Special debate on the occasion of the IPCC report

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet has called for this debate because the IPCC and climate research are clear: We are in a planetary climate emergency. And as over 500 researchers wrote in a debate article in April: No one in here can say that they did not know what was about to happen.

Special debate on the occasion of the IPCC's report

At the same time, we have a government that, for the first time in decades, is actively increasing emissions. It is, of course, a betrayal and a scandal, and it goes directly against the climate law that seven of eight parties have signed.

Now, voices are being raised from the right to scrap them instead, in order to reach Sweden's climate goals. Now that the government has given a veto over climate policy to the Sverigedemokraterna, who above all want to see all climate work leveled to the ground, these forces risk getting their way.

That is why I have today, with a contract for every party here in the Riksdag, and I come with the audience as witnesses to demand from all parties a promise to continue to stand behind Sweden's climate goals and not devote their efforts to tearing them up, but instead to achieving them.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Cooperation is the key to solving the climate challenge. Emissions do not stop at national borders, and the world must cooperate for .

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must ask the Minister to apologize and ask the guards to remove the persons disturbing the order as soon as possible. I want to remind that the Chamber's deliberations must not be disturbed by observers in the gallery, and that is also a reminder for the future.)

Madam Speaker! Cooperation is the key to solving the climate challenge. Emissions do not stop at national borders, and the world must cooperate.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must ask the Minister to apologize again. Now I want to remind that the Chamber's deliberations must not be disturbed by spectators in the gallery. If disorder arises again in the spectator gallery, I will have to consider taking a measure involving that we adjourn the meeting or eject spectators from the gallery. I would deeply regret that. It is an open meeting, but it is based on the premise that spectators must not disturb the order. I hope that everyone has understood these rules of order applicable to the Chamber, and I will ensure that they are followed.)

Cooperation is the key to solving the climate challenge. Emissions do not stop at national borders, and the world must cooperate and help each other so that we can reach the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Madam Speaker! When I read the IPCC's report and feel concern about how the world will manage the climate transition, I think of the European Union. This is an important week. On Tuesday, it became clear that the Fit for 55 package has reached the finish line during Sweden's presidency. Thus, everything is in place for the EU's countries to achieve the ambitious goal of a 55 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 emissions, as well as the goal of climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest.

The purpose of the work is that the EU's member states shall together reduce their emissions. This is one of the most extensive legislative projects ever in the EU, and it gives us in all of Europe the map and the tools to reach our high-set common climate goals.

When I read the IPCC report, I think of all those who, on behalf of the Swedish state, literally negotiate day and night during our presidency. They do this because Sweden's priorities have been greener, safer, and freer. These are priorities that the entire Riksdag has stood behind. Cooperation is the key to solving the climate challenge.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the guards once again to remove the persons who are disturbing the order as soon as possible. It is now a general assignment for the guards to ensure that order is restored. I ask the minister once again for an apology.)

If we receive another disruption, we will have to take the measure I mentioned earlier, as this will not be allowed to continue. The debate must proceed, and the order in the chamber must not be disturbed from the gallery.

I urge everyone once again to follow these rules. Otherwise, I must ensure that the guards clear the gallery, and then the chamber's proceedings will need to be adjourned for a period of time, which would be deeply regrettable. In that case, it is possible to follow the entire debate via media, but it can also be followed from the glassed-in section with spectator seats.

I apologize again. The Minister may now conclude his speech.

Madam Speaker! It is cooperation that is the way forward. That the priorities for the Swedish presidency, which have contributed to our successes in the European Union's work to solve the climate crisis, have succeeded is largely due to the fact that we have cooperated. We have found cooperation to be a key to solving our great climate challenge.

As a representative of a bourgeois, liberal government, I believe that the fact that the polluter shall pay is the most important piece of the puzzle. Regardless of whether we are talking about an expanded emissions trading system or the introduction of a price on carbon at the EU border, we can truly increase the pace of climate work when emissions bear their actual costs.

The most important thing is the EU's primary tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: the emission trading system. The pace is increasing to reach the goal of reduced emissions, and the trading will also include new sectors. It is an important and effective steering mechanism. Emission trading is, in fact, a market-based steering mechanism. The policy sets the framework, and the companies decide on the measures. That is how we tackle the climate crisis without it being done at the expense of employment or our economic development.

Madam Speaker! There are some, some of whom sympathize with the party that called for this debate while others are possibly sitting in the gallery and disrupting the democratic debate, who think that the transition must occur at the expense of our economy. They think that we can only change the system by overturning it and that it is only with a worsened economy that we can manage the climate transition. That is wrong.

When the rules are tightened, those who are ahead in the climate transition benefit. Sweden is far ahead in the transition, and not least our business sector is leading the way. What previously has entailed great risks for the climate will increasingly become great gains. Those who are ahead will now reap the rewards.

We in Europe call this a Green Deal, precisely because it is a transition that will benefit us. When our economies stand strong in an actual transition, in a transition where we reduce our emissions, in a transition where we regulate emissions from the transport sector, where we ensure that cars run on electricity instead of fossil fuels, when we restore wetlands, we show that with the EU as a tool and with market-based tools, we succeed in standing strong in the transition. Then other countries around the world will follow.

When this package is in place, it will change the conditions for Swedish climate policy, and all member countries will receive sharpened national commitments. If the policy is to succeed with the climate transition, we need, together with the emitters, to ensure that we change the way we work, the way we produce goods and services, the products we sell, and the way we make our economy work.

If politics is to truly solve the climate transition, we need to be a partner that succeeds in getting the emitters to become contributors to the transition by stopping their emissions.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Green Party, which has requested a debate on this important issue. Naturally, the Social Democrats stand behind the goals.

It has only been a few weeks since the latest IPCC report was published, and the conclusions are both serious and frightening. They confirm, of course, what we already know, namely that climate change is real and that it is also worsening. Our greenhouse gas emissions have reached historical heights, and the consequences are becoming increasingly clear with rising temperatures, extreme weather, and rising sea levels.

But the report is also clear on another point, namely that it is truly important to act now because time is running out. No one can really deny the fact now that we are in the midst of a climate crisis that threatens our society, our planet, our future, as well as the future of our children and grandchildren.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must take its responsibility. The Social Democrats have never been a quarterly politics party but instead a party that takes responsibility for both the present and the future, and we have long fought for a sustainable and just future. We know that it will not be easy, but we are firmly determined to carry out an ambitious climate transition.

We want Sweden to continue to hold the lead. We believe in and support the innovative power in our Swedish companies, that is to say the climate-smart industry that provides tens of thousands of new green jobs with fair conditions. We want to secure our energy independence and increase energy efficiency. We believe in investing in sustainable infrastructure, charging stations, and public transport in the bioeconomy. We also believe in making it easier for people to choose climate-smart alternatives in everyday life.

We have already taken important steps towards a sustainable future. During our time in government, we established the climate policy framework, the Swedish climate goals, which all the world's countries are looking at. We introduced both Industriklivet and Klimatklivet to transition the business sector so that more green jobs could emerge throughout Sweden. But we know that more needs to be done.

The pace of the transition needs to increase, and there was a need for rapidly expanded renewable energy, investments in energy storage technology, and strong measures for the protection of valuable nature.

Sweden has the best conditions. It requires collective responsibility and cooperation across the entire society, from the business sector to the public sector and civil society, to you and me. We must all take responsibility and act now to secure a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! On March 20, the IPCC released its sixth synthesis report. The report is a summary of the previous contributing reports that have been presented progressively since 2016.

Madam Speaker! We can therefore also state that the report did not come with any news, which is natural since it is based on previous research. The report establishes, as everyone knows, that it is human activity that accounts for the majority of the warming, that the Paris Agreement's goal of one and a half to two degrees will likely not be reached, and that the global work to reduce emissions must be intensified. These are, of course, negative findings, even if they are not new.

At the same time, Madam Speaker, there are positive things to point out. During my first term in the chamber, it was spoken of, with reference to the IPCC, that we were heading towards a warming of 4-5 degrees. Now, the most likely scenarios according to the IPCC show that we are heading towards 2.5-2.7 degrees. That is, of course, a positive development.

What has happened in brief is that more countries have begun the work of phasing out fossil energy. We have seen increased availability of natural gas and fossil-free energy, which has led to coal power being phased out much faster than was previously thought. Now coal power appears to have peaked. That was also thought a couple of years ago, but now we truly hope that is the case.

Things and matters do not look good, but they look better. There is, despite everything, reason to look positively toward the future.

Madam Speaker! As a Swede, one has every reason to feel pride for the work that we in Sweden began to undertake as early as the 1970s with phasing out fossil energy when we realized the need to remove oil from our heating and electricity production. Today we have a business sector that is well-positioned to reduce emissions globally through climate-friendly exports, while it is also well-positioned for growth. The challenges here are to clean up in Sweden. It is about cleaning up in bureaucracy and permit processes, which for far too many years have characterized the socialist rule.

The work is moving forward even at the EU level. What most in Europe face today is to do what Sweden did several decades ago.

Madam Speaker! It is pleasing that we have, through the Tidö Agreement, laid the foundation for climate policy. Sweden's climate policy shall be ambitious. Swedish competitiveness shall be protected. Our common climate and environmental policy is based on the stewardship principle and strives to find the most cost-effective measures that simultaneously do not harm industries and the countryside. This is taken from the Tidö Agreement and is at the same time almost verbatim what is found in the Sweden Democrats' election platform.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The climate issue is global. Therefore, the solutions must also be global. Our policy aims to both reduce Sweden's emissions and encourage other countries to raise their climate ambitions. Sweden is and will continue to be a green pioneer, not because it feels good in the moment, but to show the world what is possible through practical action and to get more to follow suit.

Here, the Swedish business community plays an important role. By demonstrating the connections between economic growth and emission reductions, Swedish companies are great role models in the world.

Today, the global climate benefit of Swedish exports corresponds to approximately half of the emissions generated in Sweden, that is, approximately 23 million tons of carbon dioxide. It is a figure that, under the right conditions, can be doubled. It is incredible.

The Moderaternas view on climate, energy, and environmental issues is characterized by technological optimism and hopefulness. We are convinced that through technical progress, science, and facts, humans can solve the problems we face - and reach the climate goals. It is the IPCC report and we agree. The technology exists. It is possible.

We find ourselves in a tough starting position where populist feel-good politics has been in control for far too long. It has led to a dismantled energy system, wasted tax money, and climate anxiety.

Sweden has more to give, but that presupposes powerful measures with the right focus. It will take time to reverse the development, but it is a change that must be made. Now is the time for tough priorities. The climate cannot wait.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! The climate issue is both urgent and complicated. We have less than ten years if we are to be able to reverse the climate crisis.

The IPCC's latest report shows that many climate effects have worsened in recent years. The warmer climate affects us more than ever. Last summer was record-warm in Europe with temperatures over 45 degrees, and with that followed more deaths and severe drought which affects, among other things, our food supply.

But in a time when the world needs to unite to meet the challenges, the government shames Sweden and lowers the climate ambitions.

Madam Speaker! The Government even notes itself that emissions will increase as a result of several climate-damaging proposals. This includes, among other things, the reduction of the fuel tax, the Government's largest reform, but also the fact that they stopped a comprehensive reform to make the system of travel deductions transport-neutral.

Those who placed their trust in the Liberals to safeguard the climate perspective in a right-wing nationalist government have every reason to feel disappointed. The broken promises have been numerous.

On several occasions, the government has been asked when the proposals to reduce emissions will arrive and what they will look like. The answer has consistently been no answer, but only that we are to wait for the upcoming climate action plan.

The problem here is that we do not have time to wait and that the government deliberately shortens the time we have with its policy, as it increases climate-damaging emissions this year instead of reducing them.

Now, the situation is that most of the population in Sweden want politics to take responsibility and provide the solutions required to meet the climate goals that we have decided upon. But this government is doing the opposite.

In my next speech, I will tell a bit more about the Left Party's policy for a just climate transition.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We are on thin ice, and it is melting fast. That was what the UN Secretary-General said in connection with the climate report, and he is right. The temperature on our planet is rising, and it is happening faster than was initially thought. If we do nothing, it will have fatal consequences that affect us all. But climate change can be stopped. It is not too late yet.

Unfortunately, the Swedish government is failing to deliver. The emission targets, which according to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency were within reach just a year ago, now seem more distant than they have been in a long time. For the first time in 20 years, a government is conducting a policy that actively counteracts the climate transition, according to the Climate Policy Council.

The sad thing is that a government that calls itself bourgeois acts so contrary to what the business community says, because the business community is requesting the transition. The business community knows that the world is transitioning. If we do not take the lead and create the innovations, someone else will do it somewhere else, and then Swedish competitiveness will be depleted.

Madam Speaker! Political leadership is now required. The Centre Party's climate policy combines an effective pricing of emissions with support for green technology that can break the fossil dependency. We have several good proposals in our budget. Here are three of them.

The first point is that it must become easier for each of us to invest in climate-smart energy measures. Therefore, we want to introduce an expanded green deduction for, for example, solar cells and heat pumps.

The second point concerns wind power. A crisis commission was needed here. There are investors who want to invest and locations that would work well, and we have the technology. Still, there is a standstill. Here we need to review laws and processes so that we can get wind power started.

The third point concerns biogas. The government has undermined those who produce and those who purchase biogas. Measures must be taken here.

I want to urge the government and the Minister for Climate and Environment to act, because emissions must be reduced now. We cannot wait for it to happen some other time or somewhere else.

It is positive that the EU's climate package has come so far. It acts as a spotlight on Sweden and Europe. But we need to do something here in the country.

I and the Centre Party want to create better conditions for the climate transition. We have the proposals for the economy and for the business sector, for the countryside and for security and, of course, for the environment.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The message in the IPCC's synthesis report, which was presented just over a month ago, is very clear: Climate change is already affecting people and ecosystems. The situation is serious, and it is urgent. But solutions exist. That is the absolute most important message in the entire report – that it is not too late.

Making big and decisive decisions in a state of panic very rarely leads to good and well-considered decisions. Neither climate shame, meat shame, flight shame, or other forms of shame are particularly effective. Shame and anxiety breed fear, and it is a feeling that very rarely leads to creative action. On the contrary, it paralyzes. Furthermore, all of this is stripping away the faith in the future from our youth, which is devastating.

With the opportunities we have in Sweden, not least in the form of innovations and our sustainable forestry, we shall be a leading country that shows that it is possible to transition in a way that does not lead us backward and stop development. If it is our goal that we should stop, we might as well lie down and die immediately.

Then we will also not be able to get the big players on board, whose emissions really must be choked off. The big question, my friends, is how we are to get China, USA, India, Russia and several others on board. That is where we have the big win to be had.

The transition should be joyful. It should be fun. It should happen with innovations that are positive for both the human being and humanity. Can we demonstrate that we are a pioneering country? But if we continue with previous governments' symbolic politics and retreat into the future, I am not sure that the hopeful writings in the IPCC report will come to fruition.

Finally, Madam Speaker: If you want to go fast, go alone! If you want to go far, go together with others! What does it help us if we win the race if the rest of the world does not keep up? Here we must go together. That is how we go the furthest. That is how we reach the goal.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is not unknown that researchers have raised the warning level for the climate time and again over decades. In recent years, the climate researchers, those who know the most about the problem, have almost shouted themselves hoarse: Do more now! Do not wait!

The IPCC's reports state that time is running out. In that case, one could have expected a willingness to reconsider in this debate and that people say: We were wrong to oppose climate policy instead of the climate crisis. We should have done more.

I don't hear anything of the sort at all. Then I suppose I shall be the one to say it. Despite the fact that everyone knows that Miljöpartiet is the party that has pushed through the most climate policy, gotten the most done, and ensured that we are on track to reach the climate goals, I can say: We should have done even more. We should have pushed even harder. That knowledge also means that we have both the drive, the motivation, and the will to actually do what is required.

The climate situation has been serious for a long time. But everything now points to the fact that this year, 2023, and 2024 will become the most extreme weather years that humanity has ever seen. There will be heat records broken by a wide margin, extreme drought and forest fires, and in other places, torrential rain and enormously severe floods. It will plague the world like never before. People will die because the world's countries, including Sweden, have not done enough to reduce emissions.

The challenge for the world and Sweden is enormous - to break with centuries of fossil fuel dependency, change energy and transport systems, and build a renewable future in just a few decades.

It is understandable that many people have hesitated. Is it even possible in a democracy to make such extensive political decisions that a rapid transition is actually feasible?

I am very happy, and also proud, that we now have the answer to that question. Even the new government writes itself in its budget that we, with the decisions that were already made when they entered the Government Offices, were on track to reach the goals – that is to say, with the climate policy that Miljöpartiet got through and which the Socialdemokrater here at the rostrum also take credit for. You are welcome to do that! Next time we can negotiate so that you also support the proposals from the beginning.

One can also ask what effect it has had now that we have implemented the policy that is making us on track to reach the goals. We have a business sector that is investing heavily in the future. They want to invest 100 billion kronor in green processes over the coming decades. We have gained tens of thousands of green jobs, battery factories, and historically large electricity surpluses. It is the largest companies that today are writing on op-ed pages that they want to see a more, not less, ambitious climate policy.

When the government, therefore, inherited such a golden opportunity, what has been done with it? Slaughtered reduction obligations, a travel deduction that favors car travel instead of public transport, reduced investments in trains, worsened conditions for wind power, a sharp reduction in funds for valuable nature when we know that trees that are allowed to stand is the best way to lower emissions quickly - point by point, it is shown that one is not doing enough. More expensive repairs, more expensive electric cars - the list is long of what can be regarded as a fossil relapse.

It does not help to sugarcoat lies. They do not become truths because they are sugarcoated with charging stations and dreams of nuclear power sometime far in the future. Action is required now.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! The climate crisis is an energy crisis. Climate transition is to move from fossil to fossil-free. We must replace the fossil-driven technologies that we use to generate prosperity in our society. But fossil-free energy is lacking.

A third of Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial facilities. If only the steel manufacturer SSAB succeeds with its transition, Sweden's carbon emissions will decrease by 11 percent. And SSAB has the solution - but massive amounts of fossil-free electricity are needed.

A sixth of Sweden's emissions come from agriculture. The actors are ready with Swedish production of fossil-free artificial fertilizer. I have met them myself. But they cannot get started because the facility will require masses of fossil-free electricity.

The transport sector accounts for a third of Sweden's emissions. We need to electrify our transport fleet in many ways - by more people driving electric cars and by heavy trucks running on electricity. And we also see that airplanes will be able to be powered by hydrogen or synthetic aviation fuel in the future. We even see how Sweden produces the first electric planes. But to produce these alternative fuels that can make emissions from the aviation sector decrease, massive amounts of fossil-free electricity are needed.

The other day, I had the opportunity to participate in presenting new Swedish technology for battery-powered trucks. It is already the case that the majority of the trucks sold in Sweden can be powered by batteries. The government is investing a total of 4 billion to subsidize charging infrastructure so that we can electrify our entire transport sector. But, Madam Speaker, a huge amount of fossil-free electricity will be needed.

The opposition parties do not agree on either the schools, the taxes, or the defense. They disagree on almost everything, but not on one thing: nuclear power must be phased out. It is no coincidence that representatives of this government so often speak about nuclear power. Without nuclear power, we cannot manage to reach net zero 2045. Without nuclear power, we cannot manage the climate transition. This, Madam Speaker, is not only stated by me but also by the IPCC.

The opposition must realize that energy policy is what makes their climate policy harmful. But Sweden now has a government that sees reality for what it is. We do this by bringing together issues concerning energy, climate, environment, and business to tackle this challenge together and do so with massive amounts of fossil-free electricity.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! As I said before - the IPCC report shows that it is now that the world must initiate the climate sprint. At the same time, we know that processes and lead times are far too long. The shovel must go into the ground for the climate-smart industry and for more electricity. The Minister for Climate and Environment has investigated and referred proposals from two inquiries that can speed up the permit processes.

Yesterday, the incentive study for more wind power was also presented. The investigator wants the government to continue investigating incentives for municipalities so that more wind power plans can be approved.

My questions to the Minister are: Why has the government not placed the proposals that can be submitted to shorten the permit processes on the Riksdag's table? And how is it that the government gives double messages, when the Minister yesterday said no to further investigating incentives for the municipalities while the Prime Minister on Sveriges Television says that the municipalities must receive incentives if expansion is to be possible?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Yes, this is a very exciting question – how we can ensure that we expand all fossil-free energy faster, which includes wind power. That is why I am so pleased that everyone in our cooperation stands behind an agreement where we say that fossil-free energy shall be expanded.

How are we going to do this? We have investigated the issue in many rounds. The Social Democrats' government submitted a proposition that fell in the Riksdag; it did not gain support. After that, a proposal was submitted for an investigation to look at how we create more incentives to gain local acceptance for wind power.

We will continue to look into this. The Prime Minister and I agree – we need more local acceptance for wind power. I look forward to presenting a model for how we can achieve this in the best possible way.

There are many here to take inspiration from - many parties with different proposals. I am grateful that the Social Democrats' government began investigating this issue. We have finished with investigations; now it is time to come to the proposals.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! That was what my first question concerned. The Climate Justice Inquiry and the Environmental Assessment Inquiry are submitted and ready in the Minister's desk drawer, and I wonder when the proposals will reach the Swedish Parliament. I was not only speaking about the incentive inquiry.

The government's expert authority says that if we are to meet the climate goals, wind power must be expanded and the reduction obligation must be at a level that corresponds to the goals. At the same time, the Swedish people can now witness scenes from a terribly bad marriage, as the government and the largest party in the government coalition argue in full view, with headlines speaking of a government crisis, of the Minister for Climate and Environment not being part of the negotiations, of the dismantling of existing wind power, and of not a single plant being built.

I think this issue deserves a bit more seriousness. It doesn't add up, Romina Pourmokhtari, when we have a government that chooses to increase emissions. My question is: What is it that applies?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! What is at stake? We want fossil-free energy. For the first time in a long time, Sweden has a government that is in agreement on energy policy. It can be read in the Tidö Agreement - we shall expand nuclear power and all fossil-free energy.

Here, Madam Speaker, one gets questions about whether we in the government base would not be in agreement. Sometimes it can be so, because we are not one and the same party; we think a bit differently. But internally in Anna-Caren Sätherberg's own party, one does not seem to be in agreement. Here stands Anna-Caren Sätherberg and says "renewable" in all her speeches. At the same time, I heard Magdalena Andersson and the energy policy spokesperson say "fossil-free" last week.

What do you think yourselves? What do the Social Democrats think in this important issue? Are you for nuclear power? Have you changed your mind? Or do you still want to shut down Swedish nuclear power?

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! What we can see today with the emissions that we humans have made so far is that the ice around the North Pole is melting and important solar radiation is disappearing, which increases the warming. This in turn leads to increased melting, but also to fresher seawater, which can affect today's ocean currents, which are displaced and weakened.

There is a great concern about domino effects with increased periods of drought, which, among other things, can lead to the Amazon rainforest being transformed into savanna, which in turn brings about a reduced carbon uptake. These are just a few of many examples that demonstrate the urgency regarding measures to reduce emissions.

My question to the Minister is: Why is the government not taking the climate crisis seriously?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa Fredholm, for this question! What can we do so that it is not only Sweden that handles its emissions but that we take a global responsibility? What shall we do so that people do not cut down the Amazon forests to produce products that contribute to a bad and unsustainable world?

We are doing so at a rapid pace, because this government takes climate issues seriously. We do it by banning the import of products produced in, for example, the Amazon forests in the EU. We do it by making efforts in various ways to ensure that our seas and waters are healthy. But we do it primarily by expanding electricity production, which means that the fossil actors in Sweden can stop emitting and instead be clean and run on electricity. There you in Vänsterpartiet unfortunately stand unresponsive.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Romina Pourmokhtari, for the answer, even though I am not quite satisfied with it.

Beautiful words alone will not help. It is action here and now that is required. Even if the government succeeds in presenting a series of emission-reduction proposals in a forthcoming climate action plan, a year is lost. It actually goes in the wrong direction.

How is it possible to say these fine words and then come up with a policy that increases emissions instead of reducing them? The government has dismantled climate grants and instead invests heavily in fossil subsidies. An enormous focus has been placed on increased car travel. They have stopped both the electric car premium and a travel deduction that would have benefited more than just car drivers. As it stands now, the government is retreating into the past.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! One does not want words - one wants concrete answers. Then I shall give these.

We are making a permanent investment of 200 million for the wetlands to actually increase the pace of the establishment of wetlands. It shall not be appropriations that go back and forth with different amounts, but it is 200 million permanently.

We are investing 4 billion in total on charging infrastructure, not only for light vehicles but also for heavy vehicles and also for hydrogen stations. We allocate 600 million kronor extra to Industriklivet 2023, 2024 and 2025.

It is global engagement and more engagement in how Sweden can export services, goods and policies to other parts of the world that have worked to reduce our emissions.

Here we begin. More to come. We take the climate crisis seriously.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We have been promised a climate action plan that has been pushed back time and again. It still seems unclear in what form the government intends to present this plan, whether there will be any bill at all this autumn.

If the Centre Party had been allowed to decide, we would have reintroduced the climate bonus for electric cars. Many families who want to do the right thing for the climate felt cheated when the government stopped this overnight, and now they can no longer afford climate-smart alternatives. The sudden phase-out has been met with strong criticism from many sides, and now Sweden risks increasing emissions from transport and missing the climate goals for 2030.

My question to the Minister is therefore: What does the government intend to do to reach the emission targets for 2030?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by pointing out that it is not true that we would in any way have delayed the action plan and the work. We fully follow Sweden's climate policy framework, which all parties in the government have backed. In it, it states that we shall present an action plan the year after the election year.

The previous government presented its action plan at the end of December, when most were on Christmas holiday. That is not what we intend to do.

When it comes to the content and how we are to handle the emissions from the transport sector, it is an important issue that is being highlighted here. Why is a climate bonus being removed? Well, when we created the bonus-malus system, it was supposed to be self-financing, so that we received as much as we paid out. That is not what happened. It became twice as much, and we are talking about large billion-dollar amounts, 7-billion sums. It is not responsible economic policy.

Instead, it is responsible to now invest money in charging infrastructure, so that it is not only voters living in Södermalm who feel like buying an expensive Tesla and receive help from the state, but that more people across all of Sweden also dare to cross the threshold, perhaps to a hybrid or electric car, and meet the future of the transport sector.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The Government has stated that climate policy shall be effective and responsible and that it shall rest on three pillars, of which electrification is one. Then it is not enough with charging stations by the roads or in the ports. We must ensure that we get more electric cars into traffic and change the exhaust emissions on the other trucks and cars, otherwise we will not reach the goals.

What is actually an effective climate policy? If one does not ensure that more people prioritize electric cars, emissions must decrease in some other way. I am aware of two ways. Either one mixes other fuels into the tank, and then the reduction obligation is an important tool, or one simply has to drive slower and lower the speed limits on the motorways to perhaps 70 kilometers per hour or ban traffic on certain days of the week. And I do not believe that is what the minister means.

I repeat: How are we specifically going to achieve the goals for 2030 if we are simultaneously to have a lower reduction obligation and scrap the investment in electric cars?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Stina, for a good discussion on the transport sector! It is a very important part. It accounts for a large part of Sweden's emissions.

How are we then actually going to ensure that emissions from the transport sector are reduced? Well, we do that concretely by implementing the right measure at the right time. When we started with the climate bonus, electric cars were something inaccessible that cost millions. That is no longer the case. Then we must see what is the right measure now. What is the right thing in this time? The right thing is to make a historic investment in charging infrastructure. It is also something where the EU is increasing the pace.

We should not only do this for the electric cars in the city center but also for the heavy vehicles. The person who has a passenger car might drive to work, park the car in a parking space, go home, shop, pick up the children, and drive home. The passenger car stands still for many hours. A heavy truck rolls on the roads all day with a heavy load. Therefore, we must ensure that the trucks are electrified, and we do that with funds in the initiatives that we expand and by ensuring that there are actually places for them to charge.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I wish I could trust the Minister for Climate's words about ambitions and so on. But after eight months with the government that the Minister represents, it is easy to state that if anything, you have elevated the political lie to an art form. One says one thing and does another.

To say that the climate policy is ambitious and then increase emissions is simply misleading. To talk about wanting to see more green electricity but at the same time doing everything one can to stop new electricity production, not least wind power, is to mislead. To talk about electrification as a solution and at the same time take actions that kill off electric car sales is to mislead.

That is why it is also difficult to believe in the most fundamental aspects of Swedish politics. Do you even stand behind the climate framework and the climate goals that we, seven of the eight parties here in the Riksdag, once signed?

I will hand over a contract to Romina Pourmokhtari and give the Minister for Climate and Environment a chance to now clarify that one will not, during this mandate period, tear up or weaken Sweden's climate goals. Are you prepared to sign this, Romina Pourmokhtari?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I and the entire Swedish government stand behind Sweden's climate policy framework, Per Bolund. All parties in the Swedish government have voted through Sweden's climate policy framework. We do not need to sign a flimsy A4 that you have been standing and printing out during the morning to confirm it. I say this from the rostrum. Our Prime Minister says it. We have voted through Sweden's climate policy framework with a large majority in this chamber.

The question now is how we actually get moving, how we actually reduce our emissions. We do that with more electricity. Wind power is not enough, not in the long run. We need all the fossil-free electricity we can get.

When Per Bolund himself was responsible for these issues, the oil power plant in Karlshamn was running at full throttle. It was even operated in September, a month when Sweden's energy production should be able to stand strong.

It is not how we solve this. If there is anyone who speaks in big words but then in reality fails to solve this problem, it is the Green Party itself.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! The energy issue was debated last night. I am happy to debate it at any time. Now we are talking about the large climate framework, about the climate work.

Unfortunately, there are strong reasons to question whether the government will even be able to uphold the foundation of Swedish climate policy. That they will not deliver the solutions required and lower emissions when they do everything they can to raise emissions is quite obvious. The Minister for the Environment himself speaks of cooperation in his statement. And they have chosen to cooperate with the Sverigedemokraterna, who is the party that does not stand behind the climate framework.

We are now hearing voices from the Moderaterna questioning whether the climate goals should be maintained at all. Of course, we, and many with us, begin to question whether it is just words or if they will actually stand up for this. Therefore, I will hand over this climate contract. I hope that the Minister for Climate takes it seriously and can truly declare, for everyone who wants to know now, what will apply moving forward. I am thinking of all the companies that are going to make investments and of all the private individuals who are wondering: What can I do to contribute to a sustainable society? It is about giving them a guarantee: The climate goals will stand firm. If anything, they will be strengthened, not weakened, as many forces to the right are now talking about.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I understand that Per Bolund does not want to talk about the energy issue. I understand that Per Bolund would rather talk about the climate policy framework, something that I believe the Green Party should be very proud of. Previous governments have worked out a stable framework that can contribute to Sweden moving forward in this work. It is a framework that this government is continuing to work with.

How can we best involve the voters in this work as well? The truth is that Per Bolund does not have the voters with him. His party lost power. We have now taken over, with a majority in the chamber. And we are conducting a climate policy that is not only intended to ensure that Sweden stands at the forefront and does its job, but also that we get not only the Swedish voters but also more countries in the world on board. That is the only way we can reduce our emissions and manage the climate crisis - by having more parts of the world contribute to the transition and reduce their emissions. This is primarily achieved by ensuring there is fossil-free electricity that our companies can use, so that they can sell fossil-free products and services.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The Minister says that there is now a majority in Sweden's Riksdag. Yes, we have a paradigm shift in Swedish politics. We have a government that now chooses to increase emissions for the first time in 20 years when the science is clear that all the world's countries need to act here and now to reduce their emissions.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister often said: On my side of politics, we are in agreement. But what the governing parties never said was that they were in agreement that Sweden's emissions would increase.

If Sweden does not take responsibility, what demands can we then place on other countries? Now the EU is showing the way forward, and the USA is investing heavily. That is good. But what is difficult to be happy about is that we once again seem to have a Moderate-led government acting as if the industry in Sweden is basically gone.

The government took office 192 days ago – for over 4,600 hours ago. During that time, we have only seen cuts in the budget for climate and environmental policy and with that increased emissions. It was not the policy that the Minister for Climate and Environment or her government colleagues campaigned on. There is no mandate from the voters for the policy that is now being pursued.

We Social Democrats want Sweden to keep the lead, because we believe in and support the innovative power in our Swedish companies in the climate-smart industry, which provides tens of thousands of new green jobs with fair conditions.

The latest IPCC report is clear. The Climate Policy Council is clear. The government's expert agency, Naturvårdsverket, is also clear. Our Swedish companies are clear. They show this, among other things, with their debate article together with the World Wide Fund for Nature in Dagens industri today. It is time to listen.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats in opposition distinguish themselves in several ways. For me, it is a new experience, and it is interesting to experience this. The Social Democrats think that directors-general should sit for life nowadays. They like to complain about the government's policy. They love to invite the Minister for Environment to the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. But their own policy stands somewhere in the background, for it is not as present. We see it in all the reports we have in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. There are not particularly many Social Democratic motions.

Now the Social Democrats are also complaining a great deal about the government base being in agreement on significantly lowering the reduction obligation. Then I wonder: What news does Anna-Caren Sätherberg have to give? What do the Social Democrats want? Are we going to see a shock increase of the reduction obligation at the turn of the year?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We have a debate today on climate policy and on how we are to save the world and future generations. I hope, as Martin Kinnunen says, that the Social Democrats are in opposition for a very short time. I cannot claim to complain much further. On the other hand, I ask relevant questions from time to time, just as the member does when he asks me about the reduction obligation.

If you lower the reduction obligation, it would give 10 kronor at the pump, the Sweden Democrats said before the election. Now we can see what this interference has looked like. We did a control station for a year to see how it had looked. During that time, the price at the pump had been over 28 and under 21, but the reduction obligation had been the same. What is it that the Sweden Democrats actually want to achieve with a lowered reduction obligation?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats promised that they would work for lower fuel prices. That is what we are doing. What we can see, which the reduction obligation has led to, is that we have a significantly higher price for diesel today than the rest of the world has. We have the world's highest prices. One can see this from the last year. It was Sweden that had the highest prices in the world. That was not the case before the introduction of the reduction obligation. At the same time, we have lower tax today on diesel than we had before the reduction obligation was introduced. We have simply received very much higher fuel prices because of the reduction obligation.

Anna-Caren Sätherberg did not answer my question. Do the Social Democrats intend to work for the current reduction obligation legislation to continue and that we will receive a shock increase of the reduction obligation at the turn of the year?

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency recently made a very important observation in its report. Climate policy must have acceptance from the population. This is where the Social Democrats and the Green Party have failed.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want ordinary people to be able to manage the climate transition in a good way. Therefore, we had, among other things, a fuel discount to ensure that one would be able to afford to refuel if one lives in Sweden's rural areas.

Regarding the price, I believe that the member, just as I know, it is about a weak Swedish krona, it is about world market prices for oil, and it is about very many things. What I described to the member Martin Kinnunen was that the reduction obligation has been the same, but that we have had prices of 28 kronor down to 21 kronor - in half a year.

One must include several things. This is also about security policy. I want to think more Swedish in the thought, increase our supply capacity and create more Swedish jobs.

When it comes to the level of the reduction obligation, the government base and the government must nevertheless manage to come up with a decision on what applies.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I have a question where I believe that Anna-Caren Sätherberg, Socialdemokraterna, and we Kristdemokraterna are quite in agreement, and it is regarding the forest.

I note how Anna-Caren Sätherberg speaks warmly about the forest and Swedish forestry now. But during the last eight years, when Anna-Caren Sätherberg's party sat in government, Sweden was for the most part very absent in forest issues within the EU. It was like-minded countries that wrote ministerial letters, but Sweden was not included. There were meetings. Sweden did not send its minister. One did not participate.

A Finnish colleague asked the question: Where have you been for the last eight years? And one might ask why you did not participate then, Anna-Caren Sätherberg. It is somewhat interesting. But the question for the future is: Where do the Social Democrats actually stand regarding Swedish forestry? Do you stand for sustainable Swedish forestry, or have you adopted the EU's view on forestry?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Swedish forestry is enormously important. It has created prosperity and welfare in our country for a very long time. It creates jobs in Sweden's sparsely populated areas and rural regions. The forest is important in the climate transition both when it stands and when it is harvested for products. We fully support the balanced goals for production and environment.

Now the member asks what we did in the EU. I can only answer for myself. During the ten months that I sat in the government, we started together with Austria, Finland and Slovakia - or was it Slovenia - Four for forest. We also invited others to jointly drive issues where we had similar thoughts, for if there is one thing we know, it is that the rest of Europe has logged their forests but we have growth in ours.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The forest is one of our greatest competitive advantages when it comes to the transition. And Anna-Caren Sätherberg is completely right that it has created prosperity and welfare. There is no doubt about that. Still, we note that when countries such as, for example, Austria tried to gather a group of like-minded parties on forest issues, Sweden was not included. One can wonder why Sweden chose to abstain in a matter that is so important, not least for the matter that we are standing here and debating today, namely the transition. There, the forest is absolutely crucial.

Why did the Swedish government walkover - okay, it was before Anna-Caren Sätherberg became minister - in these so important issues?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats have never yielded a walkover in any forestry issues. On the other hand, we now have a government that first went out in November with the headline that they had saved Swedish forestry and the climate, only to say in March, when according to the Sweden Democrats some negotiation had taken place, that they did not get what they wanted so they had to concede. Aside from that, we have the Swedish forestry industry saying: How can you negotiate about things when you are the chair but choose to abstain from voting when it comes to LULUCF?

We probably have slightly different views on how to best influence in the EU. But the only thing I can say is that Finland and Sweden have had a very close cooperation on forestry issues throughout the entire time we have had a social democratic-led government, precisely because we are so similar.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Anna-Caren Sätherberg for clearly stating in her speech, as the sole representative, that the Social Democrats will stand behind the climate policy framework and the climate goals.

I am very happy and proud when I think back on everything that the Social Democrats and the Green Party achieved together in government. It was not the best conditions when we had a majority in the Riksdag that gladly tried to spoil all opportunities, such as when they were given the chance, always cut the environmental budget instead of investing forward.

The Climate Policy Council notes that already in 2022, after the Green Party had left the government, climate policy lost momentum. The Social Democrats proposed a paused reduction obligation, increased fossil fuel subsidies, and a budget that implied significant cuts in the environmental sector.

I still want to hand over a contract and hope that the Social Democrats stand firm and will not vote for worsened climate goals if or perhaps when the government comes with a proposal to worsen the climate goals.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is quite true that a lot happened, and naturally much at the initiative of the Miljöparti, which makes the world look at us now. We now have the climate policy framework and climate laws, and we set climate goals. It has surely also been an inspiration in the negotiations that subsequently took place in the EU. As Per Bolund says, seven out of eight parties stood behind the climate goals, even though the government did not have a majority in Sweden's Riksdag.

Now we have a government that has a majority in Sweden's Riksdag, and then for the first time in 20 years we see that budgets are being presented that simply increase emissions. It is not what the world needs to hear, and it is also not what Sweden as a responsible nation should do.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It bodes well, because with a new government that has more power, there are conditions to not only agree on the goals but to do everything that is required for us to achieve them, to reduce emissions as quickly as required and do what we agreed upon in the government position, to make Sweden the world's first fossil-free welfare country.

The unlucky crows who cawed very loudly when we presented the framework, where we set some of the world's highest climate goals, said that it would affect competitiveness and cost jobs, that investments would go to other countries. Now it is very easy to see that it has become exactly the opposite. It is to Sweden that the investors are seeking, at least until now when uncertainty is spreading about where Sweden is headed with the new government. This is what the great international competition will be about in the future. Joe Biden now has many billions in subsidies for precisely those green industries.

I will hand over the contract and hope that the Social Democrats stand by the fact that climate cooperation is the basis for Swedish competitiveness and a strong labor market.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, I accept the contract. If it is to be signed, it will surely be by someone more important than I.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Just six months ago, it was a Social Democrat who was Sweden's Minister for Climate. She said that she was not ashamed when the Social Democrats pursued a policy to lower fuel prices and fuel taxes. One then went to the election on a platform to lower fuel taxes and curb the reduction obligation. These were statements that came from many Social Democratic representatives.

Unlike the Social Democrats, we are now pursuing a policy aimed at reducing Sweden's emissions all the way to zero by 2045, something that the Social Democrats' climate action plan was not on track to achieve. This shall be done by replacing gasoline with fossil-free electricity.

I wonder very curiously: What do the Social Democrats think now? Has one changed one's mind when one is not in power? Does one suddenly no longer want to brake the reduction obligation, or what is it that actually applies?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to quickly throw back that the Minister is welcome to answer my two questions that she did not answer, namely the questions about the Climate Justice Inquiry and the Environmental Assessment Inquiry which are fully submitted and are ready in the Minister's inbox. When will proposals regarding these inquiries come to the Swedish Parliament? These inquiries can actually truly ensure that we get momentum in the expansion of more electricity.

It is true that we established a control point to review the reduction obligation. We also mitigated the costs through a tax reduction at the pump. But these were temporary measures. And it is nothing that is being discussed now in the government and in the government base, that is, whether the reduction obligation should be at zero percent, which the Sverigedemokraterna are pushing and hope to win with the flag flying high. Or how large should the reduction obligation be? This is the answer we are all waiting for, Minister.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! That question was difficult to give an answer to. But I also note that Member Sätherberg now said more electricity, not more renewable electricity. Perhaps it is a method to also tip your party leader so that one can avoid answering the question of whether it is yes to nuclear power or no to nuclear power - renewable or fossil-free.

This government won the election largely thanks to the energy issue. We won the election because the voters saw that the electricity bills that follow when Social Democratic governments rule become very high. Perhaps some also saw all the emitters waiting to stop emitting but needing more electricity. We won the election because Swedish voters want nuclear power. But what do the Social Democrats want?

Even the IPCC can state that nuclear power is important to manage the climate transition. But what do the Social Democrats want? Nuclear power - yes or no?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I cannot understand why it is so difficult to talk about these investigations and referral responses that exist and which can ensure that we expand more and get more energy and an industry that grows. Why is it so difficult to answer that question? Now I have asked it four times.

The reason I said renewable electricity is because the industry is screaming for it. They want it now. And it is wind power they want. That was why I spoke about renewable electricity. The industry wants it in place quickly.

Romina Pourmokhtari naturally knows that we stand behind the energy agreement that we concluded together once upon a time, that is, that one can actually expand nuclear power at the sites where it has already existed. We have not had any other opinion on that. It is truly a non-issue. The question is: How does Romina Pourmokhtari intend to ensure that we actually get more energy? Rhetoric is not enough.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! The climate is a global issue. Swedish politics should also recognize this and, as a rule, should also be more affected by nationalism. But in the climate area specifically, we should not have a policy characterized by nationalism, because national borders will never be able to exist when it comes to greenhouse gases.

Madam Speaker! The key to reducing emissions is measures that make a difference in as many countries as possible. Sweden obviously has a role to play, but it will never be as significant as we would wish. The EU has a larger role to play. It may perhaps lie just under one-tenth of the emissions, if one looks at the EU level. But countries such as China, USA, India and soon also Russia will individually emit more greenhouse gases than all of Europe does. This means that the work must continue globally. We must encourage countries to introduce a price on emissions. We also need to continue working within the EU, and we need to review how we can contribute nationally in the best way now that virtually all emissions are covered by instruments and regulations at the EU level.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency recently submitted a report that is intended to serve as a basis for the upcoming climate action plan. I think this report contains much of interest. Two things I think are important to point out. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency states that the opportunity to reduce emissions by 2045 has never looked better than it does today. Everyone should think that is quite positive. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency also states that climate policy needs popular anchoring and legitimacy. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has not clarified this in such a way previously. It also underscores the need for the Tidö Agreement and the change we have seen in Swedish politics.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Here in the Swedish Riksdag, a large majority in good democratic order has made decisions regarding Sweden's climate goals. One of them is the interim targets for domestic transport, where emissions are to be reduced by at least 70 percent by 2030 at the latest compared to 2010. Transport and also the industry account for a large part of Sweden's emissions. The industry that is transitioning is calling loudly for more energy and for it to happen quickly, which means they are calling for wind power.

At the same time, we hear the Sverigedemokratierna leadership say no to all new wind power. They also say that the existing wind turbines should be dismantled.

My questions to the member are: How do the Sweden Democrats intend for the climate goals to be reached if the industry does not quickly get access to more electricity so that there are conditions to transition? And how do the Sweden Democrats intend to act to reach the sub-goal of an emission reduction in the transport sector by 2030?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Tidö Agreement is clear. We shall invest in fossil-free energy. We must begin the new construction of secure nuclear power. We must also achieve significantly better regulations so that the permit processes do not take decades. We must maintain local influence when fossil-free energy is built locally, for example, wind power. This is what the Sverigedemokraterna clearly stand for. We must have a local influence. The municipalities must have the right to say no. But the municipalities shall also have the right to compensation. This is what we agree on in the government basis. Exactly what consequences this will have for the expansion of wind power remains to be seen. But the basis is that the permit processes shall be simple and that one can also receive compensation locally.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Sometimes it is a bit confusing when the same party speaks such different languages regarding the same issue. But I thank you for this announcement from Martin Kinnunen and hope that it is what applies right now at least.

I asked a question that Martin Kinnunen might be able to answer better than the Minister can, namely the question of what lies in the Minister's desk drawer. Two good investigations have been conducted to speed up the industry's transition and so that we can expand energy production at a faster pace. These investigations have been referred and are complete. Some of the proposals can be presented directly because the industry is truly demanding them. It is the fifth time in this debate that I ask the question. Perhaps Martin Kinnunen has a better answer, because I do not seem to be able to get an answer from the Minister.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I know that very good work is being carried out on these issues in the Government Offices. I also know that parts of these investigations have good support from all parties and will certainly be implemented. But it is not enough. We need to do more. That is why work needs to be ongoing in the Government Offices between the coalition parties.

Madam Speaker! Anna-Caren Sätherberg also had questions regarding the climate goals. This question actually goes back to 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 - partly just before the Sweden Democrats' first term in the Riksdag. We were not invited to the Environmental Goals Commission from the beginning, which is understandable because we did not sit in the Riksdag then. But we were also not invited later, so we were not able to participate in negotiating the climate policy with the other parties.

Since then, we have had two environmental goal preparations where we have negotiated climate policy and other environmental policies with other parties. It has gone well. What I would like to see is a new environmental goal preparation which, against the background of what is happening in our world and in the EU, looks at the goals again and sees if it is possible to improve this further. We are happy to be part of such a process.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, there it is – exactly the reason why I am handing over a contract to all parties in the Riksdag. It is about ensuring that the foundation for Swedish climate policy is not torn up.

Martin Kinnunen says quite openly that he wants to tear up that foundation. He wants to change the framework. He wants – of course, because he represents the Sverigedemokraterna – to weaken the framework. For that is what the Sverigedemokraterna have devoted themselves to ever since they were formed and not least since they entered the Riksdag. Every time they have had the opportunity, they have proposed weakenings and removals of climate policy, but they have not added anything.

It is, however, never too late. One cannot give up hope and must still hope that people, even party representatives for other parties, can take in new knowledge now that Sweden's largest companies are writing on Dagens industris debate page that radical emission reductions in the present - they emphasize in the present - are the only possibility to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. They write: "If the climate transition were to slow down, we and many other Swedish companies would be hit hard."

Is Martin Kinnunen prepared to sign the contract and actually stand behind the Swedish climate goals that the companies want to see achieved?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for this fantastic offer, Per Bolund! However, we will not be signing any contract here today.

As I said earlier, the Sweden Democrats have negotiated climate policy and sea and environmental policy with the other parties in the Environmental Goals Commission, and we have reached an agreement. We have reached an agreement on proposals for new climate goals, also together with the Green Party, and those are proposals that I think turned out quite well – though very complex, cumbersome, and perhaps difficult to implement in practice. But when it comes to the starting point, that we can work with our exports and reduce consumption-based emissions, we have a fundamental consensus.

We should review the climate policy goals as we now approach the deadline for some of them. Extremely much has happened; in principle, all emissions we have in Sweden are covered by EU regulations today. That was not the case earlier. How do we avoid emissions moving around in Europe instead of being reduced overall? There is much to do in that area.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Martin Kinnunen does not miss a chance to continue misleading and distorting the environmental debate. For example, Martin Kinnunen now refers to the EU, but when the Sweden Democrats vote in the EU, they vote against the climate goals. They vote against all the measures that would reduce emissions at the EU level. Here in Sweden, one says that one will work internationally, and internationally, one says that one will not work at all.

In the debate, people are constantly saying that it doesn't matter what we do in Sweden – that we are so small that it makes no difference whether Sweden acts or not. This is simply not in line with what science says. Every kilogram of emissions matters. All efforts are needed. We are in a state of acute emergency, and everyone needs to do more. This is also stated by the IPCC, the UN's climate panel, which Martin Kinnunen usually says he stands behind. But he does not stand behind what is the Swedish interpretation of the IPCC's message, that is, the climate framework that seven out of eight parties have stood behind.

I will stubbornly hand over my contract, and I hope that Martin Kinnunen actually does the job and wants to reconsider his position when he sees that the situation is as serious as it is.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! As a politician, one must be able to keep several balls in the air at the same time.

We have had a discussion regarding how we should design the climate policy acts within the framework of Fit for 55, and there the entire Riksdag has been critical of many things. There is the ban on internal combustion engines, where the Riksdag wanted to retain low-emission vehicles so that one can continue to drive cars on, for example, biogas. The EU forbids it, and a majority of parties in the Riksdag actually think that is bad. They simply do not think that act is good. That was what was stated in the collective Swedish position in the fact memorandum that came from the government, which the Green Party was also a part of.

We are, therefore, many here in the chamber who have been deeply critical of the EU's climate policy. At the same time, everyone in the chamber thinks that one should work with the EU's emissions trading system to reduce emissions. It is an effective way to reduce emissions and a fantastic tool. Then the question is at what level it should be set, and there we have had a different proposal than, for example, Per Bolund's party has had.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish business community is leading the transition not only in Sweden but in the world. They contribute by selling clean products and clean services all around our world and contribute to reduced emissions. It is fantastic what they achieve – and they do it with profit. They show that the Swedish economy can grow while our emissions decrease. This is a fantastic development and a basis for companies to act on that rests on market economy and liberal principles.

Now, however, what is desired is more wind power. I am glad that we approved Kriegers flak; in 120 days, the government managed to do as much as the previous government did during eight years and approved a large offshore wind farm. It provides 2.7 terawatt-hours per year - heaps of clean electricity.

We have an agreement that says we want wind power and that it has an important place in the energy mix. We want more nuclear power and more fossil-free energy. If the Sweden Democrats were allowed to decide for themselves, would they then want more wind power?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! As the Minister for the Environment notes, we have a cooperation regarding these issues, and we need more fossil-free energy.

From the Sverigedemokraterna side, I can only state that we do not want national policy to either subsidize or prohibit wind power. We have Swedish legislation that should be simplified. We have municipalities and municipal residents who should be able to decide over their lives and their everyday lives, and they should be able to receive the compensation and reimbursement that is required.

What the simplifications of the legislation lead to we shall see. If any municipality wants to build wind power and the municipality residents go out and demonstrate and really want the wind turbines, we absolutely have no intention of trying to prevent them from getting the wind turbines - if anyone also wants to build them.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! It is undeniable that the preferential treatment, that is to say that different parties have decided which type of energy they like and then helped that type of energy, has been harmful for Sweden and harmful for the climate work. Therefore, it is important that we create a level playing field and do not give preferential treatment to either wind power or other types of energy and in a bad way build up a system that becomes somewhat fragile.

If it is about local acceptance, as Member Kinnunen points out, and that people do not want wind power on their local land – can the matter then be considered if I manage to find a model for increased local acceptance, perhaps like the models that the Sverigedemokraternas Danish sister party has backed and thought were okay? Is it the local acceptance that is the problem and not the wind power itself? Say we find a model that increases local acceptance – are the Sverigedemokraterna then willing to consider such a model for more wind power?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Romina Pourmokhtari for the question.

The Sweden Democrats' position has for a long time been that all commercial activity should actually pay municipal tax. Today, we have a state property tax, and we believe that the money should go back to the region and municipality regardless of whether it is a wind turbine or a Coop store. We are, therefore, positive towards such measures. As we have said, we do not want a state policy that subsidizes or prohibits different types of energy.

At the same time, from a system perspective, one must be able to problematize what it leads to if we have a very large amount of weather-dependent energy. This simultaneously entails system costs in the expansion of the grid. If more weather-dependent energy is built, it is therefore important that there is secure energy supply—and perhaps hydropower also needs to deliver even more. The system perspective is important here.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall be crystal clear: The Moderates stand behind the high-set climate goals. That is what we have done, and that is what we continue to do.

The climate crisis is our time's great challenge, but even in times of crisis, one must keep a cool head. Effect and results must be kept in focus. If we are to manage the transition, a competitive business sector, much more clean electricity, and an acceptance of the climate policy are required.

The question is not simple. It is not enough with the most convenient measures, which sound impactful and perhaps feel good in the stomach. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix. The climate crisis is a global issue that Sweden must handle both nationally and globally.

Madam Speaker! We shall fulfill our commitments in the EU and live up to our part in the Paris Agreement, but we also have the opportunity to contribute on a much larger scale. When other countries build new coal power plants and increase their emissions, we must demonstrate the alternative. Sweden shall be the country in the world that shows that the green transition is a competitive advantage that benefits the country's growth and that creates jobs and prosperity.

Transitioning to fossil-free must be something worth striving for and must not feel like a punishment. The climate reform must therefore be designed in a way that gains acceptance and feels reasonable. The transition must be something that is good for Swedish households and companies – it is crucial for whether we succeed in getting other countries to follow suit or not.

The climate issue requires a large and long-term effort. I am hopeful that we will succeed, but we cannot back into the future. I am convinced that the only way out is forward.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I sometimes have a bit of difficulty knowing what the Moderates want. The Member wrote a debate article after the election that was roughly like her first speech here and was about how Sweden should use its resources to invest in climate projects in other countries and thereby achieve greater emission reductions than at a national level.

Jimmie Åkesson also said this before the election. He said that an effort that would have truly made a difference would have been to take all of Sweden's climate budget, send it to China and say that they must reduce emissions with the money.

The member's party leader, also the Prime Minister, however, claimed before the election in an interview in Svenska Dagbladet that he does not agree with Jimmie Åkesson. Ulf Kristersson said that he thinks what Sweden is doing has great significance. He had difficulty seeing the contradiction in that Sweden, which admittedly is a small part of the world, pulls its weight on its patch of earth and is an example in the world.

So, what is the Moderates' climate policy? Is it the member's or the Prime Minister's?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Sweden has a great opportunity here. We can be a green pioneer country. We can lead the way, but then it must be done in the right way. We must marry growth with high climate ambitions. These things must go hand in hand for us to succeed in being a green pioneer country.

This does not exclude international climate investments. There, I believe we can do enormous good. We have picked the low-hanging fruit in Sweden. It will require incredible resources to bring emissions down to zero. Therefore, I believe that both will be needed.

This is an enormous issue, and we must think from a systems perspective. Sweden shall be a green pioneer country by getting other countries to follow suit, but Sweden must also put the money in the right place.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's large companies wrote a debate article today about precisely Swedish investments and how much they are on their toes and want to contribute.

In the interview in Svenska Dagbladet that I mentioned, the Prime Minister said that the Sverigedemokraterna and the Moderaterna differ on some issues and that the climate is one of them. He envisioned cooperating with other parties when it comes to climate policy.

The Prime Minister said as follows: The big difference is that the Sweden Democrats are not on board with the climate goals at all. They stand alongside the overall objective, and we really do not.

Ulf Kristersson said that this is not a small issue for him. It really is not a small issue, but it is one of the great fateful issues of our time.

My question to the member is: How do the Moderaterna intend to act? Is it as the Finance Minister said about the climate goals after the election, i.e. "If we don't reach them, we don't reach them"? The Prime Minister promised before the election that climate policy was too important and that he wanted to seek cooperation with other parties.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! The climate issue is important – everyone in this chamber knows that, and this also applies in the government cooperation. It is incredibly important, and that is why we must invest in a policy that makes a real difference.

The previous government sat for eight years with the Social Democrats at the helm. Their climate policy led to a dismantled energy system, wasted tax money, and climate anxiety. We do not believe that is the way forward. I believe, just as Ulf Kristersson has said over and over again, that the climate issue is too important to be handled in that way. Fundamentally, it is an energy issue. In that, the Social Democrats bear a great responsibility.

I look forward to continuing to work on these issues. I hope that Anna-Caren Sätherberg also feels a responsibility in the energy issue.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have heard here that the government sees electrification as an important basis for the climate transition, and therefore more electricity production is needed in Sweden. Industry and the business sector need access to green electricity in order not to fall behind. Both the Minister for Energy and the Prime Minister say that significantly more wind power needs to be built.

Despite this, it is the governing parties in the municipalities - those who rule, primarily Moderater and Kristdemokrater but also Sverigedemokrater - who are the ones stopping amounts of wind power all over Sweden. It is worst in southern Sweden, where the need for new electricity production is greatest. Energy research shows that a single large offshore wind farm could radically lower the electricity price, but despite this, many municipalities continue to say no. It is to condemn southern Sweden and the business sector to high electricity prices for decades to come.

It is not enough to be hopeful here; action is needed here. My question to the member is: How are we to reach the climate goals for 2030 when the Moderaterna themselves are stopping the expansion of new electricity production?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! When Member Stina Larsson says "green electricity," I hope she means fossil-free electricity, because that is what will be needed. We will need all types of power that we can get hold of, and it must be done as quickly as possible. This is, however, as said, a long-term project that must also be allowed to be that. If one does not have the long-term perspective, things often go a bit wrong.

I hope that the Centre Party also feels a responsibility for the management of the Swedish energy system. At the top of our agenda right now is to rebuild it. We would have much preferred not to expend the energy there, but unfortunately, we must now expend the energy on rebuilding Sweden's energy system - Sweden's fossil-free energy system.

Many parties stand behind a no in the municipalities. I believe it is about acceptance, which has been highlighted earlier in the debate.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! We have very little time left to reach the climate goals by 2030 - there are only seven years left until then. It is clear that we need long-term thinking, long-term investments and investment in new production. I understand that the member is referring to nuclear power, but that takes a very long time. It is permitted to build new nuclear power today, and it has been for the last decade.

In order for us to get momentum on this and reach the goals in the coming years, we must have new investments in wind power. The problem is that it takes much longer and is significantly more expensive to invest in other alternatives.

I therefore repeat my question. How are we to reach the climate goal for 2030 when you stop the rapid expansion of wind power?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the member has misunderstood the municipal nuances, which stem from the municipal veto. It is about local acceptance, and it should of course increase. The Moderates want to see the municipalities embrace wind power in the future. We are for all fossil-free types of power, including wind power. Period. Sweden will need much more wind power, and we stand behind that.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Helena Storckenfeldt for saying in plain words that the Moderaterna stand behind the climate framework. At the same time, when it comes to legislation, it is important that one does not just say it but also does what the law requires. On the Moderaterna's website, one can read today that the maintenance of law and order is one of the state's core tasks. That sounds good, but it does not seem to apply to climate policy.

In Section 2 of Chapter 4 of the Climate Act, which a broad majority in the Riksdag has stood behind, one can read that the government shall conduct climate policy work that rests on a scientific basis and is based on relevant technical, social, economic, and environmental considerations. I do not know what science indicates that one can significantly increase emissions in a climate emergency, which the government's policy leads to.

Let me therefore repeat my question. When the Sweden Democrats clearly also in this debate say that they want to tear up the goals and when Christofer Fjellner, whom the Moderates have appointed to review the environmental policy, says that one is open to scrapping the climate goals, will the Moderates stand behind the climate framework and not weaken it or tear it up during the mandate period?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me be even clearer, since it apparently was not enough with what I said in the rostrum. The Moderates stand behind the climate goals. We do so today, tomorrow, and moving forward.

We must focus on what provides the greatest benefit for the climate both here and now and in the long term. I would therefore like us to raise our gaze in the climate debate. It is not solely about what happens within Sweden's borders, but last I checked, the IPCC report is about the global climate. It is therefore about how Sweden can contribute on a global level. We must have a competitive business sector that can contribute with new innovations and with new green technology so that we can truly make a global difference.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! If one wants the business sector to be able to put Sweden at the forefront and do global good, it is good to listen to what the business sector says. One suggestion is to read the debate page of Dagens industri today, where the largest Swedish companies say that a dismantling of the climate policy, which the government is actually doing, is to do a disservice to Swedish companies and reduce competitiveness.

The government that Helena Storckenfeldt represents has also entered into a cooperation with the party that does not stand behind the Swedish climate framework and the Climate Act, namely the Sweden Democrats. They have repeatedly been given vetoes in the government's work. The Moderates campaigned on the basis that the electric car bonus would remain. But the Sweden Democrats wanted to remove it, and now it is gone. The Moderates and the other government parties campaigned on the basis that the travel deduction would be reformed so that it would be distance-based instead of being a fossil subsidy. But the Sweden Democrats were against it, and they got their way.

How can we trust that the Moderates will not back down, even when it comes to the climate legislation?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! At its core, the environmental issue is an energy issue, and here Miljöpartiet bears a great responsibility for the incredibly poor management of our energy system. Sweden succeeded in lowering emissions from the 70s onwards thanks to its fossil-free energy mix of hydropower in the north and nuclear power in the south. But that has been dismantled. Now it must be rebuilt, which is an incredibly large task. But that it must be done, we agree on in the government and in the government cooperation.

In my previous remark, Per Bolund said that it is about what one does, not just what one says. When it comes to the contract Per Bolund presents, I will not only say that I stand behind the climate goals but also do so.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! The climate transition needs to be fair in order to be implemented. That is what the research shows. As it stands today, it is low- and middle-income earners who emit the fewest greenhouse gases in Sweden. Those with higher incomes emit more, and the richest percent in Sweden have even increased their emissions dramatically.

For the transition to be accepted, it must be fair. It is the polluter who should pay the most. It is those who emit the most who need to make the largest emission-reducing changes. For this, a system-changing policy is required.

It is obvious that society's commitment in climate policy needs to increase, not decrease. It is also impossible to avoid the fact that large government investments are required. Electricity production and transmission capacity need to increase dramatically, and we need to transition the vehicle fleet. We need to invest much more in public transport and railways. We know that our homes need to become more energy-efficient, and we need to invest heavily in nature-based solutions.

With the Left Party's climate policy, the future will be better for the great majority. It would result in better housing and more pleasant living environments, cheaper and better public transport, and cheaper electricity. The transition would also provide more well-paid jobs. The list can be long of the lifestyle improvements that our climate policy would entail.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Not too long ago we had an election campaign, and it was interesting to observe the Left Party. The climate policy spokesperson disappeared, and in came Nooshi Dadgostar in various hats, traveling around and speaking about cheaper fuels. Member Fredholm mentioned a lot of things that would get better, but she forgot the cheaper fuels. Nooshi Dadgostar said it would cost a maximum of 18 kronor per liter, and taxes and fees would be adjusted. Nooshi Dadgostar also said that the reduction obligation does not contribute to sustainability at all.

Now the election is over, and perhaps the page will be turned and people will not think the same thing. But how is the fuel price to go down to 18 kronor, asks Fredholm? And the reduction obligation, which does not contribute to sustainability, does the Vänsterpartiet want to remove it?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! It was a proposal regarding temporarily lowered fuel prices that we submitted. It no longer applies.

Regarding the reduction obligation, it is difficult to say what level it needs to be at. But we will return to that in connection with the autumn proposition.

It is interesting that SD always talks about lowered petrol prices because you promised a reduction of 10 kronor but achieve a maximum of 1 krona. I wonder what your voters will think about that.

The Sweden Democrats are the only party that has not stood behind Sweden's climate goals.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What Nooshi Dadgostar spoke about was actually not a temporary measure, but that the measure would now have a greater effect because one was further from 18 kronor. She mentioned exactly 18 kronor. The Sweden Democrats spoke very correctly about temporary measures to lower the price downwards by 10 kronor when we had fuel costs of approximately 28. But I believe that our voters next year will notice that the price of diesel will have decreased to around 18 kronor. We will probably see prices that are 10 kronor lower during next year. This should hopefully be able to make a lot of people in our long country very satisfied.

I find it interesting how Vänsterpartiet communicatively focused on rural groups. They spoke about lowering fuel costs, and they spoke about how the reduction obligation was not sustainable at all, which should lead to a desire to abolish it. Does Kajsa Fredholm agree with Dadgostar that the reduction obligation is not sustainable?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would instead like to ask the Sweden Democrats why they have been involved in removing the proposal for a travel subsidy that did not only benefit motorists. It is something that would have been very important for the rural population. I also want to ask why the Sweden Democrats do not want to invest more in collective transport and in railway traffic. There is so much more than lowering fuel prices that needs to be done to address the climate changes in the climate crisis.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Since this was a closing remark, Martin Kinnunen has no opportunity to answer the questions, and we must therefore regard them as rhetorical.)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet - and I believe I also speak for the environmental movement at large - long believed that we could count on Vänsterpartiet when it comes to pursuing an ambitious climate policy. Now I feel more doubtful, and perhaps I am not alone in that. During the election campaign, Vänsterpartiet belonged to the parties that most clearly demanded significantly increased fossil subsidies, just as Martin Kinnunen actually pointed out here. The price cap that Vänsterpartiet proposed would mean approximately 30 billion extra in annual fossil subsidies, and that right in the middle of a burning climate crisis.

They also distanced themselves from the reduction obligation, which according to expert agencies is the most effective measure to reduce emissions. There was a lot of talk about not changing behaviors, that one would not need to do anything differently. This does not align with the science and neither, I would like to say, with the climate policy framework. Therefore, I also want to ask Kajsa Fredholm: Do you stand behind the framework, and will you fight to ensure that it is not weakened during this mandate period?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Per Bolund for the question. I can assure you that we stand behind the framework and do not want to worsen the climate goals. For us, it is clear that society's commitment in climate policy needs to be strengthened, not reduced. Our solution to the climate crisis is based on acting with an actively preventive, system-changing, and just policy.

We have not said that we are going to remove the reduction obligation, but we have said that the reduction obligation may have been at a somewhat too high level. It is also very important - which I believe some other parties may not include in the calculations - that the biofuels that we include in the reduction obligation are sustainably produced. This is very important. Therefore, there may be some hesitations regarding how it is to be made sustainable.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! If one follows the climate research and the IPCC's reports, for example, it is very clear that there is no time to wait. The window is closing. There must be reduced emissions now. This is not something where one can point at someone else, somewhere else, some other time, but it is everyone, here and now, who must do the work. Then it is of course not stable enough if one swings like a weather vane depending on how the winds are blowing at the moment.

It was a tough period during the election campaign where Vladimir Putin's energy war caused prices for electricity and fuels to rise across Europe, but it is precisely at those times that one must stand firm on the long-term goals, that is, stick to the climate policy. I became even more concerned when I saw how the Left Party, in its election analysis, pointed out the climate policy spokesperson Jens Holm as a reason why things did not go as well as hoped. I would rather argue that Jens Holm is the one who has most represented climate science in the Left Party. I would therefore like to ask Kajsa Fredholm: Will you now return to the climate struggle and stand firm on what science says?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I do not agree with Per Bolund that we have abandoned the climate fight; rather, we have been there the whole time. I believe Per Bolund is very much aware of that. He is making a rhetorical move here to build his own brand, it feels like.

I have no reason to criticize Miljöpartiet. I see that we stand on the same side in the climate struggle, and I hope that we can jointly fight against the parties that actually lower the ambitions for the climate goals.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! I heard in Kajsa Fredholm's opening speech that it is those who emit the most who should stop emitting. SSAB can transition and reduce 11 percent of Sweden's emissions, but they need fossil-free electricity. A tenth of Sweden's emissions come from agriculture. There is capacity - the contractors are now waiting, Mr. Speaker, to create state-of-the-art facilities that can produce climate-neutral artificial fertilizer. They can manufacture 800,000 tons of artificial fertilizer per year - that corresponds to 5 percent of Sweden's emissions. But they need fossil-free electricity.

Much more fossil-free electricity is needed if we are to be able to transition. Then those who emit the most can transition. The technology is there, and employees are ready, but the electricity is lacking. How does Vänsterpartiet and Kajsa Fredholm want to solve the climate crisis when more fossil-free electricity is needed?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! That was a very good question. I agree that electrification is one of several important parts of the climate transition. The Liberals traditionally tend to put the interests of industry and, above all, companies in the foreground. That is what we have heard here today. Several heavy actors in Sweden who want to make a green transition are calling for cheap electricity production that can be established quickly, here and now, so that they can convert electricity into hydrogen. Their reduction, which you have spoken about here, is very much based on hydrogen technology. They are calling for a faster expansion of wind power, both land-based and offshore. This cannot be solved with nuclear power. It needs to happen soon. My question then is: How will the government facilitate and accelerate the expansion of wind power in Sweden?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! The idea here was that Kajsa Fredholm was to give an answer on what the Left Party wants to do and not ask questions to me, but if you want it, I can say that my government, under my responsibility, has approved just as many offshore wind farms in number as the previous government did over eight years. We have approved Kriegers flak - that is 2.7 terawatt-hours of pure electricity per year, and we will approve more. We are working very hard with these issues. We have added extra money. We want more wind power, but we know that it is not enough. The IPCC says themselves: Do not shut down nuclear power if there are no clean alternatives. What does the Left Party say? Where will the electricity come from?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to continue talking about what the industries are calling for to make the great transition, and it is more wind power. It is very good that the government is putting great energy into it; however, one has removed subsidies from wind power when one might actually need them.

There is also a problem with constantly talking about nuclear power, which lies in the future, when it comes to what is needed here and now. The new nuclear power will cost over 1 SEK per kilowatt-hour, while wind power will cost 30-50 öre per kilowatt-hour depending on whether it is land-based or offshore.

Industry needs cheap electricity to transition, and it needs to happen quickly.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! When I hear the Minister and her colleagues in the government parties, together with the Sweden Democrats, I ask the same question that Långben asks on Christmas Eve: Who is it that is actually driving?

The developments over the last six months show a split. This applies to decisions in the EU regarding the carbon sink, where Sweden suddenly abstained from voting. There is also no agreement on the reduction obligation, the plastic bag tax, or on wind power, and so far we have not seen any results in the climate area.

An investigation shows that for half of the money that the government invested in lowering the petrol tax by 14 öre, we could have produced three times as much biofuel as we do today, from Swedish raw materials. Instead of fueling with fossil fuels from Putin, we could have fueled with Swedish products from forest residues. It could also have created tens of thousands of jobs in the Swedish countryside. The business sector and the forest industry need long-term conditions to invest in producing Swedish biofuel.

Then it concerns the vehicle fleet. When the government removed the environmental car bonus, electric car sales collapsed. A car became several thousand kronor more expensive per month to lease. It doesn't help, as it were, to invest in charging stations when electric cars are not being bought.

It also required incredibly much more in the entire chain—the car, the fuel, and the behavior—such as a national network of cycle paths and a travel deduction that actually goes to people without subways or light rail. We also need to ensure that we get a good, expanded public transport system.

When the Center Party takes the lead, we want to invest in renewable fuels from Sweden, and we will electrify the vehicle fleet faster. Then we can make a real difference.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Stina Larsson, for the speech!

Stina Larsson and the undersigned agree on very much. Not least, Stina Larsson often speaks warmly about the forest and that we should use the forest in the transition, just as that Swedish forestry is sustainable and therefore truly worth continuing.

The basis for the government that Stina Larsson's party has been involved in supporting has, however, a completely different view on forest and forestry. Stina Larsson speaks very warmly about the forest being managed and that it is an important part of the climate transition. But the government that the party supported during the previous mandate period had a completely different view on the issue. How does that add up?

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question! It is exactly as Member Kjell-Arne Ottosson says: We agree in many ways on forest issues.

I solemnly state that we are not in government now but in opposition, and during the last parliamentary term, we had an agreement with certain parties. It is, as Kjell-Arne Ottosson knows, a negotiation in every issue when one is to move matters forward. We still stand behind the fact that the Swedish forest and the Swedish forestry industry are very important for Sweden and for our prosperity.

I do not actually see the problem that Kjell-Arne Ottosson describes here, because we stand by what we have thought previously.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Stina Larsson, for the answer!

Even if Stina Larsson does not see that problem, Sweden's 330,000 forest owners did in any case see the problem with a government where Miljöpartiet was included and where, moreover, many parts of the policy were supported by Vänsterpartiet.

This makes it very difficult to understand that the Center Party stood behind this policy. But they apparently did, since they supported that government during those four years.

Which side will the Center Party choose in the future when it comes to forest policy? Where will one stand on the question of and how the forest should be managed in the transition?

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! We will stand by our previous positions. We consider the Swedish forest to be very important and that individual responsibility and the property rights of the individual forest owner should have a major influence. There should be no demands from above or any compulsion regarding how you should manage your forest.

I pose the question back to the Christian Democrats and the government. We see demands here to lower the reduction obligation, but if we cannot utilize the Swedish forest, it will become problematic to have any forestry industry worth the name at all. I believe that Kjell-Arne Ottosson needs to take this home to his government and further consider how we can maintain the green industries even in the forest.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the Centre Party for the kind words even in this climate debate. I am glad that the Green Party and the centre movement have been allies in many issues in the work to do what is required to reach a sustainable world in many different ways.

Then there are areas where one becomes a bit more doubtful about whether the Center Party is really prepared to do what is required to go all the way. I can take one example. You say that you support the expansion of wind power, but when my government submitted a proposal to the Riksdag to remove the municipal veto, which is a special treatment of wind power, the Center Party voted against it.

The Center Party says that they want the polluter to pay, but when we presented the aviation tax, it was opposed with all means and there were threats to dismiss ministers in the government, including me.

It is said that one wants to bind more carbon dioxide, but one pursues a forest policy for clear-cuts which, according to many researchers, on the contrary releases a very large amount of carbon dioxide.

Are you prepared to stand behind the climate framework and do what is required to also reach the goals?

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Per Bolund!

It is exactly as the member describes here that the Center Party and the Green Party in many ways have similar goals for the environment. We believe that environmental and climate policy is extremely essential and sits high on the agenda. Then, the path there looks different for our parties.

When it comes to wind power, we believe that the municipalities' self-determination is extremely important. A partial report from the wind power investigation has just been presented, which I have followed closely. There are some proposals there that I hope will move forward and that will allow us to achieve expansion even locally with an acceptance from the municipalities.

Naturally, I stand behind the climate policy goals, and the Center Party will continue to do so in the future. Many people want to be an active part of the green transition. In that case, long-term rules of the game for politics are needed, and in that case, the goals are important.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Stina Larsson, for that declaration! We hope that the Center Party stands firm even if the government presents a proposal to change the climate framework. I hope that it does not happen, but if it does, I hope that we stand firm.

There is also very much in the climate research, from not least the IPCC's latest report, which shows that the fight for a sustainable climate and the fight for biodiversity are extremely closely linked. It is actually the same fight.

Even there, we can feel a certain concern over some of the positions from Centerpartiet when it comes to precisely what is required for us to preserve the biological diversity in Sweden. We negotiated very intensively regarding the forest policy and came up with a forest bill, but when the money that had been set aside in the budget was then to be allocated, well, then Centerpartiet voted on its own budget. That caused the Kristdemokraterna and Moderaterna budget to pass, which meant a significant reduction in precisely the protection for the forest that stores carbon.

Beach protection is also an important issue for biodiversity. Are you prepared to do what is required also for biodiversity and thus for the climate?

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The member is absolutely right that biodiversity and the climate issue are very closely linked. If we can get the one in order, it usually solves the other. The issues concerning wetlands or coastal zones where the sea can bind carbon are extremely important.

We voted for our own budget because we thought the total made it better for Sweden. We have very many good proposals specifically for biodiversity. In the spring, we made an announcement regarding the wetlands, and there the government had to back down. We also have proposals within circular economy that ensure we get a transition so that it becomes good for both nature and the climate.

I assure the members that we will continue to work very hard on the questions.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's great competitive advantages in the transition are the forest and technology. We must use more of both. In Norway, Winnie the Pooh is often cited, or Ole Brumm as he is called there, when one is faced with choice situations. When Ole Brumm is asked if he wants milk or honey on his bread, he answers: "Yes please, both."

It is precisely that answer we must hold fast to in the transition. We need everything that can help us. Let all flowers bloom! Then let science, the market, and the people's acceptance decide what shall emerge victorious from the struggle.

The forest is a fantastic asset that is both a carbon sink and a carbon store, and it can also substitute for CO2-intensive products. Of course, the forest should be managed because that is when it provides the most climate benefit. Furthermore, through our exports, we can compete out more environmentally and climatically harmful products with our products manufactured in Sweden from Swedish forest. It is a win in several stages. And now we finally have a government that takes the forest's opportunities seriously.

Mr. Speaker! Our business sector wants to move forward. They must move forward, otherwise they will soon be gone from the market. They are working very hard to become increasingly sustainable. The actor that has fought hardest against this so far is the state through its long and expensive environmental permit processes.

For the transition, it is absolutely crucial that there is a more flexible, efficient and predictable assessment, which the government is now working to achieve. By doing so, we secure the business sector's competitiveness and Swedish industrial production and promote a green transition with the export of products and technology that are climate-friendly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: Yes, we stand behind Sweden's climate goals. It is extremely important for us to reach forward and win the battle.

(Applause)

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats claim to protect the countryside and the green industries. One of all the branches of agriculture is biogas. We have many facilities in Sweden that contribute to the green transition and reduce carbon emissions. But after an EU ruling on taxes, a farm with a medium-sized biogas plant loses approximately 800,000 SEK per year. In one blow, it became 5 SEK more expensive at the pump. The only thing the government did was send a letter to the Commission, and there the normal response time is 18 months.

What happened to the focus on lower prices at the pump? What do the government and the Christian Democrats intend to do to ensure that the domestic production of biogas in rural areas is secured?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Stina Larsson for the question. I can assure her that we are also completely in agreement on this issue. Biogas is very important. But we received a judgment against us. After talks with the industry, the government concluded that it was better to appeal directly to the commission instead of appealing the judgment. The industry was part of that.

Now it is extremely important that it is done correctly so that no further errors occur. Here, a procedural error had been committed. That is why we have ended up in this situation. The Commission does not want this either, but it has simply gone wrong along the way. Therefore, a thorough review of the whole thing is now being conducted together with the industry so that it will be correct moving forward and so that we can continue to use biogas at reasonable prices. I can assure the members of that.

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

Stina Larsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

It is not only biogas that functions as an alternative to diesel, but there are also other fuels that can be used through the so-called reduction obligation.

The reduction obligation is a clear steering mechanism for the climate, and it has many advocates. The forest industries want it to remain, and some even want to increase the levels. Likewise, Lantmännen and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency think it is good. This ensures that the investments in the green transition remain in Sweden.

I also direct my question to the representative of Kristdemokraterna: What other proposals do Kristdemokraterna have for us to accelerate the green transition and reach the Swedish climate goals by 2030 if we are not to use the reduction obligation?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The reduction obligation is a part of the transition. Let all flowers bloom, as I said from the rostrum earlier. This is one of the flowers.

Stina Larsson mentioned the forest industry. They are very clear that in their work they cannot deviate too much from the rest of the world, because otherwise our own business sector and Sweden's own sustainable forestry would be overturned.

Therefore, I must ask a question to the Center Party. If nothing happens now with the reduction obligation and if we are to follow the path after the pause we have during this year, diesel prices will, as if by a magic spell, increase by around 6.90 and gasoline prices by 4.30 at New Year. Who will this hit hardest? Yes, it hits hard against the producers of this fuel and against Swedish farmers, foresters, and haulage companies. How are they supposed to manage that?

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ever since the Christian Democrats entered the government and signed the Tidö Agreement and Ebba Busch took over the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise as Minister, it has become painfully clear how great the difference can be between words and actions and how harmful policy can be for climate work, but not only for that but also for Swedish competitiveness.

It is very clear that more and more Swedish companies both want and act to lead the green transition in Sweden. It becomes especially important when politics fails. But in the 22 action plans that Swedish companies have developed, they point the course all the way to becoming completely fossil-free. There, they are also clear that it requires politics that backs up and supports them in their work.

It is a fundamental principle in the Paris Agreement that climate goals shall be strengthened over time and never weakened. This is what ten Swedish large corporations are writing today on Dagens industris debate page.

That is why I also want to ask the question to Kjell-Arne Ottosson and the Christian Democrats: Are you prepared to stand up for the Swedish climate framework and the climate goals, even when the Sweden Democrats push?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Per Bolund for the question.

I want to remember that just a few minutes ago in the speaker's chair I just said that we stand behind the Swedish climate goals. Nothing has happened there, everything is the same.

Then one can ask who it is that has pursued a harmful policy for Swedish competitiveness. The problem is that Miljöpartiet does not see the difference between emissions in Sweden and emissions in the rest of the world. It seems as if they have their blinkers on and only see Sweden, even though our share only constitutes 2 per mille of the world's total emissions.

Does Per Bolund mean that this is what saves the world? Or does Per Bolund think, just as the Christian Democrats do, that through our knowledge and our technology we can spread this out into the world so that we can get the rest of the world on board with the transition? It is in this way that we can manage a transition.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I become a little worried when I hear arguments that I usually hear from the Sweden Democrats and the climate deniers coming from the Christian Democrats, namely that we are so small that it doesn't matter what we do.

I shall tell a truth to Kjell-Arne Ottosson that my children discovered when they were three years old, namely that five ants are more than four elephants. All those countries that have emissions roughly corresponding to Sweden's have higher emissions than, for example, the large emitting countries China and India. Therefore, one cannot disclaim the responsibility.

What happens in Sweden also affects the rest of the world, and therefore we must do what is required.

It is easy to criticize the climate policy, but Kjell-Arne Ottosson himself wrote in the budget that the government presented that we were on track to reach the climate goals with the policy that the Green Party and the Social Democrats had put forward, but that with the policy that the new government is driving, we were not on track to do so.

It is important not only to say that one stands behind the climate framework but also to demonstrate it in practical action.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Even though Per Bolund does not say it outright, I believe he is insinuating that the undersigned would be a climate denier. I want to say that most firmly. I think it is on the verge of being offensive.

Is it something that is harmful, not just for Sweden but for the whole world, is it the climate nationalism that Miljöpartiet promotes. One does not see that we are participating in the transition in the best possible way if we export our goods manufactured in Sweden and our knowledge. That is where we are participating. But Miljöpartiet is in a very small bubble and does not see large parts of Sweden. Large parts of Sweden's countryside would be completely punished out with Miljöpartiet's policy. Miljöpartiet misses this totally in its strong focus on Södermalm politics. Then we get no acceptance for the policy at all, but that is what we need if we are to reach the goals.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! If words could lower emissions, the climate crisis would have been solved a long time ago. There is no shortage of politicians who talk themselves warm about how important the climate issue is, not even in this debate. But words without action are, as is well known, just hot air. The question that actually matters is not what we say here in the chamber, but what we all do when we go back to our offices and sit at our desks to design Swedish laws, decide on Swedish taxes and economic rules, and determine what we shall spend our state budget on.

We in Miljöpartiet have shown that we do not just talk. We deliver, many times against all odds. Even when there is a majority in Sweden's Riksdag fighting against every part and every proposal, we succeed in pushing the policy through. I want to clearly declare here that we are far from finished. We have only just begun. With Miljöpartiet, one knows, unlike with this government, what one gets: reduced emissions and increased conditions both for industry and for ordinary people to be part of the solution and to be able to transition and benefit from it.

With our Sverigebiljett, public transport becomes cheaper, better and accessible for more. We make it easier to travel sustainably. With our industrial policy, the transition becomes even more profitable for those companies that want to transition and see it as a competitive advantage. With our agricultural policy, farmers and foresters will receive compensation not only for their products but also for the environmental benefits they create, not least by storing carbon in their lands. This also ensures that they can manage to provide for both themselves and the Swedish people, even in those moments when Vladimir Putin and other oil despots increase the price of fossil fuels. It increases Sweden's self-sufficiency and reduces our uncertainty.

It is important to note that there is a difference between words and actions. I think this debate has shown that very clearly.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I intend to be very brief. I just want to thank the Green Party for an important debate today in light of the IPCC's latest report. The IPCC says the same thing as the Climate Policy Council, the government's expert agency: Time is running out, and it is time to act.

I thank Per Bolund for today's debate.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is incredibly important that we continue to debate the climate issue, not least to contrast the words that are in abundance in the climate debate against the action that we all know is required for anything to happen. Just as the IPCC requires, emissions must actually be reduced here and now. It shall not be done at some point in the future, somewhere else or by someone else, but by us here and now.

I am also strengthened when I see that politics can actually make a difference. Unlike those jerks who sometimes say that politics is paralyzed by inaction, our parties have together shown that it is possible to make the decisions required to reduce emissions so quickly that one can even reach climate goals that belong to the world's most ambitious.

We have also been able to show that this is not something that harms a country like Sweden. On the contrary, it strengthens our competitiveness. I am strengthened when I see both the largest industrial companies and the largest trade unions say that the climate transition is the way to modernization and the way to the new jobs.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! The climate crisis is the great issue of our time. It is an incredible challenge that we must all come to terms with. I also, like Anna-Caren Sätherberg, want to thank you for the debate. It is incredibly important. We see the commitment that exists in the issue, both in this house and outside.

Just as Per Bolund says, it is action that matters and not just words, not even words on paper. We see the issue from a global perspective and believe that Sweden can contribute very much, not least through our competitiveness, our innovative companies that contribute with new technology and our export of these goods and services.

Miljöpartiet has, however, stood for a policy that has led to an energy crisis, wasted tax money, and climate anxiety. I wonder if Per Bolund is willing to take responsibility for this but also contribute to a policy that leads to us actually reaching the goals.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that we can at least agree that the climate is the great fateful issue of our time. But saying that, we believe that one must also follow it up with concrete action. There we are still waiting. I believe that this year and next year, with all the desirable clarity, will show what Helena Storckenfeldt at least expresses in words here: that it is a fateful issue. We will experience climate and weather extremes that we have never before experienced as humanity. It will become clearly evident how damaging it is.

I am prepared to take full responsibility for what the government itself writes in its budget: With the climate policy that was already in place, we were on track to reach the climate goals, but with the policy that has unfortunately now been introduced, it will not be achieved. I am also prepared to take responsibility for, for example, what Swedish large corporations write on today's debate page in Dagens industri: that the climate issue is what determines their competitiveness for the future and that the policy we have pursued has strengthened their competitiveness.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to urge the Green Party to look up a bit. What is happening here within Sweden's borders is incredibly important. It is here that we can achieve great benefit to actually become a green pioneer country for real and not just in words. Then it is about ensuring that our companies are competitive and can export climate-smart goods and services abroad. My urge to the Green Party is quite simply to look up. What stands in the contract that Per Bolund has presented today, I stand behind. But I will not sign, because after all, it is only words on paper.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In law, it is often said that an oral agreement is as strong as a written one. If the government were to come forward with a proposal to weaken the climate framework and the Climate Act - hopefully they do not - we will hold the Moderaterna responsible for it.

I take up the proposal to look up. That was also something I did when I was Minister for the Environment and negotiated on behalf of Sweden and the EU in Glasgow at the global climate summit. There, I could see how Swedish companies were like pieces of candy that everyone flocked around. People wanted to see how we could have come so far and been so innovative. How can Swedish companies talk about investing hundreds of billions of kronor in Sweden to transition to green industrial processes? Many international politicians came to me and asked: What have you done to achieve this? Then I pointed out exactly that an ambitious national climate policy leads to innovation, investment will, forward-thinking, and hopes for the future. That is what Sweden needs more of.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Per Bolund said in his opening statement something along the lines of: We should have done more, but we were alone. Perhaps Per Bolund should have thought about why he was alone in large parts of the policy.

Earlier this winter, Per Bolund also mentioned that we in Sweden now instead needed to sharpen the goals, because it points towards the fact that we will not reach them. Then the goals were to be sharpened.

In what way does it help, Per Bolund, if we in Sweden tighten the goals when we note that in Germany, now that they have decommissioned the fossil-free nuclear power, they burn 13,300 tons of brown coal per day and how in China they build a new coal power plant every week?

In what way do we help the climate if we tighten the Swedish targets further when it is not here where we have the largest emissions, but in places such as China?

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Kjell-Arne Ottosson was offended when I spoke about how the terms he used sounded like those one sometimes hears from climate deniers. If Kjell-Arne Ottosson is offended by that, perhaps he should not use the same arguments, because that is what we are hearing again now.

It is those arguments that say it is always someone else somewhere else who should do the job. That is not what the IPCC and climate research says. They say exactly the opposite. Everyone must do more.

A country like Sweden, which globally has high emissions per person, naturally has a responsibility to do more and not less. If one has not even understood that, I am worried about whether one has the ability to know what is required to turn active climate policy into action.

Germany is a country that has done the opposite of what Kjell-Arne Ottosson says. They have invested heavily in renewable electricity. It has therefore also, just like Sweden, become one of Europe's largest electricity exporters.

It is important in this context to look at the long-term perspectives. What happens in the long run? Germany is in the process of creating a renewable electricity system, which will be a very good climate solution.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, Per Bolund, we are going to do our job in Sweden. That is not the question. But it is not enough. That is what the Green Party must realize.

No matter how far we go in Sweden, how much we crack down on the Swedish countryside, Swedish forestry and our Swedish entrepreneurs do not help the climate as a whole.

Helena Storckenfeldt mentioned here earlier that the gaze must be lifted. It really must be, in order to see that the climate is global. There are no borders along Sweden's borders that stop the climate emissions here, nor do they stop the emissions from other countries coming in.

We will, of course, do our part. But our greatest contribution is to get others on board. We do that by demonstrating our knowledge and that we can get our goods out into the world. In that way, we are involved and making a real difference and not in any way that exists in the Green Party's dream anywhere.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I could have understood Kjell-Arne Ottsson's reasoning if it were the case that the climate policy we had pursued had in some way negatively affected Sweden's economy, affected our competitiveness and caused the willingness to invest to have disappeared to other countries and that the jobs had gone somewhere else.

But that is not what we see, Kjell-Arne Ottosson. Read the op-ed that Sweden's largest company is writing on Dagens industris debate page today. It says that it is through having an ambitious climate policy that it gains its competitiveness. It is then that it wants to make the investments and hire more people.

It sounds to Kjell-Arne Ottosson as if he still sees it as a burden to be borne, a burden to be distributed, when in reality, according to leading Swedish companies, it is a prerequisite.

It is an opportunity for Sweden and something that strengthens us as a country, our innovative power, our economy and our competitiveness. If one does not see that, one does not have the ability to design a modern climate policy. That makes me very worried.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Per Bolund would like to speak about his paper, which he wants us to sign to confirm something that the Chamber has already voted through. It is seven out of eight parties that have voted through Sweden's climate policy framework.

Why does Per Bolund prefer to talk about the paper, goals, and figures instead of the actual problems and the actual political difference between our parties? It is about how, and not whether, we are to solve the climate crisis.

The IPCC, which the debate would be about today, stated in its report that one should not shut down functioning nuclear power if one does not have alternative fossil-free types of energy. The alternative when shutting down must not be oil, coal, and gas.

That is what happened in Sweden when Per Bolund's party was in power. They decommissioned nuclear power. Instead, the oil power plant in Karlshamn ran at full capacity in September because we did not have clean electricity.

Does Per Bolund really stand behind the IPCC's reasoning when the vast majority of their models showing that we reach the Paris Agreement's goals are based on more nuclear power in the future and not less?

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As long as Romina Pourmokhtari represents a government that pursues a policy that increases emissions - that is what Romina Pourmokhtari says in her own budget and also the Climate Policy Council - Romina Pourmokhtari must put up with us asking the question of whether one actually stands behind the climate framework. It is aimed entirely at reducing emissions and not at increasing them.

The IPCC does not say in its latest report that one speaks in favor of nuclear power. On the other hand, it is obvious that one must have much more green investments. What Romina Pourmokhtari says in her speech is precisely what Sweden has done with the Green Party in leadership.

We have invested enormously in renewable electricity which many times over covers the reactors that were decommissioned for age-related reasons and because they were not profitable. We have a historical electricity surplus. We are Europe's largest exporter of green electricity.

To then say that one has not replaced the nuclear power output with green electricity is simply not anchored in reality, Romina Pourmokhtari. That one then has an oil-fired power plant that supplies the German market with electricity for export is another matter. It has nothing to do with Swedish energy policy.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! I want to be clear. I did not say that the IPCC likes nuclear power. The IPCC has no opinions on nuclear power. They collect research. The vast majority of their models for the world to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement assume increased nuclear power in the future to meet the energy demand.

It is so that the industry will stop using fossil fuels and instead use electricity. It is so that a circular economy will get started with recycling facilities that do not increase raw material extraction. The vast majority of the models are based on more nuclear power where we can manage it. You do not want more nuclear power, Per Bolund, you want more renewables.

We spoke earlier about Germany. It sounded like you liked what Germany is doing. They are increasing their coal power. They use brown coal power. Greta Thunberg goes down there and demonstrates. Is that what you want as a future for Sweden? Where will the electricity come from when the wind is not enough?

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Romina Pourmokhtari!

I have personally visited the German brown coal mines. I believe that most who have followed the energy debate have seen that Miljöpartiet is the party that has fought the most against the fossil energy laws.

The reason why we are constantly highlighting renewables is that it is what the market wants to invest in. There are now companies in line who want to invest. Those applications are now on the Ministry of the Environment's desk. They should simply be approved.

If one now believes in their version, if one, as in the case of Romina Pourmokhtari, believes in nuclear power, then create equal conditions for all types of energy! For example, there should be no state subsidies for nuclear power and no special rules to counteract wind power, which the government is proposing.

We have done it. We stand behind the energy agreement that just said: Equal conditions for everyone. That led to an enormous expansion of green electricity production from wind and solar in Sweden instead. Be just as brave in the government!

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! The climate crisis is an energy crisis. That is why we are talking so much about energy today. We must have the clean electricity to build a society that stops utilizing fossil technologies and instead transitions to clean ones.

It is not just about the cars not pumping out carbon dioxide from the exhaust pipes and instead running on electricity. It is also about our industry. Industry accounts for a third of Sweden's emissions, and they can be reduced. The technology is there, and the investments are there. What is missing is the electricity.

The same applies to agriculture, which also contributes to Swedish emissions. There are solutions and a willingness to invest, but the electricity is lacking. Therefore, the government is very keen to expand all fossil-free energy production - wind power, nuclear power, hydropower and solar energy. We shall utilize everything we have at our disposal. Therefore, we approve offshore wind power, and therefore we also want nuclear power. There, the opposition is obliged to answer.

Special debate on the occasion of the IPCC's report

(Applause)

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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