Response to interpellation 2022/23:225 on continued support for the green industrial transition
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L argues that the government stands behind ambitious climate policy that is socio-economically efficient 1. L believes that the government is an offensive partner for the business sector 1 and that Industriklivet, Klimatklivet, and the green credit guarantees have been expanded to lower economic thresholds 1 2. L emphasizes that the government is expanding wind and nuclear power for stable electricity production 2, accelerating permit processes 2 3, and has raised the grant levels to support Swedish industry 4. L believes that nuclear power is crucial for the electricity system 3 and that Sweden should be early with fossil-free development 4. MP argues that the government has made the green industrial transition more difficult 5.
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)
Madam Speaker! I have asked the Minister for Energy and Industry if the Minister can guarantee Swedish industry that Industriklivet, Klimatklivet, and green credit guarantees will remain throughout the entire mandate period.
The work within the government is distributed such that it is I who shall answer the interpellation.
I want to begin by stating once again that this government stands behind the national climate goals and that we, in accordance with the Climate Act, are working to achieve the goals that have been set. The work shall be carried out in a cost-effective and socially and economically efficient manner, and as we state in the Tidö Agreement, the climate and environmental policy shall be ambitious.
The goal of the industrial policy is to strengthen Swedish competitiveness and create conditions for more jobs in more and growing companies. The government's climate policy is based on the premise that emissions shall be reduced all the way to zero. Sweden has a strong industry that contributes to solutions for green transition and to us reaching our climate goals. This creates jobs across the entire country and strengthens the conditions for Swedish business to succeed in global markets. It should be added that access to fossil-free electricity is a fundamental prerequisite for us to manage the climate transition. Industrial, energy, climate, and environmental issues are closely linked. As the Prime Minister said in the government statement, we see Swedish business as a greenhouse for prosperity and innovation and now also as an important part of the environmental movement - world-leading in sustainability and green transition. We have also said that the government will be an offensive partner in that work.
It is against this background that the government chose to create the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise, where climate, enterprise, and energy issues are gathered in one and the same ministry. The new ministry facilitates the work with these issues and shows that they are closely interconnected. The government is ready to take measures so that the climate transition can be implemented in an effective manner.
Regarding Elin Söderberg's question, I can state that the government in the budget bill made new investments in both Industriklivet and Klimatklivet as well as increased the guarantee framework for the green credit guarantees. The state can contribute to the climate transition through cost-effective and socio-economically efficient investment support that can support our companies in projects that, for various reasons, are particularly risky or costly, or that for other reasons would not have been carried out without support.
In the upcoming climate policy action plan, the government will also provide more detail on what policy we intend to pursue during the mandate period, and the work on our budget bill for 2024 has begun. It is absolutely crucial that state funds are used in an effective manner, and evaluations of these efforts in the climate area shall therefore be further strengthened so that we ensure that the climate goals are reached in the way that best benefits the country.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Romina Pourmokhtari, for the answer! I am well aware of what investments the government made in its budget. The question was whether the minister can guarantee that these supports remain during the mandate period. The business sector needs, in fact, long-term conditions. And even if it is good that the minister – unlike many of the Members of Parliament whose support she needs to conduct her policy – does not actively distance herself from these policy instruments, a mobilization is currently underway within the right to slow down the green industrial transition. Hence the question. Or as the Moderate MP Oliver Rosengren recently said: The green transition has become a sacred cow that must be slaughtered.
It is against that background that I see it as very important to get clear messages from the Minister for Climate and Environment. The green industrial transition is happening here and now. It has fantastic opportunities to ensure that we meet the climate goals and to contribute to a sustainable, strong societal development throughout the country and to innovation, strengthened Swedish competitiveness and a strong business development. But we now see that it is being actively opposed by representatives from the parties that sit in the government or are the government's coalition parties. Therefore, I request clear messages. This applies in particular to Industriklivet, Klimatklivet and the green credit guarantees.
When the government took office, I met with several business actors, and someone said that we are up and running and that it will keep rolling as long as the government does not throw grit into the machinery. Unfortunately, what I have seen since Kristersson took office as Prime Minister is that the government has started throwing grit into the machinery.
The business community demands three clear things: a rapid expansion of electricity production in the near term that can meet the industry's needs, strengthened work for skills supply, and smooth permit processes. What we have seen so far is that the expansion of wind power has been made more expensive and difficult, the incentive study that was intended to provide incentives to municipalities to build renewable wind power production has been limited, the skills supply has been worsened by making labor immigration more difficult, and insufficient resources have been given to the authorities working with permit processes.
Therefore, it is central that we get increased clarity from the government: Is it the case that one will begin to back down on the green industrial transition, as several representatives from the government parties are now starting to shape public opinion around? Or is it the case that one actually, as Ulf Kristersson said in the government statement, will also meet the challenge and begin to work to strengthen and create conditions for the green industrial transition? Because if that is the path one wants to take, a course correction is required and that one actually begins to deliver on what the business community demands.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I think it is welcome that we almost get an answer from Member Söderberg herself when she mentions: Who is it that we should listen to? Is it possibly the Prime Minister?
Yes! Listen to the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister so clearly proclaims that this government will be a strong partner in the work that the business sector performs to transition. And we also live up to that regarding what we finance. We have expanded the work with Industriklivet and Klimatklivet, and we have taken a decisive step to repair the gross damage that has occurred with the energy policy that has been conducted in this country over the last eight years.
It is a decisive move we have taken in order to enable the green transition, precisely because we see it as what Member Söderberg so clearly explains that the business sector is demanding. One needs a stable and cheap predictable electricity production if one is to transition. Then one needs to expand our electricity system significantly. That is done by expanding both wind power and nuclear power, and that is precisely what this government is doing.
Madam Speaker! It is enough to open the newspaper or perhaps Google this government and wind power to see what policy we are pursuing in this area. We have added 15 million to the work being done internally at the Government Offices to handle the permit issues specifically regarding the strong will we see in Sweden to expand our wind power.
We have also given clear directives that wind power shall bear its own costs, just as we want nuclear power to do. This is so that we can have a clear set of rules that ensures that, from a political standpoint, we do not just choose a favorite among the types of energy, but on the contrary encourage a level playing field where several different types of energy can participate and contribute to a robust, secure, and reliable supply of electricity that makes the industry want to transition. This is what is being requested.
People are also demanding infrastructure to cope with an electrification, and this is precisely what we are also investing in through Klimatklivet, where we expand the initiatives that previous governments have started. This is not nothing. This is not to continue in the same tracks, but it is to expand and provide funds, because we want to conduct an effective policy.
An effective policy, Madam Speaker, means that we continue with what works well, do not shut down for reasons of prestige and start our own projects. If something works well and we see that we get a return through reduced emissions in proportion to the money we put in, we will gladly continue to contribute to the transition that is taking place.
As I clearly explained in my response, an important point is that in some parts of the transition work, there are high thresholds. There are economic thresholds that make it difficult to make an investment. Of course, the state should then be a party to rely on and a contributor to lowering the thresholds for the transition and contributing to so that Sweden can meet a future where we have fossil-free economies.
This is something that will strengthen our business sector. When I meet with the business sector, people do not, in any case, say that they are concerned or that the government would have less understanding of the conditions that the business sector needs to transition. On the contrary, I am met with cheers of approval because questions about business and climate are being combined precisely because we have seen the connection and how Sweden can be a strong party in the transition through our business sector.
Madam Speaker! We are doing a lot. We are expanding Klimatklivet and Industriklivet. There is ongoing work with green credit guarantees that can be relied upon by the parties requesting them. It is nothing strange. One must listen to the Prime Minister and the government. We want to be a strong partner for the business community in the fantastic green transition that they are pushing for.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! The Prime Minister says that one should be a strong partner, and Romina Pourmokhtari thinks that I should listen to the Prime Minister. I would like to do that when it comes to exactly this, because it is extremely important that we get a long-term leadership in Sweden that leads the entire country through the green industrial transition. That requires long-term rules of the game, hence my question whether the Minister can guarantee that support such as Industriklivet, Klimatklivet, and green credit guarantees, which the government strengthened in the budget, which was very welcome, remains in place for the entire mandate period.
Beautiful words are not enough, neither from the Prime Minister nor from the Minister for Climate and Environment. What is crucial now is action, and what we have seen in action from the government is unfortunately that they are making wind power expansion more expensive and more difficult, and that they are limiting the incentive study, which could open up for better resources for those municipalities that contribute with renewable electricity production in a situation where it is completely central that electricity is delivered in the near term.
I also want to mention that I react strongly when the Minister for Climate and Environment begins to shift the focus to the long-term climate goal of 2045 when I point out that the 2030 climate goal is no longer being met with the changes the government has implemented. It is the sum of emissions over time that determines our climate impact. To postpone or delay the climate transition of the transport sector or industry into the future means that we get more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that will warm us for hundreds of years to come.
It is therefore completely central that the government ensures that we achieve a societal development with the expansion of electricity infrastructure and, not least, investments in wind power in the near term to ensure that the industry can transition as quickly as possible so that we can reduce climate emissions and strengthen our conditions to meet the Paris Agreement and avoid the most serious consequences of climate change.
I would like to get clarity on whether the Minister for Climate and Environment means that it is no longer so important to reach the 2030 goal and that we should only focus on the 2045 climate goal, or if we can expect measures that guarantee that we reach the climate goals by 2030.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! As Member Söderberg mentions, we have different parts to contend with in the Climate Act. We have milestone targets, and then we have a goal of net-zero by 2045 and net-negative emissions thereafter. I understand that a representative for Miljöpartiet would preferably not want to talk about the 2045 goal because, after seven years with a Minister from Miljöpartiet, we were not on track to reach the 2045 goal.
Different governments may have different strengths. The important thing here is that we both represent parties that want to carry out the transition, that want to protect the environment and that want to accelerate the transition that is taking place because it is taking place too slowly and we need to do more.
There is a reason, Madam Speaker, why the member is so careful to point out that we must expand our energy system in the near term. It is because one would like to hide the mistakes that were made under the previous government, which dismantled fully functioning fossil-free production.
If anything, I believe that the business sector laments the fact that the possibility for electrification has been hindered. This is what I hear when I meet industries that want to establish themselves in Sweden, which want to contribute to the transition and reduced emissions and which want to export fantastic innovative solutions that can lead to reduced emissions in Sweden but primarily in the world, globally, in countries that perhaps do not have the opportunity to drive innovation in the same way. They could have benefited from funding through Klimatklivet and Industriklivet and the green bonds, but they did not have a predictable and cheap electricity production.
Of course we need to expand wind power, and the government is investing heavily in handling the permit processes as quickly as possible, but also in appointing an inquiry that reviews how the permit processes occur in their entirety so that we do it in a faster way and more in accordance with many of our neighboring countries.
We also need to conduct a long-term policy in a way that the previous government did not, and there is a difference. I am very proud that we in my party were so clear that previous governments should push for an evidence-based development, even when it was a bit uncomfortable. In the science that is presented, it is clearly pointed out how nuclear power is absolutely crucial in the transition to be able to stabilize our electricity system and make it predictable, and that nuclear power fulfills a function there.
Unfortunately, it is political gut feeling and a dated view of what nuclear power entails that makes one want to discriminate against that type of energy, and this has led to a situation that is absolutely appalling.
Now we have taken a decisive step to reform the energy policy so that we can give industry and the business sector the opportunity to reliably trust that the robustness applies not only to initiatives for state funds and the financing of the innovations that one wants to undertake, but also to the energy supply and the availability of fossil-free energy, so that one can actually conduct fossil-free operations.
It is a matter of not only reading one's favorite parts in, among others, the IPCC's reports but also taking note of what is pointed out, namely that, for example, negative emissions will require investment in CCS technology.
The government is doing a lot to improve our conditions to reach the climate goals. It is not only about facilitating for our business sector and our industry to dare to invest in transitioning by having money, but also about there being electricity and that there is a plan for the long-term goal of net-zero 2045 and net-negative thereafter.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! I note that Romina Pourmokhtari says a lot in a very short time, but I am disappointed. I perceive that the Minister for Climate and Environment becomes very cramped when I demonstrate that the 2030 goals will not be reached with the government's policy.
I receive no answer as to whether the Minister for Climate and the Environment intends to work towards a policy to even reach this goal any further. It makes me extremely disappointed, especially after I have pointed out that the climate work is a race against the clock. There is a difference between whether we reduce emissions so that we reach the interim goal and then come down to net zero 2045, or if we exceed the interim goal and then come down to net zero 2045. The accumulated emissions over time will then be greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that warm us here on the planet for hundreds of years to come. That is the difference. Therefore, the interim goal for 2030 is also central.
It is also crucial whether Sweden can work on being a pioneer and establishing innovation, technological development, and sustainable societal construction that can inspire other parts of the world and also lead to prosperity and that we reach the global climate agreement.
Instead, the Minister for Climate and Environment chooses to start focusing on nuclear power. It is a rhetorical move that we have seen since 2018, and I think it is utterly regrettable. The Minister for Climate and Environment is well aware that the Green Party entered into an energy agreement in 2016 with a goal that we should have one hundred percent renewable electricity production by 2040 and that it also contained all the possibilities to build nuclear power.
That we would have shut down nuclear power and that it would have damaged the electricity system is nothing other than a lie. Therefore, I am deeply disappointed that it is being used as a debating tactic in this debate.
What is central now is the industry's and the business community's climate transition and whether the government will deliver what the business community needs.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin at this end: In the budget bill for 2023, the government has increased the funding levels for Industriklivet, for Klimatklivet, and for the green credit guarantees. We are very proud of that. It is part of the climate policy that we pursue, to encourage the fantastic development that is occurring within Swedish industry with Swedish business at the forefront. One should not worry that we would back down from it or change our minds. It is a central part of how the transition occurs in Sweden and how Sweden will be able to meet the future economy that we will face and that will be fossil-free. I do not even need to say future economy, but it is the current economy. We will have consumers who demand fossil-free products, and we will have a market that demands fossil-free products. That Sweden is early with this development will be a strength for us, and it is already a fantastic strength for us. That is how it is.
Madam Speaker! The reason I am speaking about nuclear power is that Member Söderberg herself highlights how the business sector and industry turn to her with fears about energy and how electrification is to take place when we do not have enough electricity to meet the demand. It is precisely for that reason that I speak about nuclear power, and it is precisely for that reason that I, as a proud liberal, mention how many parties there are in this chamber that have contributed to a negative development, which has hindered the transition and which has hindered the availability of fossil-free, clean electricity in Sweden. It is unfortunate. They have wanted to prioritize renewables and wind power. I am also happy to talk about wind power, and I also gladly encourage wind power. But I do not favor one type of energy over another. And that is an important reason why our policy in this government will have much better conditions to meet the needs that the business sector and industry have in connection with the transition.
Sweden has a strong industry that will contribute to the green transition and to us reaching our climate goals. And the government will be a strong partner in this work. Member Söderberg and the Swedish people can rely on that.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.