Special debate on the import of Russian fossil energy

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! It has now been more than a year since Russia launched its war of aggression against Ukraine. It is a war that has forced millions of people to leave their country. It is a war that has torn families apart, ground entire cities into rubble and destroyed an economy. It is a war in which horrific war crimes have been revealed. Sexual violence is used as systematic warfare when Ukrainian girls and women are raped. Sadistic violence and beheadings are documented and spread to instill terror in the population.

Madam Speaker! A year ago, a unanimous Riksdag stood behind stopping the import of fossil energy from Russia. Since then - silence. That is why we in Miljöpartiet have requested this debate. While the government drags its feet and delays the Riksdag's decision, Ukraine's population is dying for weapons paid for with Swedish money.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! The government's direction is very clear: We will stand by Ukraine for as long as it is needed. I am proud to belong to a government that, in these months in government, has presented several very extensive support packages to Ukraine. They are larger than what the previous government was able to do - militarily, but also civilly and humanitarily.

We are on Ukraine's side. We support them with the things that are needed, and we have made it very clear and distinct in this chamber, but also for the international community and directly to Ukraine, that we will be a long-term partner to Ukraine so that they can win the war and stop Russia's full-scale invasion. It is also about being a long-term partner in the important reconstruction of the country that has already begun. This includes, among other things, an import ban on Russia's most important source of income, crude oil.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want to remind that the Chamber's deliberations must not be disturbed by observers in the gallery and I ask the guards to promptly remove those persons who disturb the order.)

It is becoming a habit for people to take the floor in the chamber for their own reasons instead of showing respect.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want to remind again that the House's deliberations must not be disturbed by observers in the gallery. I will have the guards remove those persons who disturb the order as soon as possible. If this happens one more time, we will adjourn the meeting to ensure that the debate can continue without disturbances from the gallery.)

The floor now goes to Minister Johan Forssell, and I apologize for interrupting at this point.

Madam Speaker! You are most welcome. I hope, not least for Ukraine's sake, that we can conduct this debate decently and focus on the right things.

The government has worked purposefully in accordance with the Committee on Industry's initiative last year. That initiative came as early as the spring. I want to point out that Europe's dependence on fossil energy has decreased very significantly - more strongly than I believe many had predicted, and furthermore, in a very short time.

The import of Russian natural gas to the EU has decreased from a dependence of over 40 percent to a dependence down to between 3 and 10 percent. This is, of course, very positive. At the same time, we are not satisfied, of course. There is much more to be done.

From the Swedish side, we would support proposals involving sanctions against Russian gas, but I want to point out that this is not about who can have the flashiest phrasing in a speaker's chair or express themselves most devastatingly on social media. This is ultimately about how we can design the legislation that has the greatest effect. The government's ambition and conviction is that this legislation is best developed together with the other member states of the European Union. The reason is simple: that this, my friends, is a common problem for the entire EU. Such a common problem also requires common answers.

Madam Speaker! We also want to avoid something else, and this the Ukrainian government itself has been clear about: We want to avoid a situation where different countries in Europe act in completely different ways. It is for the simple reason that everyone has their own legislation. In such a situation, the opportunities for Russia to find different loopholes in national legislations would increase. That is why it is so important to stick together.

The EU has since the war began presented a dozen different sanction packages against Russia. Right now, an eleventh such package is being prepared. As the chair of the EU, we are pushing for the package to be in place as soon as possible. We are also pushing for it to be as powerful as possible.

I want to point out that we would stand behind proposals that involve sanctions against Russian gas. We will continue to be exactly the long-term partner to Ukraine that is required, both by being a clear voice for further sanctions and by ensuring that we provide Ukraine with the humanitarian, civilian and military support that the country needs, both now and in order to succeed in rebuilding its country in the long term.

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson and Anna af Sillén (all M) concurred.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to express my full support for Ukraine's freedom and for us to work together to support them to ensure that Russia loses the war.

On May 12, 2022, almost a year ago, a unanimous Riksdag sent a motion to the then government. It was a motion that gave the Swedish government the mandate to put pressure on the EU to push for a stop to the import of Russian fossil energy - coal, oil, and gas - but also that measures should be taken so that Sweden ceases the import of Russian energy when possible.

Since then, under the previous government, the EU's sanctions have stopped the import of coal and oil and ensured that gas imports from Russia to the EU decreased to be down to 13 percent in November 2022. The government at that time also pushed for the labeling of origin for Russian gas. Then Sweden changed government.

The announcement to the Riksdag was drafted in the Committee on Industry and signed by Forssell's party friend and now ministerial colleague Carl-Oskar Bohlin. The committee correctly noted that Sweden has a very small import and that other EU countries have even larger ones, but it nevertheless underlined the importance that the government should continue to drive the line in the EU clearly and with force that the European dependence on Russian energy, not least fossil energy, should cease as practically as possible. The committee also noted that measures need to be taken so that Sweden ceases imports of Russian energy when possible, not least fossil fuels such as natural gas and oil.

What has happened during Kristersson's government, where both Forssell and Bohlin are included? Well, the Russian gas – an important source of income in Russia's war – has continued to flow. As recently as last Saturday, a ship with Russian fossil gas arrived at Nynäshamn, the third in barely two months, despite the fact that Sweden's Riksdag unanimously put its foot down on the issue a year ago.

Jessika Roswall, Sweden's EU Minister, argues that the reason Sweden is not pushing the issue in the EU is that there is a lack of sufficient support to introduce such sanctions. Not a word is said about Sweden itself being able to push the issue to calibrate the EU countries in this.

Sweden is now the chair of the EU. To increase support and put further pressure on Russia is Sweden's most important priority during the presidency. We have the opportunity to steer the agenda, convene meetings and prioritize which issues should be solved. This is precisely such an occasion where Sweden as the chair can and shall take an active role. What other given opportunity in EU cooperation does Sweden have greater possibilities than as the chair to influence the agenda?

So how does the current government fulfill the intention in its own announcement?

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yesterday, the waves of debate ran high regarding the spring budget here in the chamber, and I do not believe I was alone in noting that one of the several issues that were highlighted was the energy system with the need for resilience, robustness in Swedish energy production, and long-term and responsible foreign trade in the energy market.

Recently, we were able to observe that we adjusted a report on Ukraine and the full-scale Russian invasion of the country where we in the Foreign Affairs Committee were completely in agreement. Last week, the report was debated in a spirit of complete Swedish consensus from right to left. This is a strength in a security-politically shaky world.

In the same way, a unanimous Riksdag, time after time, has stood behind extensive support packages for Ukraine - unanimous after the Left's reconsideration of its first position when they voted no. Like this fact, I am fairly certain about whether anyone even considers it a good or even sustainable idea to in any way trade with Russia under current circumstances, whether it concerns energy or something else. On the contrary, the sanctions are extensive, and the Sverigedemokraternas position is that they can be expanded even further.

Russia is and remains an empire of evil, and energy is one of its primary means of pressure against us. Therefore, it is so important that Sweden and Europe are independent of Russian fossil energy.

The EU's states are in very different positions of dependency regarding Russian fossil energy. One of the largest EU countries that has succeeded best in making itself independent is France. The country has instead for many years invested in an extensive expansion of nuclear power and is one of the countries that today has the largest share of nuclear power. This means that France today stands well-equipped against dependency on Russian fossil energy.

The contrast is clear if one compares with Germany, which also has had a well-developed nuclear power sector but is now phasing it out. There, the dependence on Russian fossil energy has been great, not least through direct import via the now sabotaged Nord Stream pipeline.

There is also a risk that moving forward, after Germany's shutdown of nuclear power, we will see that the country develops an increased dependence on fossil energy. That would be serious and could have an impact on Europe's energy prices and on the security of supply.

Madam Speaker! We need to take to heart the lessons from the major European states. And the lesson is clear: If there are no realistic alternatives, the dependence on fossil energy becomes great. The realistic alternative that history has taught us is that nuclear power is and remains an energy source that constitutes one of the primary alternatives to fossil energy.

Sweden learned this lesson when we expanded nuclear power, but under the red and red-green governments of recent decades, this reliable source of energy has been phased out. It must now be time to reassess the position and invest long-term in nuclear power as a credible alternative to fossil energy for both Sweden and Europe.

We have turned many, but not all, taps against Russia. This debate, like previous debates, underlines that the work is not finished.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! I would, of course, like to begin by thanking Miljöpartiet for the initiative for this debate. It is very urgent, for who wants to finance Putin in his vile invasion of Ukraine? No one here in the chamber, in any case, I believe.

With that said, I do not actually want to seek individual scapegoats but rather try to understand how we have ended up here and how one can avoid ending up in situations like this in the future.

I remember so well the Germans' response in 2015 - I was there as a representative for the Energy Commission - regarding how good Russian gas was for replacing parts of the nuclear power. This was what Energiewende had landed on with a phasing out of nuclear power. It is not as if I would have had a crystal ball to look into then and been able to warn the Germans that they would become dependent on the Russians' dirty gas. I also admit that I myself had the image that natural gas is a transitional solution on the way to phasing out even worse fuels.

Why do I remind you of this? Well, I want to assert with an ass's persistence that energy is a socially important function that we must safeguard. We must keep track of how it is produced and who owns and holds the power over it.

The price of electricity is currently what is hitting Swedish households enormously. The reasons may be many, but some are that a few member states in the EU have been naive and that the system as such has cracked. Consumers are paying a sky-high price for this.

Madam Speaker! Let me return to the imports. Why is Russian gas still coming to Sweden? It probably still has a bearing in terms of money, due to the ambition of letting natural gas be a bridge to the start of more environmentally friendly heavy transport and the industry's needs. Even Industriklivet's support seems to have contributed to the fact that the company Gasum has placed itself in a situation with an import need for natural gas. Gasum is probably the actor responsible for the import to Sweden.

I have read on their website about how they are opening another gas station in Sweden, and it will be located in Luleå. They write with joy about the investment grant from the environmental initiative Klimatklivet, which makes it possible to invest in what will reduce emissions in the transport sector. I am not convinced that it is only biogas that will be available at their gas station in Luleå.

I naturally agree that Sweden must do its utmost to stop the import of everything that contributes to the revenues that the leadership in Russia can use to finance the war, but the reasons for all of this are unfortunately many.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! More than half a decade ago, I stood here at the rostrum and said: I would rather think green from Piteå than fossil from Putin. The interest from the other parties was rather lukewarm then, despite the fact that Russia had invaded the Crimean Peninsula.

The Green Party were horrified that we were to make renewable fuels from waste products from the forest; wood is to be built with, after all. There was no answer as to how they intended for branches and tops to be used for that. Moderates and others already prioritized fossil fuels at that time because they were cheaper. That it is Ukraine and others, who are under oppression by dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Venezuela, who pay the price for our cheap fossil energy did not seem to concern them then or now. Unfortunately, far too little has happened since I stood in the speaker's chair that time.

When a unanimous Riksdag last year pressured the government to phase out Russian energy, I did see a glimmer of hope. Even the Moderaterna had shifted. But it was, as so much in the election campaign, merely a lip service. Russian oil tankers are still unloading their cargo in Swedish ports.

The latest statistics indicate that almost half of our fuels are still of unknown origin. A steady stream of reports shows how Russian fuels find new routes into Europe via, for example, Turkey. This also shows that the government's commitment is, at best, half-hearted.

It must end now. We can do as the Baltic countries do and stop the imports. We do not need to wait for the EU. Who actually believes that Hungary will boycott Russian energy when they recently signed new agreements on gas deliveries from Russia? Is it really reasonable that we in Sweden should wait for Viktor Orbán? No, it is time to close Swedish ports to Russian energy, and it is also time to truly review our own security of supply.

Recently, an investigation was released showing that there is so much potential that we could produce three times as much renewable fuels as we do today. The price is not even half of what the government uses to lower the tax on gasoline and diesel by 14 and 41 öre respectively. Given the meager result at the pump, I am convinced that the price effect for renewables will be significant, in addition to the fantastic effects on the labor market, security of supply, safety, and food production. My big question to the minister is: What is the government actually waiting for?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the issue of imported Russian fossil energy. As a representative for the Christian Democrats, I would like to begin by stating that this is a somewhat different debate.

One could say that politics is most often oriented according to two different types of debates. The first type is the one where we have different goals and simply want different things. Then there is another type of debate, which I believe is more common, where we largely have the same goals but believe in different paths to get there. We then have different tools to reach the goal.

This debate, however, is of a third type. We have the same goal: to support Ukraine against the Russian aggression. But we also have exactly the same political tools: to boycott Russia in every conceivable way, for example when it comes to fossil gas.

I am pleased that during the previous parliamentary term we were completely united across all party lines in condemning Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and that we, without any ideological reservations, have given unconditional support to Ukraine and its right to be an independent state with borders that must be respected.

Madam Speaker! We have been able to hear Minister Forssell recount how much Europe as a whole has nevertheless been able to reduce its dependence on Russian gas. It is also important that Europe stands united in supporting Ukraine and countering the flow of income to Russia by introducing common sanctions. There is no doubt about what the Swedish government thinks on the issue. Ten support packages have been achieved, and hopefully an eleventh is not too far away. We Christian Democrats will continue to stand faithfully by Sweden's absolute support for Ukraine.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! "But for peace to come faster, the sanction packages must be approved every week: not a single barrel of Russian oil, no ships coming from Russia in your ports, no activity from your companies in Russia. One must seize the opportunities that exist."

Madam Speaker! These are not my words, but it was the message from President Zelenskyy when he spoke in this chamber on March 24 last year. "Not a single barrel of Russian oil, no ships coming from Russia in your ports."

Madam Speaker! On the same day the President gave his speech, the Committee on Industry voted against an initiative from Miljöpartiet to stop the import of Russian energy. Only two weeks later, the committee reversed its position following massive criticism of the decision, and in May, almost a year ago, a unanimous Riksdag voted for an import ban. Then it went quiet.

"Not a single barrel of Russian oil, no ships coming from Russia in your ports."

Madam Speaker! Since the Riksdag's announcement, tens of thousands of people have died, thousands of women have been raped, and millions of people have been forced into flight. On Friday, the ship Coral Energice arrived in Nynäshamn. Its cargo was fossil gas, directly imported from Russia. Russian gas to Sweden means Swedish money for Russian weapons. It is the same weapons that kill women and children in Ukraine and the same ammunition that levels Bakhmut to the ground.

Madam Speaker! Estonia has stopped the imports. Latvia has stopped the imports. Lithuania has stopped the imports. There are three countries that are painfully aware of the need to stop Russia's rampage. But the Swedish government hides behind the EU instead of taking advantage of the opportunity we have to lead the way, go ahead, and pressure the EU member states.

"One must seize the opportunities that exist," said President Zelenskyy. But he spoke to deaf ears. The price for the government's deafness is paid by Ukraine. Therefore, I urge the government again: Stop the import of Russian gas now!

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! The import of Russian energy to Europe has decreased dramatically over the past year. This is, of course, excellent, and it is a consequence of the sanctions that have been imposed. Unfortunately, these do not cover Russian natural gas. That is why we now see how Russian gas, albeit on a small scale, is still traded and reaches Sweden.

What this underscores is, naturally, the need for us from the Swedish side to continue to push for sanctions even against Russian gas. Currently, there is insufficient support among our European friends for this. I can only regret that. What individual countries do naturally has significance and is important, but if we are to achieve a real effect, everyone needs to stand behind the same line.

This underlines the importance of the Swedish government continuing to work in the way it is doing now, that is, hard, to sharpen existing sanctions but also to adopt new ones in order to reduce all of Europe's dependence on Russian gas.

Madam Speaker! Russia's invasion of Ukraine shows that we must fundamentally change defense and security policy, but also energy policy. Europe's great weakness is that the energy policy that has been pursued and the great dependence on gas that has been the result have given Putin far too much room for maneuver. It is this that we are now seeing the consequences of. Europe has pursued an imprudent policy in the energy area. Germany has driven the policy most strongly, but even Sweden's energy policy is part of the cause. That we have decommissioned large amounts of planned fossil-free nuclear power has increased our and Europe's dependence on Russia.

Changing course takes time. The important thing is that we have changed course and that we are now increasing fossil-free energy production and phasing out not only Sweden's but all of Europe's dependence on Russian energy sources.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! As I touched upon in my previous speech, the government, during the ongoing presidency in the EU, continues to increase the pressure on Russia through sanctions while we also safeguard something else, namely maintaining the unity among the EU's member states. A fundamental principle for the sanctions policy is that it is most effective when it has broad international support. The oil price cap, the most important sanction from an economic perspective, has been agreed upon precisely in a broad international coalition. As a rule, national measures have a marginal effect on the Russian state's revenues.

My perception, after many conversations with representatives from the Swedish business community, is that there is overall very strong support for Ukraine. Many companies have already left the Russian market. On the other hand, we know that contracts for liquefied fossil gas run over a long period and that the conditions to cancel them are sometimes lacking. The buyer is obliged to pay regardless of whether the gas is received or not. If the gas is not received, the Russian supplier can sell it again and receive double payment for the same product. That is what we want to avoid.

I also want to repeat what the Foreign Minister emphasized in the foreign policy declaration in February. The relationship between climate policy issues in a broad sense and security policy is becoming increasingly important.

We have already come very far. Russia's most important source of income, crude oil and other petroleum products, are already subject to an import ban. The import of Russian coal and other solid fossil fuels was banned over a year ago.

The latest sanctions package contains an additional step to prevent Russia's access to the EU's energy market. It also contains a ban on the provision of gas storage capacity for Russian operators within the EU.

In conclusion, I would like to refer to the Committee on Enterprise's report. Even though I was not on the committee, I believe I have a better grasp of it than several of my friends here in the chamber have had.

I can state that there are many who refer to it without actually having read what is written there. It states, for example, that Sweden's import of Russian energy shall cease when possible. That was actually what was written.

It was also stated that the issue is very complex and that the solution is therefore not simple. I also want to point out what the President of Ukraine has stated on several occasions.

Keep Europe together! Ensure that we work together so that we do not end up with different legislations in different countries! It is with that ambition that the government acts.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! Carl-Oskar Bohlin, a Moderate Minister colleague to Johan Forssell, signed the announcement to the Swedish Riksdag, which the Minister also read out here in the rostrum.

Despite the committee noting that it was complex and difficult, the committee nevertheless concluded that the Swedish government should pursue an import ban on Russian gas at the EU level and, when possible, also an import ban in Sweden.

In what way has the current government driven the issue of an import ban on Russian gas in the EU? What initiatives have you taken in the EU? What initiatives has the government taken so that Sweden can cease the import of Russian energy? Have you driven it to the announcement that you yourselves have signed?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Matilda Ernkrans is not reading what is written in the announcement, but seems to be making up her own things about what is written there.

It was stated that one should examine which alternatives are possible to consider in order to secure Sweden's energy supply. That is exactly what the government has done. We have really not been idle these months. On the contrary, we have shifted into high gear.

We have, for example, done this by planning for new nuclear power in Sweden. It is something that unfortunately has not occurred during recent years, but there has been a different direction in the policy.

I can again point out that there have been ten different sanction packages against the Russian economy. While we stand here today, preparations are being made for an eleventh sanction package. We would welcome it if it also included Russian gas.

If it had been as simple as Sweden somehow miraculously being able to have its own ban here, the question to Matilda Ernkrans is naturally: Why did the government she sat in not do anything? That government had seven months to do it anyway.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! It is appropriate for a government minister to try to stay as close to the truth as possible. I am in the Riksdag's EU Committee every Friday. Not once has any minister actively raised the question of what initiatives the government intends to take to stop the Russian gas.

I can only state that. The Minister also does not answer the question himself. What initiatives has the government taken to follow the announcement that you yourselves signed?

What have you done to try to achieve an EU unity and calibrate the EU countries to stop the import of Russian gas to the EU? Have you investigated the possibilities of compensating companies here in Sweden, if there were reasons for it, in order to proceed as a way forward for a Swedish import ban?

I do not know if it is a way forward. But you have obviously pulled out 14 billion to lower the tax for the very richest, so the money is there at least.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! It is noticeable that it has been a while since the Social Democrats were in government.

If it were so simple to find an import ban that does not conflict with the internal market's regulations and that would in some miraculous way be better than sanctions from 27 EU countries, why did the previous government then do nothing during its seven months?

I have not received any answer to that question. It seems there was plenty of time to find a solution then. Instead, today you are critical that there is no solution in place.

We also recognize that pattern from the Nato issue. For several years, you voted no to concrete initiatives. Now, the Social Democrats are critical of the fact that we still are not members of Nato.

It is the same with nuclear power. First, you give Miljöpartiet a dominant influence over Swedish energy policy. Then you complain that there is an influence from Russian gas in Europe and Sweden. It is not serious.

It is good to be able to be flexible in politics. But the Social Democrats' maneuvers in this issue are incomprehensible.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker and Minister Forssell! I wonder how the government views the community in the EU. It is emphasized many times that we want common rules because that is what benefits us the most.

How does the government believe this is possible with countries like Poland and Hungary constantly going their own way? They are now stopping imports and important money to Ukraine. But also know how they stand on Russian energy.

Is it possible to show the way even from Sweden's side, that we want to go first and demonstrate that it is not sustainable? We have other countries that have done it. How does the government view that possibility?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Birger Lahti, for the question!

It is clear that we have considered those types of alternatives. At the same time, I want to lean on the fact that the EU has implemented ten different sanction packages. If one is to learn from history, one can say that we have at least done so so far, with all the challenges and different attitudes that exist in a number of EU countries.

It is well known, however, that on several points we have managed to find a common way forward. While we stand here in the chamber, discussions are ongoing regarding an eleventh sanctions package. It is clear that it might have been simpler in that part to say that every country now manages on its own. Now everyone does as they please.

Again: What kind of situation would that lead to? The obvious risk is that we get a situation where all countries do things in different ways. It would then also be completely open to finding loopholes in the national legislation.

I refuse to give up hope that we will be able to unite together. It has been significantly better, not least for Ukraine and for hindering the growth of the Russian economy.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johan Forssell, for the answer!

I agree that all sanction packages have been well-implemented and are having an effect. But we see that someone must go first.

We now have the Baltic countries going ahead and showing that it is not acceptable that we continue. I have personally really tried to look with sober eyes. It may not be so simple when I look at how the connections exist to have an ambition. The gases are perhaps a bridge to have lower emissions in transport, absolutely.

Sweden could push and say: We want to show the way. We want to be the one who breaks down the wall that exists. I think Rickard Nordin asked the question very well about whether there is a possibility that the countries have a consensus in the EU. It is doubtful.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! We can agree that Sweden should lead. I think we are doing so. We do so by pushing for an eleventh sanctions package. What we do not want, if the expression is permitted, is for Sweden to take a detour and say: Now we are going in a different direction.

The strength lies in that the EU member states work together and that we obtain common legislation without loopholes. It has nevertheless shown itself to be very strong. We still stand here today with ten sanction packages behind us. We stand here today where the share of Russian gas exports to Europe has decreased very significantly in a relatively short time. I would say that it has probably gone faster than the vast majority had thought a year ago.

I therefore think that there is every reason to hold on to this now and not start doing everything over again. I am afraid that it would put us in a worse position.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! The Moderates were clear before the election. The Russian gas must be stopped, said Ulf Kristersson on social media. But perhaps that was just one of those flashy formulations that the Minister himself condemned from the rostrum and argued that we should not engage in. Now they are saying that it is the EU that is to do this.

The simple, very straightforward question is: What initiatives has the government then taken during the Swedish presidency to ensure that this happens? How many times has one come to the EU Committee in Sweden to anchor a position to ensure that we stop the Russian gas?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! It never stated on that platform, Rickard Nordin, that it would happen at the cost of us splitting Europe or that we would do it at the cost of a situation where 27 different countries have 27 different legislations. It could become a situation where Russia gets paid twice for the same gas or where it becomes an open field to find loopholes in the legislation.

It must still be Ukraine's needs that are guiding here. That is what matters rather than taking the easy paths. I note that still no one in the debate has put forward any proposal on how a change should take place – only that it should occur. It could be interesting to hear that proposal.

Our alternative is clear. Ten sanction packages have been made at the European level so far. As I have returned to several times in the debate, an eleventh sanction package is now being prepared. We welcome if Russian gas should be included in it. But to start having 27 different legislations cannot be effective in this situation.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Johan Forssell is saying, then, that we should not split the EU and that we must be united. He has, therefore, given Viktor Orbán a veto and ensured that Russian cargo ships with Russian gas will still arrive in Sweden, by Orbán having received a veto against doing anything at all.

The answer to what we should do is simple. Do as the Baltic states have! They have stopped the Russian imports. Obviously, it is possible. Obviously, it is possible to lead by example. The reasonable thing would be to be in solidarity with Ukraine and take the side of the Baltic states. Europe is obviously not united, and in that case, the Swedish government has chosen the wrong side and given Viktor Orbán a veto. I find it very difficult to see that this is a way forward.

If it is not the case that we reach an agreement – since Hungary will continue to import gas – what does the government want to do instead to stop the Russian gas? Or has hope been given up?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! I can only observe that Rickard Nordin and several other representatives in the debate, with clinical precision, avoid telling what should be done. I understand that it is a bit easier to be in opposition than in a government position, but it could have been interesting to find out what proposals these parties have.

I have returned to my proposal several times. We have, therefore, ten sanction packages behind us at the EU level. An eleventh is being prepared at this moment.

I may think it is a bit gloomy that several people in this chamber who in other contexts have nevertheless championed international cooperation seem to have given up hope that the EU will be able to work together. I am not one of them; I am convinced that Europe can continue. Look at what we have done during these months! The import of Russian gas has fallen, and ten sanction packages have arrived.

We can, if we want to, but then we must not take the easy paths and start making detours in different directions and edges. That would weaken Europe, not strengthen us.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I have a single and very simple question for Minister Forssell: When will the Swedish import of Russian gas, and thus the Swedish financing of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, be stopped?

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it will not be stopped by saying things from the rostrum of the Riksdag without explaining how it is to be done. That is the Green Party's line. They want legislation that would challenge the rules of the internal market – it is a Finnish company in question. Nor will our ambition be benefited by a situation where Russia is given free rein to find loopholes in the legislation of 27 different countries.

The European Union has since the war began adopted ten different sanction packages. Many of us believe in the power of working together not only in environmental and climate issues but also in security policy, in the Nato issue, and in this issue within the framework of the EU.

We are currently working from the Swedish presidency to achieve an eleventh sanctions package - preferably with sanctions on precisely this - so that we do not only get what might sound right in the chamber but also what is effective. And that, Madam Speaker, is that 27 countries do this - not just Sweden.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I hear only excuses from the Minister. It becomes embarrassingly clear that there is no plan to stop the boats that arrive fully loaded with Russian fossil gas at Nynäshamn. There is no plan to stop the flow of money to Putin's war chest, no plan to stop the Swedish blood money to Russia, and no plan to reach a consensus in a Europe where Hungary continues its dependence on and its trade relationship with Russia and thus in practice has laid a veto.

The only thing I hear is that the government will continue to ignore President Zelenskyy's plea, continue to ignore the Riksdag's decision and thus also continue to ignore the suffering that Russian weapons, paid for with Swedish money, cause in Ukraine.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! It is somewhat unprofessional to give the impression that we would be passive in the face of Russian gas dependency - especially from a representative of a party that has applauded the decommissioning of nuclear power, which has indeed contributed to placing Europe in this very gas dependency.

First, Miljöpartiet pushes to deplete our energy system, and then one stands in the parliamentary rostrum and is critical of the fact that Europe has become dependent on Russian gas.

Madam Speaker! The weakness in the Green Party's policy is that they do not say what is to happen, only that someone should do something. It might work on social media – I don't know – but if one is to be a credible European voice, one must work a bit differently.

A unilateral Swedish import ban from another EU country would not only be much worse than EU-wide sanctions; it would also risk being in conflict with the rules of the internal market. It is possible that Miljöpartiet does not worry about that, but the government's position is that more than that is required if one is to take responsibility for Sweden, not least during the ongoing EU presidency.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! The weakness in the government's policy is that they said one thing before the election and say another thing after the election, and that they are also sitting on their hands during the EU presidency because they have chosen cooperation with Sweden's most EU-critical party, namely the Sweden Democrats. Jimmie Åkesson has been very clear about that is how he views the EU cooperation.

Madam Speaker! What I read out during my first speech were direct quotes from the announcement – that which Minister Forssell claims only he and no one else in the chamber has read.

I just want to repeat that the announcement was handled by the previous government. We pushed so that there were EU sanctions that stopped both coal and oil. We ensured that the gas from Russia was reduced to 13 percent. We pushed and tried to get an origin labeling of Russian gas. Then Sweden changed government, and since then it has been noticeably quiet. We are also not getting any answers from Minister Forssell.

Sweden is the chair of the EU every 13th year. It is a great waste of time and resources if one does not use the presidency to move the EU forward in important issues, for example to ensure that the EU gets rid of the dependence on Russian fossil energy.

Kristersson's government risks making history as the least visible and most unproductive presidency in a long time. Ukraine is a priority issue for the government during the EU presidency, and on paper, so is the green transition. However, we have not seen any initiatives from the government to push forward an import ban on Russian gas at the EU level. This inaction is just another example to add to the already large empty box where you sit on your hands.

It is a provocation against Russia and a betrayal of Ukraine and the green transition not to act against the imports.

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

Aron Emilsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! What we are seeing now is, to a large extent, nothing entirely new. Already in the early 1970s, at least OPEC used the oil weapon against the Western world. That today's debate brings together both the Minister for Foreign Trade and members from the EU Committee, the Committee on Industry, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs shows how the energy issue, not least in our immediate vicinity, is linked to security policy, international cooperation, and resilience against authoritarian regimes.

It is important that we now have the ability to take in the historical lessons and can look forward in energy policy. The phase-out line that has prevailed in Swedish energy policy regarding nuclear power, once again, for over 40 years has been a failed line. It has entailed not only that large investments have been wasted through a premature phase-out but also a security policy risk-taking.

Sweden is fortunately not tied up in an energy dependence on Russia to the extent that other countries have had and have, but our energy security has nevertheless been undermined in a serious security policy situation through this policy. This means that we today have fewer opportunities to collectively contribute to reducing Europe's energy dependence on Russia. It is a serious development that needs to be reversed.

We also need to have the insight that the situation regarding the Russian aggressiveness will persist. If all parties agree on this. It is also clear in the communication regarding Sweden's security policy path that was developed ahead of the Nato application. Therefore, investments in new production capacity need to be long-term and secure in delivery over decades. Here, energy policy and security policy are interconnected.

A Russia that cooperates with China, which is a development we are already seeing, can also have even greater consequences for the international energy supply. This is also an issue not to be forgotten in this regard. We have two dimensioning threats to the rules-based world order. Together, they challenge both energy systems and the security policy situation.

Of course, Sweden can be forward-looking and drive initiatives forward during the EU presidency. But thanks to the Tidö parties, we can also build a robust energy system.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Madam Speaker! What shall one say about this debate? We have two government parties blaming each other as to whose fault it is. One can have their opinions on that, but I still believe that everyone in this chamber agrees that it is not good to finance the Russians with gas money, or any money whatsoever.

Let me still doubt that any common view will emerge in Brussels and the EU. In DN, one could read on December 30, 2022, that the import of Russian gas had risen by 50 percent that year. It was primarily France, Spain, and Belgium that were the large importers. I have no crystal ball, but I really hope that this government is right about the consensus regarding agreements and sanctions at the EU level.

It was the same thing with the old government. One trusted very much in what happened in Brussels. Ann Linde answered on April 6 that we had no direct import of Russian gas at all, which also turned out to be wrong. Even that government always waited for common EU sanctions.

When it comes to the trust in the consensus in Brussels and the EU, I can only hope that those who represent us and drive the issue succeed in this and that it turns out correctly. The only thing Vänsterpartiet wants is for us to put a stop to this, because it actually finances Putin's invasion of Ukraine. At the same time, there are countries that are blocking the import of what would be important for Ukraine's part. Even these countries are sitting at the negotiating table in Brussels.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Before the election, Ulf Kristersson was clear. He even ran advertisements on social media with the message that Sweden would stop the Russian gas. There were no reservations, no fine print as Johan Forssell likes to pretend. Now, however, it sounds different. Now it is the EU that is to solve the problem. But this government has still not come to the EU Committee with clear positions on new sanction packages against Russian gas, despite being the chair of the EU.

If it is the EU that is to solve this and Sweden leads the EU, where is the government? Not even the Liberals, with the legacy of Jan Björklund, who highlighted the very problems with Russian fossil gas, seem to care significantly about the issue. I honestly do not understand why.

I have been very clear in this debate: the Baltic states have taken the lead and banned Russian imports. Why does not Sweden do the same?

We hear from the government that we must stand united, but the EU is not united. The Baltic states have moved ahead. When the government says that we must be united and do the same thing, it means that we should not do anything until everyone does the same. That is to give a veto to Hungary and Viktor Orbán, who recently signed a gas agreement with Russia. It will not happen.

When neither the EU nor the government wanted to boycott Russian energy, it would have been good if at least we consumers had been given the chance to make an active choice. We still do not know where half of the fuel comes from.

Centerpartiet has long advocated for an opportunity for consumers to opt out of Russian energy. Had we had an origin labeling, just as it is the case with meat in the grocery store, we could have made an active choice at the pump. I do know, of course, that my biogas does not come from Russia but from Hagelsrum, Brålanda, and other places. Unfortunately, however, we seem to be alone in wanting to be able to make that choice. Both this and the previous government have been opponents of such legislation, despite the fact that the possibility exists from the authorities.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Energy supply within the EU has undergone an unfortunate change in recent years, where an ever-increasing dependence on Russian fossil gas has been allowed to eat its way in. It has been bad for the climate. It has been bad for security policy. With the benefit of hindsight, we can also say that it has been bad for the economy.

We must be long-term in our work to move away from gas dependency and away from fossil energy altogether. But it must also happen at the EU level. Here, climate and security policy interact in a very telling way, and our willingness to invest in expanded nuclear power should be seen in this light.

Madam Speaker! I also cannot imagine that the Green Party, which has sparked this debate, wants to give Russia the opportunity to get paid for its gas twice. That could be exactly the consequence that arises, because deals, as we all know, are made with long time horizons. An LNG ship could arrive with a cargo that contains a smaller portion of Russian gas which is also already paid for. If Sweden were to stop this, we would give Russia the opportunity to get paid one more time. It is not a development that we Christian Democrats see as a success, and I do not believe that it is any other party's intention either.

We Christian Democrats see no way back to how the situation was before the Russian invasion. We will not restore the Russian possibilities to pump fossil fuels into the EU's energy production. The Christian Democrats' absolute conviction is that we must move away from Russian gas and oil.

After this debate, I hope that all of you who have taken part understand that there is no doubt that Sweden and the government stand behind Ukraine and are working to ensure that Russian energy does not become part of the European.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Last week, a Russian cargo ship unloaded gas in a Swedish port again. The imports this year are greater than at the same time last year. What has also happened is that the Swedish gas, following an EU ruling, has been penalized with 5 kronor at the pump. It is a tax increase of 1.5 billion, completely unnecessary. Despite this, the government did nothing in the year-end budget.

The industry has said that the government should at least be able to lower the tax to the minimum level, so that one can continue to pump renewable fuel, which also competes out the fossil equivalent, namely Russian gas.

So what is the government actually doing? Letters have been written to the commission, with a processing time of 18 months, but the applications that would be needed have not been submitted. Therefore, I have two simple questions for KD, who also hold the energy minister post. For the first: What on earth is the government doing? And for the second: When will you act to handle the situation regarding biogas, so that it can continue to push out Russian gas?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Rickard Nordin, for the questions! I believe we are all very well aware of the situation we are in when Russia has invaded Ukraine. It is also that debate we are conducting in the chamber today.

There is no doubt that we are to move towards a sustainable society. In that case, we will need an energy mix that is as stable and secure in its delivery as possible.

Rickard Nordin has hopefully, just like I have, received the news that discussions are being held with the commission regarding biogas specifically. This is something that is being attempted to be resolved as quickly as possible. Time is what we do not have enough of. But I hope that Rickard Nordin has nevertheless taken part in what the government is doing in a responsible manner in this issue.

There is no doubt that we must push away the fossil Russian energy. I hope that people in the Center Party are also aware of this.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! The information we have received from the ministers has not been clear. When Ebba Busch was at the rostrum, she began to speak about the conditions of the forest industry. It is somewhat unclear what that has to do with Swedish biogas. And the other minister says that the group exemption regulation that has now been negotiated is probably not the way forward. But they have not said what is the way forward, other than the letter they have sent, which has a processing time of 18 months.

It would have been quite possible in the spring budget presented yesterday to make a reduction of the tax to the minimum level. It would have eased things for all those who now received a 5 kronor increase at the pump. That increase means that they will switch to fossil fuels that are imported from unknown origins. Much of this is such as comes from Russia via Turkey. It is this that is the problem.

The government seems to care more about fossil fuels than the renewable fuels that we produce here in Sweden and which de facto compete out Russian fuels. What will the government do in the near term regarding biogas?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I hope that the member nevertheless perceives that we are collectively in agreement on stopping the fossil Russian energy. That is why we are debating this question in the chamber today.

That a responsible government takes a holistic approach to the budget amendment is beyond doubt in the precarious economic situation that both Sweden and other European countries find themselves in. In this situation, when one knows that talks are being held with the Commission to solve the challenges we face, I hope that the Center Party also wants a government that in a responsible manner ensures that Swedish citizens will manage today's tough economic situation. We ensure that families with children can have a bit more in their wallets. This actually makes a difference. That is my answer to Rickard Nordin today.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! "Every time a European country chooses to buy gas or oil from Russia, it finances Russia's war against innocent Ukrainians. This must be stopped. Sweden should already now choke off its import of Russian gas." These are not my words either, but they are the words of Energy Minister Ebba Busch directly after Zelenskyy's speech, before she knew that her party had voted against an import ban.

Now the Christian Democrats have been responsible for the energy policy for over half a year, and I want to ask the member: Should Sweden not have already cut off its import of Russian gas?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! Of course, we are in complete agreement regarding the announcement that the Riksdag gave to the government during the last parliamentary term. Just as we have heard Minister Forssell say here in the rostrum today, we have adopted ten sanction packages, and an eleventh is in the works. It is Europe collectively that must bear the responsibility for pushing out Russian energy.

If we look at Europe as a whole and the energy supply that exists there, we can see that one has placed oneself in a situation that is totally devastating - it is about the import of Russian gas and how one can carry the climate issue forward. I believe that Miljöpartiet does not realize what devastating consequences the Swedish energy policy has had for Sweden during the recent parliamentary terms.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! "I have never seen the need for unity when it comes to precisely oil and gas. Everything that can in any way complicate the financing for Putin to wage this war is good." "Everyone sees that it is blood money that is currently flowing from European countries, from Sweden, from Germany, which actually finances Putin's ability to wage this war." This was said by the Christian Democrat Energy Minister Ebba Busch two weeks after Zelenskyy's speech, when you had pivoted and stood behind the import ban.

But I assume it is with the support for Ukraine's population, as with so much else in this government: One says one thing before the election and another thing after the election. Blood money to Russia is no longer a problem for the Christian Democrats.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Madam Speaker! I do not think this question is appropriate for this chamber - to claim that the Christian Democrats think it would be positive to contribute to blood money in any way at all. Here we know that a potential stop and return of a ship that has already paid for LNG for its cargo could mean that Russia receives double the payment. It would become additional money in the bag for Russia.

I do not believe this is the Green Party's intention. But when the member expresses themselves in this way, I wonder what the Green Party concretely has for solutions to this question. Obviously, one wants to win political points with placard politics in some way. It has nothing to do with this debate at all.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! Ukraine's war is ours.

Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine has plunged Europe into an entirely new security policy situation. The war has highlighted Europe's dependence on rogue states in a flash and thrown us into an extensive energy crisis, while the horrors of war have crept closer than in many years.

But that is not really the case for our neighbors. The Baltic states have had violence and threats close at hand for a long time. They have painful memories of occupation and oppression nearby and have acted accordingly. Already before the summer last year, the Baltic countries stopped their import of gas from Russia. Why? Well, because fossil gas is one of Russia's most important sources of income and money to the Russian state treasury means money for weapons used against the Ukrainian population.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Riksdag has issued a declaration to the government to stop the import of Russian energy. Sweden's government has now for more than a year ignored the decision, this despite the fact that Sweden has good conditions to stop the import and thereby show that the EU's presiding country stands behind Ukraine wholeheartedly and that not a single krona shall go to the Russian war chest.

But the Swedish government chooses instead to turn a blind eye and hide behind countries like Hungary when blaming the EU. The Swedish government, represented in this debate by Minister Forssell, has not even bothered to prepare a proposal. Today, they instead turn to the opposition and ask for help with the legislation.

In order for peace to come faster, sanction packages must be approved every week: not a single barrel of Russian oil, no ships from Russia in your ports, no activities from your companies in Russia. One must seize the opportunities that exist. Stop the import of Russian oil and gas now!

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! When the Green Party sat in government with responsibility for the Minister for the Environment post, among other things, there was a chance to introduce an origin labeling on fuels. Now that the government is unwilling to do anything about this, such a labeling would have meant that as a consumer, one could actually have chosen to opt out of the Russian dictatorship diesel.

The proposal was on your government's table, but at the last moment it was adjusted so that the information did not have to be printed at the pump. This would have been perfect for those of us who are interested in opting out of Russian energy. But despite that, you chose to scrap the proposal and only show the environmental performance.

For me, it is a self-evident matter to let consumers choose. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be so for Miljöpartiet. Why is that?

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! The simple answer is that I would welcome a labeling of origin for energy sources and a cooperation with the Center Party on that issue moving forward.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! If the Green Party would like to know, I ask: Why did one choose to scrap the proposal when it was on one's own table? One had the opportunity to make a decision in one's own government. Still, one backed down. Why then?

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would welcome cooperation in this matter moving forward and more than welcome a labeling of fuels and fossil energy sources and other energy sources moving forward.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I appreciated the contribution made by Birger Lahti earlier, where he emphasized that we should ask the question of how we ended up here.

Natural gas has been seen as a bridge solution for a longer period. It has been prioritized in Industriklivet, and it has been crucial, not least in SSAB's transition. This is something the Green Party has worked very hard for. Now SSAB is one of the companies that receives its deliveries from Gasum. My question to the member is therefore how the Green Party reasons regarding the goal conflict between reduced carbon emissions, which today require natural gas, and solidarity with Ukraine.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet has at no time wanted to see an increased use of fossil gas, on the contrary. Even the designation natural gas is a joke. It is a fossil source that causes large emissions and something that we have worked against for a very long time, among other things by opposing the expansion of pipelines between Russia and Europe.

The green steel that is now to be produced in northern Sweden is based on removing fossil gas and finding other energy sources to be able to produce green steel. We have seen some difficulties both from various right-wingers from different think tanks and from some of the government parties, but I hope that one continues to stand behind this in the government - and then also the Liberals - so that one does not undermine the important work that is taking place, for example at SSAB.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. But I must emphasize that the green transition is based on a bridge solution with natural gas. We have known that all along. Isabella Lövin, your colleague, visited SSAB during her time as minister. The acceptance of natural gas and that it is the premise for the green transition has existed all along. We have seen it in the industry. We have seen it when it comes to wind power. There is an acceptance that natural gas is there during a transition period as a bridge solution.

My question to the member remains: How does Miljöpartiet view the conflict of goals between renewable production and security policy considerations?

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! This is very uncomplicated. We shall not use fossil gas in any production whatsoever going forward. It must be an overarching goal to have a 100 percent renewable energy system in Sweden.

However, the member represents a party that, in Skåne, which we both come from, has stopped a great deal of the expansion of wind power, which could have provided us with that energy. They have also for a long time opposed the expansion of precisely that renewable system, which we have wanted to see.

We have nevertheless had a development that has been fantastic. Sweden can export enormous amounts of green electricity to the rest of Europe, which can precisely contribute to pushing out fossil gas even in Europe.

For me, it is completely obvious that fossil gas should be phased out, and as soon as it is even possible. And the answer to the future's energy needs is 100 percent renewable and nothing else.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! There are two problems with Russian gas: It is Russian, and it is gas. That is what Jan Björklund already said in 2011. Since then, the Liberals have consistently emphasized the risks of Sweden becoming dependent on Russian energy sources. After Russia's invasion of Crimea, we motioned that Sweden should tighten the sanctions against Russia, stop Nord Stream 2, support Ukraine's orientation towards the west, prepare for Ukraine's EU membership, and work to ensure that the EU's sanctions against Russia are extended to the energy sector.

I am glad that we have this debate today. I am glad that there are more in this chamber and in the rest of Europe who now share our view. Putin's Russia has acted aggressively towards neighboring countries for over a decade. For just as long, the Liberals have worked for a changed Swedish stance towards Russia, but also regarding Swedish energy policy.

Our position today is the same as we have had for more than a decade: Russian fossil energy sources constitute a security policy risk and should be avoided.

Madam Speaker! We must never again end up in a situation where we rely heavily on other countries' energy deliveries. Moving forward, the geopolitical dimension must be included in the energy policy.

The way forward lies in that we in Sweden continue to push to get our European neighbors on board with extended sanctions. Until we have succeeded with that, I believe that the companies that are now purchasing Russian gas not only have a great responsibility but also a real opportunity to influence how much Russian gas reaches Sweden. Here, I think it would be desirable if, from these companies' side, they act with greater force than what we have seen so far.

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

Statsrådet Johan Forssell (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's total support for Ukraine amounts to over 21 billion Swedish kronor, and the EU's joint support amounts to 37.8 billion euros. Sweden continues to pool resources to support Ukraine's reform work and reconstruction, with the overall goal of EU accession.

I want to point out that we now have the most powerful and far-reaching sanctions against Russia ever. The sanctions regarding Russian oil mean directly reduced revenues for the Russian state treasury.

We are following the Riksdag's announcement. Ten sanction packages have been made so far. An eleventh package is being prepared. Europe's dependence on Russian gas continues to decrease. The government believes in working together with other countries, but we are also working to secure Sweden's energy supply, including by planning for new Swedish nuclear power.

Thank you very much for the debate!

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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