Special debate on the occasion of the Climate Policy Council's report and Sweden's climate policy

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet has requested this debate because the Tidö government has lost control over climate work. The government's gigantic tax cuts on fossil fuels and fossil subsidies have driven the entire transition into the ditch.

The government has removed the support for electric cars and scrapped the support for public transport. Sweden's fossil dependency is deepening. The electrification of the transport sector is slowing down. And last year, transport emissions increased by a brutal 18 percent.

Sweden is judged to be missing all national and European climate goals. Our journey towards net-zero 2045 has stalled. The criticism from the business sector, environmental organizations, and researchers is massive. At the same time, a majority of Swedes are worried about the climate and want politics to do more. Instead of helping Swedish companies and households that want to transition, the government locks them into a vulnerable fossil dependency. It is a betrayal, and it should be debated.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! When this government took office, a new phase in Swedish climate policy began. We heard here that the Green Party's Daniel Helldén mentioned that the Swedish people want us to do more. The question is: What is more? What is it that the climate policy shall consist of?

This government knows that we do not have the time or the means to waste either tax money or the citizens' trust. We know that expensive symbolic measures and unnecessary red tape can never save the climate. What is needed is politics that delivers results that are sustainable over time.

Since I took on this assignment, three principles have therefore guided the government's climate work: efficiency, legitimacy, and global responsibility.

Climate policy must be effective by placing tax funds where they create an additional difference, not in things that just sound good but lack results when it comes to reduced emissions. It must win legitimacy. Sweden has lacked a just transition. The government needs to provide relief and make it easy for households and companies to transition. And it must be global. Climate change, after all, knows no national borders, and a climate policy that is protectionist does not stop global warming.

Let me give some examples of what this work looks like.

Sweden will, at the government's initiative and following the Riksdag's decision, participate from the start when the EU's new emissions trading system ETS 2 is introduced in 2027. All sectors are covered, including transport. Both emissions trading systems will thus set a clear cap on virtually all fossil emissions, and they simultaneously allow the market itself to find the most effective ways to transition.

We are also carrying out a historic initiative on the restoration of drained wetlands, Madam Speaker. Drained wetlands cause as much emissions as Sweden's passenger car traffic every year. Thanks to the reverse auction, the work on building one of the world's largest facilities for carbon capture has also now started in Sweden.

But in order to succeed in reaching climate goals, broad palettes are required that not only phase out the fossil but also facilitate and create the right conditions for the transition that the entire society is undergoing. If we phase out the fossil, we must replace it with something else, and here is our answer: electrification. Therefore, this government is investing heavily in simplifying permit processes. It is allocating billions in funding for charging infrastructure across our long country and enabling a powerful expansion of all fossil-free power sources: hydropower, nuclear power, wind power, and solar energy.

Both companies and households must be able to rely on electricity being available around the clock and at prices they can manage in order for them to actually dare to take on electrification seriously.

We are accelerating the electrification of the transport sector with targeted support for heavy electric vehicles on the roads. We are increasing and broadening the scrappage premium, and we are increasing the reduction obligation. The reduction obligation is a temporary solution and part of the broad palette in Sweden's climate policy toolbox, but it is no longer allowed to constitute the entire answer to the transport sector's transition.

Climate policy must also hold over time, Madam Speaker. That requires an acceptance of the policy being pursued. People must be able to afford their everyday lives and be able to get to work and pick up the children. It must work for the climate policy to be perceived as legitimate.

Climate work must not worsen people's civil and political rights, but on the contrary, strengthen them. Therefore, next year we will introduce an electric car premium for those with poorer access to public transport, so that we enable the transition regardless of where one lives.

We must also work globally. Through increased climate aid and trade, we help developing countries to transition and adapt to a warmer climate. Through the EU, we show the way through Fit for 55, which meets the conditions of the Paris Agreement. Thanks to this government, Sweden is a pioneer in implementing Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Together, we press the EU and the large emitters to take their responsibility.

Madam Speaker! Sweden still has a long way to go. A great deal of work remains before we reach the negative emissions that are required regarding Sweden's climate goals. But we are moving in the right direction. We have taken important steps in the right direction, and more steps will need to be taken during this parliamentary term.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! The transport goal – F, not approved result. The ESR goal – F, not approved result. LULUCF – F, not approved result. Neutrality 2045 – F, not approved result.

The Climate Policy Council writes: The government's current climate policy is not sufficient to reach Sweden's climate goals and commitments by 2030. Some decided and announced measures during 2024 were a step in the right direction, but they do not offset other decisions during the mandate period that have contributed to increased emissions, particularly in the transport sector.

With the S-government, Sweden used to rank first in the world when it came to the countries that had come furthest with the climate. In recent years, with the SD-government, we have thus gone from best in class to needing extra help and support from others. The government even proposes that: Buy emission rights from third countries! Maybe electric scooters in Ghana can solve this. Eh, we don't care about that. The Swedish people might perhaps receive billion-euro fines from the EU, but maybe that will resolve itself if all other countries also fail. Then there will be no fines.

Madam Speaker! With this government, we are missing all climate goals. The Climate Council's report is a scathing critique. It could actually be called that: a scathing critique.

Those who decide in the Tidö cooperation and SD will say that this is a policy anchored in the will of the people, i.e., that the people do not want more. This – to abruptly halt the climate policy and back down – is blamed on the will of the people. The problem is only that it is exactly the opposite. 70 percent of the population want to sharpen the climate policy. It is SD, those who rule behind the scenes and in the Government Offices, who do not want to.

Madam Speaker! This government is deceiving the Swedish people when it comes to climate policy. When we point it out, they deflect like an unfaithful partner claiming that the deceived person should blame themselves. She became too boring. She wanted to take responsibility for the children. It was more fun to live every day as if the children did not exist.

Climate policy should always be done some other time. In the climate action plan, they are waiting for the Steering Means Inquiry. In the Steering Means Inquiry, they are waiting for the future. In the meantime, they refer to the Environmental Goals Preparatory Group. And when the climate action plan is discussed a bit more in depth, it contains neither new climate policy, action, nor plan.

Madam Speaker! I was the lead negotiator from the European Parliament for the EU's climate law. It was many times difficult with conservatives who did not want to move forward, certain industries that wanted to brake in their area, and one liberal or another who thought the market could solve it itself. But never, never during these years was the focus more on PR slogans than on political content. And never, never, Madam Speaker, could I believe that I would encounter the worst climate deniers here at home.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are to debate a report from a Swedish authority called the Climate Policy Council. We receive ongoing reports from this body.

Madam Speaker! I can state that the council is critical of the pursued policy and that we have some parties here in the chamber who are cheering over this and over the opportunity to shape opinion against the government and the Sweden Democrats. We must, however, remember in this context that the same body has delivered approximately the same type of criticism against every sitting government, which during the council's existence has mostly been red-green.

We can simultaneously observe that emissions have decreased over time. In fact, all official reports also show today that emissions will decrease as a result of policies at the national and European level.

This leads to two things. We have some climate goals that I would argue are poorly formulated both at the Swedish and European levels. At the same time, we have general elections in Sweden. To, like a scratched LP record, repeatedly dream oneself back to the former great red-green years with the world's highest fuel prices and propose a significantly increased reduction obligation is both tactless and democratically questionable.

Sweden is a democracy. We have general elections where we appoint members of parliament who then debate their way to a new government and the agenda for this government. The latest report from the SOM Institute in Gothenburg also shows extremely limited support for increased fuel prices.

Madam Speaker! This time the Council presents an in-depth analysis regarding agricultural policy. We welcome this from the Sweden Democrats' side, but when it comes to the content, one is somewhat astonished. In a situation with security policy challenges and a low market share in Sweden for Swedish food, the Climate Policy Council wants to turn its back on agriculture.

In some kind of Soviet fashion, it is proposed that milk production and meat production should be significantly reduced. On the areas where one today grows fodder for the animals, one should instead grow food for humans, roughly as if one were playing some computer game where one can change the color of the squares. But it doesn't quite work like that. It is not just a matter of starting to grow grain instead of forage. There is a great profit in growing fodder where it is best to grow fodder, and so one grows human food where it fits best. The cultivation conditions are simply different.

At the same time, they want to significantly increase the costs of running agriculture in Sweden. Diesel taxes are to be raised, and they want to introduce national pricing on biological emissions.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Climate change is the great challenge of our time. It is a challenge that affects every human being, every sector, every society – here at home in Sweden and all around the world. But to succeed with the enormous structural transformation that the climate demands, we must show that it is possible to reduce emissions without sacrificing economic growth. It is not just an economic necessity. It is a climate strategy.

The previous government unfortunately made the mistake of investing in what sounded good rather than what worked. The result was a policy without popular anchoring that made it more expensive to live in the countryside and sabotaged our fossil-free electricity system. It was an expensive mistake that we do not intend to repeat.

At the same time, I want to direct a message to the Climate Policy Council. Their mandate is important, but credibility depends on the review being fair, balanced, and technology-neutral. Unfortunately, we see that the council sometimes leans towards preferring certain solutions over others rather than objectively assessing what actually provides sustainable climate benefits.

We stand for a new direction. The government's climate policy action plan takes us all the way to net zero and not just to the next opinion poll. The plan focuses on structural solutions: more fossil-free electricity, simplified permit processes, technological development, and global climate benefit. It also emphasizes legitimacy: the whole country must be included. Sweden deserves a climate policy that holds in the long run, not just until the next election.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions increased during 2024. The Swedish Climate Policy Council, which is the government's own expert body, states that current climate policy is insufficient to reach Sweden's climate goals and EU commitments by 2030. The government's climate policy means that Sweden is now a major emitter of greenhouse gases. It is a climate policy that seems to consist of saying one thing and then doing the opposite and postponing the necessary climate transition into the future – at least until the next parliamentary term.

But for every year that we delay in lowering emissions, the costs of dealing with the problems increase. This is not just bad climate policy but also socio-economically irresponsible. What Prime Minister Kristersson and his friends prefer to do is enrich the already richest with large tax cuts so that the richest 1 percent in Sweden can continue to live their luxury lives and emit enormous amounts of more greenhouse gases than most of us others.

Where are the investments in solar and wind power? Where are the investments in a functioning and affordable public transport throughout the entire country? Where are the investments for low- and middle-income earners so that they can transition in a secure way in their everyday lives, regardless of where in the country they live?

These are things that most of the population in Sweden desire. We can see this in several surveys that have been conducted recently. There is a large support for a stronger climate policy, a policy where the state takes greater responsibility, for example by financing public transport, energy supply, and facilities for recycling.

When asked what prevents people from living more climate-consciously, all eight out of ten in a survey from Naturvårdsverket answered that the main reason is that climate-friendly alternatives are often the most expensive. This is something I truly think the government should give some serious thought to. What is it that actually creates acceptance among the population for the climate transition? It does not seem to be increased greenhouse gas emissions, at least.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! In the climate area, we have gone from playing in the Champions League to playing in Korpen. That is what a business leader said in an interview in Dagens industri. "Misleading" and "lacking objectivity" is the judgment of the government's climate action plan from its own expert council. The Fiscal Policy Council says that decisions or notifications regarding measures to reduce emissions are missing. They also say that a political leadership is needed that clearly describes why the climate transition is necessary. The National Institute of Economic Research warns that with the government's policy, we will have fuel prices over 40 kronor per liter as early as the next mandate period if the climate goals are to be reached.

The government writes itself in the Tidö Agreement: ”Policy must be calibrated against research and be based on facts.” The fact is that emissions increased radically in 2024. The fact is that total emissions will be significantly higher when this government leaves than when it took office – at a time when emissions must decrease substantially. What facts and research is the government actually basing its policy on?

Emissions must decrease and growth must increase. That is how we become an example in the world. That is how we make a difference for the climate. That is what happened when Centerpartiet governed the climate policy. That was when Barack Obama came to Sweden to see how we had done it.

Now emissions are spiraling, and unemployment is rising. Swedish companies manufacture the world's best aircraft engines. They get a boost from green initiatives. It matters. When the entire cycle of biogas is utilized, other countries see how the systems can be closed. When biorefineries are built thanks to clearer forest policy, long-term reduction obligations, and support for the bioeconomy, technologies are created that can be exported to the whole world. That was Sweden. That is where we are no longer.

The government has uprooted the climate policy. Steering measure after steering measure has been scrapped. The only thing we received was a scrapping premium that no one uses. It does not only harm the climate. It harms all of Sweden. Our security deteriorates when Russian fuels flood into Europe. Our health deteriorates when the air is polluted by fossil gasoline and diesel instead of the engines being powered by clean electricity and renewable biogas. Our unemployment rises when we import solutions from other countries instead of investing in the companies and solutions that are available right in front of our noses.

We in the Center Party are clear. Every government that lowers climate ambitions is a government that is brought down by the Center Party. The Tidö government's days are numbered.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Barely two days ago, we had a climate debate in this chamber. Now it is time again. I wondered whether I should cut and paste from my speech on Wednesday afternoon. Not much has managed to happen in barely two days. However, this debate is to have more focus on the Climate Policy Council's report.

During the debate on Wednesday, the opposition did not take the opportunity to point out the criticism from the Climate Policy Council. I would not have done so either if I had been in the opposition.

I read in the Climate Policy Council's report from 2020 that none of the goals in the climate policy framework will be reached under current conditions and decided policy. The climate reporting does not meet the requirements of the Climate Act, and thus the action plan does not meet the requirements of the Climate Act in this regard.

It was, therefore, when we had a red-green government with Miljöpartiet in the climate minister post and Centerpartiet as the supporting sidekick. These are parties that had very high tail-end positions in the climate debate on Wednesday. I could say a lot about that, but since we all receive criticism from the Climate Policy Council, we should perhaps rather collectively look forward to how we can solve the challenges with a common policy that has as broad support as possible and which does not change every four years. Everyone would benefit from that, not least the climate.

Madam Speaker! When the Climate Act was adopted in 2017, the Riksdag issued a declaration to the then red-green government that "climate policy shall be long-term effective and conducted so that reduced greenhouse gas emissions are combined with growth." It is possible that the parties have changed their minds. It has been a long time since 2017. But if one holds that attitude toward growth, we will not be able to agree on the way forward. Can the Social Democrats, the Green Party, and the Left Party point to a single country that does not have growth but has a good environmental and climate policy?

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Climate Policy Council stated in its previous report that the government's climate claims have lacked objectivity. The Tidö parties have made it a habit to utter falsehoods in the climate issue. Let me therefore clarify a few things based on what has been said so far.

First and foremost, I want to clarify that Sweden is currently not anywhere near achieving the 2045 goal. The latest report from Naturvårdsverket shows that the gap has completely stopped shrinking. The journey towards net-zero 2045 has stalled.

People talk about cost-effectiveness. At the same time, the Fiscal Policy Council notes that the government's policy makes the transition more expensive for households and companies. The Council writes that the government lacks a coherent and understandable climate strategy. Companies and households therefore find it difficult to make well-considered investment decisions and transition in a cost-effective way, something that risks particularly affecting households with small margins.

In two budgets, the government has allocated more money to measures that actively counteract the transition than it has allocated to measures that promote the transition. What is cost-effective about this? Svenskt Näringsliv warns that ambiguity and backlash in climate policy can be devastating for Swedish competitiveness.

We now see how the government's policy has unfortunately had an effect. Initiative after initiative is being stopped. The political signals that fossil fuels will become cheaper and that new electricity production will be in place perhaps only after 2035 have contributed to green industrial initiatives being omitted or postponed. Investigation after investigation also shows that a large, qualified majority of the Swedish people are concerned about climate change and want the policy to do more. If you ask the Swedish people now, they give the government a failing grade on the climate issue.

Sweden has everything to gain from a swift and just transition. We can get rid of our harmful fossil dependency, strengthen our resilience, and increase our competitiveness. Miljöpartiet sees this, and gladly, the Swedish people see it too. We are also the party with the highest trust in climate and environmental issues. It is a trust we intend to uphold.

Miljöpartiet wants to roll out a national electric car offensive with support for the purchase and leasing of electric cars. Those who need a car should be able to switch to an electric car regardless of the size of their wallet. We want to invest in the railway and introduce a Sweden card for cheap public transport throughout the country. We want to double the aviation tax and allocate the revenues to the railway. We want to increase the reduction obligation and introduce a solidarity dividend. We want to introduce a solidarity emissions trading system with support for those who have the hardest time transitioning. We want to transition forestry from clear-cutting to nature-oriented forestry.

Madam Speaker! There is another way for climate policy, but it requires that we change the government.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's emissions have decreased by 38 percent since 1990 while our economy has almost doubled. We heard from the Social Democrats' Jytte Guteland that Sweden, under the previous government, was number one in the world. The fact is that with this government's policy in 2023, Sweden is still number one in the OECD, both per capita and per GDP. We have a strong economy. Per person, we have extremely low emissions. There are no countries that can compete with Sweden in that struggle. I therefore think it is very interesting that it is highlighted that Sweden was previously number one in the world but is no longer, when Sweden is in fact very strong internationally.

In the reports, it is clear that Sweden was first in the world also under the Tidö government. That is something one should be proud of. This applies regardless of the government. The truth is that the previous government was also not on track to reach the climate goals. Their policy was judged to be sufficient approximately halfway to the climate goal of net-zero 2045. We also heard in the Christian Democrats' speech that none of the goals in the climate policy framework were on track to be reached, according to the Climate Policy Council, during the previous government's time in power. The climate reporting did not meet the requirements of the Climate Act during the previous government's time in power.

It is possible to sugarcoat things in hindsight. But what I find interesting, Madam Speaker, is that the largest party in the opposition bloc, the Social Democrats, has no proposals that will allow us to reach the goals.

For example, they have accepted our spring budget amendment without putting forward any new proposals. How are we to know that they are doing what they say, for example, delivering all the fossil-free electricity that the business sector is crying out for, in order to dare to replace the fossil with the electric? Without a credible energy plan, Madam Speaker, there is no credible climate plan.

I also heard that some parties expressed criticism regarding the government's international responsibility in climate work. According to the World Bank, however, such international cooperation, which I and the government have taken initiatives for, can generate savings of 250 billion dollars and push back five gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalents. Enormous amounts of carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced when the same strong capital from wealthy countries is used for investments in emission reductions in countries that do not have the economic muscles. This is also a way to initiate a change in countries that year after year increase their emissions instead of reducing them.

Madam Speaker! One can be critical of Sweden ramping up its international engagement, increasing climate aid, and engaging in emission reductions through emissions trading. One can be critical of the fact that Sweden has not reached all goals. But if one also wants to be honest, one realizes that the issue requires us to discuss content, which proposals we want to see, and which political proposals the voters then have confidence in.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for debating here with us today, but:

the transport goal: F, result not approved

The ESR target: F, result not approved

LULUCF: F, result not approved

neutrality goals by 2045: F, result not approved.

The Climate Policy Council writes as stated: "The government's current climate policy is not sufficient to reach Sweden's climate goals and ... commitments by 2030. Some decided and announced measures during 2024 were steps in the right direction, but they do not offset other decisions during the mandate period that have contributed to increased emissions, especially in the transport sector."

What does the Minister for Climate say about this?

I think the Minister should spare the Chamber PR tricks. It is not about what other governments have done, that S is wrong, that S is raising petrol prices or that nuclear power should increase everything. Now it is the Minister for Climate who is responsible.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Under the previous government, it looked like this:

the transport goal: F

the climate goal for 2030: F

the climate goal for 2045: F

the climate goal LULUCF: F.

That is what I am trying to point out, Jytte Guteland.

If there is anyone who uses PR tricks, big words and rhetoric, it is you. Throughout this entire debate, you have not been able to mention a single concrete climate policy proposal. What climate policy do the Social Democrats want to see? It would be good to know so that we can debate it with each other. What is it that you want instead of what we are doing?

We have initiatives on nuclear power, simplified permit processes, a historic investment in railways, initiatives to get heavy electric vehicles onto the market, initiatives on emissions trading and increased climate aid towards the international.

We could have had a debate here about which alternatives exist instead of standing and blaming each other for different climate goals. It would have been a fine debate to give to the voters. With alternatives, we could have discussed and weighed the arguments, weighed the policy, and found a long-term perspective for Sweden.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the willingness to cooperate!

The Minister has also previously emphasized that she welcomes cooperation. We Social Democrats would very much like to help. We do not understand what the Liberals are doing in the lap of the Sweden Democrats. We would truly wish for broad climate agreements where we could discuss climate policy seriously.

Today we have a special debate on the Climate Policy Council's critique of the government's policy. It is therefore what we are to discuss today, not the Social Democrats' policy or history. What we are talking about is that the Climate Policy Council gives a failing grade to the current government.

We see that there is a lack of steering measures. There are missing reforms to offset the setbacks that the government has made, not least in the transport area. Exhaust emissions are increasing; they are not decreasing.

In response we get fancy slogans, but I want to hear what policy the government has.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! The government's policy is the most extensive climate action plan ever. It contains over 50 new proposals. In total, there are 70. It includes an investment in nuclear power. We have established a support for land-based wind power, where the municipalities receive support to build incentives, something that the Social Democrats failed to do.

We have started a support for heavy electric vehicles, light trucks and work machines to lower the thresholds for those industrial companies that want to transition but do not have the muscles. We have started a vehicle scrapping premium to ensure that those who might be hesitating get a small boost and a push from the government.

We have significantly simplified the permit processes through many different models. Among other things, we work with environmental permits both for offshore wind power and generally.

We have stepped up the international work by appointing a coordinator who travels around and finds collaborations for Sweden so that we reduce emissions in other places.

But the fact remains. We did not hear a single political proposal here. It is either the government's policy or slogans – no policy, just words. It is disappointing. It is difficult to debate against nothing.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Minister for coming here today and debating with us. I think it is very important and good.

A global study was recently published regarding the population's view on making greater efforts for the climate. A total of 125 countries participated in the survey. It shows a massive support for a stronger climate policy across the entire world. When breaking down the study, it shows that over 80 percent of Sweden's population want the state and the public to do more for the climate.

I do not think it aligns at all with the government's climate policy, which lately has turned out to be a kind of reverse policy. Last year, for example, greenhouse gas emissions increased significantly instead of the opposite. When will the proposals that actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions arrive? It is something that most who live in Sweden want to see.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Fredholm, for a good question! It is an important approach, because we need to be here and discuss how climate policy can be improved, what we agree on, but also what we do not agree on.

The fact is that if you look at what has happened with emissions in Sweden during the Tidö government, you see that Sweden's emissions decreased in 2022, decreased in 2023, increased in 2024, to then be projected to decrease in 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030, in accordance with the Tidö government's climate policy. I think it is important to point that out.

If one wants to discuss the reason why the climate policy looks the way it does, the answer is that emissions are to be reduced. All parties in the Swedish Riksdag now stand behind Sweden's climate goals, thanks to the negotiations we have conducted with, for example, the Sverigedemokraterna. I think that is positive. We have a greater consensus and a broader approach, but we must also ensure that emissions continue to decrease as they do, except for the temporary increase in 2024 which was due to fuel prices.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. However, it is problematic to have a policy that last year caused emissions to increase. We have a carbon budget that we cannot take back, in any case not within the coming decades.

I am interested in this matter of acceptance. Even the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has conducted a survey. It was conducted in January and showed that there is broad support in the population for more measures that reduce climate change. There, for example, public transport is highlighted.

I wonder why the government has not invested more in public transport. We in Vänsterpartiet want to see a more expanded public transport system across the entire country, and we have an initiative that means a monthly pass should cost 450 kronor. Would it not be good to subsidize climate-smart fossil-free solutions within the transport sector?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to say that I truly agree with the member that it is problematic that emissions increased in 2024. It is not something we are satisfied with – just as I assume the red-greens are not satisfied that emissions increased in 2021. In individual years, increases occur. Why do they occur? In this case, it was about the transport sector's burden, with a reduction obligation that one cannot manage when prices rise to the levels they were at.

How do we handle this? We handle it, I believe, by having a genuinely fair transition moving forward. Take, for example, a car bonus where 13 billion is spent on subsidizing brand-new electric cars for people who can afford such cars. We stop that, and then we take those funds and put them toward a car premium aimed at people who have a certain distance to public transport or live in rural areas.

That type of policy, which is more just, I believe is very important for the climate transition to maintain its legitimacy. I hope that this is something that will be able to hold over time.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Last year, the EU countries bought Russian oil and gas for 22 billion euros. That is more than the financial support to Ukraine, which was just under 19 billion euros. We know that the import is large even in Sweden. It is 54 percent of our fuel that is of unknown origin – it is hardly Norwegian North Sea oil.

Still, the government does not want to introduce an origin labeling at the pump so that consumers can know what they are fueling. Still, this government is increasing the fossil use by 4 million liters of diesel a day. Still, this government is stopping investments in renewable fuels.

How, Romina Pourmokhtari, does the government intend for us to get rid of the fossil fuels from rogue states like Russia from today's engines, which will be rolling on the roads for a long time to come?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! There are many different ways to transition the transport sector. This government wants to be clear that we cannot unilaterally rely on an HVO inclusion that means we buy up biofuels from all over the world – put in a third of the entire world's supply of HVO in the Swedish fuel tanks and we have solved the problem. The Brazilian companies that sell slaughter remains and palm oil for our HVO fuels are quite satisfied with that arrangement. The oil companies, which make large profits by selling HVO at exorbitant prices in Sweden, are quite satisfied with that arrangement. But it is not we, Madam Speaker.

Therefore, we must ensure that we find a good balance with several different steering measures, where the reduction obligation constitutes a small part, the electrification pace constitutes a part, and transport efficiency constitutes a further part, and where we in different ways contribute to increasing the electrification pace in a stable manner – not through one-sided solutions.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! First of all, I must correct the Minister for Climate, because palm oil was not in the Swedish HVO – it had been phased out through the regulations that existed.

Secondly, Sweden accounted for a single percentage of the world market for biofuels.

For the third, the Bioeconomy Inquiry shows that for approximately 2 billion a year, we could have replaced a third of the Swedish diesel use with Swedish liquid fuels. It is a few percent of the money that the government has spent on lowering the petrol and diesel tax. We could have had jobs and companies here instead of the import of Russian fuel.

The Russian fuel continues to flow into Europe. The government has chosen to focus on the fossil rather than the renewable in 4 million liters of diesel per day. I prefer HVO from any other country, from slaughterhouse waste, every day of the week, instead of fossil Russian oil, which benefits Putin and ensures that the war in Ukraine continues.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I belong to a party that was laughed at when we spoke about the danger of relying so heavily on Russia's energy supply – when we mentioned that Putin is not someone to trust and that we would not create a dependency on Russia. When we spoke about the fact that there are two problems with Russian gas – one is that it is Russian, and the other is that it is gas – all the other party leaders stood and giggled at the paranoid liberals, the Folkpartisterna, who were trying to warn about the situation we are in now.

Is the solution to this to put Sweden in a position where one relies entirely on the reduction obligation and, as the Center Party's government alternative wants, raises fuel prices? What we notice is that the HVO price under the previous government was around 32 kronor per liter when it was at its worst. Is this sustainable? Do you get a good blend then, or is it perhaps better now when it is at approximately 19 kronor per liter? One consequence of the low pressure is that HVO becomes cheaper and more competitive, and then we can blend in more.

It is therefore a matter of thinking a bit economically when we calmly and sensibly transition this sector. Then we will be able to seriously phase out the Russian gas.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! For nearly three years, the Liberals have been responsible for Sweden's climate policy. The result is gigantic tax cuts on fossil fuels and sharply increased emissions. The electric car bonus, the support for public transport, and the climate-smart travel deduction have been scrapped. The Liberals have compromised on a long series of principles that were previously sacred for the party, such as that the polluter should pay and that climate policy should be long-term and effective. At the same time, the majority of Swedes are worried about climate change and want the policy to do more.

When the Minister for Climate and Environment tries to defend this failure, which she often needs to do, she speaks about popular support. But the voters do not believe in the government's climate policy. Climate and environment is the area where the most voters give the government a failing grade. The proportion of those satisfied is near zero.

Does the Minister think these figures indicate a strong popular support for the government's climate policy?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Once again, the member from Miljöpartiet mentions that the voters want more – absolutely, but more of what? More of decommissioned nuclear power in favor of sky-high electricity prices that make it so that one does not dare to electrify from the industry side? More of not getting through support for wind power locally so that the municipalities feel secure about building land-based wind power? More of raising fuel prices so much that people cannot afford to make ends meet in their daily lives, so that certain groups in our elongated country feel that they are not allowed to be included in the climate transition? My daily life, my life, shall be destroyed in favor of the climate transition. Instead, over 13 billion is spent on a car bonus that goes to those who can afford to buy brand-new cars.

No, that is not how the Tidö government works. We will ensure that we build nuclear power in Sweden. We are introducing support for land-based wind power. And we are now ensuring that we build up a premium aimed at those who actually have a need for it – not introducing large tax breaks for people who can afford brand-new cars. Instead, we are opening up the second-hand market and directing the support to those who actually need them.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Climate Policy Council is obviously right in its criticism regarding lack of competence.

In order for us to be able to break our fossil dependency and transition in a fair way, we need a policy that is both long-term and effective. To simultaneously support those who have the hardest time transitioning or are hit hard by tough times, there are a multitude of tools at the disposal of politics. Nevertheless, the Tidöregeringen has chosen to implement the least effective measures, which have caused the greatest climate damage.

Billions have been pumped into tax cuts for fossil fuels, which are equal for everyone and benefit high-income earners with SUVs just as much as those who actually need the support. The support for electric cars has been removed and it has been made more expensive to transition.

Does the Minister for Climate and Environment think that reduced taxes on petrol and diesel for high-income earners is effective and fair climate policy? Or could the money have been used in a better way?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I think it is good that it becomes clear what the difference is between the opposition's and the government's climate policy – that we are actually talking about politics and climate policy proposals instead of talking about other things and using rhetorical slogans.

If one wonders where the long-term perspective is, I think it is very interesting that, for example, Miljöpartiet, Madam Speaker, has made a U-turn. Is it long-term that they now want to abolish the reduction obligation after 2027? There is a change in the climate policy here, and I hope that it leads to a bit more stability.

I hope that it leads to us ensuring that we use fuel prices and other types of steering mechanisms in a more responsible way than previously, when it was used unilaterally and in that way destroyed the trust that existed for the climate transition in Sweden. Now we are in a polarized situation where we must do everything we can to maintain continued trust for the climate policy, so that it receives support from the democratic system and the voters' trust in elections.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! When we point out that the climate emperor is naked, the Minister for Climate and Environment says: The previous government focused on 2030, but this government certainly wants to achieve 2045! It goes without saying that if you don't do the work now, it will hardly be easier further ahead.

The government, however, has named the climate action plan "All the way to net zero". It is a name change. But, Madam Speaker, it is empty! It is empty of climate policy on the minister's desk.

But in the PR department, they work – with rhetoric and with games: Push hard! Say that we are working towards 2045! Say that gas prices are accelerating with their politics! Say that they will ruin the people! Say that nuclear power will solve everything! Say that it was their fault! Feel free to devote the entire debate to it! Refer to the future! When everyone says that we are losing pace, flatly deny it! Think like a goose, or think of Trump! Or think of Magnus Ugglas's "if she catches you red-handed, deny it"! It works.

The government is currently deceiving the Swedish people with its climate policy, and when we want to point that out, the government blames its own shortcomings on the people. It is the people's acceptance. The government does this with completely open eyes.

They know that the people want more climate policy, but they say that the people cannot handle it. In reality, it is SD that cannot handle it, like an unfaithful partner who claims that the cheated woman should blame herself: She became too boring, she wanted to take responsibility for the children.

But what do the children think about it? Save the Children says that 83 percent of the children born in 2020 will live with exposure to extreme heat during their lives. At the same time as global warming is our society's greatest crisis, this government is occupied with PR tricks.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for the speech! Before the debate, I have tried to read what the Social Democrats publish regarding their climate policy. I cannot help but fixate on a document that they published some years ago. There, it is written that the Social Democrats have presented a climate policy that has reinforced inequality in society. The Social Democrats have not pursued a policy that has helped ordinary people: The policy has been a carrot for the rich and a whip for others.

Madam Speaker! In this way, the Social Democrats themselves describe the climate policy they have pursued. It has, for example, involved tens of billions for subsidized cars for large corporations and high-income earners – cars that then went to Norway. It has involved the world's highest diesel prices.

It is good that the Social Democratic Party is apologizing for having pursued a deplorable climate policy. But what do they want to do instead? What are the major changes? How can voters trust that the Social Democrats do not intend to continue pursuing a bad climate policy?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Kinnunen, for the question!

Member of Parliament Kinnunen refers to work that has been done in a climate group within the Social Democrats where, above all, it was emphasized – I know, because I was there myself – the importance of an even stronger just climate policy, that is, the distribution profile. We wanted to include more of that. This was what was said in the report.

It stated in the same report that Sweden was the most prominent country in the world when it comes to reducing emissions in the world. It also stated that we were those who worked most effectively with implementing legislation and securing reforms to reduce emissions within different sectors, but this was something Member Kinnunen did not want to bring up. I understand that because SD lacks climate policy.

For SD, climate policy is not really about any reforms. It is mostly about scaring, creating confusion, attacking scientists and researchers, and making people feel uncomfortable. And above all, for SD, it is about dictating to the three parties here in the chamber that lead the government: Do not move a millimeter, because it is we who decide! Or is it not, Member Kinnunen?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for the answer! It was energetic.

The policy that the Social Democrats pursued was, therefore, about carrots for the rich and a whip for ordinary people. At the same time, Jytte Guteland criticizes the government and the Sverigedemokraterna for the fact that we have removed various climate reforms in budget motions and in propositions to the Riksdag. But it is precisely this that we have removed: We have removed the carrot for the rich and the whip for ordinary people.

We are focusing broadly on more charging points for cars. There have never been more than there are today. It is an intensive effort to remedy the problems that exist regarding the permit processes. It is a task that the Social Democratic Party never took on.

At the same time, the Social Democrats present some kind of napkin sketch for how the reduction obligation could be raised, and then they want a floating floor that shall go up and down in some way that is not described particularly clearly. Then they want to plow money into Swedish companies. What this will cost and how much higher the fuel prices will become, they do not explain. Can't Jytte Guteland do that?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Member Kinnunen asks me to explain the petrol prices going forward. I could counter that since the Sweden Democrats say yes to ETS 2, they are equally obligated to answer: What petrol prices do they want for the Swedish people going forward?

One can only speculate about future gasoline prices. The Member knows this very well, but he wants to be frightened by the gasoline prices once again and believes that the old man will go one more time.

At the same time, the Swedish people are suffering under the most expensive government ever. It has never in modern times been so expensive to be Swedish as under this government. The hundreds of kronor are rushing away on food prices and inflation, and it is a recession with mass unemployment and bankruptcies. But the member Kinnunen forgets that. The led policy really does not lead to any forward momentum for companies or for Sweden.

At the same time, the Sweden Democrats are primarily engaged in dismantling climate policy. That is what we heard here and now. It was precisely this that the member of parliament said, that one removes and dismantles climate policy without adding anything.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden faces great challenges in a time of increased trade barriers and global uncertainty. In this situation, it is more important than ever to strengthen our competitiveness, promote investments, and secure sustainable growth. Swedish companies have a unique opportunity to contribute to the green transition, not least through the export of climate-smart products. Therefore, it is crucial that policy does not hinder companies' opportunities to grow and create jobs.

Against this background, it is surprising that the Social Democrats continue to pursue a policy that entails higher taxes and an increased regulatory burden for companies.

My question is therefore: How do the Social Democrats intend for their anti-business policy with recurring tax increases to make it easier for Swedish companies to grow, compete globally and lead the climate transition?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Storckenfeldt, for the question!

For the Social Democrats, it is very important that Swedish companies are able to participate in and lead the climate transition. We want both a regulatory framework and a tax policy that facilitates the future and the green transition.

What we hear when we speak with Svenskt Näringsliv and with companies today is that there is a lack of a moderate policy when it comes to innovation and green transition, and that they would like to see political leadership and not a cautious, conservative stance in these issues.

The more we push for green transition, the better the Swedish companies will fare because they are often far ahead in the transition. If the regulations become tougher, the companies that are best, those that manage to produce goods and services with the least emissions, will become the winners. That is what many Swedish companies see today. But with the government's policy, we have no such policy.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! We see a vibrant and innovative business sector as one of the most important solutions to the climate challenges. It is precisely through the companies' ability to develop new technologies, streamline resources, and transition production that we can reduce emissions in the long term, both in Sweden and globally.

We have appointed a simplification council to reduce red tape and create better conditions for companies to grow and transition. The Social Democrats, instead, want to choke off the funding for that work, in the midst of a time when simplifications and innovation are more necessary than ever.

How do the Social Democrats think their proposal strengthens Sweden's competitiveness and climate work when they in practice make it more difficult for the companies that carry this on their shoulders?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to Member Storckenfeldt for the questions!

It sometimes seems that the governing parties' best tactic right now is to throw stones in a glass house. While the business community is screaming for clarity in the green transition, Member of Parliament Storckenfeldt points to small reforms that are supposed to get the job done.

We are talking about a whole. We are talking about everything from standing up in the EU cooperation for continued green transition to pushing forward for industry when it comes to ETS rules. At home, it is about investing in industrial steps and climate steps and raising the climate budget – it has, after all, been dismantled by 31 percent.

But it is good that Storckenfeldt is at the rostrum, because I have a question for the member. In connection with the contribution, it was spoken as if it were Fox News. We noticed that the Member of Parliament works a bit with Trump's tools. It is corrected to researchers, scientists, and authorities. They are given political directives. Is there something American here in Swedish politics?

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: This was the final round of remarks. Therefore, Member Storckenfeldt cannot answer the question, so it must be taken at another occasion.)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Better to fly than to fight poorly, they say, but here come a number of accusations in a storm of noise.

I can only inform Jytte Guteland that we, in any case, in our party have our own democratic processes. As soon as we are finished in this chamber, I am going to the Christian Democrats' party assembly in the Second Chamber, where we will make decisions regarding the Christian Democrats' policy. We govern ourselves.

Jytte Guteland stood at the rostrum both on Wednesday and today and said that it has never been so expensive to be Swedish. Three years ago, when the Social Democrats were in power, we paid 28 kronor per liter for diesel. In the 70s, one paid double the share of the wage for food as one does today. It was significantly more expensive then than it is today. Nevertheless, Jytte Guteland tries to claim that we are speaking falsely. It is someone else who is standing there brandishing false figures.

How do the Social Democrats and Jytte Guteland imagine that food will become cheaper with the Social Democrats' enthusiasm for raising prices rather than more for our farmers? The more we raise the prices for them, the more expensive the food becomes. It is a simple equation.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Ottosson for the questions!

It is ten years of real wage increases that have been eaten up by the Christian Democrats' policy. Ten years is quite a long time. My son was hardly born ten years ago. For my part, I was hardly born in the 70s and did not get to experience that time, which was more meager than our time. I must still say that if you are 45 years old and have not experienced anything worse than this, then it is something that this government needs to take to heart. We could talk about the 1800s and the Middle Ages as well. But I believe that the Swedish people understand what I am talking about because it is incredibly expensive, in plain Swedish, to buy food today.

I can ask the Kristdemokraterna member here in the chamber how it feels when food prices soar in this way and when the Climate Policy Council also says that the food strategy lacks climate policy.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Inflation began to rise already during the Social Democratic tenure of the Prime Minister's post. It sounds as if everything has happened as a result of us taking over. That is not true.

What we have done is to have a policy that fights inflation in order to bring down inflation so that we can get lower prices, get more normal prices. That is what we have worked on, whether it concerns food or whether it concerns fuel.

The Climate Policy Council has said that acceptance and commitment to the climate transition is the most important factor for creating robust and long-term policy. You do not get the people's commitment for 28 kronor per liter for diesel, Jytte Guteland. You get no acceptance from us who live in the countryside. Perhaps one accepts it if one lives in the city and has public transport, but we who are dependent on the car do not. You will find no acceptance from us for 28 kronor per liter.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to Member Ottosson for that report!

I would still say that this fact that ten years of real wage increases have been eaten up means that it is poorer and more expensive to be Swedish in modern times.

Many of us see it out in society right now. Makalösa Föräldrar describes how food prices mean they only drink tea, because they do not have the possibility of anything else since the children must have food. Parents go and try to get food in stores where it is donated. That is the way it looks in the Christian Democrats' Sweden.

The Christian Democrats have historically been a party that has wanted to stand up for the socially vulnerable. It is difficult to understand why one does not want to increase the child allowance in this situation. It is difficult to understand why one wants a finance minister who stands and laughs with the CEO of ICA in pictures instead of trying to pressure these giants to lower the prices.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! We heard an interesting exchange here, where Jytte Guteland felt she did not need to answer the question of whether fuel prices will increase or not with the next government. She referred to the fact that since this government is to introduce ETS 2, prices will be high because of us as well. It is somewhat remarkable that one does not want to answer the question of what is happening.

We have, in any case, calculated what our policy entails. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the price effect on gasoline will be 1.17 kronor more per liter and on diesel 1.26 more per liter due to ETS 2.

Yesterday we heard Miljöpartiet say that they have the Socialdemokrater with them on raising the prices to the level they state. Is that true? Can the voters hear – will it continue to be decommissioned nuclear power and again raised fuel prices with the Socialdemokrater?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! The concern over fuel prices and the concern over nuclear power seem to be the issues on which the Minister for Climate builds his entire policy.

I can start by saying that it has never been so expensive to be Swedish as it has under this government. I believe that the Swedish people's wallets are thinner than ever, and this applies both when one is going to refuel and when one enters a shop.

The first thing the climate minister can do if she is worried about the Swedish people's economy is to go back to the finance minister, talk better distribution policy, and ensure that the wallets become thicker again.

Another very important thing that the Minister for Climate, who decides on these issues, could do is to ensure that Swedish companies get the opportunity to hire more. We have mass unemployment in Sweden with this government, and what could be done in that area is to stand up for a green transition. Swedish companies say that if they only get clarity from the government, they will profit from that transition.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! The reason I am bringing up nuclear power and fuel prices is that you cannot answer those questions. You, who are the largest party in the Swedish Riksdag, refuse to give an answer to the voters about what it is you want to replace my climate policy with. That is why I am asking questions about nuclear power and fuel prices. It is because you cannot answer that question, because the Social Democrats refuse to give an answer, and because the Social Democrats use PR tricks and slogans instead of giving answers on what their climate policy de facto consists of.

I think it is quite remarkable that the opposition has had such an escalated tone towards me and the climate policy we are presenting since day one without being able to give an answer. Will nuclear power be decommissioned? Will fuel prices be raised or not?

Why can the Social Democrats not answer this question? Why can one not give a statement to the Swedish people? Why is such instability being created in climate policy and widening the polarization that is occurring and creating uncertainty for the business sector? Will there be increased fuel prices or not? Will nuclear power be shut down or not? Jytte Guteland cannot answer that. I can only regret it.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I want to remind again to use the word member or first and last name and not the word you in the speaker's chair.)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the questions.

If you want answers regarding our policy concerning transport, you simply have to read our committee motion. There are many descriptions of our reduction obligation and our tank discount. What I said from the rostrum was that those who want to predict fuel prices over a long period must take into account very many factors. Everything from exchange rates to how things are going with oil and whether the transition is moving forward or backward affects fuel prices. Regarding nuclear power, there are no plans for any decommissioning.

The Minister for Climate knows all this. She knows that we believe in market-based solutions. However, we do not want the Swedish people to pay for nuclear power. It could become very expensive. But with all that said, it is actually the Minister for Climate who decides in Sweden. It is not me – I am in opposition. This anger is therefore completely unjustified.

What I and my party devote ourselves to is trying to gain clarity on how we are to reverse the development of deficient climate policy in Sweden.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I concluded earlier by speaking about democracy and general elections. I think we should add freedom as an important concept.

Today, there are constant demands from the Climate Policy Council, the red-greens, and climate activists that people should eat differently and that focus should be placed on something else in agriculture. Europe and Sweden are quite unique in this context. In other parts of the world, this does not characterize the debate at all; rather, what we see in populous countries is that meat consumption is increasing sharply. It is not surprising. When people get better off, they want to eat tastier things.

The Council's proposal that people should eat differently and focus on something else has two problems. Problem one is that people should be allowed to eat what they desire without politics making it overly complicated. It is about a fundamental view of freedom. Problem two for the red-green parties, the activists, and the people in the Council is that we are not in the Soviet Union, China, or North Korea. People will not swap the minced meat for peas because the Climate Policy Council or the National Food Agency says so.

This is to be solved, according to the council, by increasing incentives for changed eating habits – which must involve making the consumption of "wrong" food unreasonably expensive. The National Food Agency is quite clear that its – very deficient – advice regarding food will not affect people, because people do not care about the National Food Agency's advice.

The climate radical activists and those who work at the Climate Policy Council or act in the Center Party, Left Party, Social Democrats, and Green Party must realize that Swedish agriculture must comply with the market and with the people who reside in our country. If the farmers transition the cultivation as the council desires, they will go bankrupt, because they will produce goods that are not in demand. What will then happen to Swedish food security?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I must ask a few questions. Did the member mean that it is climate activism in the Climate Policy Council? Perhaps I misunderstood it.

I think it is interesting that the food supply is being brought up. It is very important that we can increase the preparedness. I also think it is interesting – I have to reflect a bit on it – that the member is so incredibly irritated that it is said that meat consumption needs to decrease. I want to highlight that there is also a health perspective in this, which is very important.

If we are to become self-sufficient in food, we need to grow more plant protein. That is hardly surprising, and it is important from a preparedness perspective. I would very much like to hear a bit more from the member regarding this.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know how many climate activists there are in the Climate Policy Council. I cannot answer that.

When it comes to the discussion about people's eating habits, I personally and my party believe that people should eat the food they prefer to eat. Authorities can provide information about what is healthy and what is unhealthy and so on, and then people can draw their own conclusions. We shall not govern this through politics.

I rather think it would be interesting to hear from Vänsterpartiet how one – if one were given the power to decide – would want to steer how people eat. How do you want to steer them to eat more plant protein? When we look at how the market consumes food today, this suggests that one probably buys the food one wants to buy. One does not buy the food one does not want to buy. How does the member wish to change this so that they buy the food that Vänsterpartiet wants them to buy?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to say very briefly about food that it is indeed the case that the food industry is developing a lot of very good food based on plant proteins today. I believe that that will resolve itself somewhat on its own. It is, as said, also a health issue, and many are aware of this and are trying to do things to achieve better health.

I would also like to ask a question about transport efficiency. I know that the Sweden Democrats are completely uninterested in investing in, for example, public transport. When it comes to this, we want a Sweden ticket and for it to become cheaper. We believe that the state should invest in public transport. This is also what the Climate Policy Council thinks, and they give it as a recommendation.

Don't the Sweden Democrats think this would be a sensible idea?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I am still missing the answer. So, people are supposed to start consuming other food by researching food that is much tastier. There has, after all, been a fairly active market for quite many years – but all of a sudden, the beef is supposedly not to be preferred. I must say that it is very doubtful that this would change dramatically. It will definitely require political steering measures if one is to come even close to what the National Food Agency and the Climate Policy Council desire.

Madam Speaker! There were also questions regarding public transport. From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we think that public transport is very important, especially in our larger cities. We welcome the infrastructure bill that has arrived. It contains historically powerful investments in, for example, trains and railways, but also in the road network.

We can simultaneously observe that the vast majority of journeys in Sweden are made by private car. It is about flexibility and other things. If we lower the price for public transport journeys very far below the market price, it will become unreasonably expensive.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have been clear that they want to slow down and tear up climate policy both in Sweden and in the EU. But who actually benefits from locking Swedes into a vulnerable fossil dependency? Only Vladimir Putin and other despots who finance their regimes with oil money.

Europe has pumped more money into Russia's war chest by buying oil and gas than what has been given in economic support to Ukraine. A third of the fossil fuels in Sweden have an unknown origin, but they probably come directly or indirectly from Russia. As long as we do not succeed in breaking our fossil dependency, we continue to finance Putin's war in Ukraine. Still, SD does not think it is urgent. How long do the Sweden Democrats think it is okay to pump money into Putin's war chest?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Daniel Helldén for the questions.

To begin with, I want to emphasize that the Sweden Democrats welcome the measures being taken at the EU level regarding the sanction packages. We see that it has been good work that has moved forward step by step. It is not uncomplicated to introduce these instruments, but the consumption of Russian raw materials in Europe is dramatically lower today and will likely decrease even further during the current year. That is positive.

At the same time, one must simply state the fact: We have a consumption of crude oil in the world that amounts to approximately 100 million barrels per day. This means that raw materials from Russia will leak out onto the world market regardless of what Europe does. Long-term work is required to reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels to change this fact.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! If it leaks onto the market, there is a point in ensuring that those types of fuels are not used. SD's war against the reduction obligation has, however, led to millions more liters of fossil fuels being burned in transport every day.

I ask again: How long does SD think Sweden and the EU should continue to pump money into Russia's war chest? You have been clear that there is no hurry, Martin Kinnunen, but where is the limit? Does it perhaps lie at 2045? And what is the plan? How are we to become independent when you have now completely halted the transition in the transport sector? It is precisely in that way we can get rid of the subsidies that we send to Putin via oil, that is, by reducing the dependence on fossil fuels and ensuring that we make use of the renewables.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Daniel Helldén.

Once upon a time, we had a crude oil dependency also for Swedish heating and electricity in Sweden, but through new technology and investments, this was phased out step by step. The same thing is happening with the crude oil dependency regarding transport on roads; through new technology and investments, this dependency is being phased out step by step. We have never had a traffic sector as electrified as we have today. With every passing year, it becomes more electrified. Emissions are judged to decrease this year and will decrease next year.

Regarding how much Russian raw material is consumed in Sweden, the available statistics on what our refineries produce show that it is a vanishingly small amount that is Russian. Instead, it is largely Norwegian raw material today, and I think that is positive.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I thought I would take the opportunity to discuss what the Climate Policy Council has actually devoted its report to this year. They have looked extra closely at agricultural policy and how we should ensure that we take care of the sector that has actually stood still for a longer period. If one looks at how the emissions from the transport sector, industry, and other sectors in Sweden have looked, one sees that changes have occurred. The agricultural sector, however, remains stable at the level it is at.

Martin Kinnunen has mentioned several times that further burdens on agriculture are unacceptable and that we should help Swedish farmers. But when I meet Swedish farmers, I hear that they have a genuine concern about floods, droughts, and other consequences of climate change. Therefore, I wonder: What do the Sverigedemokraterna want to do to reduce the burden that affects farmers in Sweden due to the climate?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Climate and Environment, for the questions! It is very good that we can focus a bit on substantive politics here in the chamber today.

How we can strengthen agriculture specifically when it comes to emissions and other matters is a very important question. I believe that the fundamental thing is to strengthen competitiveness. More viable agricultural enterprises will have greater resilience and will also be able to take the measures that are required. This will occur in combination with support from authorities and certain grants, which is absolutely welcome, but above all, I believe that we need to increase Swedish food production and improve the economy in the agricultural enterprises we have.

Here there is a food strategy that the Sweden Democrats and the government have agreed upon. A very important assignment has been given to the Swedish Board of Agriculture regarding how we can clarify the goals, and I believe that will be important in the continued work.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I want to mention that I truly mean it when I say that there is a genuine concern among many farmers in Sweden. The concern is, of course, based on the rising costs due to inflation and other factors, as well as the small margins one has to make the business work and ensure that Sweden is supplied with food. But the concern also concerns conditions that are completely impossible for a farmer to manage.

If you have a drought in the way that we had, for example, during 2018, or if you have the floods that we saw, for example, in Norway last year, it has enormous consequences, and we really need to remedy this. We do that best by increasing the pressure on countries that year after year significantly increase their emissions and in the international climate work, but we also do it by acting as an example in Sweden and continuing to be those who are furthest ahead with low – and reduced – emissions.

I hope that this is something we can continue to cooperate on and that we actually take action on agricultural policy moving forward – also for the sake of the climate.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Climate and Environment, for the questions!

As has been said, there is definitely a great deal of concern. What happens if the harvest is poor if there is a drought? What does the company's cash flow look like? I definitely believe that resilience among entrepreneurs is the absolute fundamental, in the same way that I believe the best way to handle climate adaptation measures in poor countries is for the countries to become less poor so that they can afford to take the measures that are required.

The long-term work is, naturally, about addressing the core of the problem, which is that humans affect the climate. The tedious thing here is that it takes a long time. A measure today may perhaps have an effect on the climate in several decades, which means that the work we do today can hopefully have some kind of effect for the next generation of farmers. It is therefore two tasks that must be carried out in parallel – one here and now and one long-term.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The climate issue knows no borders. It is global in its nature.

Sweden's emissions constitute a fraction of the world's total emissions, but we are far from insignificant when it comes to our role and our responsibility. When we show that it is possible to combine a powerful climate transition with economic growth, we make a real difference.

It is precisely that balance between climate ambition and competitiveness that characterizes the Moderate-led government's policy. We ensure that households and companies can transition without losing faith in the future. We are expanding electricity production with both nuclear power and wind power and making it easier to obtain permits. We are strengthening Klimatklivet and Industriklivet and have established Kväveklivet.

Perhaps most importantly: We stand guard over cost-effectiveness. Every krona spent on inefficient climate policy is a krona that could have done real good somewhere else.

The Moderate-led government has now made a long series of decisions to pave the way for new nuclear power and increase the expansion of wind power. This is not done for fun, but it is a fundamental prerequisite for a climate policy that holds all the way through and becomes a competitive advantage. To turn a blind eye to the importance of electricity production is irresponsible. If you have no energy policy, you also have no climate policy.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's journey shows that climate responsibility and growth are not opposites. They are prerequisites for one another.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Storckenfeldt for the contribution.

I do not doubt for a moment that Moderates and Social Democrats can agree on a responsible policy, also when it comes to the climate. But we have researchers all over the world. It is about tens of thousands of researchers and reports from the UN's climate panel. It is also about all these councils – about the EU's climate council, our own climate council, and researchers who gather and describe what the research has concluded. It is alarming research that we can access. It is about temperature increases that lead to today's five-year-olds being able to expect to experience indescribable levels of heat during their lifetime.

At the same time, we heard when Storckenfeldt spoke in the rostrum that she translated "fair and balanced" into a finger-pointing at the Climate Policy Council. "Fair and balanced" comes from Fox News. Fox News does not think that researchers stand on their own feet. I want to ask what Storckenfeldt meant by "fair and balanced".

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I find it remarkable that I am being accused of having a trumpist rhetoric. It is not only grossly incorrect but also a cheap attempt to avoid a substantive debate.

In the previous exchange, I asked a question about Sweden's competitiveness and about why the Social Democrats want to phase out the Simplification Council. Did I get any answers, Madam Speaker? No, I did not, of course.

If Jytte wants to talk about practical politics, be my guest! She has a new chance now. What do the Socialdemokrater want with competitiveness and the Simplification Council?

To smear me with a label that I, both as a Swedish politician and as an American voter, actively oppose is unworthy of a party that claims to stand up for democracy, Madam Speaker.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Storckenfeldt for the answer.

It was words and no melodies! It was member Storckenfeldt himself who said "fair and balanced" regarding the Climate Policy Council. That is an expression used in Fox News to correct or rectify researchers and to make researchers doubt their own research and wonder if the politics want to steer it.

Was it not so that Member Storckenfeldt used the term "fair and balanced" in his speech?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! This is an unworthy question to ask of me. Jytte Guteland knows where I stand when it comes to research. She knows what I think about the American policy being pursued, not least the policy being pursued just now. Above all, she knows how I, as an American voter, vote.

Madam Speaker! This is an unworthy question that I do not intend to answer.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates went to the election on a platform of getting the climate in order, but they have obviously lost control. They talk warmly about cost-effectiveness and competitiveness, but their climate policy is the opposite.

The Fiscal Policy Council points out that the government's policy makes the transition more expensive for both households and companies. For two years in a row, you have invested more in measures that counteract the transition than in measures that promote it. Svenskt Näringsliv warns that the climate policy you are conducting is devastating for Swedish competitiveness.

Can the member account for the cost-effectiveness and what provides competitiveness in toggling back and forth with different instruments and making the fossil fuels cheaper and the alternatives more expensive?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The best climate policy is no longer the one that forces, but the one that creates the best conditions. That was not the case with the red-green bloc's policy during the last parliamentary term.

Sweden's first civil climate policy action plan has been presented, and it justifies the name All the way to net zero. We are expanding fossil-free electricity production and investing in the transport sector's transition through electrification. The number of charging stations is being expanded at an enormous pace. We believe that the forest should be utilized, not locked away.

Climate policy must, as said, be rooted in the people and be effective. Here we ensure that there is a real reduction in emissions per invested krona because we have a systems perspective. Regulatory simplifications and shorter permit processes are also good climate policy, Madam Speaker.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to give voice to some of the voices regarding the Moderates' energy policy, which the Moderates so often highlight.

Stop the billion-dollar subsidies to nuclear power, write the Institute for Business Research and Timbro. They call the Moderaterna's project planeconomically.

PM Nilsson, the former State Secretary, condemns the entire investment in new nuclear power in Sweden. He says that the price tag will be insanely high and that the timeline is completely unrealistic.

Mikael Odenberg, former Moderate defense minister and director-general of Svenska kraftnät, calls your decision to stop 13 wind farms almost catastrophic and says that it borders on self-harming behavior. It is an industrial policy and energy policy failure and means nothing defense-politically, he says.

How do you mean, Helena Storckenfeldt, that your policy in these areas is characterized by order and clarity, cost-effectiveness, and work for competitiveness?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The price of shutting down fully functioning nuclear power, among other things in my home county of Halland, with Ringhals 1 and 2, caused an increase in carbon dioxide emissions of 8 million tons per year. The price of not investing in nuclear power today, we do not know. We do know, however, that future generations will have to pay the price for a climate policy that, according to the Miljöpartiet's plan, is to be short-sighted.

We choose instead to invest in a more long-term path where nuclear power is a prerequisite for a climate policy that holds. It is a prerequisite for more wind. It is also a prerequisite for the transition of the industrial and transport sectors.

From the IPCC, it is clear that nuclear power is needed. I wonder if Miljöpartiet thinks that the UN's climate panel is wrong. What assessment, which the UN's climate panel has missed, does Miljöpartiet make in that case?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! It is the richest who emit the most greenhouse gases, and it is the richest who need to pay. In my opinion, it is only more left-wing politics that can solve the climate crisis. Sweden can kick-start the climate transition and do it in a way that builds a more just Sweden, that creates jobs and wealth and that ensures that ordinary people get it better.

With an equitable distribution of resources, reduced resource use can be combined with a higher material standard for all.

The transition to a sustainable society must have the greatest consequences for those who have the greatest climate impact and use the most resources.

Sweden needs to invest in climate-related infrastructure, water networks, energy-efficient housing, strengthened power grids, and significantly expanded renewable energy.

We propose a Sweden ticket for all regional public transport, which shall cost a maximum of 450 kronor per month and be valid across the entire country.

We propose that subsidies to climate-damaging activities be phased out and that the money instead be spent on supporting transition and green investments.

When a larger share of the economy goes toward collective investments instead of favoring the overconsumption of high-income earners, opportunities are created to reduce both the gaps between low-income earners and high-income earners as well as the gaps between city and country, while simultaneously reducing emissions.

This is good policy for the climate and for ordinary people. Sweden can do better.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is not the speech itself but a previous exchange of remarks that I wish to discuss with Kajsa Fredholm.

Vänsterpartiet likes it when the state points with the whole hand – that is an old tradition – and it is clear that they want the state to point with the whole hand when it comes to what we should eat.

Kajsa Fredholm spoke about the self-sufficiency rate, and then I must ask: If we are to have fewer livestock and eat less meat and more plant-based, how can Sweden then become more self-sufficient? Sweden's geographical conditions make it impossible to cultivate as much plant protein as would be needed if we were to go that way. Then we become dependent on imports. How is Vänsterpartiet going to solve this equation?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

This is a very important discussion. We propose that meat consumption in Sweden should be reduced by 30 percent. This will be needed for various reasons. But we eat a very large amount of imported meat, and that we can reduce. It is therefore not necessary to reduce meat production in Sweden – consumption and production are two different things. We need animals that graze out on our pastures for biodiversity and so on. Here, I believe we are in agreement.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Kajsa Fredholm for the answer.

It is pleasing to hear that Vänsterpartiet and Kajsa Fredholm understand that we cannot manage without meat consumption in Sweden.

Unfortunately, we see how in some municipalities and also in state agencies and authorities, people are experimenting with diet and trying to dictate. With adults, it is one thing, but when they dictate in our schools when it comes to vegetarian diets, I become concerned. It is our growing children who need proper protein. They are to build up their bodies and need such food. This is also clearly pointed out by research. Still, Vänsterpartiet wants to point in another direction.

Doesn't the Left Party want the growing generation to build up their bodies with protein that makes them strong enough throughout their lives?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Now the debate has taken a strange turn. I do not know which schools the member has attended, but obviously, one can also grow up on a vegetarian diet. There are good proteins even within the plant kingdom. It feels as if the member is trying to drive a wedge that does not exist.

Food prices are, in that case, a bigger problem. Many families today cannot afford to give their children a nutritious diet because the prices are too high. But the government has lowered taxes by 70 billion over the last two years, and those who have benefited the most are the wealthiest households.

It is my comment.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Emissions are increasing, and the Minister for Climate says that we must have solutions that people accept. Yes, absolutely, and there are a multitude of such solutions. But the government is pushing everything into the future.

Centerpartiet presents concrete proposals: Stop the export of environmental cars – not by imposing new tariffs but by making it more profitable to own and drive an environmental car. Reintroduce an environmental car premium for cheaper and used cars so that more people can afford to be part of the transition. Allow longer and heavier vehicles when it comes to trucks and trains to increase efficiency. Give Swedish biogas the right conditions for all technologies. Implement the Bioeconomy Investigation's proposals to increase the production of domestic biofuels. Introduce an origin labeling at the pump. Focus on capacities and not individual types of technology in the electricity system – then we also avoid the targeted subsidies for hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of billions that the government proposes. Expand both the electricity grid and electricity production, but prioritize efficiency. Introduce compensation to neighbors for both electricity production and the electricity grid, for real.

The list can be made almost infinitely long, and most of the proposals are furthermore investigated and ready. Still, the government waits.

What is it that we are waiting for? First, the answers were supposed to come in the climate action plan. Then they were supposed to come in the Steering Mechanism Inquiry. Now everything is being pushed back to the next mandate period. It is directly embarrassing to see how the government sacrifices Swedish climate policy when climate policy could give Sweden fantastic opportunities.

Centerpartiet believes in technological development, in people's inherent power to do good, and in green growth and green entrepreneurship. We do not solve problems through lowered standards of living and regression. We do it by looking forward. That is how we find the solutions and meet the climate challenge, security, the jobs, and the companies.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by pointing out that the state subsidies for new nuclear power will not cost the state thousands of billions. It is a completely absurd claim. Let this be recorded.

Madam Speaker! The Center Party's new party leader has announced that the party wants to raise the climate goals. But how is that to be done? We are criticized for lowering the reduction obligation and fuel prices. Does that mean one wants to raise the reduction obligation oneself, like the Green Party proposed yesterday and claimed the opposition will be able to agree on? Or does one perhaps mean the LULUCF goal for forest and land uptake? Right now, the deficit is 63–71 million tons, and it would require a logging ban for one year to reach the current goal – a goal that the Center Party may want to raise.

What message does the Centre Party have for Swedish voters? Will there be higher goals for forests or for transport with the Centre Party at the helm?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It is no news that the Centre Party wants to strengthen the climate goals. We believe that Sweden should be climate neutral as early as 2040. We believe that the focus should be on the energy system instead of the electricity system, i.e., that it should be fossil-free. We have higher ambitions than the government does. We ensure that emissions are reduced – unlike the government, which is actively increasing them. With bold courage, decisions have been made that cause the world to head towards a warmer future. When emissions in transport increase, forest owners are forced to let the forest stand, because that is how the EU regulations work. What is done in the transport sector is connected with what must be done in the land sector.

Centerpartiet proposes that we should increase the production of Swedish biofuels. We could do it for a fraction of the money that the government has invested in increasing fossil use. Then prices would have fallen, and we could have lowered the tax on the renewable. But instead, the government has a tax policy that makes it cheaper to fuel up with fossil diesel than to fuel up with pure electricity.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I understand that Member Nordin wants to raise his voice to distract us from the fact that he cannot answer the question. Does one want to raise the climate goals for the forest? And shall we have a logging ban for a week and then perhaps a logging ban for several months because the Center Party wants to raise the climate goal for forest and land? Or is it the transport sector's climate goals that one wants to raise? Or could it be that the Center Party is simply saying that one wants to raise climate goals without explaining what it is that one means, in order to win cheap points from the voters and mislead by saying that one has higher climate ambitions than others?

The fact is that the policy that is currently in place and the budget that the Center Party has presented do not reach any climate goals. We have calculated that. They actually miss more climate goals than all other parties in the Swedish Riksdag.

I wonder what it means that Centerpartiet wants to raise climate goals. I understand that you want biogas, Rickard Nordin, but what does it mean? Which goal do you want to raise? Do you want to raise it for transport or for the forest?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! It seems that the Minister for Climate did not listen, because I just explained that we want to move forward the climate goal to 2040. We shall be net-zero neutral by then.

The government has made calculations, the minister says, but they refuse to release them. The interesting thing is that they use the Government Offices' officials to drive party politics and, in addition, refuse to release the calculations. They calculate in such a way that they do not look at our policy at all. They only do that when we reject the government's policy – then they calculate as if we had not had any at all.

It is the government's policy that leads to the logging ban in the forest. Every liter of fossil diesel that the import is increased by means trees that cannot be harvested. It stops the Swedish forest industry, Swedish timber house construction, and Swedish exports. It is harmful for Sweden. It is harmful for our security policy. It is 4 million liters of diesel per day that the government chooses we should increase the import by. It benefits Putin. It benefits Russia. And it harms Swedish security.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In this year's report, we can read: "Stricter reduction obligations and higher taxes on fossil fuels are the measures that can contribute to the greatest emission reductions in the short term. The efforts can be combined with distributional policy measures that distribute profits and costs and protect vulnerable groups."

At the same time, the Climate Policy Council has previously warned against relying too one-sidedly on the reduction obligation. The National Audit Office has pointed out that the reduction obligation was both unfeasible in the long term and risked leading to increased emissions in other parts of the world.

What does the council actually want? What is clear, however, which we heard for 30 minutes last night, is that Miljöpartiet wants to raise fuel prices significantly by increasing the reduction obligation, while simultaneously wanting to provide several other types of support as compensation. However, Miljöpartiet, together with Vänsterpartiet, for some reason has incredibly much more money to spend than we other six parties do.

In the section on agriculture, we can read that the council proposes measures such as reduced production of emission-intensive livestock and afforestation of agricultural land. This shows once again how difficult it is to adhere to the advice when one does not need to have the helicopter perspective that we as politicians need to have.

So we are to reduce the production of milk and beef in order to grow crops directly for human consumption on the areas that are freed up when fewer ruminants need fodder. To quote an editorial in Nya Wermlands-Tidningen: "To believe that it is simply a matter of switching from forage that the cows eat to grain is a pipe dream."

Furthermore, how does afforestation of agricultural land go together with the fact that we simultaneously need to cultivate significantly more if we are to get enough food when we are to eat less meat? Nature grazing lands are incredibly important from a biodiversity perspective. Should they be replanted?

We in politics must make trade-offs. We are happy to receive advice and proposals, but it is good if they are also feasible in practice. Is it the case that the Climate Policy Council has the wrong mandate?

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Ottosson, for the debate and for the introduction!

From the Social Democrats' side, we are curious about how the Christian Democrats reason in light of the Climate Policy Council's letter to both Rural Affairs Minister Kullgren and Climate Minister Pourmokhtari regarding updating the food strategy 2.0 before it had even cooled down after coming from the printer.

The food strategy recently presented by the government, where the minister from the member's own party was the main protagonist, lacks, according to the Climate Policy Council, a crucial component, namely how the increased production can take place in line with Sweden's climate goals. I therefore pose that question to the member.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Jytte Guteland, for the question!

Yes, we have finally received an updated food strategy 2.0 – fantastically good! If we Christian Democrats had been allowed to decide fully, it would not have looked exactly as it does now, but the current food strategy is incredibly good. It is a long-awaited document that we now look forward to launching so that there will be real change.

In contrast to how it was with the previous food strategy, there will be a change at the farm level. I look forward to our fantastic farmers, who produce our high-quality food, experiencing that it will make a difference.

If we do not have food production in Sweden, Jytte Guteland, but instead penalize our own food production, we must import, and food that we import is produced under significantly worse conditions than the Swedish.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

We share the opinion that we need an updated food strategy, that we need more Swedish food on the tables and that we also need to transition so that it becomes climate-smart, but the question here concerns, as said, that the Climate Policy Council considers that the updated food strategy is not particularly climate-smart.

The core of the matter is: Is KD ready to abandon SD and stand on its own feet and instead talk and cooperate with parties that want to see a green development? That is the question. We know that SD wants to tear down the climate law.

We Social Democrats have instead chosen to push for both a climate law at the EU level and our own climate policy, and we want to invest in households and increase the pace. But you in KD give, together with SD, tax bonuses to high-income earners, scale back ambitions, and shift the debt onto future generations. It is not a particularly humanitarian or warm KD policy with social consideration, is it?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Just as I said earlier, also in my speech, we as politicians must have a helicopter perspective. We must take all considerations into account. That is what we do when we submit bills and letters to this chamber, and that was exactly what Minister for Rural Affairs Kullgren did when he presented the food strategy.

It is a holistic approach so that it works everywhere, so that it does not become like what happened with the quota obligation. Then we put all our eggs in one basket, and it turned out that the bottom of the basket did not hold. We cannot end up there again. We must, not least considering the global situation today, ensure that we produce as much food as possible in Sweden, and then we must ensure that it is profitable to produce food here. We must ensure that Swedish farmers truly have competitiveness. It is incredibly important given the sharp global situation that we live with.

We politicians should always have a helicopter perspective when we make decisions.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Climate change is hitting Swedish forestry hard. Drought and the spruce bark beetle have severely impaired the forest's growth. It is obvious that Swedish forestry is not equipped for a warmer climate and more extreme weather. This should worry the party that holds the rural affairs ministry.

Years of high logging in combination with drought have also led to the Swedish forest's ability to absorb and store carbon dioxide being drastically impaired.

The government stands completely without a plan to both climate-proof forestry and meet the climate goals for the forest. We in Miljöpartiet want to invest in advice for a clear-cut-free, nature-oriented, and climate-adapted forestry, something that the government has cut back on. We want to pay the forest owners for the climate and environmental benefits they create for society. We want the landowners who want to protect their forest to receive reasonable compensation in a timely manner.

What do the Christian Democrats want? The government's initiative in this area is, in fact, going in the exact opposite direction.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, they go in diametrically opposite directions, because we do not live in some kind of ideological fluff-fluff. We live in reality.

We want to make a real transition. If we are to make a real transition, we must push out the fossil. If we are not to use products from the forest – what shall we use instead? There, the Miljöpartiet is answerable.

Miljöpartiet's view on the forest involves no transition, Madam Speaker. It means that we are to crawl back into the cave. I do not believe there is acceptance for that by anyone, except possibly some Miljöparti activists.

Madam Speaker! We have never ever harvested more than the growth in Sweden. We have twice as much forest now as we had a hundred years ago. We have harvested four times as much as the growth, and we still have more forest.

Then the forest shall be managed. That is completely correct, because that is when we get growth. And our forest owners do that best according to their own judgment, not when the state points with the whole hand.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am thinking of the Climate Policy Council's description of the government's climate policy last year. We can return to that in another exchange of remarks.

Today's forestry has few winners but many losers. Among the losers are Sweden's hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized landowners who have been dragged down by poor profitability. Among the losers are also nature tourism, the reindeer husbandry, and those rural residents who do not own forest themselves and have to watch their local forest next to the village being clear-cut.

There is a rapidly growing movement from the landowner level where they want something else. They demand clear-cut-free advice from their associations, they want to be paid for the climate and environmental benefits they contribute, they organize themselves to influence and spread knowledge, and they start companies to earn money from a climate-smart and resilient forestry. Common to all of these is that they have the landowner's profitability in focus.

What is the plan to climate-proof forestry?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Something that the Green Party joyfully ignores in every forest debate is that someone owns the forest. It is someone else who owns the forest. Ownership is insignificant for the Green Party.

It is completely voluntary to switch to continuous cover forestry. We have no law in Sweden that prevents any forest owner from switching to continuous cover if they so wish. We have researchers who have researched this for an incredibly long time. Those who have researched continuous cover the longest in Sweden today and who are still active show a research result that the Green Party and those who are ideologically close to the Green Party do not want to listen to at all, because that research points to what continuous cover leads to in reality. And that reality, I believe, not even the Green Party wants to wake up to.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! What is the status of the electrification of Sweden's car fleet today? The Tidö parties have made fossil fuels cheaper and electric cars more expensive. Their policy has had an effect and has stalled the electrification.

In 2024, electric car sales decreased for the first time ever. A new survey shows that Swedes' belief in an electric car transition has plummeted. It is not so strange because the Tidö parties have been clear in the direction on the issue. They have implemented massive tax cuts on gasoline and diesel, and they removed the electric car bonus overnight. The government's talk about perhaps introducing a bonus in 2026 puts a wet blanket over the market today. The fact is that we have stood without a bonus for several years.

Overall, the government locks households and companies into an expensive fossil dependency. The Green Party wants to do exactly the opposite. We want to roll out a national electric car offensive – a powerful package of measures so that everyone who needs a car can drive on electricity. It is about a fair electric car bonus where the cheapest cars are given the largest bonus. It is also about a fair leasing support for residents in rural areas, a conversion bonus from fossil car to electric car, and so on.

To lower emissions, we also need to significantly increase the reduction obligation and then move to a national emissions trading system for transport. It should be a solidarity system where we distribute the revenues to households outside the larger cities to support them in the transition.

Miljöpartiet has presented a more concrete idea for such a system than the Minister for Climate has been able to put forward in nearly three years in a government position. In order to get electrification back on track, it is imperative that we change the government.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! An active and sustainable use of the forest is one of our most important tools in the climate transition. The forest binds carbon dioxide, provides renewable raw materials and enables the production of biofuels and climate-smart building materials.

But for this to work, a policy is required that stands up for property rights and trusts the hundreds of thousands of forest owners all over the country who every day take responsibility for both the environment and production. That is not the Green Party's policy.

My question to Miljöpartiet is: How do you intend for Sweden to be able to reach the climate goals if we simultaneously make it more difficult for the industries that actually deliver climate-smart solutions?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is claimed here that we would like to make things difficult for those who own forests. In that case, we are talking about the small-scale forest owners and not about the giant companies, for that is a separate issue.

I would say it is exactly the opposite. We want the forest owners to have the opportunity to manage their forests in a sustainable way. The state should step in and help them with this, including with advice on how to proceed when transitioning to a continuous-cover forestry. We want to provide support to those who actually keep the forest and thereby also provide a climate benefit.

We want to provide support to those who, during generational transitions, have problems getting everything to fit together and clear-cut their forest even though they might not need to. Instead, we want to provide them with loans so that they can keep the forest and manage it in a gentle way and still carry out generational transitions so that it works.

We do not want to restrict anything, as the member claims. We want to give the forest owners opportunities to manage the forest and to do so in a sustainable way.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The Green Party's policy risks undermining the very use that actually contributes to the climate transition. Instead of supporting Swedish forest owners, as Daniel Helldén claims the Green Party does, they want to limit their opportunities. They want to tell forest owners how they should manage their forests, which in the long run means that fossil materials and fuels will remain on the market.

Madam Speaker! I have much greater confidence in Sweden's 300,000 forest owners than I have in the Green Party's policy. While the Green Party wants to let more of the forest stand for the sake of the climate, they also want to build more in wood – for the sake of the climate. I wonder how the Green Party manages this equation of both having the cake and eating it, because as far as I know, that is not quite how forestry works.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! What we are saying is that we want to give the forest owners the opportunity to manage the forest in a different way.

It is quite true that Miljöpartiet wants people to save more forest and that the forest should stand longer. That needs to be done for us to meet the climate goals. But then we must also ensure that the forest owners have the opportunity to manage this in a good way. Therefore, we have support and proposals on how it should be done.

Since then, we have mountain-adjacent forests that we absolutely must not cut down, something that, after the work of the Environmental Goals Preparatory Body, is completely ignored. It is unique forest that is important for biodiversity and the climate and which takes ages to recreate, if it can even be done at all.

We want to ensure that forest owners can create more long-lived products, which can be done if one has a continuous-cover forestry. It is the short-lived products we must reduce, and we must do that in a different way.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I had actually intended to ask about something else, but after the previous exchange of remarks, I could not help but continue with the forest.

The research is clear: The longest time series we have in Sweden clearly indicates that harvest-free will not work in the long run. Nevertheless, this is the Green Party's solution. We see in several parts how they want to work towards solutions in the short term but not in the long term.

Then Miljöpartiet calls for long-lived products. If we are to get the long-lived products and get good growth in the forest to be able to manufacture the long-lived products, we must manage the forest. Then we must thin. Then we must ensure that the forest that is to become long-lived products gets the best conditions. Then we must have a forestry worthy of the name and not operate with selective logging or continuous cover forestry, which research indicates will not work.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Kjell-Arne Ottosson says that the research is unambiguous that it does not work in the long run. It would be interesting to hear why it does not work in the long run to have clear-cut-free forestry. I would say that it works perfectly well.

When one has a continuous-cover forestry, as is the case here, it does not mean that one just lets the forest stand. It is clear that one manages it. To some extent, one thins it. One harvests as needed. Then we get everything we need for the short-lived – it becomes less, but it becomes short-lived products. We also get long-lived products that are more efficient and better than those we harvest now.

We have a forestry sector that focuses primarily on the pulp industry. We need to ensure that there are functioning sawmills in the countryside that can handle the timber. That is how we support and achieve better forestry in Sweden.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not know where to begin.

One focuses on the pulp industry, says Daniel Helldén. Yes, thank goodness that we sort so that we get timber for the pulp industry! That is what goes to the pulp industry. Just as I said last Wednesday: Even though evolution has come a long way, it has not come so far that we have square trees. The trees are still round. Planks and boards are square. When we saw timber that we are to have for long-lived products, we get residual products that can be used for short-lived products, which we should be grateful for.

Every fourth liquid carton in the world is manufactured in Sweden. Here, we are world leaders and push out alternatives that are significantly worse for the climate. This is thanks to the fact that we manage the forest. Yes, they are short-lived products, but they can still be recycled. Where is the mistake?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, where is the mistake? Kjell-Arne Ottosson tries to make it sound as if the continuous-cover forests would not be used. When one has a continuous-cover forestry, one takes down the trees as they go. When one makes a plank, it becomes rectangular many times, and one gets waste and offcuts that can be used for that type of industry. There is bark and all sorts of things that also come up.

The logging practices we have today are devastating for the climate. It is also devastating for biological diversity. It does not look sensible when one travels around the country. It is cut down and cut down so that a hell of a lot of spruce can be shoved into the mass industry.

We also know that we have climate goals we must meet, such as LULUCF and the EU's goals. It will become terribly expensive if we continue with Kjell-Arne Ottsson's forestry.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Nor can I refrain from pointing out that one either has a milk carton made of paper in Sweden, where Swedish forestry can contribute, or one has glass. Perhaps Daniel Helldén wants what is in southern Europe, where glass bottles are transported back and forth on fossil-fueled trucks with high fuel consumption or use fossil plastic, i.e., oil-based plastic.

This is what happens when Miljöpartiet cannot choose between the environment and the climate and puts the logic for the environment ahead of the logic for the climate.

It also happened with nuclear power. The logic for the environment was placed ahead of the logic for the climate, which requires nuclear power to make the electricity system work so that oil can be phased out. Instead, nuclear power was decommissioned, and the Karlshamn oil plant ran hotter than ever because of the Miljöpartiets policy.

Madam Speaker! What I wonder about is the Green Party's turn regarding the reduction obligation. Can one explain the long-term perspective in that they now want to abolish the reduction obligation after 2027?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to once again point out the Climate Policy Council's highlighting that the government is proceeding with falsehoods. This concerns, among other things, the speech that is being made regarding nuclear power.

It is clear that we need cardboard, to some extent, for milk. The question is whether we need the e-commerce that causes enormous amounts of forest in the form of packages to travel back and forth everywhere. We need to do it in a different way to manage this, and we need to manage the biodiversity.

When it comes to the reduction obligation, we say that we want to raise it by 25–30 percent by 2026. We must do this to meet the climate emissions. When we reach 2027 and the EU's emissions trading system is in place, we want to have a national system in place with a reduction obligation of 30 percent as a baseline. It is therefore remaining. On the other hand, the rest of the system shall handle it from then on.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by congratulating Miljöpartiet for having reached the same insight that the Liberalerna have had all along, namely that it is not a sky-high reduction obligation that will save the transport sector's transition, but rather emissions trading, cooperation and the EU that is the answer to how Sweden should reduce its emissions from the transport sector.

What we see is not what Daniel Helldén said from the rostrum. What we see is, for example, that both electric cars and plug-in hybrids, according to Mobility Sweden, have increased during the first three months of the year, while the share of gasoline cars has decreased in sales in Sweden. We also see a fantastic development with more plug-in hybrid trucks and electric trucks on the roads since 2024. It is not correct that everything is going in the wrong direction and that electrification is being ruined.

The long-term question is this: If we are to have electrification, if we are to get rid of fossil fuels and if we are to get oil out of plastic packaging, something needs to come in as a replacement. Nuclear power was needed, and a viable forestry sector was needed. An insight was also needed that one cannot rule out technologies because a gut feeling – and perhaps a bit of a hippie remnant – lowers the enthusiasm for the technology.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, Minister, this year electric car sales have increased. It is not thanks to this government, but despite it. You removed the support for electric cars and spoke about how it was only expensive electric cars that received money. You are doing nothing. You talk about how perhaps there will be a support further ahead.

This slows things down. We would have been at a much higher level and had lower emissions today if you had not acted in this way.

The reduction obligation was and is absolutely necessary. You increased emissions by 18 percent – 2 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. That corresponds, in principle, to the entirety of Swedes' international flights. These are enormous amounts. This is something we will live with and be affected by.

The increases that you will make on July 1 will not be enough anywhere. That is exactly what the Climate Policy Council says: You will not meet the goals. You do not even seem to be on the way to wanting to meet them, because this is something you are ignoring.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I shall only point out that with this government, Sweden's emissions decreased in 2022 and in 2023. They have increased in 2024 to then be assessed to decrease again in 2025 and 2026. It is the same as during the previous government when emissions increased in 2021.

During this mandate period, we have had a year where emissions increased, and that is not good. We must counteract that. And we will counteract this by continuing to have new politics, which do not just build on raising fuel prices and leaning back. We will not build climate policy on a dated image of modern energy, such as offshore wind power and nuclear power.

We will need more political proposals, and the political conversation will continue. But what is important to keep in mind is that Sweden is at the forefront not only in the EU but also among the OECD countries. Sweden is the country that is furthest ahead in reducing emissions, and we shall continue to do so, not least by ensuring that the climate policy debate in Sweden continues.

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind that the chamber's deliberations must not be disturbed by observers in the gallery, and I must ask the guards to promptly remove those persons who disturb the order.

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