Special debate on climate adaptation

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet has called today's debate to debate the greatest challenge of the 2000s - how we shall lead our societies through the climate crisis and how we shall reduce climate risks.

The climate crisis is already deadly. Two million people are estimated to have lost their lives due to extreme weather over the last five decades. Just this past week, tens of thousands of people in Libya lost their lives during a single heavy rain - a flood. Even around Sweden, we have been able to see how people have been affected by severe extreme weather and floods.

In an acute climate crisis, three things need to be done: reduce emissions quickly and powerfully, protect nature so that it can protect us, and invest heavily in climate-adapting society to protect citizens and property. In all these areas, the government is going in the wrong direction. A government that does not understand the seriousness of the climate crisis will never be able to protect the Swedish people from the damages that the crisis leads to.

We have called for this debate to get answers from the government parties. Why do you not protect the Swedish people from the climate crisis and extreme weather? Why do you turn your backs on those who have been affected by the climate crisis?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! The climate crisis is the great fateful issue of our time. We know that research clearly shows how the increased global average temperature leads to growing challenges ahead. But the climate crisis is not only about what happens in the future. It is also about what is happening right now. Today, we see the effects of climate change.

Madam Speaker! Our modern society is planned and built with our climate in mind. When the climate changes, society must also change. We must meet the challenges that climate change poses for nature, society, and people. Extreme weather events will occur more frequently, with major consequences for individuals who risk being injured or having their homes destroyed. It has consequences for our infrastructure, which can be disrupted, and it has devastating consequences for our nature, which is damaged by heavy rainfall, storms, and heatwaves.

In 2018, the warm and dry summer resulted in extensive land and forest fires which, in addition to economic and personal losses, created problems for our agriculture in the form of reduced harvests and a shortage of fodder. This year, severe drought prevails in large parts of Europe, and the rain from storm Hans recently caused floods, landslides, and great devastation where the storm passed. Let me therefore thank you for the initiative to this debate, which gives us the opportunity here in the chamber to highlight the importance of the work for climate adaptation but also to debate the differences that exist between our parties.

Madam Speaker! The absolute largest climate and environmental budget ever is the one that was voted through in the Riksdag for 2022. It was presented by M, KD and SD. The year after, the budget for this year came, which is the second largest climate and environmental budget ever. The red-green budgets have contained large slogans but lacked investments for long-term results for the climate. Sweden has lacked policy on how we are to reach our climate goal of net zero by 2045.

Madam Speaker! In the budget presented to the Riksdag tomorrow, this government is investing heavily in measures that reduce our emissions. We are increasing resources for the expansion of charging infrastructure throughout our long country, we are strengthening the market introduction support for electric trucks and work machines, we are strengthening the successful Klimatklivet for the industry's transition, and we are introducing a new scrapping premium. We are also making an investment to train 2,500 more engineers and promote new research through electrification and battery technology, because we know that we cannot overcome the climate crisis without all the competence required to succeed in the transition. Furthermore, we are moving forward with a long-term stable investment in rewetting wetlands. Over 3.6 billion kronor will in total be spent on this work until the year 2030. It is an enormously important measure that has a multitude of positive effects for our emissions as an adaptation measure and for biodiversity. We invest in what we know works, and we call it effective and ambitious climate and environmental policy.

Madam Speaker! The government's overall goal for the climate adaptation work is to reduce our vulnerability and ensure that the entire society develops to be robust in the long term against landslides, avalanches, erosion, and floods. The largest and most practical work takes place, as always, at the local level. This applies to property owners, municipalities, county administrative boards, and authorities.

The government will soon present an updated national strategy for climate adaptation. In it, we account for the challenges that we have identified in the work with climate adaptation. It is a fact that this government time and again invests more than the red-green government did in the state budgets that became reality when they were in power. It is the bourgeois parties that safeguard the work of preparing our society for the climate crisis. We do not shout the loudest, but we do the right thing at the right time and lay the foundation for the society to be electrified.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the climate deserves for us to shout loudly. In July this year, the average temperature was the hottest the world has ever experienced, and at the same time, there were also record-high temperatures in many parts of the world's oceans. In France, nuclear power plants were shut down so that the water cooling the reactors would not become too warm. In Canada, over ten million hectares of forest burned – that is the highest figure ever. In Italy, Algeria, and Greece, fires have raged. People have lost their lives and many have been evacuated. In Slovenia, bridges and roads collapsed as a result of flooding. In the USA, in the states of Vermont and New York, a state of emergency prevailed due to heavy rainfall and flooding. In Beijing, there was a rain record with several dead in the heavy rainfall. In Norway, a dam at a power plant collapsed, and landslides took several houses with them in the floods. This is just some of what has happened around the world this year where we see climate change.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is no exception. First, it was the heat, heavy rain and rapid snowmelt that hit Småland and caused the Torne river to overflow, and the drought in May and June that hit agriculture in many places in Sweden where much poorer harvests were obtained. Then came Hans, and cloudbursts hit my home region Åre as well as Rättvik, Gothenburg, Jönköping and many other places in the country, at great costs to society. Västmanland's farmers have been hit by everything: the drought, floods - not least in Sala - and now the African swine fever. Ordinary people are affected when the cellar stands in water, when roads and railways are closed and when insurance costs more. There is so much we must do so that our infrastructure, our supply capacity, our homes and our communities can withstand the climate changes that are occurring. There is so much that must be done for a safer and more secure Sweden.

On November 16, the government sent a press release stating that it had submitted Sweden's first report on climate adaptation to the UN Climate Commission. The press release remains on the government's website, and there one can read the following: "We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and phase out fossil fuels. At the same time, we also need to increase our ability to adapt and reduce the risk that our societies and ecosystems become even more vulnerable," continues Romina Pourmokhtari.

Madam Speaker! I say however: Talk the talk, walk the walk - one must also live as one teaches.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! The climate debate has been heated, and we can assume that the issues will continue to engage people moving forward.

I may think it is somewhat unfortunate that the debate is being lumped together. We hear, for example, how representatives for the opposition try to link the welcome news that we are lowering fuel taxes to global climate effects, even though there does not exist any science whatsoever that can demonstrate that a slight reduction in the gasoline tax will affect the weather in a measurable way during any period of time anywhere in the world.

Climate policy is a global issue, Madam Speaker, but climate adaptation is, on the other hand, to the highest degree a national issue - an issue for each individual country.

Madam Speaker! When one speaks of the climate as a matter of destiny, it is perhaps fundamentally about climate adaptation issues. It is in that perspective – roughly a few decades – that people can think forward. The world has a great task to do in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but we must be clear that if emissions begin to decrease in a few years, which we hope for, or at least within a decade, the effect will not be visible until much later.

The challenge that changed weather patterns bring with them is the greatest challenge for people. It is something that societies, villages, cities and nations have dealt with at all times. The Netherlands, at least half of the country, is a striking example of a country that would not have existed if one had not adapted to the water levels, because half of the country lies below sea level.

Madam Speaker! In 2019, Sweden adopted a national strategy for climate adaptation with the goal to "develop a long-term sustainable and robust society that actively meets climate change by reducing vulnerabilities and seizing opportunities." This strategy was adopted here in the Riksdag, in fact, with complete agreement between all parties.

The strategy lays the foundation for the work in a balanced way. It clarifies, for example, that one should not establish specific dates for measures or decide on a certain climate scenario. To do so, the government at the time wrote in the strategy, would be counterproductive as it would risk making inefficient investments that might not be needed because science is constantly changing and we do not know how it will be in the future.

What we know is that the risks vary at different times. It concerns our agriculture and forestry, about security and people's health and, perhaps most of all, about water issues, at least in the short term.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Droughts, forest fires, water shortages, heavy rainfall and floods - it is evident that climate change is affecting us here and now. In Sweden, we have noticed a difference in our climate in recent years, and we can expect that heavy rainfall will increase in both intensity and frequency. This places new and greater demands on construction and that more actors actively work to prevent floods, landslides and rockslides. Not least, we must ensure that we equip and climate-adapt the infrastructure when we build new.

In environmental and climate policy, there are great differences between our parties. The Moderates see technical development and innovation as the success factor. We are convinced that it is not possible to back into the future. We also look up and see how we can be a pioneering country and inspire, while at the same time our business sector can contribute with climate benefits worldwide through its exports. Sweden has fantastic opportunities, but then investments must be prioritized correctly and not wasted on populist projects that feel good in the gut but have minimal effect.

In the first instance, Madam Speaker, we shall reduce emissions. That must be the goal for all of us. But when it comes to climate adaptation, I find it difficult to believe that there is any major disagreement between our parties. Naturally, our buildings, our infrastructure, and our municipalities and regions must be equipped to withstand a changed climate. Therefore, the government is actively working to develop a long-term sustainable and robust society that meets climate changes by reducing vulnerabilities and taking advantage of opportunities.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! We all want to live safe and good lives where we can trust that society functions. We want to be able to trust that society can protect its citizens and solve the difficulties that we face together. But during the last decades, Swedish society has been weakened step by step. Governments of different colors have sold out, privatized, and cut back. In area after area, the public responsibility has been split up among a number of different actors – actors who, moreover, often look out mostly for their own profits.

Our common society has been depleted step by step, and now comes the climate crisis. This summer there were floods, among others in Västmanland and Örebro, and in my neighboring municipality Rättvik, landslides and destroyed roads occurred.

It is therefore clear now that we must leave the weak, fragmented society behind, and we cannot, as the government and SD want, present a budget that involves large cuts in municipalities and regions. We face a time when the public sector needs to have muscles to protect the citizens and make society function. We face a time when we must build the common good robustly, because it is urgent now.

We need to both press down emissions and climate-adapt Sweden. The adaptation concerns everything from different forms of flood protection to protection against drought and heat.

Madam Speaker! The climate transition and climate adaptation require a strong society that takes back control. If we do this correctly, it creates jobs and faith in the future across all of Sweden. Then we can build a society that people can rely on.

The summer began with drought and a shortage of water, especially in the country's southern parts. This managed to negatively affect both the production of food and the production of drinking water. Then the opposite occurred. Downpours and prolonged rains completely flooded many urban areas and also fields and meadows in the country. The downpours destroyed roads, large as well as small, and the railway embankments broke in several places.

What is sad is that the government has so far not presented many measures to reduce climate-damaging emissions in the near term, but has instead announced measures that will significantly increase emissions in the coming years.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! The climate issue is truly our time's most important issue. That is where climate adaptation also comes in. Even if we reach the goals in the Paris Agreement and Sweden's climate goals, we will need to adapt our societies in the world, and the same thing in Sweden, because we have a climate in change.

All too often, the image is that if we brake the warming to 1 ½ degrees, nothing will happen. That is not true. Climate adaptation measures must, of course, never become a measure that replaces the prioritized work of reducing emissions. But climate change is nonetheless a fact that we must plan for. We have seen that, if not otherwise in recent years.

The pandemic has also taught us that crisis planning is something we must work on and that must receive a larger share of the public debate. It is about equipping ourselves so that the effects of climate change have as little harmful impact as possible.

Planning for a changing climate must be done already now because it is significantly more cost-effective to do it here and now than to repair the damages that will follow. It is about adapting properties to protect residents against extreme heatwaves. Streets must be able to withstand increasingly powerful heavy rainfall, coasts must be secured against rising sea levels, avalanche protection must take place in, for example, the Göta älv valley, and forests need to be protected against fires and increased pest attacks.

We must also place special emphasis on protecting socially important functions such as water supply, sewage systems, electricity supply, roads and railways. New insect attacks of the spruce bark beetle have increased sharply, not least due to the dry summers we have seen in recent years. It involves large resources and large amounts of money and timber losses in the industry. The costs for Gävle alone in 2018 were closer to 2 billion kronor.

The government must wake up now. SD's rhetoric, which we heard here and which the government unfortunately seems to adopt—that it doesn't matter what we do in Sweden when emissions are increased—must come to an end. It is nothing other than strut policy.

We heard a nice enumeration from the minister here in the rostrum about what is being done to reduce emissions. But there was very little about climate adaptation, which this debate is actually about. My big question to the minister and the government: When will the proposals actually arrive?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will, just as the Archbishop Jonas Eek did in his solemn speech in Storkyrkan at the opening of the parliamentary session last week, refer to the very first question a human being asks in world history, at least according to Genesis: Shall I take care of my brother? The answer then as now is yes. It is quite simply a question of morality, and it is something we must never forget. This simple but important basic rule leads me to want to highlight an aspect of today's debate topic that deserves more attention, namely climate aid.

We have during the summer received quite a few reminders in our country that sun, wind and water are not only of benefit but can also lead to enormous problems. But with all respect to everyone in our country who has been affected by storm, drought and/or flooding, there is a vulnerability in many resource-poor countries where the problems become many times greater than with us. We, as a rich country in the Western world, still have opportunities to, to varying degrees, replace and help those who are affected in a completely different way. I am of course not trying in any way to downplay the domestic damages, but it must be possible to hold several thoughts and perspectives in mind at the same time.

Solidarity and community do not end at national borders, but we are connected with our neighbors, with both those who are nearby and those who live far away. Therefore, I am pleased that the government has highlighted these issues and is shedding light on them. We can read in the budget for the current year that Sweden, through financial support to various environmental and climate funds as well as the World Bank's fund for the poorest countries, has contributed to efforts aimed at increased resilience and adaptability to climate change and for reduced greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries.

We also see an increased need for support for climate adaptation and resilience for the most vulnerable and least developed countries. We must collectively manage the global challenges that climate change entails.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! That we are facing an extremely serious situation, a total crisis, we seem to be in agreement on. If words did the job, we would already be there, as I believe all listeners here have heard. But what is required now is action, and there is an even greater lack of that.

No one needs to rely solely on science anymore to understand what is happening to our planet. It is enough to turn on the TV or listen to the radio and hear about the extreme rainfalls and floods hitting Greece, Spain, Libya, Hong Kong, and many other places on earth, or to see how Canada is hit by enormous forest fires on a twentieth of the country's forest area in a single year. And Canada is not alone. It is enough to ask any of Gotland's farmers who were affected by drought at the beginning of the year or all the people in Sala, Västerås, Gävle, and Uppsala. Many from these areas, who have had their basements flooded or seen their roads, railways, and homes washed away, are in the gallery today and are following the debate. This also applies to people in Åre and in Norway.

The climate crisis is not a threat in the future. The climate crisis is happening here and now. We do not have just one but two major tasks that we must accomplish in our generation. It is about building a fossil-free society and reducing emissions quickly. But it is also about starting to work intensively, systematically, and long-term to climate-proof Sweden, precisely so that people do not stand alone in the crisis.

The climate crisis costs in the form of lost human lives, but it also costs in the form of enormous economic damages. Between 1980 and 2021 alone, damages from climate-related extreme weather in the EU are estimated to have cost a staggering 6,700 billion kronor in today's value. Imagine then if at least a fraction of these funds had been used to reduce emissions and to climate-adapt society instead of paying the costs when the damage has already occurred! There is a lesson to be learned here.

The Green Party has learned this lesson. We have realized that it is incredibly much more efficient to prevent climate damage than to skimp now and pay for the damages afterwards, as the government does. During our time in government, we therefore increased the investments in climate adaptation in the municipalities 20 times over, from 25 million kronor to 500 million kronor per year. We appointed the National Expert Council for Climate Adaptation to help municipalities, and for the first time, we produced a national strategy for climate adaptation. But I want to be clear that it is not enough. We need to do even more, and we now demand that the appropriations be raised to at least 3 billion kronor per year in order to truly be able to help municipalities, companies, and ordinary families to prepare for the weather extremes that will become worse and worse and to reduce their vulnerability.

The year 2023 was an extreme year, with great certainty the warmest year that has ever been measured so far - the warmest in 120,000 years. No one - neither the world, the EU or Sweden - is ready for the crises that are now hitting us. We are not prepared.

But just as it concerns the issue of emissions, the government does exactly the opposite of what science says. When the need for investments and long-term perspective is emphasized, the government pulls the handbrake and cuts the funding for support for climate adaptation in the municipalities, for example for landslides. This is a double betrayal - to fuel the climate crisis and then leave people to be affected by it.

I demand an answer from the Minister for the Environment: Will you change direction, listen to the researchers, and help people in the climate crisis?

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! The preventive work is important for our entire country. Good preparedness is what ensures that an upcoming crisis does not become a catastrophe. Our climate work must go hand in hand with climate adaptation and preparedness. Our society needs to both transition from fossil to fossil-free and transition to become better equipped for extreme weather.

We need to increase knowledge and improve the risk analyses, so that we can do the right things in the right places. And we need to implement the right measures at an early stage so that the costs do not become very large, as a previous speaker has also mentioned.

Already in 1977, that is 18 years before I was born, one of the worst natural disasters in Sweden in modern times occurred. Nine people lost their lives, and many houses were totally destroyed in connection with the landslide at Tuveraset in Hisingen in Gothenburg.

The work of climate-adapting Swedish society should have been started much earlier, and it should have come much further. Unfortunately, this work is affected by an all-too-late political awakening. The high tone, as said, solves no problems.

Recently, I was on an inspection trip along Göta älv and had the opportunity to see the work being done to landslide-proof one of the most landslide-prone river valleys in Sweden. The work with landslide-proofing at Göta älv is an exemplary example of how the pace has been able to be increased by coordinating the work that takes place and involving all the different parties concerned.

A large part of what will need to be done for our society to become better equipped for climate change actually concerns more complex issues than just money. For example, the state grants that have been budgeted have not actually been fully utilized. Obviously, it is not a societal problem where the one who invests the most money is finished and can go home; instead, this is about how we best ensure that all parts of the country have the prerequisites to carry out the measures that they specifically need.

I understand that this will not give me impactful headlines in the media, but, Madam Speaker, I still want to raise the level of the debate and bring up some of the actual problems that are slowing the pace. A considerable number of municipalities report that they have difficulty recruiting competence and hiring those who are to carry out the measures. Permit processes to carry out the measures are dragging on. There is an ambiguity and an uncertainty regarding the distribution of responsibility between municipalities, authorities, and property owners. According to the expert council at SMHI, there is both legislation and steering instruments that may need to be reviewed. And we need, in different ways, to increase the incentives to invest. The State's task in the work is to lead, support, and coordinate the efforts that are best performed around our elongated country in different places. Without the right measures, the efforts will become more costly when the severe weather finally occurs.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I began by saying that one should live as one teaches; it is a matter of trust. The more scientific reports we receive with increasingly alarming messages about what effect global warming has on our planet, the more convinced I, at least, become that we must increase the pace to reduce emissions. The extreme weather we have seen in Sweden and around the world shows this with all clarity.

Then it might not really suffice when the Prime Minister says in the Government Bill that the ministers have done a good job. It does not really suffice when Sweden's Minister for Climate and Environment simultaneously ensures that Sweden increases its emissions.

What is the government's plan? When will the updated strategy for climate adaptation be released? Will we see a reduction or again an increase in emissions in this year's budget?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I was looking forward to debating today the important work of climate adaptation. Unfortunately, not many have mentioned what they want to do in the work with climate adaptation.

It is absolutely true that moving from fossil to fossil-free reduces our emissions and means we are in less need of carrying out adaptation measures. In my first speech, I counted many measures that the government is implementing to reduce Sweden's emissions. What can be pointed out is the difference between the opposition's picture and the government's picture, namely that what we see is that it is not necessarily high fuel taxes that are the solution to the problems, but that we instead increase the pace of electrification, that we meet the future we are heading towards with innovative solutions that reduce our emissions. It is about investing in a vast number of different measures through Klimatklivet so that the industry and the system will transition, and not about punishing citizens who are already in difficult financial situations and do not have other solutions to turn to.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! My question was whether this budget will show if we increase or decrease emissions. This naturally also has implications for the climate adaptations we must undertake.

I might remind the Minister that the expert council, which the previous government appointed, has already submitted good messages regarding what a government needs to do in climate adaptation issues. What is the Minister's plan after a year, after this summer, after all the disasters we have nevertheless seen within Sweden's borders?

What is the plan? Will you ensure in this budget that Sweden reduces its emissions, or will it be like this year, namely that the minister chooses to increase the emissions?

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! This government is making many different efforts for climate adaptation. We have high levels for the adaptation work, but it is not the money that is the problem. This is more about how we are to carry out the work in the right way, how we are to find the competence, how we are to ensure that the work is coordinated, and how we are to review the distribution of responsibility in climate adaptation. This is a task that many have previously mentioned there is great agreement on. When one actually begins to debate, it becomes difficult to weigh arguments against each other. Instead, one must talk about what one actually wants to do, and that I have previously declared.

Then we have the question of emissions. If we are to talk about the entire climate crisis in 20 seconds, I can state that this government is working hard to reach Sweden's set climate goals, and we do so by increasing the pace of transition in industry and in the transport sector from fossil to fossil-free. That requires more electricity, nuclear power, wind power, and efforts to re-wet Sweden's wetlands.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I thought we would avoid the nuclear power debate in a debate on climate adaptation!

Functional infrastructure for water and sewage is, however, clear climate adaptation, and it is crucial for safe and well-functioning living environments. Large parts of the Swedish water and sewage networks were built in the 50s and 60s and now have enormous reinvestment needs. They cannot handle the increased volumes of, for example, stormwater.

The financing of this is a problem. The water fee has been designed so that one can manage the ongoing operations rather than investing for the future. The industry association Svenskt Vatten says, for example, that we need to increase the investment rate by approximately 50 percent. We can then see that with large distances in the country, there are problems in sparsely populated municipalities where there may be 30 times more piping per person than in large city municipalities.

What is the Minister and the Government doing to manage the large renovation needs that exist in the water and sewage system, not least in sparsely populated municipalities?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I am not particularly surprised that the Center Party is not keen on talking about nuclear power, given that it sounds a bit different depending on who from the Center Party is speaking about the issue. So I can understand that you really appreciate avoiding talking about nuclear power.

But let us do that, and let us talk about the climate adaptation work. There are large sums available when one wants to adapt to the climate. That is done by applying for those funds. One applies for many different measures. Water systems specifically are a municipal issue. The municipalities manage them in different ways.

When the municipality's resources are exhausted, one can contact MSB, for example in the case of a flood or other incidents. In that case, MSB will provide reinforcement resources. This can include flood barriers, high-capacity pumps, and other solutions that MSB has at its disposal for those municipalities and regions that cannot manage that responsibility. It is fundamentally a local responsibility where the state's role is to strengthen the local and regional capacity. That is how these issues are handled in Sweden.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I asked about the great renovation need and the measures that need to be taken there, not about specific heavy rainfall.

Let me give some tips to the minister. Investigate the possibility of amending the Water Services Act so that a higher water fee can be charged to prevent investments. Introduce eco-design for water products so that there is less need for water services, especially considering the needs in growing cities. Include water-saving measures in the green deduction, or introduce a water fee that can support the water system's needs in the future.

Is there anything of this that the government is even looking at at all? To refer to MSB for the reinvestment needs means that the minister must go home and do his homework. They have nothing to do with that responsibility.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for such tips from the Center Party, especially when they come from a party that hardly knows what they think about the very biggest climate issue, namely whether we should have nuclear power or not. That one cannot answer, but one is happy to give tips on various issues concerning waste systems. I will listen carefully to the proposals you have listed and see what measures the government can implement.

When we now speak about climate adaptation, which is what the debate is about, you know very well that it is a local responsibility where the state provides reinforcements. We do this through our agencies. It is MSB that provides the funds that, among others, Miljöpartiet took the initiative for in previous governments, which means a started investment that this government continues to invest in to the same extent. If there are, for example, high water levels, it is MSB that follows up, looks at how the situation is, and proposes solutions to the county administrative boards and to the municipalities. That is how the work proceeds.

Pointing out that we are referring to the wrong authority simply shows that one does not understand how government work functions. If Rickard Nordin prefers that he and I put on our boots and head out to the municipalities to solve the issue ourselves, he can propose that in the chamber, but for the time being, the government work for adaptation is managed through funds to MSB and other authorities.

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I have heard the use of "you" during different parts of the debate. I just want to remind the members that we do not address each other with "you" but that everyone speaks through the Speaker.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! In acute emergencies and severe crises, we in Sweden have a tradition of gathering to meet the crisis with full force. That is what we did during both world wars – we gathered in politics and as people. We committed to meeting the threat fully.

That is also what we did during the pandemic. The entire Swedish people refrained from meetings with loved ones. We vaccinated ourselves and wore face masks to protect the vulnerable. The politicians gathered. The Public Health Agency was given advice which the politicians followed. Thus, we managed the crisis.

So, this is what we do now that Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatens European security and freedom. We unite in support package after support package. We are also united in increasing defense capability. We listen to our expert authorities, that is, the Armed Forces and the civil defense authorities.

I want to ask a question. It is not rhetorical but seriously intended, and I would like to have a serious answer. Why does the government not want to handle the climate threat as the acute crisis it is? Why do you not listen to the expert agencies but do the opposite? And why do you not gather the parties for a more powerful climate policy and make large-scale investments in climate adaptation in broad agreement now that we see the ravages of the climate crisis?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! There is a difference between talking about adaptation work and talking about how we are to solve the climate crisis.

The reason why we do not include all the parties in the Riksdag regarding climate crisis issues, in connection with the measures we have in a budget, is that we do not agree with Miljöpartiet. We will not take the same measures as Miljöpartiet took during its time in government and during its time on this item. There are ideological differences. This government chooses to meet the market and wants to take advantage of companies' opportunities to transition Sweden's industrial and transport sectors and in that way take Sweden out of the climate crisis.

When it comes to adaptation work, it is as many others have rightly mentioned. The last time we adopted a strategy was in 2019. It was a government that Per Bolund himself sat in that presented it, and it was voted through in unanimity here in the chamber. I hope that we will be able to achieve the same unanimity when the government very soon presents its strategy. When it comes to climate adaptation, which this debate is about, there is a great consensus regarding taking responsibility for our society and securing ourselves against the consequences of the global average temperature increasing.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am very concerned by the answer, as it shows that one does not understand how to take the climate threat as seriously as it deserves. It also explains why the Liberals and the other parties in the government constellation have chosen to depart from all agreements that have been concluded.

We have made a great effort to achieve a broad anchoring with the climate framework, which the government says it is sticking to but which in reality it is moving away from, with the Environmental Goals Commission, which came up with broad proposals that all parties stood behind, and with the energy agreement, which was also broadly anchored but which one has moved away from. Seven of eight parties stood behind measures such as the reduction obligation and the travel deduction, but one turns its back on them and tears up these proposals.

One problem is also that it is done without trying to reach new broad agreements. What I hear at least from the companies, the business community, and others who are to make the investments is that long-term conditions are needed. Nevertheless, the government chooses to proceed with reckless courage in polemics against unity and to incite against and rather pursue division. I think this is directly irresponsible in the serious crisis we are in now and which we see examples of every day.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I believe it is enough to listen to this debate to hear who it is that wants to create division in Swedish politics when it comes to climate policy and who it is that raises the tone instead of talking about what actual solutions exist for the problems we face.

That was exactly why my party chose not to participate in any energy agreement. The Liberals saw that decisions were being made that were not good for the Swedish energy system. Decisions were being made that were about to destroy our society's prerequisites for transitioning, given the enormous amount of electricity that we need.

We see time and again how Miljöpartiet destroys Swedish energy policy and puts a stop to the opportunities that exist for Sweden's industry to stop using the fossil and instead switch to electricity. This is the great challenge ahead, and this government is completely united when it comes to working very hard to secure the large amount of electricity needed for Sweden to manage the climate crisis. For that, we do not need the opposition's help. We decline it and try to handle the situation that has arisen as well as possible with the time we have at our disposal.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! If the government does not want to stand by the agreements that this chamber has decided upon in broad consensus, that is up to the government. Regardless, the climate transition must happen here and now. It is about tens of thousands of green jobs that the Social Democrats want to continue to see emerge in Sweden. It is about not giving up the leadership position and watching as green investments end up in other countries. It is about the climate transition working for ordinary people throughout the country. It is about responsibility and about respect for our children and grandchildren. It is about emissions having to decrease and about us having to climate-adapt society. It is about prevention instead of engaging in quarterly politics.

This is also smart politics - the less one destroys, the lower the costs for repairs will be.

A changed climate will have significant consequences even for the Swedish natural environment and will lead to great challenges for our social structures. We must adapt society to the climate changes we already have today and to those we will not be able to prevent in the future. We must protect the environment and people's lives, health, and property by adapting society to what the climate changes entail for land, water, and buildings.

It is a sign of weakness for the Swedish Parliament's elected representatives that something that seven out of eight parties agreed on—that we should take our share of the responsibility for the climate crisis—no longer applies when we should instead be building a society that is sustainable, strong, robust, secure, and safe for our children and grandchildren.

Somewhere it is as the Prime Minister says: On my side, the politics are agreed. The Swedish people can observe that the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals are in agreement about increasing emissions.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I intend to continue by not talking about nuclear power - I think we can talk about something completely different.

In agriculture, much responsibility rests on the individual farmer when it comes to climate adaptation. These are costly measures that make it tough for already pressured food producers. For example, investments in irrigation are needed to provide a more secure and even water supply during the growing season and have other environmental benefits. At the same time, we see how environmental assessments make people want to tear out ponds instead.

We also need to adapt the regulatory frameworks to facilitate the agriculture's climate adaptation. Here we see rigid regulations - which we have known about for quite some time - that block climate adaptation measures within agriculture. It could be about rules for water extraction or about biotope protection in stone wall-dense areas that make rational irrigation impossible.

My question to Anna-Caren Sätherberg, who in fact was recently the Minister for Rural Affairs, is why S did not address this when sitting at the government table.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

Many of these things we tried to address, including this with the stone walls. I visited Öland several times. It is actually the case that one cannot even drive a tractor in between. We tasked authorities to look into it, but I did not reach all the way.

Member of the Board Rickard Nordin is completely right that water availability is a problem for agriculture and the harvests. We can see that the large ones have succeeded with investments and built dams, but we can also see that the small ones do not have it at all in the same way. I hope that the updated climate adaptation strategy looks at how we should ensure that the water supply exists, so that we can have harvests in all of Sweden.

There are many questions that you and I can jointly ask the government. When it comes to nuclear power, I did point out that it could not function in France last summer due to climate change, which meant that the water could not cool the nuclear power.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I intend to continue to stick to the conditions of agriculture. It sounds like the Center Party and the Social Democrats are fairly in agreement on these issues, and that is good. I hope that there will be an increased interest from S to drive these issues a bit more actively given that there are very large needs. I can only regret that the previous government did not prioritize sufficiently and did not come forward fast enough with the measures that were needed. We can only hope that the current government catches up on that.

My final questions are: Why does Anna-Caren Sätherberg believe that one did not get through on these issues in the end? Why was there not enough pressure on that then?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Some things emerged, for example in CAP, that is, the EU's common agricultural policy, where it is a bit more about climate-adapting agriculture so that we have soil health and can maintain harvests. But one must know that Sweden does not always think the same as other agriculture ministers, who perhaps do not see soil health as the most important and do not see that it is connected, that is, that we must have a climate-adapted agriculture if we are to be able to have a viable and competitive agriculture in the future.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

Let me remind you that we speak through the Speaker.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! There are big words in this debate, especially from the opposition. But I have not been able to identify particularly many big words regarding the specific issue we are debating today, namely climate adaptation.

As previously stated, the Riksdag adopted a strategy for climate adaptation on a proposal from the government at that time. All parties were in favor. Today we have state grants for climate adaptation, and we had that during the previous mandate period as well. But any increased billion-scale funding for this specific grant has not been relevant because the entire grant has not been spent.

Madam Speaker! It naturally requires active work to design regulatory frameworks and review legislation. Work is ongoing regarding permit processes on many different levels, which hopefully can also contribute to the work with climate adaptation in various forms. It is not so simple that one can just add a few billion in a budget and speed up the adaptation in all areas; rather, it is a matter of identifying what should be done, where it should be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. It is, as said, more complicated than just putting a few billion into a calculation.

Madam Speaker! The Expert Council for Climate Adaptation highlighted several areas in its 2022 report. One area was food security, and there is a potential for Sweden to produce more food. The Climate and Vulnerability Investigation, for example, concluded that revenues from agriculture will likely increase more than costs in the future. In that case, it is important, for example, to always consider the potential within food production. Here, the municipalities have an important task to do, for example, to really consider whether or not to exploit agricultural land. If you build housing on farmland, it is extremely complicated and difficult to restore it. Here, Sweden has a great responsibility and an important potential.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! This summer, the first harvest in many places around Sweden was half or less. In Västmanland, not least in Sala, the farmers were further affected when the fields also became flooded. My home region Åre was hit by heavy rainfall and floods, and the images broadcast from there were horrific. Similar things happened in all of Sweden and throughout the whole world. Climate changes are tangible and affect people's lives and cause great societal damage in Sweden and throughout the whole world.

The leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Åkesson, has described the climate issue as a new religion, which of course is completely incomprehensible when the collective science says that we must act now.

Madam Speaker! What do the Sweden Democrats want to do so that ordinary people's basements do not stand under water and so that ordinary people can avoid washed-out roads and railways and be able to get to work? What do the Sweden Democrats want to do so that we have agriculture throughout the country that can cope with climate change and extreme weather?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anna-Caren Sätherberg for the questions.

We have extreme weather phenomena in Sweden. We have had it historically and will likely have it in the future as well. The most important thing for agriculture to be able to handle this is increased resilience, and that means we must strengthen the profitability within the food sector. Then one can manage crop failure due to, for example, drought in a single year and does not need to shut down production.

This is also extremely important for reducing emissions in the world. If we can produce more food in Sweden, emissions on a global level will decrease, because we have one of the most climate-smart agricultures in the world. We can contribute to this, for example, by lowering fuel taxes. By removing the reduction obligation, we can get more viable food companies, more food production in Sweden, and overall lower emissions in the world. Because that is what it is about: emissions in the world.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden belongs to the world, is one of its richest countries and has historically had large emissions but has improved significantly, which perhaps is due to the type of governments we have had previously.

Madam Speaker! Is this just a religion, or is it something where one acts for real? I am surprised by party leader Jimmie Åkesson's statement that the climate issue is a religion and not something that science collectively says is our time's defining issue. Does it really become better for the world, climate preparedness, and climate adaptation if Sweden continues to increase its emissions?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall contribute to the global climate work, and Sweden is doing so today. If we look at what our forests absorb in the form of carbon dioxide, we have today, in principle, net-zero emissions. We are therefore emitting approximately as much as we absorb.

What we have been catastrophically bad at in our country is feeding our population. Our food production only corresponds to 50 percent of our demand. Here we have a large climate debt. We must increase food production, and for that, we need viable food companies. Therefore, red tape, taxes, and fees must be reduced. This has worked catastrophically poorly during the Socialdemokraternas time in power. The food strategy became a fiasco, and we have not succeeded in increasing food production and have imposed increased costs for, among other things, fuels on the food sector. This is problematic, so it is positive that we can now improve this work.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Debate after debate, interview after interview, and reply after reply, year after year we have heard how the Sweden Democrats have constantly downplayed the existence of the climate crisis and questioned its consequences. Just barely a year ago, the party leader Jimmie Åkesson said that he lacked evidence that the climate crisis was here, because he had not seen anything. One can wonder if Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats have seen the crisis now or if they are still closing their eyes and will only wake up when the Riksdag is underwater.

The Sweden Democrats' climate policy has contributed more than any other party to the crisis we are in. This is now also the government's policy and is based on the principle that we should close our eyes, hope that it resolves itself, and point fingers at others. That is not sufficient. Sweden stands, just like the rest of the world, before an acute crisis. The Sweden Democrats claim in their rhetoric that they put Sweden first and meet the threats Sweden faces.

What does Martin Kinnunen have to say to all those affected by the consequences of the climate crisis, such as flooded basements and destroyed roads and railways, while the Sverigedemokraterna have opposed climate policy and left Sweden vulnerable?

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Per Bolund for the question.

We often end up in the discussion that the Sweden Democrats say it is not a crisis. What is a crisis? How do we define it? Is it something serious that will happen within a year? What does the serious thing depend on? I do not think it is very exciting to define exactly how one should use the concept of a crisis.

What we Sverigedemokrater have observed is that, against the background of the research, we are in complete agreement that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the world.

The Sweden Democrats have had an influence on the government's policy for about a year, so I want to point out that if there is any party in here that is not responsible for various types of crises or problems in people's basements, it is probably still the Sweden Democrats. Per Bolund's party has had significantly more years in power during the time that there have been problems with people's basements.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It sounds attractive, and it is easy to pretend that one has not had an influence. But the fact is that the Sverigedemokraterna have also influenced in the past. This applies now when they support the government and get their entire environmental policy through, which is not any environmental policy at all. But it also applied when they in 2014, 2018, and 2022 were given the opportunity to influence the budget and every time cut back significantly on the measures for the climate policy. It is clear that it has effects.

Now that the Sweden Democrats have the government power in their hands and are influencing the budget, they are cutting back, in the middle of a climate crisis, when people's basements are filling with water and when roads and railways are being broken down. They are cutting 140 million kronor on climate adaptation. It is laughing in the faces of the people who are affected.

I do not understand how one can reconcile the rhetoric and pretend to be "Sverigedemokraterna" - that one stands behind Sweden and supports the Swedes - while actually leaving them to their fate and letting them take care of the effects of the climate crisis themselves. How can Martin Kinnunen explain and defend that?

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker and Per Bolund! The Sweden Democrats definitely have a large influence on Swedish politics today; that is the fact.

Thanks to the Tidö Agreement, we now get a reorganization of climate policy where we move away from symbolic politics and towards efficiency. We are phasing out, for example, the previous government's perhaps greatest climate initiative: spending billions and billions on new cars. Now we have seen what has happened. We removed the support, and the car dealers have lowered the prices on their cars. There are more offers than ever, and the prices simply have not increased particularly much for the end customer. At the same time, this frees up money that we can, among other things, invest in maritime work and also make climate investments with in this year's budget.

The Sweden Democrats have influence, and we are making a difference in the management of the climate.

(Applause)

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! In the Paris Agreement, it is stated that the current need for climate adaptation in the world is great. All regions are affected by climate change. Even here in Sweden, we have felt the effects, not least after storm Hans. The worst hit, however, are the most vulnerable in developing countries. There, a flood has catastrophic consequences. One is left without a harvest that year, houses collapse, and families are forced to flee.

Climate change contributes to poverty and insecure food security, which can have serious consequences for peace and security. Reduced emissions, increased resilience, and a green transition are therefore crucial to securing people's living conditions.

The need is great both in Sweden and in the world. The decisions made today will affect what tomorrow looks like. Therefore, I am proud that the Moderate-led government is investing in what makes the biggest difference for the climate. We remove inefficient symbol politics and invest where we do the most good. We prioritize electrification, a stable and fossil-free energy system, and the rewetting of wetlands. We make it easier for people to choose an electric car instead of a diesel car.

The Swedish business community also contributes greatly to climate benefits, not least regarding climate-smart innovations. Energy efficiency is an excellent example, where Swedish experience is in demand internationally. Economic growth and emission reductions are what make Sweden and Swedish industry unique. We must take advantage of that.

(Applause)

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Working preventatively does not always seem to be the Moderates' melody. We can look at the gang crime that is hitting Sweden now. I do not understand the reluctance to invest in preventive work and ensure that the recruitment of children and young people into gangs is stopped while simultaneously investing in the criminal law.

The same applies to climate policy. Why do the Moderaterna not want to prioritize reducing emissions instead of incurring increasing costs for society in the climate adaptation that must be done afterwards? This is a quarterly report policy that only leaves behind increasing societal costs. It also shows an unwillingness to take responsibility for our children and grandchildren.

Why was the budget for the county administrative boards cut by more than 60 million kronor when we knew that we had drought to expect and when we know that they have the responsibility to coordinate efforts?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! I think it is remarkable that S has the nerve to have this rhetoric when they have sat in power for eight years and pursued exactly the policy that has put us in the situation that we find ourselves in today.

The Social Democrats had power for eight years and now have the nerve to blame gang crime on us because we are not investing in preventive measures - a government that has been in power for eleven months! It is not reasonable, Madam Speaker. I think it is irresponsible of a party that is statesmanlike to state this in this chamber.

I also want to make this a nuclear power debate, even though Rickard Nordin absolutely does not want that. There we have a great responsibility, which also lies on the shoulders of the Center Party, the Green Party, and the Social Democrats.

Madam Speaker! To claim that all these problems are due to a government that has been in power for eleven months, I think is irresponsible and indecent.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

Before the continued debate, I remind you that this is a climate adaptation debate.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I attempted to make a rhetorical transition to the reluctance to invest in preventive work. That is why I raised both issues.

The Chairman did not answer why cuts were made to the county administrative boards. I would like to have an answer to that.

I heard that the Minister for Climate and the Environment said in his first speech that the largest budget was submitted by the Moderaterna together with the Liberalerna and others. I just want to remind the Moderaterna and the Minister for Climate and the Environment of what was done in this budget that was the largest, namely that one took 3 billion kronor specifically from the climate and environment area and made other investments with it. The following year, it was cut by an additional 4 billion kronor.

The budget for 2022 would have been enormous and climate-adaptable if it had not been tampered with by Moderates, Liberals, Sweden Democrats and Christian Democrats.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats demand concrete proposals in an issue where we all agree. This debate is about climate adaptation. There is no difference between what our different parties want. We all agree that we shall adapt to the climate. We all want to spend money on this, and we do. We have all agreed on a national strategy, and a new and updated one will soon arrive.

I don't quite understand what the Social Democrats want to achieve by asking the question that the Moderates in some way do not want to do anything preventive. That is what we all want, isn't it?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for pointing out that this is actually a climate adaptation debate and not a debate about either gang crime or, for that matter, nuclear power. It is strange that one needs to say it so many times, but it seems that you do not want to talk about climate adaptation.

I wanted to raise a concrete proposal. The Centre Party has, in fact, submitted a proposal that the Climate Policy Council should also work with climate adaptation, and not just with emissions, and evaluate the government's policy in this area.

We have heard a fair amount from the Moderate side over the last few days regarding precisely the Climate Policy Council. Therefore, I am a bit curious about how the Moderates view this: Can we not arrange it so that we expand the Climate Policy Council's mandate to also include climate adaptation so that that issue receives greater priority, given that so many of us think it is important?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Yes, this is actually a debate on climate adaptation. As we have all said very many times now, this strategy exists, and a great deal of climate adaptation takes place at the local and regional level - but also at the national level.

I am open to most proposals. I think this sounds absolutely excellent and I take the proposal forward with me.

In addition to this, we have some concrete proposals. For example, the one regarding wetlands is something that could help to prevent and reduce the risk of floods and strengthen the landscape's protection against drought and fire. It is another proposal where I hope we can get Centerpartiet on board.

International investments are also something where I would like us to look up and see what the Swedish business community could achieve out in the world in terms of specifically climate adaptation.

I am very happy to talk about climate adaptation. I want us to broaden the perspective significantly and see what we can do in the larger perspective.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the positive answer. I look forward to Helena Storckenfeldt and the Moderaterna driving this in the work on the climate action plan that we will see in December. It would be great if this could be included.

I am the first to say that we need to have both wetlands and dams. There, the government has a rather large task ahead of it to ensure that we get a sensible adaptation of the environmental rules surrounding hydropower - and also around other dams, because there are very many more.

I think it sounds absolutely excellent that the member takes this with them, and I also hope that there will be results moving forward.

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! How pleasant we have it here in the chamber sometimes!

I promise nothing in this chamber here and now, but I will, as I said, take the proposal from Rickard Nordin with me because we agree that climate adaptation needs to enter more discussions and more rooms.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I believe we all remember the Moderaternas slogan on the election posters during the election campaign a year ago: Now we can get the climate in order.

We are now approaching the anniversary of the Moderaterna's formation of government together with the remaining Tidö parties. Unfortunately, it is nothing to celebrate for all of us who are worried about where the climate and the planet are headed. Never before has a government's policy been met with such compact opposition from researchers from all our major universities, from all environmental organizations, from the government's own agencies and expert councils, and even from the officials at the Government Offices, who write in the budget that with the previous government's policy we were on track to reach the climate goals, but with this government's policy we are not on track to do so. Even the companies demand that the government tighten the climate policy and make it more ambitious.

Now we have a very obvious climate crisis. At the same time, we have a government that is increasing emissions but also cutting back on climate adaptation grants.

Now we will get the climate in order - so it sounded. I want to ask Helena Storckenfeldt: How do the Moderaterna think it is going with that?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Before this debate, one could read on the Green Party's website that the government is nonchalant regarding the connection between climate change and extreme weather events. I just want it to be said very clearly, Madam Speaker, that it is pure propaganda to fuel the polarization within Swedish politics and Swedish climate policy.

The bourgeois, Moderaterna-ledd government is not climate deniers. We are doing everything we can to clean up after the last eight years. To claim anything even close to this is remarkable.

The Green Party also proudly writes on its website that they were instrumental in phasing out nuclear power in Sweden. But then an energy crisis occurred. I wonder if Per Bolund truly believes it is a coincidence, or if one could argue that the Green Party is somewhat nonchalant regarding the connection between the decommissioning of fossil-free energy production and the energy crisis.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I am happy to speak about that, even though this is a climate adaptation debate. We are proud that we have done exactly the opposite of what the Moderaterna usually claim, that is to say, significantly increased Swedish electricity production during our time in power. We have also made it more climate-secure because renewable energy is more climate-secure than nuclear power is. This thing about us having a dismantled energy system is just spin that has no factual basis whatsoever.

I also want to make a comment regarding Helena Storckenfeldt's speech. She said there that we do not have any differing views on climate adaptation. That is not true either, and it is just as good that we point that out. In the red-green government, Miljöpartiet doubled the appropriations for climate adaptation. For every krona that the previous Moderate-led government set aside, we allocated 20 kronor when we left the government.

We now instead have a government that is reducing the funding for avalanche protection, which is part of the climate adaptation, by 140 million kronor. We built our policy on expertise; what the Moderaterna build their policy on, I don't really know.

Another Moderate slogan was: Now we will get Sweden in order. Does Helena Storckenfeldt think that those who have their basements flooded think that the Moderates have gotten Sweden in order?

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

Helena Storckenfeldt (M)

Madam Speaker! Per Bolund seems very eager to speak about our election posters, so I intend to do the same regarding the Green Party's election posters. It said there: Everyone shall be included when Sweden transitions. So it sounds when the Green Party stands on the barricades. The truth, however, is that with their politics, everyone would have become poorer due to growing inflation and sky-high prices for gasoline, diesel, and electricity.

I think the Green Party should say it as it is: Only those who live in large cities and have access to the subway, tram, and Voi get to be included when Sweden transitions. The rest should be ashamed. The rest shall pay the price for the one-track policy that assumes money grows on trees.

As a Moderate, I unfortunately cannot have the same position. We are in a tough economic situation, and it must be taken seriously. If everyone is to be involved in the transition, we must do it for real, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Climate change, as has been said, leads to significantly altered precipitation. The risk of heavy rainfall increases, and at the same time, we get longer periods of drought that are becoming increasingly common.

What do we then need to do to succeed with the climate adaptation that is required? Agriculture will need to adapt its water management with, for example, more embankments, more ditches, and more drainage. Irrigation systems need to be developed. The forest is also affected, and this needs to be met by long-term planning that includes, for example, more mixed forests combined with a strengthened biodiversity that can withstand drought with associated insect attacks and that can also withstand heavy rainfall better.

It is also important to review our existing road and railway network in order to climate-proof as much as possible. Cities and urban areas need to be adapted so that they can withstand the floods that are now occurring at increasingly frequent intervals. They also need to be adapted to the heatwaves that are becoming more common. For example, more well-insulated houses and more greenery in the cities are needed, which can provide shade and lower the temperature for the residents, while the greenery can also absorb more water during heavy rainfall.

It is clear, I think, that the state needs to contribute more to the work of municipalities and regions with climate adaptation.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! We have heard a minister representing the government who is skilled at repeating what others have said is the problem. We still, however, lack quite a lot of proposals on how the problems are actually to be addressed. One speaks of a lack of proposals from others but has very little to contribute oneself.

Therefore, I thought I would now give some tips to the government on what it should do for the climate policy action plan that will be released before Christmas. So, take your pen and note carefully!

Start by utilizing stormwater management significantly better than today! The roofs on our houses and other paved surfaces can be used significantly better for electricity production, stormwater management, and ecosystem services. This could, for example, involve green roofs to be able to receive larger amounts of rainfall.

Adapt the regulations for agriculture's climate adaptation, as I spoke about earlier in the exchange with the Socialdemokraterna. It concerns watercourses, dams, biotope protection, and stone wall-dense areas where irrigation is difficult.

We must also have sufficient resources for climate adaptation. The nuclear waste fund, if we are to talk about nuclear power, is an excellent example of a long-term solution to the problem. There, responsibility is taken for the problems. Even from the state's side, much greater responsibility can be taken when it comes to climate adaptation. For example, a state water fee could finance climate adaptation measures, not least in the water and sewage systems whose renovation needs are enormous, especially in more sparsely populated municipalities.

Also include climate adaptation in the existing climate policy framework as well as in the Climate Act. Preventing new emissions is always better and the highest priority. But we cannot let that obscure the need to adapt society. If we can get those things in, the Climate Policy Council will have greater responsibility, and then we can evaluate the work continuously in a completely different way than today.

Please be so kind, the government and the State Council! It is only a matter of copying and pasting.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! This government stands up for the right of ownership. We ensure that Swedish forestry and agriculture are at the forefront of the climate transition. And we contribute to the production of clean products that can replace fossil products.

During the Swedish presidency and at my many ministerial meetings within the EU so far, I have proudly highlighted Swedish forestry and agriculture and defended their interests against both over-regulation and over-implementation.

But it is a fact that land use and forestry even here in Sweden generate large emissions. Does the Centre Party dare to leave its interest organizations' talking points and perhaps account for political measures that you want to have to reduce emissions from the forestry and agricultural sectors?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! Once again, I note that it is not climate adaptation the Minister is talking about. She is talking about emission reductions. I would very much like to talk about that. But that is not what this debate is about. If the Minister had listened to the Center Party, she would have known that we can talk about all sorts of things, from measures against food waste to reduced meat imports and much more. But that does not belong in this debate. It seems that it is an ongoing theme for the Minister and the government to want to talk about something completely different than precisely climate adaptation.

My question to the Minister is whether the government is prepared to review the rules that hinder agriculture's climate adaptation when it comes to, for example, irrigation rules in water-scarce areas.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! The more we emit, the more we need to adapt to the climate. It is therefore not strange that I ask questions, which the Center Party has very difficulty answering, about how the sector that the Center Party often wants to find special solutions for shall reduce emissions. In what way shall reduced imports reduce emissions from the Swedish agricultural sector? I do not quite understand that.

But if you want to talk about adaptation, we can of course do that, Rickard Nordin. You choose to focus on the VA systems, which you know very well is not the state's focus. From the state's side, it is about how we can best coordinate, structure, allocate responsibility, and ensure that the work is performed in the best possible way at the local level.

Here, instead, I hear a hint of wanting to try to take back the work more towards the state's side. Does the Center Party suddenly not want to decentralize but change the order so that the state has responsibility for waste systems across the entire country? I don't quite understand what applies for the Center Party.

This exchange is about what you want to do. So, what do you want to do when it comes to climate adaptation?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe the Minister should read up on the House rules a bit better.

To begin with, it is regarding the state rules for the water and sewage system's financing that I have spoken about several times. It is state rules that set limits on how much the municipalities can charge in, for example, water and sewage fees and prevent, for example, when it comes to maintenance. It is about state rules. That is what I have spoken about.

I can speak a lot about reduced emissions in various areas. We have plenty of such proposals. When it comes to, for example, food waste, one can lower the temperature in the refrigerator. When it comes to food supply in general, we have a bunch of proposals. If one reduces the import of climate-damaging meat and replaces it with vegetarian and Swedish products, global emissions decrease. It is a fairly big thing that would make a fairly large difference.

I don't quite understand what the minister is doing here. If there is anything the Center Party does, it is to reduce emissions. There, the government still has quite a lot to do. You are actually increasing emissions, not least now when you want to increase the consumption of fossil diesel by 4 million liters every day.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! In my first speech, I had a more global view of the issue. In my second speech, I intend to zoom in more on Sweden.

What national challenges do we have to manage in terms of climate adaptation? I see several parts, Madam Speaker. But perhaps the clearest signals from outside regarding what is the biggest challenge, and which concerns me, is that, despite what we heard about the adopted strategy, it is perceived that there is unclear governance, unclear areas of responsibility, and thus certain challenges with financing. Now an updated strategy is coming. We can hope that in it we can meet those challenges.

Sweden is an elongated country. Our municipalities have different conditions depending on where they are located and depending on topography and geography. Even though some solutions are common, one can for various reasons stand relatively alone in other parts. Now we must find better forms of cooperation between those who have similar challenges. SMHI runs our national knowledge center for climate adaptation. It is an important node for gathered knowledge on climate adaptation. But despite that, requests come in for more cooperation and exchange of experience.

Madam Speaker! This leads me to the third challenge: the national responsibility towards the regional and local. As we have heard several times, a decision was made in 2018 to give the municipalities increased influence. That is correct in itself, as they have the planning monopoly and at the same time the local knowledge. But, as we often see even in other parts, one then ends up in a clinch. The state would like to point with the whole hand to get the desired direction on the policy, while at the same time the state does not have the local knowledge.

We must have greater trust in our local politicians and their knowledge of the local area. When people at the local level are given the opportunity to influence their own lives, the social fabric is strengthened, whether it is on a global level or in Sweden. The work of reducing climate impact and adapting society to a changing climate are interdependent and must be coordinated.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask a question to Kjell-Arne Ottosson because it is the Christian Democrats who are responsible for both infrastructure and housing issues in the government. It concerns our insurance coverage. We have seen examples in other countries, not least in the USA and the state of Louisiana, of extreme weather hitting so hard that insurance costs have risen so much for ordinary families that they cannot afford to pay them or even stay in their homes. Large insurance companies in the USA have stopped providing insurance in disaster-stricken areas.

Here in Sweden, storm Hans has forced thousands in Central Sweden to seek compensation. Even here, the insurance companies are now warning that those who live in areas that are consistently exposed to severe damage may lose the possibility of protecting themselves by taking out an insurance policy and that the insurance will be forced to become much more expensive. Then it simply becomes a question of whether one can afford to protect oneself.

Now I want to ask the Christian Democrats what they have to say to those who risk being left without both housing and insurance and to be left empty-handed in the wake of the crisis.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to thank Per Bolund for the question. It pleases me that he holds such high opinions of me that he believes I know everything about the government's policies. Just housing policy, infrastructure, and insurance do not primarily fall within the area of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. I will admit that there are many things here in the world that I do not know. These are some of them. But I can absolutely forward the question to the responsible minister, whom I know very well, for feedback.

But we also have another problem, regardless of climate change. Some insurance companies do not want to insure in rural areas today. But that has to do with the value of the property. When a house is finished being built, it is therefore not worth as much as one has paid to build it. We took that up several times with Per Bolund's former colleague, Peter Eriksson, to try to find a solution, which we did not do. But I hope that we can find solutions in this case as well as in the cases Per Bolund mentions. We must do that, regardless of what it is about.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I hope that Kjell-Arne Ottosson and the Kristdemokraterna take this issue seriously, because it is actually quite obvious that insurance is about insuring oneself against the unexpected - and as hundred-year rains become ten-year rains, and in the worst case in the future annual rains, those types of weather events will no longer be unexpected. Then you will not be able to insure yourself against them. That is why it is so important to prevent this from happening and to do what can be done to mitigate the climate crisis - which unfortunately is not going so well right now with this government - but also to protect and fortify Sweden and reduce vulnerability.

I would like to ask a question to Kristdemokraterna and Kjell-Arne Ottosson. You usually try to present yourselves as a party in the government that safeguards welfare, but when you cut the money for climate adaptation to the municipalities, the municipalities are forced to choose between climate adaptation and spending the money on school, healthcare, and elderly care. Why is the government not helping the municipalities to both protect themselves against vulnerability and invest in welfare? Now, you are actually cutting back on both ends.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the insurance issue, we are in complete agreement. I see no dividing line there, and I do not believe there is one in this chamber at all. Of course, it is the case that if one has a property, one must be able to insure the property.

As I mentioned in my contribution, there are unfortunately already problems in other parts with this because properties are located in the countryside. It is therefore not only regarding climate adaptations that we have challenges in this, but in several parts. I hope that we can find solutions to these.

Regarding the second question that Per Bolund raised, it is actually the case that we are now providing a targeted government grant to municipalities and regions so that they do not stand alone facing a major economic challenge. It is indeed the case that there are several challenges. It is not just one giant climate challenge but also many other challenges that we as a society face.

We as a government must manage all these challenges collectively, but we do not have a tree where money grows and must manage them with the money we have and patch things up as best as possible.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for a debate that was, if nothing else, very clarifying. It is unfortunately the case that we do not have a government that responds to the threats that many people now feel – both through the news and in their everyday lives – neither by reducing the climate threat nor by taking care of its consequences.

Two weeks ago, I was in Västerås and Sala. There, I met Michel, a restaurant owner who has seen his life's work destroyed in the floods. Amounts of rain that usually fall over a month now fall in just a few individual hours. Michel has an enormous battle ahead of him to try to save his life's work, his destroyed restaurants. It is about amounts of lost revenue and customers, and that in an industry that has barely had time to recover from the pandemic.

Michel is unfortunately not alone in being affected. The price of the climate crisis is paid by citizens all over our country - by the villa owners who get their basements flooded, by the entrepreneurs who are forced to close their businesses, and by the farmers who see their farmlands turn into lakes and their revenues lost.

Where the storms have made their way, an enormous destruction follows, and when the rain has settled and the TV reporters have gone home, those affected are left alone if we do not help to support them. Several of those sitting here in the gallery today come from municipalities that have been affected.

It is clear that it is not free to climate-adapt Sweden. But the costs of doing nothing are much, much greater! If one has not realized that until now, one has no possibility of taking responsibility for our country. The planet is warmer than it has been in 120,000 years. People are being affected by the damages here and now, and we have a government that continues to turn a blind eye to the seriousness.

The other parties are unfortunately mostly silent or mention the climate crisis in a subordinate clause, at most. That shows, if nothing else, why the Green Party is so incredibly important in Swedish politics. Without the Green Party, we would not have had this debate and been able to discuss the effects of the climate crisis.

I still lack an answer from the government. When will the climate crisis be taken as seriously as it deserves? Will you support private individuals, companies, municipalities, and regions in this crisis, or will you continue to throw them under the bus?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet claims that the government is cutting the appropriations for climate adaptation when, in fact, they are at exactly the same level as in the budget the previous government laid for 2023.

I have spoken with countless officials in all possible departments to try to figure out what Miljöpartiet means when they say that this government has cut by 140 million. Which millions are they talking about? I cannot find these millions. I have previously asked both the newspapers where this has been published and Miljöpartiet itself where the figure comes from.

It is actually the case that even this year we are investing 500 million through MSB in landslide protection. What does Miljöpartiet mean when they say that this government has cut back on the work for climate adaptation?

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is no harder than what we usually do when we debate budget issues, that is to say, went to the government's budget and read which appropriations one cuts and which ones one invests in. There it is very clear that there are three different reductions of appropriations for climate adaptation of 100, 20, and 20 million kronor, which together give 140 million kronor. It concerned precisely the issue of landslide protection, and that is particularly serious.

We know that the climate crisis affects people in the form of flooded basements and railways and roads that are torn down. That naturally involves costs. But when it comes to landslide protection, we have both in Sweden – as the Minister for the Environment himself said in his speech – and in our neighboring country Norway seen examples of how landslides are something that directly threatens people's lives. Therefore, it is extra serious to make cuts in just that area.

It is also not sufficient to say that the money has not been used; instead, what should be done from the government's side is to ensure that the money can actually be of use and that the municipalities can use it and make the investments required to protect people's lives and property.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! It simply is not true. The amount available within our area for climate adaptation is 255 million for 2023. In 2022, the same appropriation was 174 million. It is a considerable sum. We are investing strongly in climate adaptation. Then there are other budgetings, for example, expenditure area 20 on defense and crisis. I guess that is what is meant if one refers to landslides. There, the government invests 500 million, just as it did the year before, 2022.

I do not understand, therefore, what is being referred to when it is claimed that we have reduced the appropriations. This government is investing heavily in adaptation.

When Per Bolund so proudly proclaimed that the appropriations were being increased by very large sums, a huge number of applications arrived. It became difficult to handle, and therefore funds were distributed between different agencies so that they would succeed in handling all the applications that came in.

What is meant when it is claimed that the government has reduced the appropriations for climate adaptation? I point out here that in our budget it states 500 million, just as it did for 2022.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! When we read the budget, we see that there are cuts in areas that we consider incredibly essential to achieve the climate adaptation of Sweden. I think the Minister for the Environment is trying to confuse the debate when she claims that one can make cuts without it having any effect at all. So the government does not usually think about any other areas. One does not pretend that money invested in defense or the transport sector gives no effect.

It is of course clear that one needs to invest to be able to make things happen in society. It is a mistake to say that if the money is not spent, it is withdrawn. Instead, one should ensure that the money can actually be of use here and now. That is what I miss from the government's side. Miljöpartiet thinks that 500 million is not enough, even though we are proud that we 20-folded the appropriations during our time in government. Much more should be done.

In our budget, we allocate 3 billion per year, and then we begin to approach the level that would be needed to truly be able to help private individuals who get their basements flooded, companies that have their operations devastated, and municipalities that are now struggling to manage the work of securing their citizens.

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I would only like to briefly thank everyone who has taken the time to discuss the important issues regarding climate adaptation and preparedness here today. I would especially like to thank Miljöpartiet, who took the initiative for the debate. I would also like to state that there is a great deal of work for climate adaptation that we agree on.

What there is disagreement about between the parties primarily concerns how much funding should be allocated to this work. We see that the money available is not being fully utilized. Let us talk about the concrete solutions that are needed so that the funds can be used to a greater extent!

Special debate on climate adaptation

I also want to briefly quote the new chairman of the IPCC, Jim Skea: "We are talking about fateful threats as a consequence of climate change. But we must not let ourselves be paralyzed. For we have the tools we need to address this issue. It concerns both how we are to adapt society to the climate changes that will inevitably occur, and how we can reduce future emissions. We have the capability. We know the technology."

(Applause)

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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