did a great deal when we were in government that made the permit processes and applications get started and now lie on the government's table. It is good that they have been approved, but when it comes to the reforms to stimulate electricity production that can be implemented in the near term, they have dragged their feet. Furthermore, they have shut down or opposed investigations that were underway.

Today's debate is about the reduction obligation. The purpose of the reduction obligation is to reduce emissions in the existing vehicle fleet. Nuclear power does zero and no use to reduce emissions in the existing vehicle fleet, and I have not heard a single proposal from the Liberals on how to transition the existing vehicle fleet now that the reduction obligation is being torn up.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! The decision we make tomorrow will lead to increased emissions. We do not think increased emissions are good, but there is an economic reality to take into account. We need to ensure that ordinary people in the countryside and in the cities across Sweden can afford to put food on the table and get to and from work, training, and leisure activities.

We are in a situation where many are finding it difficult to make ends meet. This is a way to meet that. It is also to take responsibility for Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Lowering the petrol and diesel tax is a direct subsidy for burning fossil fuels that is distributionally insane. Lowering the reduction obligation leads to significantly increased greenhouse gas emissions and provides no distributional benefit.

It is a difficult economic situation for many households in Sweden and for many companies. There is a large palette of measures that we could work with here in the Riksdag to support those who are having the hardest time in this economic situation. But the measure to lower the petrol tax and the reduction obligation is not aimed at those who are struggling to put food on the table. It only makes fossil emissions cheaper, regardless of what economic capacity one has.

Overall, the government's policy counteracts the electrification of the transport sector because it makes it cheaper with fossil emissions and more expensive with renewable fuels and electrification. The Tidö parties lock the population into increased fossil dependency, cause Sweden to fail to meet its EU commitments, impose an unclear and heavy responsibility for the climate on Swedish dairy farmers, and dig a hole in the state treasury. The Tidö parties' handling of the climate issue is a catastrophe.

There are three ways to transition the transport sector. It is about creating a more transport-efficient society, replacing the vehicles – for example through electrification – and replacing the fuels in the existing vehicle fleet. All three are needed if Sweden is to manage the transition. But the government opposes all three, not least through the proposal to lower the reduction obligation that we are debating today.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 1.

I want to begin with a reminder of why politics needs to take responsibility for a rapid and just climate transition. We do not have climate policy for the sake of climate policy. I and Miljöpartiet have fought for decades for emission reductions because it is about protecting the population and future generations from serious climate-related risks.

The more greenhouse gases that are emitted, the worse the consequences of climate change will be. It is about dangerous heatwaves, not least for our elderly. It is about drought, water shortages, worse storms, more severe heavy rainfall, sea-level rise and floods. The ravages of climate change in poorer countries exacerbate conflicts over scarce resources and are expected to drive over 1 billion people into flight by 2050.

The UN's climate panel has established that global emissions need to decrease dramatically in the coming years for a chance to meet the Paris Agreement. With all countries' submitted climate plans, the forecast is that global emissions by 2030 will decrease by approximately 5 percent - and that is assuming that all countries actually keep what they have promised. The Tidö parties have shown themselves clearly uninterested in delivering on what Sweden has committed to, which brings me to the subject of this debate.

Madam Speaker! We are in a situation where we need more climate policy tools, not fewer. The transport sector's transition requires us to work on several fronts simultaneously. We must increase transport efficiency, reduce car dependency in cities, invest in electrification, and reduce emissions from the existing vehicle fleet. On all three points, the government is making mistakes. During 2024 alone, emissions from the transport sector are estimated to increase by nearly 50 percent as a result of the Tidö parties' policy.

Madam Speaker! We have limited resources, and we must use them wisely. In order to be able to increase the share of biofuels in a sustainable way, we must also work to reduce the total amount of fuel that we use. We can do this by moving transport from road and air to rail, making public transport cheaper and better, and breaking the car dependency in our larger cities.

Madam Speaker! I do not understand how the government cannot see what opportunities a strong domestic production of sustainable biofuels would mean for the Swedish countryside. We have opportunities to strengthen the domestic production of biofuels. There has been talk here previously about imports. Yes, today we have imported a large proportion of biofuels. But lowering the reduction obligation means an increased import dependency on fossil fuels, and fossil fuels we cannot begin to produce within Sweden's borders. But biofuels, we can actually increase the domestic production of, and that would truly strengthen business development in the countryside.

Today, countless hectares of arable land lie fallow and are growing over. It is a waste of resources and furthermore harms biodiversity. We are to use our resources wisely and develop the use of biomass, for example from agriculture. By maintaining the reduction obligation and promoting domestic production of sustainably produced biofuels, we create more business opportunities for Swedish agriculture.

Madam Speaker! To abolish the reduction obligation is to increase the oil dependency of Sweden and Swedish households. Increased consumption of oil - regardless of whether it is Russian or not - drives up the world market price, and Putin benefits from a high world market price. Sweden has an important role in continuing to drive the climate transition. What we need to do now is to ensure that we have an offensive and effective climate policy to reach the goals, both Sweden's and the EU's. Unfortunately, the government is acting in the completely opposite direction.

The government's failure in climate policy contributes to increased climate risks, flooded basements, ruined harvests, and heatwaves that affect the elderly. The reduction obligation should not be lowered – it must be developed. We want to include electricity fuels and promote domestic production of sustainably produced biofuels.

Madam Speaker! For everyone who is dependent on the car, the renewable must be cheaper and simpler. The electrification of the vehicle fleet can significantly lower transport costs, especially in rural areas where there are long distances. That is why we in Miljöpartiet introduced a one hundred percent support for charging infrastructure in rural and remote areas, and that is why we now want to introduce a leasing check for everyone with lower incomes so that they can lease a cheaper and simpler electric car and thereby significantly lower their transport costs.

The government has not come up with anything new when it comes to improving the conditions in rural areas and the countryside, and the only thing they are working on is lowering the price of fossil fuels. They do not provide targeted support to those who need it most.

Madam Speaker! It is possible to support households affected by high fuel prices without simultaneously supporting Putin's war in Ukraine. It is possible to support the households without increasing emissions and worsening the climate threat. It is possible if one wants to. For me, it is completely incomprehensible how one as a party can choose to support Putin, choose to increase emissions, and choose to lock Swedish households and businesses into a fossil dependency, but that is precisely what the Tidö parties do by lowering the reduction obligation.

(Applause)

In this speech, Emma Nohrén (MP) agreed.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Member Söderberg spoke about the countryside in his speech. Let me tell you about the countryside! I have seen it. I grew up in it, I live there, and I love it. A decisive part of my political work has in one way or another been linked to precisely the countryside.

One must have a car there. There, the education level and income are often low, and the unemployment is very high in some areas. Many are living on the margin right now. It was tough even before the inflation, the high fuel prices, and the economic situation that Sweden is in right now - and for this, we are now taking responsibility. My question to the member is: What is Miljöpartiet doing here and now to help these people?

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Elin Nilsson for the question.

In rural areas and the countryside, we have a large dependence on cars, and as the member mentions, we also often have lower incomes. Precisely for that reason, a distribution policy was needed that targets those with lower incomes, and a climate policy was needed that ensures we get the right solution in the right place. In that regard, the electrification of the transport sector is completely central for rural areas and the countryside, because if it is made cheaper to either lease or buy an electric car, those who are dependent on cars can significantly lower their transport costs.

When we in Miljöpartiet were in government, we introduced the electric car bonus. We expanded the charging infrastructure. We introduced special subsidies for the expansion of charging infrastructure in rural and remote areas. Now we have put forward proposals for a strengthened rural bonus, for a leasing check for electric cars for everyone below the median income, and for a scrapping premium, which can benefit those who have an older car by scrapping it and receiving a premium to instead use, for example, a car pool or an electric car.

We also have a broader rural policy, precisely to ensure that we achieve strong community development throughout the country. That policy is, for example, about strengthening adult education, which is important in rural and sparsely populated areas. It is about welfare initiatives, which are central for rural and sparsely populated areas, and about ensuring that we get better conditions for increased domestic food production and better conditions for more business opportunities within the forestry industry.

What the government is doing now is increasing emissions. They are not making targeted investments in rural areas and the countryside. They are acting in a way that we do not reach the climate goals, and thus they create one big question mark for, for example, agriculture and forestry: Is it they who are supposed to help fix the entire situation when we do not fulfill our ESR commitment?

(Applause)

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answers. I received a partial answer to my question, but the member did not answer how one should help those with the very lowest income. They rarely have the means to switch to a leased car or an electric car, because it simply costs too much. What do you do for them? I believe that Miljöpartiet is to blame.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Elin Nilsson for the question.

When it comes to those with the lowest incomes, it may be that one cannot afford to buy a new car, but many times one cannot even afford to have a car. In that case, public transport is completely central.

We in Miljöpartiet have proposed that we want to introduce a Sweden card that allows for cheap public transport throughout the country - where it exists. We also want to expand public transport so that we achieve strengthened mobility even for those with the absolute lowest incomes in rural and remote areas.

Then it is a matter of distribution policy and lifting those who have it the toughest. In our budget, we have several proposals to inflation-proof the incomes for those who have the lowest incomes. It is very important. It is possible to manage the climate policy and help households through the economically difficult situation.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, I sat on the Committee on Transport and Infrastructure and worked on transport issues. Very early in the term, I was approached by transport companies, farmers, and families with children, primarily in rural areas but also in cities where many people commute. What they had reacted to was the pricing.

Good politics must take ecological considerations, but it must also take social and economic considerations. This made me, within my party, begin to familiarize myself more and more with the reduction obligation and what consequences it would have, Madam Speaker. The goal was for it to reach up to 60 percent, and I looked at what effects it would have in society.

At that time, Miljöpartiet spoke very much about the price having to go over 30 kronor in order to achieve the right environmental management measures. This would have had catastrophic consequences for the countryside if we had started pushing up the prices to those levels. This caused me, together with some others, to achieve a change within my own party, Madam Speaker. In January 2022, Ebba Busch and I therefore held a joint press conference where we simply announced that we intended to change our opinion.

This later caused even our Moderate friends to change their minds, and today we stand here. We stand in a situation where we finally take economic and social considerations into account as well. We cannot have an environmental policy that destroys the countryside. It is not reasonable. I am therefore very happy about what we are debating today, and I am even happier that it will be decided tomorrow.

This is also connected to another important issue, namely what was said during the election campaign and what is being delivered. We Christian Democrats said that we would lower fuel prices. We had slightly different calculations at different times, but what perhaps has become most well-known is around 9 kronor at the pump.

If one adds together the two tax cuts that have been implemented, that is, the one that came this year and the one that comes next year, and then adds the reduction obligation change and on top of that the VAT - many forget the small detail that the VAT comes last - one sees that these decisions have a combined effect of approximately 9 kronor.

Of course, as a Christian Democrat, I would have wanted this to be introduced as early as January 1st of this year. If nothing else, it would have been very nice politically for the party, because we really said that we wanted this to happen quickly. Now, however, we are getting it through from next year, and it means that we can put a small check on the election promises we gave. I am very happy about that.

At the same time, the question arises whether this is a decision that harms the environment. Yes, possibly – if one is an environmental nationalist. Then one sees it that way. But if we are a bit honest with ourselves about how the reduction obligation works, which several speakers have already raised, we realize that we are actually importing and that others will use that environmental diesel that we do not use. It will have exactly the same environmental effect if it is burned in a vehicle in Sweden as if it is burned in a vehicle in Poland, Germany, or France. From a global perspective, there is therefore no difference for the environment at all.

Madam Speaker! I have also listened to the debate. There is an enormous focus on only this fuel method. But if one, like me, comes from transport policy, one can look at what is happening there. It is about hydrogen, and we are talking about ammonia and electricity. We are talking about converting diesel vehicles to hydrogen. An incredible amount is happening that will ensure we meet our goals.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! It was a situation after Russia's invasion of Ukraine when a great deal happened with energy prices skyrocketing. It is fully understandable that many parties then took a moment to reflect: How do we handle this?

Magnus Jacobsson explains in his speech how the Christian Democrats arrived at the conclusion that they changed their minds and wanted to lower the reduction obligation. When you made that reorganization, why did you not then develop any new climate policy?

I can also add: How do you view the fact that it provides no distributive policy solution whatsoever without hitting broadly? In the difficult economic situation that arose, why were resources not directed to those who need it, but instead spread broadly across everyone who uses fossil gasoline and diesel, regardless of what income and what ability to pay they have?

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! That the world market price changed as a result of the war in Ukraine is a fact. It may be purely pedagogically important to point out that the fuel price in large parts consists of four components. It is the world market price, the price for the reduction obligation and fuel taxes, and in addition, there is VAT. Three of these we can influence, and the fourth we cannot influence.

What is exciting about the discussion is that several have now referred to the world market price. But the truth is that you in Miljöpartiet have wanted to raise the price regardless of the war.

You have on several occasions stood in this speaker's chair and argued that the price should rise above 30 kronor. In your case, however awful it may sound, the war has facilitated the introduction of your policy.

We have had a different view. We have had the view that it must hang together both ecologically, socially and economically. It did not become reasonable. It went too far, which Kjell-Arne Ottosson has brilliantly demonstrated.

Madam Speaker! A question was asked about another environmental policy. We have spoken about it on several occasions. I have stood at this rostrum on numerous occasions and spoken about electrification, hydrogen, and that one should use the right energy in the right place.

One of those that emits absolutely the most is shipping. A lot of work is being done now with electrification. Work is being done to try to move away from bunker fuel. Preemraff is not so far from where I live. They are working on developing the fuels.

We have been talking about it all along, which the member also took up at the end of his speech. It is not just one issue. We will have to work with several sectors to manage the environmental policy.

I turn the question back. What is it that makes you lock yourselves into just this, which affects people so severely, when there are more solutions to use?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! We see that we need to transition the transport sector and ensure that we become fossil-free, reach the climate goals, reach our EU commitments and halt the climate crisis. It is only in this way that we can achieve a socially, ecologically and economically sustainable development.

If we do not address the climate crisis, we will have no socially sustainable development, no ecologically sustainable development, and no economically sustainable development. The climate crisis will hit the entire society severely negatively.

We certainly cannot influence the world market price. The question then is why KD, together with the other Tidö parties, locks Sweden into an increased dependence on the world market price of oil by increasing the fossil share. This makes us more vulnerable to price shocks from volatile oil prices in the future.

What the Green Party has advocated for is an orderly climate transition of the entire society. When it comes to the transport sector, we need to work towards a transport-efficient society to reduce the total energy consumption, with electrification to replace the vehicle fleet and by replacing the fuels in the existing vehicle fleet.

In order for there to be a transition, the fossil fuels need to be more expensive than the renewables so that we get incentives to switch to the renewables. Then we can work with, for example, having a petrol tax. But we can also work with supporting subsidies such as with an electric car bonus. We have worked with both of those parts to ensure that we get an orderly transition.

It is the same with the reduction obligation. It is a gradual introduction precisely so that there are no sudden shifts, but that we achieve an orderly transition of the entire transport sector, reach the goals, and protect the population from climate-related risks. At the same time, we can seize the opportunities, increase domestic biofuel production, and strengthen Swedish crisis preparedness.

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

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement regarding the transition. The problem is that the method used had such significant consequences that we said: It is not reasonable. Therefore, we must do something else. Step one is to stop that method. Step two is to continue working with the other.

What is the second then? Taking aviation as an example, today people talk about electricity for short distances. People talk about hydrogen for what is medium-range, i.e., European aviation. Then people talk about biofuel for what is the long-haul flights across continents.

We will see exactly the same phenomena within the automotive sector. That is, among other things, why we Christian Democrats have raised this. I believe that the Christian Democrats are the only party in the Riksdag that has raised that we should have a completely new fuel and vehicle taxation.

It is a digital so-called kilometer taxation that they have in Germany and in many other places. Why then? Then we could steer via taxes so that it pays to, for example, drive with electric vehicles. It could be to drive out groceries and such during evening hours.

We see the same phenomena within the transport sector. For longer distances, you use liquid fuel in some form and preferably hydrogen, which is not liquid but a gas, ammonia or similar. For the short distances, we are working more and more with electricity.

It will not be enough if we electrify everything. In that sense, Rickard Nordin is right. It is not enough if we electrify everything. We must also replace the fuels that we use today in the vehicles we have today. That will come with new technology.

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement that we need to transition. The problem was that this solution is expensive and inefficient and harms the transition.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be made on 30 November.)

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