Response to interpellation 2022/23:110 on Sweden's commitment under the Paris Agreement
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L believes that the national climate goals are fixed and that the government is working cost-effectively to achieve them 1. L argues that Sweden has an obligation to implement the Paris Agreement and strives for net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest 1. L emphasizes the importance of long-term perspective and continued investments in Klimatklivet and Industriklivet 2. L believes that the climate bonus is ineffective 2 and that the government focuses on fossil-free energy, charging infrastructure, carbon capture, and rewetting of wetlands 3. L argues that electrification is necessary for industry and transport 3. MP argues that the government's policy increases emissions through the abolished reduction obligation and lowered carbon tax 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! [I] have asked the Minister for Finance what she means by her statement regarding the climate goals, how the statement relates to Sweden's international commitments under the Paris Agreement, whether the Minister considers that the parties to the Paris Agreement have a responsibility to fulfill their commitments on emission reductions, and how the Minister, in that case, intends to act within her area of responsibility so that Sweden fulfills its commitment. Furthermore, Elin Söderberg has asked the Minister for Finance how her statement relates to the fact that Sweden, as part of the EU's commitment, must fulfill our agreed responsibility sharing under the EU's Climate Law.
The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
Let me first assure Elin Söderberg that the high-level national climate goals remain in place and that the government, in accordance with the Climate Act, is working to achieve these goals. This shall be done in a cost- and socially economically efficient manner. The entire government stands behind Sweden's climate and environmental policy, which shall be ambitious.
Regarding Elin Söderberg's questions on Sweden's international commitments under the Paris Agreement, the parties' responsibility to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement, and Sweden's commitments within the EU, I would like to begin by stating that Sweden's contribution to the Paris Agreement naturally consists primarily of our commitments within the EU, as Sweden is part of the union and the EU and its member states have a joint commitment under the agreement. The Union and its member states, like all other parties to the Paris Agreement, have committed to obligations through their respective countries' nationally determined contributions, so-called NDCs. The EU and the member states have signed and ratified the Paris Agreement and are determined to implement it. In line with this commitment, the EU countries have agreed that the EU shall be on track to become climate neutral by 2050 at the latest. Naturally, I and the government believe that we, like other parties, have an obligation to fulfill the commitments that we have formulated in our NDCs.
Our national climate goals go, as Elin Söderberg surely knows, slightly further than the EU goals. We have initiated the work to develop a new climate policy action plan with the ambition to reach Sweden's high climate goals. In this, we will account in more detail for the government's climate goals for the mandate period. But already now, we have initiated the work to create long-term conditions to reach all the way to zero. We shall have net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest, to thereafter achieve negative emissions. By reaching Sweden's national goals, we have good conditions to also meet the commitments that Sweden has within the framework of the EU.
Elin Söderberg also asks how the government intends to act within the Minister for Finance's area of responsibility so that Sweden can meet its commitments. Climate policy falls within my area of responsibility, but fiscal policy obviously plays an important role in ensuring we reach our climate goals. Carbon pricing, which means that those who continue to emit pay for their emissions, is an example of how one can contribute to implementing the climate transition in a cost-effective way from a fiscal policy perspective.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by noting that my question was addressed to Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson and that it has been handed over to the Minister for Climate and Environment. My interpellation was submitted on the grounds of Elisabeth Svantesson's statement in Svenska Dagbladet in the autumn regarding the question of what it would mean if Sweden did not reach the climate goals. She answered: If we do not, then we do not.
Fiscal policy and the priorities within the state budget are central for Sweden to reach the climate policy goals that the Riksdag has established, the climate commitment we have within the EU, and our contribution to meeting the Paris Agreement. I therefore consider it urgent to hear the Finance Minister's answers to these questions. But since the question has been handed over to the Minister for Climate and Environment, I hope to receive exhaustive answers regarding the government's position on these issues.
In the same interview, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson was asked about the consequences of us not reaching the climate goal by 2030. She answers that the consequences are that we do not reach the goal, and of course, that is not good. It is not that Sweden has climate goals for the sake of the climate goals. We have climate goals because we risk being hit by extreme consequences if we do not halt climate change.
If we in Sweden do not reach our climate goals, it means that we do not reach our share of the EU's climate goals. It risks the EU's opportunities to reach our contribution within the EU to reach the goal in the Paris Agreement. It risks, in the long run, the conditions for fulfilling the Paris Agreement.
The consequences will also be that we in Sweden contribute to a lesser extent to the development of technologies, methods, and other solutions to reduce emissions. Thus, other countries' opportunities to reach their climate goals are also worsened. In this way, the conditions for meeting the Paris Agreement are also worsened. If we in Sweden do not reach our climate goals, we risk the consequences and risks that follow from a global warming that exceeds two degrees.
A long row of organizations handed over the Climate Book to all members of Parliament and all ministers yesterday. It contains, among other things, texts on the effects and risks of climate change.
Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask Sweden's Minister for Climate and Environment to account for some of the consequences that will affect us here in Sweden if we fail in the climate transition and do not manage to reach the goal in the Paris Agreement.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you for your question, Elin Söderberg!
It is excellent examples that you yourself raise in your interpellation to me. There are many consequences of climate change. Some consequences are already experienced not only in particularly vulnerable countries but also in Sweden. One notices what consequences the climate changes and the ongoing warming we have lead to.
There are very many examples of how one may need to handle climate change. The changes that occur will be much worse if one does not handle them as promptly and wisely as possible.
We may not need to feel a sense of security. I can't quite find the word, Mr. Speaker. But it is important that we, in any case, share the picture that we have a climate crisis and that we want to manage it. We have a climate law that has been voted through in the Riksdag. It entered into force in 2018, and many parties stand behind it.
We also have very many climate policy measures that many parties in Sweden stand behind. But there are also differences in how we choose to handle all the consequences that result from the identified climate changes.
I am a friend of science and research. I rely on the good supply of research that exists within this very area. I do not doubt that there are things for both you and me to learn from reading the Climate Book and other information that is available.
But there are also differences in how we choose to handle the climate changes that are occurring. Those differences can sometimes have political nuances. There are political differences between how, for example, Miljöpartiet, as opposed to the government, would want to handle the climate changes that are ongoing.
That is where the differences lie. They do not lie in whether one is aware of what consequences climate change will have. They do not lie in whether one accepts the sharp situation that very clear research and a great deal of science point to.
There is a great deal to take into account here. I believe we have an agreement there, in any case between Elin Söderberg and myself as minister. But when it comes to the measures, we see things differently. That is where it differs. I think one should be clear about that.
Some of the measures that people disagree on can be seen in my answer which I gave earlier in my first post. We in the liberal bourgeois government are very keen to safeguard Swedish competitiveness and economic growth and to take advantage of the opportunities that come from the transition.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! For us here in Sweden, climate change leads, for example, to flooded basements, destroyed roads, lost harvests as a result of heavy rainfall or drought, forest fires, drought, deteriorated groundwater levels, milder winters, a reduced snow cover that affects the reindeer husbandry and tourism industries and makes the dark winters darker.
Sweden is also affected by indirect effects of climate change, such as increased food prices as a result of significantly reduced harvests internationally and deteriorated fish catches globally. It is about risks for Swedish companies' supply chains when subcontractors are exposed to risk in other countries.
We can also be affected by increased refugee flows, social unrest and unstable economy as a result of climate change. It is also about increased risks for crises and conflicts that directly or indirectly affect us here in Sweden.
Mr. Speaker! The climate issue is rightly described as the defining issue of our time. Voices are raised that instead of talking about a climate crisis, we should talk about a planetary crisis. How we choose to handle climate change will affect humanity's conditions to live on our planet for all time.
The government, however, stands helpless. Since taking office, the Minister for Climate and Environment has expressed a desire to pursue an effective climate policy, and this is also mentioned today. But no new climate policy has been seen. The only thing that has been done effectively is to increase greenhouse gas emissions.
The government intends to significantly increase fossil emissions from gasoline and diesel by abolishing the reduction obligation. It increases emissions from combined heat and power through a lowered carbon tax, and makes it more expensive to choose an electric car, use public transport, and cycle to work through a worsened travel deduction and abolished electric car bonus. The government has also made substantial cuts to the environmental budget which impairs climate work.
The list is long of the government's reforms that increase greenhouse gas emissions. But no own climate policy has still been presented.
At New Year, the Minister for Climate and Environment, together with the Prime Minister, had an article in Dagens Nyheter, which I guess was intended to address the massive criticism of the government's climate policy. In that article, however, they highlighted Environment Party-friendly reforms: Industriklivet, Klimatklivet, and industry roadmaps that have been developed through coordination by Fossilfritt Sverige.
Mr. Speaker! I must thank the Moderate-led government for highlighting reforms that we in the Green Party implemented together with the Social Democrats in government. It shows that the government is beginning to realize how crucial the Green Party's policies are for the green industrial revolution in Sweden. But we in the Green Party also know that much more is required for Sweden to meet its part of the Paris Agreement, our parliamentary goals, and our share of the EU's climate goals.
Mr. Speaker! What does the Minister for Climate and Environment intend to do to lower greenhouse gas emissions so that we in Sweden reach the climate goals?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Elin Söderberg mentions that we would have no climate policy, that we only develop such as the Miljöpartiet has done. That was somewhat what I intended in my previous contribution. There are many all over Sweden who are concerned about the climate crisis, and a recurring word that is mentioned is long-term perspective. A long-term perspective was needed. It cannot be that from four years to the next four years, different subsidies and small measures are tossed back and forth here and there to mitigate a large, problematic crisis that the world is going through. That is not how the issues should be handled.
That is why I wrote the article in DN Debatt together with the Prime Minister and my ministerial colleagues. It was not to dampen a loud criticism, but it was to alleviate an anxiety that one contributes to when one claims that the new government would not have its own climate policy, that the new government, which I had to address in a previous interpellation, would consist of climate deniers. It is a rather dull signal to send to an anxious society that wants the issues to be handled seriously.
I can understand the prevailing confusion, that people are concerned, worried, and lack insight into what a new government wants to do with climate policy. Partly, one can trace that problem to the fact that Miljöpartiet has so clearly had ownership of the issue, and there are many climate policy and environmental policy measures where Elin Söderberg's party has joined forces with my party Liberalerna. There, I wish the information had been clearer for all our citizens that there is a political conflict - but there is also room for joint political action.
Mr. Speaker! Elin Söderberg mentioned that we are further developing and adding large sums of millions to initiatives that were started under the previous government by Miljöpartiet, for example Klimatklivet and Industriklivet. That is true. It is completely correct. This government believes that certain measures that previous governments have initiated are producing effects and contributing to the transition, making it so that our companies, corporations, industries, large emitters, seriously sit down and draw up a plan for how they shall reach zero, how they shall conduct their operations in a climate-friendly way with fossil-free production and operations.
The government's climate policy means continuing with what works and letting go of what we see has not worked. For example, we see that the Swedish National Audit Office and the National Institute of Economic Research point out the climate bonus, as Elin Söderberg mentions, as ineffective. We pay billions of kronor, but it does not result in reduced carbon emissions in proportion to the money we put in. That is what we mean when we say that this government will conduct effective and ambitious climate policy. We will work with a long-term perspective. In addition to the policy that was presented, among other things, yesterday during the government's 100-day presentation, we will present a climate policy action plan with clear content on how we will reach net zero by 2045 and net negative thereafter.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister mentions the concern many people feel about not knowing what the government wants. I have just in my question given the Minister the opportunity to account for what the government wants to do to de facto reduce emissions, but I have still not heard any concrete proposals.
On the other hand, the changes that have been made are defended, especially regarding the transport sector, which has led to increased emissions. It is clearly established in the government's own budget that with the policy that prevailed when we were in government, the climate goals would have been reached by 2030, and with the reforms being presented now, we will no longer reach the climate goals by 2030.
Romina Pourmokhtari says that the government has removed reforms that have not worked. Among other things, the government has said that it wants to abolish the reduction obligation or lower it to the EU's minimum level. The reduction obligation is a reform that actually provided just a long-term perspective for the business sector, which the Minister mentioned that the business sector requests. The reduction obligation is also such a reform that provided large emission reductions until 2030 and was crucial for us to reach the climate goal by 2030. One wonders then why the government chooses to abolish this reform when it has worked, has contributed to long-term perspective for the industries and furthermore has been crucial to reach the climate goal.
The Liberals cooperated during the previous parliamentary term with us in Miljöpartiet and with the Social Democrats in government – and had the opportunity to continue such a cooperation.
Mr. Speaker! Does the Minister for Climate and Environment have any personal limit on how much emissions should increase in Sweden before she herself leaves Ulf Kristersson's government?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Let me once again explain what our policy is, if it is the case that Elin Söderberg has, against all odds, missed what it is we are doing. I do not believe that it has escaped our society and the Swedes who read the newspaper and keep track of what the government is doing. Among other things, yesterday we clearly explained all reforms at our press conference on 100 days with the government, but let me repeat what was said.
The government is focusing on several important climate issues during our mandate period, and in our spring revision budget, we have just begun a powerful expansion of fossil-free energy to enable electrification. We have invested enormously in charging infrastructure and in building up the infrastructure that needs to exist to enable a transition of our transport fleet. We have invested in carbon capture and various initiatives that allow the industry and the transport sector to utilize fossil emissions in a wiser way, for example through bio-CCS which can contribute to capturing carbon dioxide.
We want to make clear long-term efforts. If Elin Söderberg wants to hear more concretely what that means, it is about enabling electrification. Either we have fossil emissions from both the industrial and transport sectors, or we do not. That requires an electrification.
We have also invested in the restoration of wetlands, and we will do more to reduce emissions using various methods, not only with carbon capture that occurs industrially. There are many examples, and I could have mentioned more.
Let me mention that I am proud to belong to Ulf Kristersson's government, which handles the current climate crisis in an effective, long-term and wise manner.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.