Reduced tax on gasoline and diesel and reduced tax on agricultural diesel

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! Our country is undergoing the biggest and most difficult economic crisis since the 1990s. Inflation has reached record high levels, the Swedish economy is shrinking, and unemployment is rising. It hits households hard. Ordinary families with ordinary incomes are finding it increasingly difficult to pay the bills.

Sweden is a country with long distances. Many in our country are dependent on the car. Prices at the pump remain high, just as they were when the SD government took office, despite their promises of 10, 9 or 6 kronor cheaper fuel at the pump.

Last year, they threw away several billion to achieve a 14 öre reduction at the pump. It was quickly wiped out by increased oil prices around the world. Now they are trying to pull off the same fuel bluff again. The proposal we are debating here today actually makes very little difference for the price of gasoline. And for diesel, it actually means a tax increase next year. Yes, you heard right: the SD government's policy gives a tax increase on diesel in 2024.

Madam Speaker! This is deeply disrespectful. We are talking about the finances of ordinary, hard-working Swedes. One cannot make completely unrealistic election promises, break them, and then use numerical tricks when presenting one's budget measures. This does not help the severely pressured households to cope with the cost crisis.

To meet the high fuel prices, we Social Democrats propose a tank discount instead. This puts money straight into the pockets of ordinary people who are dependent on the car. At most, it gives 2,000 kronor per car for those who live in rural areas. With our proposal, the person who owns a car receives a direct payment that does not risk being eaten up by increased fuel prices. This, Madam Speaker, would make a real difference.

But, Madam Speaker, it is not only the Swedish households that are facing economic difficulties. Swedish agriculture has also been pressed hard by increased costs. Sweden is dependent on a strong and competitive agriculture. It is important for jobs and growth across the entire country, to secure our food security, and so that we can have Swedish food on our tables.

To support the Swedish agricultural enterprises, the Social Democratic government introduced an expanded reduction of the tax on agricultural diesel. The effects of the war in Ukraine were the triggering factor. In addition to the costs increasing, there was also a need to maintain and strengthen Swedish food production during the extraordinary situation prevailing due to the events in our global environment. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, these reasons remain even today, and in several respects, the problems have deepened. We Social Democrats think it is good that the temporary reduction remains in place as long as the difficult economic situation persists.

Madam Speaker! In order to safeguard an orderly and coherent budget process, we abstain from participating in the decision in this matter. But let it be clear: There is another way to go to support the households and families who are currently facing economic difficulties.

The SD government's fuel bluff costs over 5 billion kronor but will mean that ordinary people will, at best, get petrol or diesel that becomes a few cents cheaper per liter at the pump. This is a misguided economic policy in the economic crisis.

Ordinary households need to receive support to manage their everyday finances. That is why we Social Democrats, in our budget motion, propose, in addition to a tank discount, among other things that ordinary Swedish families shall receive a fair tax cut, an extra payment of the child allowance, and increased maintenance support.

But it is not only the households' economy that is made more difficult by the SD government's priorities. They are also threatening our entire common welfare. I sincerely wish that the SD government could listen to the municipal and regional politicians from both the left and the right who are desperately crying out for financial support so that they do not have to make cuts in schools, elderly care, and healthcare.

We Social Democrats choose instead to clearly prioritize resources for welfare in our budget motion and propose, among other things, twice as many resources for Swedish healthcare compared to what is proposed by the SD government.

Madam Speaker! The healthcare crisis we face is deeply worrying. And for everyone who has seen the reporting from the Sverigedemokraternas party days this past weekend, it is absolutely obvious that they prioritize completely different issues than Swedish welfare. They advocate for a policy that creates fear, pits people against one another, and creates mistrust toward the democratic rules of the Swedish society. This is a direct attack on the cohesion that has formed the foundation of Swedish society.

With the SD government, Sweden has become both poorer and more dangerous. No lowered taxes on petrol or diesel, or for that matter any other lowered taxes, can ever compensate for what is now at risk of being lost. And the silence from Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals is not only worrying – it is directly harmful to our country.

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Let me state some approximate figures intended to illustrate the proposal that the Social Democrats are putting forward to compensate for high petrol prices. I intend to stick to the subject, unlike what Peder Björk just did.

Suppose you have a small, fairly modern car that consumes 0.6 liters per mile. You live in the countryside and will receive the support that the Social Democrats propose. You drive approximately 1,500 miles per year.

With the government's proposal, it would mean a gasoline cost that is 540 kronor lower. That might not sound like much; your proposal is 2,000. But to this is added a cost increase that makes the gasoline in this example approximately 1,400 kronor more expensive. That leaves 600 kronor. Then one has approximately three and a half miles to work and does not drive privately beyond this.

If one instead travels 1,800 miles with the same car – a not entirely unusual driving distance if one lives in rural areas – our proposal would result in 648 kronor lower fuel costs. With your proposal, the fuel cost would increase by 1,760 kronor. That leaves a difference of 240 kronor.

This proposal will therefore benefit those who have short distances to and from work. Those who have a long distance will be disadvantaged. Is this reasonable? Does it align with the Social Democrats' policy otherwise?

Inflation is not handled at all with such a support as you propose. We propose broad reductions of the tax on gasoline and also diesel, which will have a large impact and also counteract inflation.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate a political debate where one is concrete and clear with their proposals. But I also wish, Madam Speaker, that Per Söderlund would be clear towards the voters as to whether his and the government's proposals are designed in such a way that the SD government can guarantee that the tax cut it is now proposing actually goes to those who need it, that is, the households that need a reinforcement of the household budget because this government fails to manage the country and exposes households to a cost crisis.

In what way will the SD government ensure that the tax cut that is now being proposed actually goes to the economically vulnerable households and does not instead end up with the fuel companies or be consumed by sharply increased oil prices around the world?

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! I note Peder Björk's debating technique of posing a counter-question instead of answering a question. I therefore repeat my question: Is it reasonable that those who live closest to work earn the most from the compensation - that is what you are proposing - while those who live far away will lose out on it compared to our proposal?

It is as I say: Those who have the longest distances to travel and have the greatest need for reduced fuel costs will benefit from our proposal. Your proposal will affect those who travel over 1,800 miles with a consumption of 0.6 liters. I can guarantee that.

Then we have other measures that we are also presenting. They are coming. Among those, we have, for example, a reduction of the reduction obligation, which is to go down to 6 percent for both petrol and diesel, and that will make a big difference for diesel prices. How large a part of these tax cuts remains with the petrol companies is impossible to say. The National Audit Office has calculated it once and pointed out that a part will always remain there. But still, we see effects illustrated by the figures I preferred. These are approximate figures, so I cannot say that it will be exactly 648 kronor for the person who drives 1,800 miles per year, but we have to wait and see, but it will be around there. That is the answer I can give.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Madam Speaker! I can state that it sounds exactly as it did during the election campaign. Back then, it was said that Per Söderlund's party would lower the petrol tax by 10 kronor, 9 kronor or 6 kronor at the pump. Now, when I ask the question to Per Söderlund, he says that it is not certain that such a reduction will occur.

Yes, it is clear that some of the companies will cut in between. This is the difference between the politics that we Social Democrats advocate and the politics that Per Söderlund advocates. We have put forward a proposal that strengthens the individual households' economy, does not risk being eaten up by the world market price of oil, and where we do not risk the petrol companies taking care of the difference. The proposal we are debating here today is admittedly a proposal for a reduced tax on petrol, but the so-called reduced tax on diesel becomes in practice an increase in the tax on diesel by 12 öre per liter. An increase in the tax on diesel by 12 öre is thus what the SD government proposes. The last time such a change was implemented, there was a tax reduction of 14 öre on the same day. But the next day, the price reduction was gone.

We Social Democrats look at the economy of individual households. Our proposal on the tank discount supports the vulnerable households in the cost crisis. It is a support for those who need to have the car every day. This is the difference between Social Democratic policy and the Sweden Democrats' policy.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! One of the Tidö Government's greatest broken promises is the fuel policy. After making completely unreasonable pledges during the election campaign of up to 10 or sometimes even 12 kronor in reduced price at the pump, the result has instead been, at best, unchanged price, while climate emissions are skyrocketing. By spreading out the tax cut on gasoline and diesel across all households, where the majority has gone to city commuters who have good opportunities for public transport, the effect has been diluted so that there is almost no effect at all.

The reduction is justified by the needs in the countryside. It is true that in sparser parts of Sweden where public transport does not have ten-minute service, there is a significantly greater need for the car. In that case, it would also have been reasonable to focus on ensuring that the measures land just there.

The government often speaks about climate policy being effective and that one should not fuel inflation with poorly targeted investments. Therefore, it is surprising how blatantly the government breaks its own promises in this matter. Instead of sending the money to the large cities and their surrounding municipalities, it would have been entirely possible to do exactly as the Centerpartiet wants. We propose targeted and direct support to the countryside. This could also have had a real effect.

In our budget alternative, we show how it would have been possible to lower the price at the pump by 3 kronor in the countryside. The government's half-hearted attempt has shown that the reduction will be a few cents at best, if the price is lowered at all. But if the government had wanted to focus on lowered tax - as a Liberal, I do like lowered tax pressure - there are other ways to do that.

We in the Center Party, with our policy of refueling with Swedish [products], have shown that it would be possible to lower the price by 4 kronor at the pump while simultaneously creating tens of thousands of jobs in the green bioeconomy and reducing emissions. Why the government does not choose a path that is cheaper, more efficient, and more climate-smart is a mystery to me, and to many others as well. Possibly it could be due to a lack of imagination and a fascination with fossil fuels. The fact that this fascination also supports rogue states that produce the fossil oil – Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar – only makes this matter even worse.

The government has not even managed to refer the first partial report of the Bioeconomy Inquiry, which contained proposals that could have provided these jobs, reduced the need for fossil fuels, and lowered fuel prices. Instead, it is gathering dust on the government's desk, and it is unclear why. I do not know if it is because an increased share of renewables would go against the election promises that have been made and the lock-in on fossil fuels that they have. For me, it is inexplicable.

But what is good in this report, despite everything, at least in half, is that the government is implementing the temporarily increased reduction of carbon and energy tax on diesel used in Swedish agriculture and forestry. It was introduced due to the sharply increased prices resulting from Russia's warfare in Ukraine. An additional motivation was the need to maintain and strengthen Swedish food production in an extraordinary situation. So that is how it has been now, given the state of the world.

But I said "by half". Both Centerpartiet and the food producers have been clear that tax reductions of this type are not sustainable in the long run. Furthermore, only those who drive on fossil fuels receive such a tax reduction. Those who drive on renewables get nothing at all.

Instead, an agricultural deduction should be introduced that is technology-neutral and applies permanently. There is also a completed investigation here gathering dust on the government's desk. It is furthermore referred and ready. It is only a matter of implementing it, which is also what the industry wants to be done. Therefore, I move for approval of our reservation 2 in this report.

Centerpartiets policy is based on the country's overall conditions, competitiveness, and the climate challenge. We manage to combine all these three perspectives.

The government only seems to be able to hold one thought in its head at a time and therefore only advocates for continued focus on fossil fuels. It is a threat to Sweden's security, to our climate and to our competitiveness.

(Applause)

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

In the report we are now debating, we handle the energy tax on gasoline and the reduced tax on agricultural diesel. The Government proposes that the energy tax on gasoline should be lowered by 1.31 kronor compared to the level that would have applied with the current conversion rules. A similar reduction was made last year, and if one combines these two, we therefore have a fairly large reduction in total.

The sum of the energy and carbon tax for such gasoline will then be 60 öre lower per liter for the year 2024 compared to the tax this year. The Government also proposes that the tax on diesel for 2024 be lowered by 341 kronor per cubic meter compared to the level that would have applied with current conversion rules. This is thus the lowest level we can settle on according to the EU. To this, the reduction obligation is then added.

In addition, an expanded reduction of the carbon and energy tax for so-called agricultural diesel is also proposed for 2024. I thought I would start by addressing just the latter, as I consider it important for all of us.

Madam Speaker! The temporarily increased reduction of the tax on so-called agricultural diesel was introduced against the background that the price of several important input goods within these industries had increased sharply, not least due to the war in Ukraine. It was also motivated by the need to maintain and strengthen Swedish food production during the extraordinary situation that prevailed due to events in the outside world.

The government considers that the conditions that justified the measure in the first instance still persist – it is an opinion that we in the Sweden Democrats share. Therefore, the government now proposes that an extended reduction of the tax on agricultural diesel should also apply to such consumption that occurs during 2024.

Not extending the reduction of these taxes would mean that the costs of these industries would be passed on to the consumers, which would be very unfortunate under the economic conditions that currently prevail.

It is not difficult to see that these measures, which are implemented early in the production chains, keep down price increases that would otherwise affect households and that they therefore also keep down inflation. It is something that I believe we all agree is something positive.

It has been suggested that this should be made permanent, which is somewhat difficult to do since the maximum reduction we are allowed to make is calculated in euros. If the exchange rate changes, we would therefore still have to change the permanent reduction. That is why this path has been chosen.

Madam Speaker! Just like last year, Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have motioned to reject the bill and return to previous levels regarding the reduction of these taxes. It would hit the country's farmers and others who benefit from the reduction hard. Cost increases would affect all citizens who try to support Swedish food production by buying Swedish products.

Miljöpartiet writes in its special statement: "In order to transition agriculture, the energy in machines and transport must come from renewable fuels and electricity."

I can agree with that. It sounds beautiful. But there is an investigation, which was referred to in the reservations last year. It is the investigation *The Way towards fossil-independent agriculture*, SOU 2021:67. There it is established that Swedish production, in comparison with other countries, has low greenhouse gas emissions per produced unit. In the investigation, it is also stated that in the short term, until 2030, the greatest potential to reduce fossil dependency lies in increasing the use of biofuels.

We have all seen how the inclusion of biofuels specifically has increased fuel prices. It is therefore something that we want to counteract. One should also be aware that LRF and the Machine Contractors wish for a reduction in the inclusion of biofuels.

Furthermore, it is noted in the investigation that "there is currently a lack of large work machines that can be powered by electricity or other fuels such as biogas and ethanol". It is assessed that "by 2045, a transition to self-driving work machines and new systems for cultivating the land, which are currently under development, should be a reality".

The investigation therefore confirms in principle that it is not possible to replace agricultural machinery with today's technology. The solutions lie more than 20 years into the future.

Then one cannot turn a blind eye to the problems that, among others, the country's farmers struggle with while we stand here and discuss.

Miljöpartiet says they want to see a living agriculture that secures a high degree of self-sufficiency when it comes to food, feed, energy and raw materials in all of Sweden. But their policy in this area says something completely different.

Madam Speaker! The more general reduction of the tax on gasoline and diesel, that is, not the one that only concerns agricultural diesel, means that the tax is lowered by 60 öre compared to 2023. It is also a measure that has a broad impact on the entire society as it reduces costs for transport that both goods and people are dependent on.

Keeping fuel prices down, just like the reduction regarding agricultural diesel, is a way to counteract inflation. One can, of course, suggest fuel checks or gas station discounts - call it what you will - but it will not counteract inflation as effectively as a broad reduction of the fuel tax. Sure, it helps households for a while, but there is a great risk that such a measure will be eaten up by increasing inflation. It is not worth much when food prices and prices for public transport tickets rise sharply. Therefore, it is important that such a measure actually hits both companies and private individuals.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Per Söderlund speaks about agriculture in Sweden and therefore emphasizes the importance of reduced tax on petrol and diesel specifically for agriculture. Now, the situation is that the Tidö parties' collective policy leads to the emissions of greenhouse gases increasing so strongly in Sweden that Sweden is no longer expected to reach its EU commitments for the ESR sector. Transport and agriculture are included in ESR. It is not just about agriculture's work machines and such. When one looks at greenhouse gas emission statistics, one sees that what is reported under agriculture mainly concerns animal digestion.

If one does not pursue a policy that enables transport and work machinery to be converted to fossil-free, one is actually placing a huge burden on Swedish dairy farmers. Should they then try to make up for this when the government fails to reach the climate goals, which we are required to reach within the framework of the EU's climate goals for the non-ETS sector?

As it stands today, Swedish agriculture does not know what the rules are, because the government has torn up the climate policy. Emissions are being increased, which means we are not reaching the climate goals. And not a single answer has been delivered on how the climate goals are to be reached. Is the forestry industry supposed to overperform? Is agriculture supposed to compensate for the increased emissions in the transport sector, or what is it that applies? The Sweden Democrats must deliver answers, because right now it is agriculture that is being forced to carry the load when you cannot deliver climate policy.

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! Elin has now asked a question about increased emissions for agriculture. I would say this: If there is no technology to replace today's technology, it is impossible to make this transition. Otherwise, these companies will be forced to shut down their production in Sweden. Dairy farmers will have to shut down. We will have to buy milk from other countries, and that will absolutely not help us reach our climate goals, on the contrary.

We are pursuing a climate policy that must be tolerated by the people, and the business sector must be able to survive it. We do not operate with blindfolds on. We see a whole that you have totally missed. We see the reality for the farmers and agricultural producers who are out there.

I would like to ask: Which manufacturers have the products that you think one should switch to – electric tractors, electric forestry machines and so on? And how is an electric forestry machine to be charged in the forest? Are we to pull out power cables several kilometers into the forest?

The only chance to charge these machines out in the forest is to do it with diesel power, diesel generators. Otherwise, you have to haul them home on a large truck when the evening is over, and then you have to haul them out into the forest the next morning. I do not think that is a sustainable climate policy.

(Applause)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! No, long power cables should not be run out in the forest. The Green Party has never said that. But we must have a climate policy that is accepted by the population, that is accepted by agriculture and that is accepted by the EU, where Sweden has binding commitments.

Sweden has a binding commitment regarding the emission space we have for transport and agriculture until 2030. With the government's policy, we do not reach the binding commitment.

We have earlier today debated that there is now an attempt to use the trade in emission allowances to make up for the failure within the ESR sector. But it is also the case that we now risk losing up to 38 billion from the EU's recovery fund for our climate failure.

And by the fact that the government and the Sweden Democrats do not contribute to helping the transport sector and agriculture transition to fossil-free, one is now putting this on the agriculture – to try to reduce emissions. I do not want to see any more closed down dairy farms. We need an increased domestic food production. We need to increase food production in Sweden. It is also an important climate adaptation measure as food production in other countries will be hit harder by droughts and floods.

The government's and the Sweden Democrats' policies do not align. By pursuing a policy that increases emissions, one risks enormous costs in the state budget and missed EU subsidies. Furthermore, this is being passed on to households and to agriculture – they are expected to manage this transition themselves. It is completely unacceptable.

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is possible that Miljöpartiet in these contexts has never said that we should have power cables out in the forest. But I have heard Miljöpartiet representatives suggest that we should replace forest machines with electric ones, which is, in other words, not possible today.

Elin Söderberg wants us to help agriculture. By what? Are we going to force them to switch to technology that doesn't exist? That is not possible today. Miljöpartiet's policy is totally detached from reality on these points. There is support for what I am saying in the investigation The Way towards Fossil-Independent Agriculture, SOU 2021:67. The machines will not exist until 2045. One therefore cannot switch to them today.

It doesn't matter how much we raise the prices on diesel for farmers. The only thing that will happen is that food prices will go up for families and households. It is not a policy that I intend to contribute to. Furthermore, production will be shut down in Sweden so that we have to import more goods from other countries, and that is not climate-smart either. The best we can do is to have the production in Sweden and ensure that it is as environmentally friendly and climate-smart as possible - when the technology exists. We cannot do that today.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It was interesting to listen to the previous exchange, because I believe what the member from the Sweden Democrats does not understand is that the EU's ESR targets, which concern the non-trading sector that is not related to emission allowances, work in such a way that we are to reduce emissions by 50 percent. That is what we need to do in the transport sector, on work machinery, and in agriculture. In total, it is about 50 percent.

We are apparently not supposed to reduce emissions in the transport sector because the government is lowering the tax on fossil fuels and removing the reduction obligation, which means increasing the proportion of fossil fuels by 4 million liters of fossil diesel per day. In that case, we need to do it somewhere else. That was what the member from Miljöpartiet was trying to say.

If we are not to make any reductions in the transport sector, then only agriculture and forestry remain. Then it will be exactly as the member from Sverigedemokraterna says. It will become more expensive. We will drive farmers out of Sweden. We will buy food from somewhere else instead. My question is therefore incredibly simple: How are we to solve this and reach the EU's climate goals without it affecting agriculture, given the decisions the government has made?

The member of Parliament talks about technology that does not exist and about how we should instead use technology that exists today. But we have internal combustion engines in quite a few places today where there is technology that works perfectly well. It is about renewable fuels. Why not use that technology and ensure that a competitive agriculture is maintained, for example with an agricultural deduction, as I said? That ensures that one receives compensation if one uses the renewable. That is my question to the member of Parliament.

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is, as usual, fine words but never any thought of consequences.

If this is the path one wants to take, one must clearly communicate to the voters that one will force Swedish farmers to use technology that does not exist and explain how it is to be done. The technology does not exist today, no matter how much you want it and no matter how much we are paid from the EU!

The power needed to transition the transport fleet does not exist in Sweden today. The production is not there, because it has been phased out. It is spelled nuclear power. It has been removed. It would have been an opportunity, but if all Swedish cars were to become electric today, we do not have enough electricity to charge them. That electricity production is gone.

This is, of course, connected to other decisions that have been made. One cannot view this in isolation. One must see the whole, and that is what I say we do. There is nothing to replace today's technology with. There are indeed, according to the investigation I refer to, tractors that can be used inside the yard, that is to say, to move pallets and goods within the farm. But out in the fields, there is nothing today. What are the farmers supposed to use? What is the Center Party's answer to that question?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Now I think the member from the Sweden Democrats needs to listen a bit better, because this is a package from the EU. If one does not reduce emissions in the transport sector, one must reduce them in the agricultural sector. But the government has chosen not to reduce in the transport sector but on the contrary increase. How are you going to reach the EU goals?

Furthermore, a number of statements are false. Fendt will launch an electric tractor within two years, and Ponsse already has an electric-driven forwarder. Volvo's electric loaders are quite popular. There are therefore things now, not in 2045 as the member spoke about.

What I and the Center Party propose is to use technology that exists today. Renewable diesel is perfectly suitable to use and comes from forest residues, slaughter waste and other sources. One does not need to purchase fossil oil from countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

It is wrong to say that we do not have the electricity that would be needed to run all our cars. If all passenger cars in Sweden were converted to electric drive, it would require 10-15 terawatt-hours. Last year, we exported more than 30 terawatt-hours. So, that is not correct. Furthermore, charging is flexible and could take place at night, which the Norwegian Energy Authority has shown can be done almost without strengthening the power grid.

There is a lot of factual error from the Sweden Democrats in this discussion. I want to know how the Sweden Democrats and their government friends are going to meet the EU's goals, which include the transport sector, agriculture, and work machinery, if they are not going to solve anything within the transport sector. I want an answer to that, because if you don't solve it, only agriculture and forestry remain, and within that sector, they are terrified of having to take the hit that your policy causes. How are you going to meet the goals?

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

Per Söderlund (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is not I who claim that the technology will not exist until 2045. It is actually a government investigation, SOU 2021:67, that claims that fact. The technology does not exist today. The investigation is very clear about that.

LRF and Maskinentreprenörerna, who have responded to the referral, want to see a reduction and not an increase in the blending of biofuels. It is therefore LRF - the farmers themselves - and Maskinentreprenörerna, who partly work in the forest, who are saying it. These are not my words, but they come from the investigation.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Madam Speaker! Inflation is our greatest enemy. Since the Moderate-led government took office, it has prioritized combating inflation. Those who were present during the crisis in the 90s will remember how interest rates rose, purchasing power disappeared, and people were forced to sell their homes below market value while their debts remained. Therefore, the government has done everything it can to prevent rising inflation and thus a devastating real estate and mortgage crisis. At the same time, households have been supported.

The reduction of the petrol and diesel tax is part of the support for households. Many are dependent on the car to get to work and to pick up and drop off children at preschool and school and at various activities. The price of fuel plays a role, not only for those who are dependent on the car but for everyone - for the grocery stores, the craftsmen and all other business owners.

High fuel prices lead to increased prices on goods and ultimately always burden the consumers. Therefore, it is an important part of the government's policy to lower fuel prices.

To counter snide comments about the size of the reduction and the promises in the election campaign, I want to point out that together with the more significant reduction of the reduction obligation which enters into force on January 1, we fulfill our promise of a reduction of 5 kronor per liter. Political decisions must always be seen in their context.

The government also extends the increased reduction of the tax on fuel consumed in work machines, ships, and certain boats in professional agricultural, forestry, and aquaculture activities - that which has the collective name agricultural diesel - to apply during the entirety of 2024.

The reduction of the tax on agricultural diesel is considered state aid and falls within the scope of the GBER, the EU Commission's General Block Exemption Regulation. For the reduction to be compatible with the GBER, the reduction must not be greater than that the aid recipients pay at least the minimum tax level prescribed in the energy tax directive.

To further support businesses within the agricultural sectors, the government proposes a transition from annual reimbursement of the energy and carbon tax for agricultural diesel to quarterly reimbursement.

These supports are truly needed. Russia's war of invasion in Ukraine has, in addition to all the suffering for the Ukrainian people, led to very high prices on fuels, seeds, synthetic fertilizers, feed, and other input goods for Swedish farmers. Also, the electricity price is very high, which is a direct result of the closure of nuclear reactors that occurred under the previous government.

The war in Ukraine has also opened our eyes to how important it is to be prepared and to the need to secure the food supply in a crisis or war situation. Sweden's self-sufficiency rate is approximately 50 percent, and the only foods we are completely self-sufficient in are carrots and sugar beets.

The Green Party writes beautifully in its motion regarding the green transition. But to achieve the green transition, a viable agriculture is required that has the economic muscles to be able to transition. Much needs to be done for the agricultural sector to obtain better liquidity. It is a sector with low margins. Above all, Swedish agriculture should be freed from all unnecessary regulatory burdens, and the legislation should be harmonized with the rest of the EU's.

Demand for Swedish agricultural products must increase, and it definitely does not happen through campaigns about eating less meat. The public sector must take a clear and greater responsibility and, for example, demand Swedish-produced food in public procurements.

The reduction of the tax on agricultural diesel is a much-needed part of the support for Swedish agriculture. In addition to the companies being compensated, it means that our households are supported in a tough time.

With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! There were many fine words about food supply and agriculture from Boriana Åberg. She pointed out, among other things, that we need to buy more Swedish, so it is strange that the government has chosen to scrap the proposal that existed regarding origin labeling of food in restaurants and in large kitchens, for example.

She also spoke about securing the food supply in times of crisis and unrest. Now, the situation is that the greatest dependency we have is the dependency on fuels. It takes a week or two, and then the tractors and work machines stand still. The government is increasing that dependency by importing virtually all our fossil fuels. It comes from rogue states such as Russia, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. This is what is chosen to be done instead of focusing on fuels that we could produce ourselves. There is a completed investigation on the government's desk about producing more biofuels, and the government has not even referred it.

My question to Boriana Åberg and the Moderaterna is therefore: How do you expect to be able to strengthen a food supply in times of crisis and unrest when you explicitly make it harder for it to manage and harder to provide fuel in times of crisis and unrest?

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is important to reduce the unnecessary regulations that burden the producers of both meat and other food products.

I believe that forcing restaurants to label products would create a quite large and unnecessary regulatory burden, especially for those restaurants that are still dealing with the aftermath of the pandemic. People did not come to eat, staff had to be laid off—and the staff found other jobs. We therefore have a very vulnerable hospitality industry that I absolutely do not want to be burdened with unnecessary regulations.

When it comes to the use of fuels, agriculture, as has been said before, is dependent on machines that consume quite a lot of diesel. Admittedly, agricultural machines and forestry machines that run on electricity are displayed at various fairs, but it is not the case that we have particularly much electricity in this country. In fact, well-functioning nuclear reactors were shut down – and the Center Party was very much involved in this.

Rickard Nordin spoke in a previous post very much about broken promises, and I want to remind him that the Center Party is not exempt from this. I remember when it was promised most solemnly not to support a Social Democratic government – it was a shoe involved, which one would eat – and what happened? Yes, nevertheless, the Center Party did it.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Boriana Åberg should reflect on that matter regarding broken promises. She could start by talking to Hédi Fried.

If there is anything the vulnerable tourism industry has a problem with, it is that the government is withdrawing the labor one receives through labor immigration, which will radically increase the industry's costs. They have also raised the tax for young people, which also affects the tourism industry. It is significantly worse than having to report where one buys their meat from.

Agricultural machinery runs on diesel; that is the way it is. But there is renewable diesel, which is fantastic. Furthermore, it can be made from slaughterhouse waste, food scraps, and all sorts of things. It would have been significantly much better to make diesel from slaughter remains from Sweden - or from northern Germany, which quite a lot comes from - instead of running on fossil oil when we know that the world producers of it are Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. It is insane from a security policy or supply security perspective for the government to want to continue using fossil fuels. It simply does not add up.

When it comes to electricity, as has been said, there is quite a lot of it. If Boriana had listened to the previous exchange, she would have heard that we have so much electricity that we could run the electric cars almost three times even if we replaced all the internal combustion engine cars that exist today with electric cars. That a debate about reduced tax on gasoline and diesel and reduced tax for agriculture ends in a nuclear power debate shows quite a lot of the lack of imagination and the lack of responsiveness from the government's side.

What I want to hear from Boriana Åberg is how the government, given the EU's binding emission targets, will ensure that it is not agriculture that takes the hit when the transport sector is no longer expected to do so. An agricultural deduction would have been a good start, and there are things prepared for that. But how will you ensure that it is not agriculture that takes the hit when the government increases emissions?

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Who has said that agriculture should take the hit? We are working very hard on electrification. New charging stations are to be installed. People who have bought electric cars should have somewhere to charge them – and preferably with energy that they can afford. Nuclear power is therefore a common thread throughout the Moderate policy. Nuclear power is environmentally friendly and has no emissions. It is through electrification that we shall save the climate, not through makeshift measures.

When it comes to labor immigration, it is very interesting that the Center Party wants people to come here as underpaid labor migrants. There is a level that the government has set, namely 27,000 kronor. If one receives that salary and is needed on the labor market, one should be able to come here and work. The irresponsible migration policy that has led to both crime and the exploitation of defenseless people – the policy that the Center has been very driving for – is over.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet want to increase domestic food production, strengthen Swedish agriculture and transition Sweden to fossil-free status so that we also reduce the climate-related risks, not least for Swedish agriculture.

Boriana Åberg from Moderaterna spoke about solving the climate transition through electrification and not made-up measures. Then I wonder how Moderaterna views the fact that when Miljöpartiet was in government, we reduced emissions so much that the Swedish climate goals were expected to be met by 2030. We would also reach our binding commitment within the EU regarding the climate by 2030.

But when the Moderaterna have held the position of Prime Minister for a year, emissions are expected to increase radically. We are no longer expected to reach our climate goals by 2030, and the climate change risks are increasing. I would like to say that it is the Moderaterna who are working with make-believe when they say they will reduce emissions but in practice do the opposite.

Agriculture deserves an improved economy. With the Green Party's policy, one can obtain more sources of income and more domestically produced biofuels which also provide higher crisis preparedness. One also reduces one's vulnerability to volatile oil prices.

What do the Moderaterna have to say? It is increased fossil dependency, increased vulnerability to volatile oil prices, and no solution for how we are to climate-adapt agriculture to strengthen food production.

Finally, I come to the labor immigration. Here, people speak of underpaid labor immigrants and want to raise them to the median wage. Do the Moderates mean that half of the Swedish workforce is underpaid?

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! When Miljöpartiet was part of the government, we had the pandemic. At that time, people did not travel. In principle, the world closed. You could not take the plane, and you could not travel anywhere. Industries closed. It was a total lockdown of economic activity. It is not strange that there were no emissions. Miljöpartiet has nothing to be proud of.

When it comes to people being underpaid, it is not about them being underpaid to the extent that they cannot manage on 27,000 kronor a month. I mean that 27,000 kronor a month is the level where one can both manage one's livelihood and also contribute to one's own welfare.

Swedes who receive less than 27,000 kronor a month receive help from others for preschool, elderly care, and welfare initiatives. They are happy to do so. When it comes to people from outside, however, they should be guaranteed a wage whose tax also covers their consumption of welfare.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Very many people, thank God, have come to Sweden and worked for a very long time. If one looks at the total workforce by 2030, the proportion of those who are domestically born will decrease.

At the same time, we have a situation where welfare and the business sector are crying out for staff and where the defense, now with NATO membership, is crying out for staff. But the domestically born workforce is expected to decrease.

When the government presents proposals that will significantly limit labor migration, how will businesses be staffed? Which businesses will have to shut down?

I can tell the Moderaterna that those who are affected first are precisely agriculture and forestry. There are very many who work in the green industries who come from other countries and have the competence to work in the industries that are in demand in Sweden. How is agriculture to be maintained if you push away the staff so that it is not possible to recruit?

It is directly incorrect to say that emissions decreased as a result of the pandemic when I speak about Miljöpartiet's policy leading to reduced emissions. What I am speaking about is that when one looks at our collective policy, it was calculated to lead to us reducing emissions over time and reaching our climate goals by 2030, that is to say, during the coming years.

But with the government's policy, emissions of greenhouse gases within the transport sector alone are expected to increase by almost 50 percent next year alone. This is expected to lead to us not reaching our climate goals by 2030. It will lead to extremely high costs for the Swedish state by us not being able to take part in the EU's action program. We risk losing up to 38 billion there.

Now they want to use the state budget, use flexibilities and sneak away via various back roads just because they do not take climate responsibility.

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that trying to recruit personnel within the defense forces from labor migrants is directly wrong when one considers all the infiltration attempts and the terror threat we live with.

When it comes to how we are to get people to work in agriculture, we will introduce a reduction in benefit support. There are so many people for whom it does not pay to take the step from benefit support to a job, among other things in agriculture.

I remember when I met a strawberry grower at Eriksgården in Sjöbo. He told me that there is nothing that can get someone who lives on benefits, usually also immigrants, to come early in the morning to pick strawberries for a couple of hours. It is much more comfortable to live on benefits. We must put a stop to that.

When it comes to the Green Party's policy, it is about the theoretical calculations of what will happen after a while. We can leave those where they are. On the other hand, it is the Green Party that bears the blame for the fact that Sweden has been forced to import dirty coal power from Poland and Germany.

It is Miljöpartiet that bears the responsibility for the fact that we have had Karlshamnsverket in operation when there has been an energy shortage. I remember when Miljöpartiet's then energy policy spokesperson Lorentz Tovatt was so happy and proud that they had pushed the Social Democratic government towards closing much-needed nuclear power. You do not have much to be proud of in terms of the environment.

(Applause)

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Boriana Åberg feels inconvenienced when we from the opposition remind her of the election promises that came from the Moderaterna and other conservative parties during the last election campaign. During that campaign, promises were made to lower petrol and diesel prices by 10, 9, 6, and 5 kronor. This was to happen immediately after the election if they were given the opportunity to form a government together with the Sverigedemokraterna.

Now we stand here over a year later. First and foremost, we can state that gasoline and diesel prices are still very high in Sweden. We can also state that when the government presented a proposal and the Riksdag then voted it through last year with a tax cut on gasoline, the reduction at the pump was not 9 kronor, not 6 kronor, and not 5 kronor. It was 14 öre that day. Then the prices increased again.

When we now discuss the proposal that lies before us to lower the petrol tax next year, I still wonder: How does Boriana Åberg intend to ensure that the tax reduction now proposed does not end up with the owners of the petrol companies but actually ends up with the households that need financial support in a cost crisis?

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! To say that I feel inconvenienced by the opposition is actually an exaggeration. I am rather amused. When I read the four budget motions, I discovered that the opposition can never get it together – one wants one thing, and the other wants another.

You have nothing in common. You can call yourselves the opposition, but you are anything but a united opposition.

Peder Björk is my opponent in this exchange. I want to ask him: Do the Social Democrats, like their opposition colleague the Green Party, want to increase the labor immigration of people who earn less than 27,000 a month?

I would also like to know what the Social Democrats' position is regarding nuclear power. I remember that Stefan Löfven really thought that nuclear power was good at the time he was chairman of Metall. That is what one should invest in!

I also remember the congress in November, when Magdalena Andersson was funny and said: "Haha, nuclear power someone - do you really want that? It is just too expensive."

Party Secretary Baudin said that the Social Democrats have always been in favor of nuclear power.

I would like Peder Björk to tell me - preferably with a diagram, so that I can understand how the Social Democrats' interest in nuclear power fluctuates.

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

Peder Björk (S)

Mr. Speaker! There may be some listeners joining the debate just now. I want to say that the debate taking place now concerns a matter here in the chamber regarding a tax cut on petrol and diesel. I intend to stick to the matter that we are debating.

Unlike the SD government, the Social Democrats have presented a proposal for a fuel discount that would actually mean we support the households that are struggling in the economic crisis with direct support that ends up in the households' pockets. It would be a support in everyday life for the people all around in our entire country who need to have the car to be able to get to work and for the families who have no alternative to using the car to drive the children to practice. With the Social Democrats' fuel discount, they receive up to 2,000 kronor per year in direct support.

Against this, Mr. Speaker, stands in this debate the SD-government's proposal for a reduction in the tax on gasoline. Boriana Åberg and the SD-government cannot answer how they will ensure that this actually goes to the households that need it.

We have seen the promises in the election campaign. We saw how it went last year. There was no reduction in the prices of petrol and diesel, because the money disappeared somewhere else.

How will Boriana Åberg and the SD government ensure that what they say they are protecting actually ensures that this support reaches the families and households that truly need it in this economic crisis?

(Applause)

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

Boriana Åberg (M)

Mr. Speaker! Peder Björk is completely right: The debate is about lowered prices on gasoline, diesel, and agricultural fuel. However, one cannot help but be misled in the debate when one thinks of, for example, the extremely large reduction obligation that the Social Democrats' friends Miljöpartiet forced upon the previous government and which resulted in outrageous gasoline and diesel prices.

The Social Democrats have indeed proposed a thought-discount of up to 2,000 kronor for the countryside. Is it the case that the nurse who lives in Stockholm and drives to her night shift does not need the car? She might be afraid to be out given the crime that the previous government failed to curb.

Your proposal is not perfect, if I may say so. Furthermore, you still want the reduction obligation to be 19 percent. As we know, the National Institute of Economic Research (Konjunkturinstitutet) saw this. It was not the Moderates or the Moderates' coalition partners, but it was the National Institute of Economic Research that thought that the reduction obligation has not turned out so well. On the other hand, the National Institute of Economic Research has said that the tax cuts that the Moderates have presented, together with the reduction of the reduction obligation, will result in a reduction of 5 kronor per liter.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Government notes in its impact assessment of the proposals that the reduced petrol and diesel taxes mean that the steering of fuel taxes towards reduced climate and environmental impact is diminished. The Government further notes that this leads to the incentives for transport efficiency, electrification, and the use of high-blend fossil-free fuels being weakened. The proposals thus lead to an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels. The proposals are particularly noteworthy as the world faces a climate emergency.

Vänsterpartiet cannot stand behind proposals that increase the consumption of fossil fuels when there is simultaneously a lack of measures that can otherwise counteract the negative effects on the climate. To support people in rural areas who do not have access to public transport, Vänsterpartiet proposes other measures.

The tax on diesel used in work machines in agriculture and forestry has long been reduced. This reduction was reinforced by the government in connection with the budget bill for 2023. Vänsterpartiet can see many other ways to support agriculture that do not contribute to an increase or preservation of today's fossil emissions. We also have proposals in our budget.

Vänsterpartiet considers that this proposition should be rejected. Since the Riksdag's practice is that members during the current year do not reserve themselves against proposals in separate propositions that originate from the decided framework budget, I refrain from moving for our motion, but I truly regret that the Riksdag earlier today made a decision in accordance with the government's budget proposal.

Vänsterpartiet will also abstain in the vote.

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

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs reforms that can reverse the development and promote a vibrant countryside. The soaring fuel prices of recent years have hit families in Sweden hard, not least in the countryside. It is expensive to be Swedish, and the negative consequences are many.

General inflation and the exchange rate of the Swedish krona have affected costs for, among other things, transport. High fuel prices and electricity prices affect Swedish households as well as companies. The government is therefore lowering the tax on gasoline and diesel to counteract rising pump prices and to reduce the consequences of cost increases.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs reforms that can reverse the development and promote a vibrant countryside. The Christian Democrats work from the goal that Swedish food production shall increase.

Just diesel is a major cost in agriculture. We Christian Democrats are therefore proud to have pushed through three important decisions within the government ahead of next year's budget: a continued extension of the reduction of the diesel tax for farmers, a lower tax on gasoline and diesel, and a reduced reduction obligation.

These are decisions that will make a difference. For a farmer with mixed crop production on 100 hectares, the economic effect is expected to be 40,000 kronor per year compared to if the reforms had not been implemented. It is one of several measures that can ease the situation for hard-pressed farmers and contribute to strengthened competitiveness within Swedish agriculture. These security-politically difficult times remind us of how central it is that Sweden becomes more self-sufficient in food.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish agriculture can also both reduce the overconsumption of antibiotics and be climate-friendly. The climate efficiency in Swedish agriculture is high in an international perspective, and production of food from Swedish agriculture should therefore increase and take market shares from food production produced in ways that are worse for the climate.

Furthermore, the fact that Swedish agriculture is a model in terms of animal welfare is not sufficiently highlighted in the debate. When less money goes to fuel for families, the possibility also increases to choose Swedish quality products on the plate. Buying Swedish instead of foreign meat is a good investment in open landscapes and in an animal welfare that other countries lack.

The Swedish countryside can count on the Christian Democrats' support. The future of Swedish agriculture and its contribution to society and the economy is high on our agenda. The Christian Democrats work from the goal that Swedish food production shall increase.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

(Applause)

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if it is a lack of creativity or creative, as Rickard Nordin said, that this debate is about nuclear power.

I want to start by addressing some of the gross inaccuracies that have been claimed here in the debate. When the Moderaterna ruled in the alliance government, Sweden was import-dependent. We imported electricity, not least German coal power. But after eight years with a red-green government, we have thus increased electricity production in total so much that we have become the EU's largest net exporter of electricity and, as was mentioned earlier, more than enough to cover the needs in the transport sector.

If one looks at electricity prices, the monthly price in September 2020 was 45 öre per kilowatt-hour. This was after four reactors had been decommissioned. The cost shock naturally came with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In September 2021, we had a price of 103 öre and for 2022 the price was 248 öre. In 2023, when Europe began to be able to manage the dependence we had found ourselves in regarding fossil fuels from Russia, the prices were down to 37 öre.

The great challenge when it comes to producing more electricity is ahead, and in that, this government is responsible. However, it is not the subject of this debate, Mr. Speaker, so I leave it.

Mr. Speaker! It is a matter of being able to hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time. That is what a certain person used to say quite often, namely Sweden's current Prime Minister. I haven't heard him say it for a while, and that may be because this government, in practice, is unable to do just that.

For here it is a matter of holding two thoughts in mind at the same time: to both help and support Sweden's households in a time of high inflation and sharply increased interest rates and simultaneously do everything we can to avoid an even worse climate catastrophe. A wise policy manages both. But the government's policy fails in both parts.

The government forgets all thought of the climate despite the fact that we know that September this year was the warmest month ever recorded with temperatures of 1.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels and despite the fact that we know that global temperatures will reach 3 degrees of warming if the policy continues on the same path as now. This would have catastrophic consequences, not least for Swedish agriculture and the Swedish countryside, with increased risk of landslides, floods and so on.

Despite the government knowing this, they are increasing Sweden's emissions for the first time in modern times. The government's and SD's policy in the transport area will already during next year increase emissions by 50 percent.

Mr. Speaker! It seems as if the government is not giving any thought to the climate. But it has an equally poor distribution policy for those households that are struggling to make ends meet. Lowered taxes on fuels is an inefficient policy that does not create the large price reductions that have been promised.

During the election campaign, the governing parties promised large price reductions on diesel of up to 10 kronor per liter at the pump, but now they cannot even guarantee that the tax cut will be noticed by consumers. There is a risk of new price shocks and that the petrol companies will raise their own margins. In that case, the price reduction may be completely absent. Furthermore, it will become very expensive. During 2024, the reduction of tax on petrol and diesel will cost taxpayers 13 billion.

It seems as if the thought hasn't even occurred that one could help people in another way in these difficult times, because it is actually possible to support households in a way that does not worsen the climate crisis. For example, as we propose, one can lower taxes in rural areas. It is a proposal that would give rural drivers more in their wallets in the form of a tax reduction on income than what is obtained from a tax reduction on fuels.

One can also facilitate the situation for all households that do not have a car, including some of the poorest households. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants, among other things, to see a Sweden card for all local and regional public transport in Sweden, which should only cost 500 kronor a month and half of that for young people. This would make transport cheaper for those who travel by public transport.

Not everyone can use public transport, and therefore we want a leasing support for electric cars of at least 1,500 kronor per month. If there is any way to lower transport costs with a car, it is by being able to have an electric car. We want to ensure that even low-income earners can afford to lease a car so that those who cannot or do not want to buy an electric car can still afford to drive one.

Furthermore, we want to inflation-proof several of the supports that are important for Sweden's families with children, including the child allowance and the housing allowance for families with children. It is possible to support Swedish households accurately without increasing emissions, but unfortunately, the government seems to be failing at both parts.

The government is not only failing to have two thoughts in their head at the same time. Their policy also does households a disservice. The policy locks households into a fossil dependency that makes us vulnerable. We become vulnerable to future price shocks that can cause fuel prices to skyrocket again due to the world market price. But it also means that we remain dependent on rogue states like Russia and Saudi Arabia for our transport. What we should do is support households in the transition so that we can transport ourselves with the help of domestically produced energy with cheap and well-functioning technologies of various kinds.

Mr. Speaker! The cost shock that has hit Swedish agriculture following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine with high energy prices has also clearly demonstrated here the risks of Sweden's dependence on fossil fuels. It is a dependence that the government chooses to deepen. The high cost level for many of agriculture's important inputs has led to a difficult situation for Swedish agriculture. For Miljöpartiet, it is incredibly important to support agriculture but without undermining the transition to a fossil-free agriculture with increased environmental and climate benefits.

Just as was stated earlier, Miljöpartiet wants to see a living agriculture throughout Sweden that can secure a high food supply. It is a proposal that we have pushed for a long time with the help of self-produced energy and self-produced raw materials. Therefore, new forms of support are required that do not deepen the dependence on fossil fuels.

We can transition to more electric technologies. There are [technologies] for certain parts of agriculture. Where they do not exist, it is naturally possible to use biodiesel and other biofuels. That technology already exists today. Therefore, we want to introduce a bio-premium that makes biofuels cheaper, but above all, we want to introduce an agricultural deduction of a corresponding 2 billion that compensates for the higher costs without doing so via fossil fuels.

Just as has been mentioned by previous speakers, we adhere to the principle of not moving for approval of reservations.

In this speech, Camilla Hansén and Elin Söderberg (both MP) agreed.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Lowering the petrol and diesel tax is a direct subsidy for burning fossil fuels, which is a distributive policy madness. What this government, together with SD, is now doing is increasing greenhouse gas emissions front after front and locking Sweden into fossil dependency with increased volatile oil prices.

We have today during the debate heard about the effects that the Green Party's climate policy would have led to, that is to say, to reach the Swedish and European climate goals by 2030, and it is then said that they are theoretical calculations.

How do the government parties handle theoretical calculations? This can concern calculations of how much the rainfall is expected to increase in Sweden and the consequences; landslides, avalanches, and floods. It can concern calculations of the expected increased amount of heatwaves and how they affect our elderly. It can concern calculations of how the climate is changing and the consequences for the entire society and for Swedish citizens for all time to come. The theoretical calculations are very important foundations for us in the chamber to be able to pursue a policy that protects the entire population from the consequences of climate change.

There is no business as usual scenario where we continue with high emissions without climate-related risks and consequences. Either we transition, avoid the most serious climate-related risks, and seize the fantastic opportunities that come with the climate transition – increased domestic biofuel production, enhanced crisis preparedness, green industrial transition leading to a strong societal development across the entire country – or we continue with high emissions, we increase emissions, as the government is doing now, and have to deal with the serious consequences of an exacerbated climate crisis.

It is our choice here in the chamber. So far, the Tidö parties have chosen increased emissions and worsened climate-related risks, and I think that is completely unacceptable. Lowered petrol tax is just one example of the government's climate-hostile policy.

I also heard earlier in the debate it mentioned that the reduction obligation was something that Miljöpartiet forced upon Socialdemokraterna. That is a direct falsification of history. The reduction obligation was negotiated broadly. Seven out of eight Riksdag parties stood behind the reduction obligation when it was introduced. The reduction obligation is an incredibly effective climate policy instrument that ensures we reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.

Reduced tax on petrol and diesel and reduced tax on agricultural diesel

There are incredibly many tools that we here in the chamber have at our disposal to support households in a difficult economic situation. But the Tidö parties choose not to use the tools. Instead, they increase emissions and worsen the climate crisis.

(Applause)

In this speech, Camilla Hansén and Linus Lakso (both MP) agreed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

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

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