Response to interpellation 2022/23:322 on measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during the parliamentary term
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 has already increased investments in Industriklivet, Klimatklivet, solar cells, energy efficiency, and rewetting of peatlands 1. L emphasizes that these measures provide an effect now and that the industry is transitioning 2. L argues that climate policy must be sustainable over time, not undermine competitiveness or the household economy through high fuel prices 3, and that they are investing in all fossil-free energy. L argues that they are addressing permit processes and contributing to a sustainable transition. MP argues that the government's measures primarily enable emission reductions in the future, not during the current mandate period 4. MP claims that the government lacks a plan for the near term and that the lowered reduction obligation as well as the abolished electric car bonus lead to increased emissions 4 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! Now we finally have the opportunity to discuss how we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is a question that leaked into the previous interpellation debate.
It is the case that Elin Söderberg has asked me if I can mention five measures that I intend to take to reduce emissions during this parliamentary term.
I want to start by thanking you for the interest in the government's climate policy. The government has already increased the Industriklivet initiative for the industry's climate transition, strengthened Klimatklivet for an expanded investment in, among other things, charging infrastructure, increased the tax reduction for investments in solar cells, invested in energy efficiency for small houses, and expanded the initiative for the rewetting of peatlands.
The government will also submit a new climate policy action plan to the Riksdag before the end of the year. In the action plan, the government will present its policy for the entire mandate period.
We have already begun the work of creating long-term conditions to achieve the climate goals. The government's climate policy work shall be based on the Riksdag's climate goals. In accordance with the long-term goal, Sweden shall have net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest. Beyond 2045, emissions shall be net-negative.
Electrification is a crucial piece of the puzzle to reach net-zero emissions, and a significantly increased production of dispatchable electricity is a prerequisite for us to be able to electrify industry and transport, so that they do not emit fossil fuels.
Exactly how the action plan looks and which measures will be included in it, we will return to when we present our action plan, but I can already say that five measures will not be enough. The climate transition requires political decisions and measures in all sectors and at all levels of society.
It is important to have a good basis in order to be able to conduct an ambitious and effective climate policy. Therefore, we choose to, unlike the work with the previous action plan, Madam Speaker, adopt a large number of referred documents with proposals for new policy, including from authorities, public inquiries, the Climate Policy Council, the business community, and civil society. In addition, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, according to the agency's instructions, has a standing mandate to submit a basis for the climate policy action plan every four years. This basis was presented on April 13 and is now being prepared in the Government Offices.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister Romina Pourmokhtari for the answer to the question. However, the Minister's answer makes me worried. When the Minister is given the opportunity, it is these measures that she chooses to highlight. Does the Minister seriously mean that these are measures that would reduce emissions during this mandate period? Given the risk that the Minister may not be keeping track of the calendar, I would like to remind that the mandate period ends as early as September 13, 2026 – in just over three years.
The measures that the Minister highlights are important. All are fundamentally Miljöpartiet's policies - reforms that we developed and implemented during our seven years in government. We naturally welcome that the government chooses to continue letting Miljöpartiet's policies make a difference for the climate.
At the same time, it is important to emphasize that almost all of these measures primarily enable emission reductions in the future. For example, Industriklivet is an important initiative to enable technological leaps within the industry – companies within the industry can then, in different stages, receive financial support to enable emission reductions. But with this type of initiative, emissions are primarily reduced in the slightly longer term, not during this parliamentary term.
This is particularly serious because the government has simultaneously chosen to remove or significantly weaken several of the instruments that actually would have continued to reduce Sweden's emissions during this mandate period.
The Minister for Climate seems still not to understand how the climate crisis works. How serious the climate crisis becomes is, in fact, a direct result of the total amount of emissions. How much of our emissions we manage to remove in the near term is therefore extremely important when it comes to mitigating the risks we expose Sweden's and the world's citizens to. Therefore, it is not enough that Sweden reduces its emissions by 2045. We must reduce emissions now, already during this parliamentary term.
I think it is very problematic that the Minister is evasive in the answers regarding measures in the near term. This government therefore has no plan to reduce emissions during this mandate period, on the contrary. Sweden's emissions will increase.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Once again the member of Parliament is misleading us and claims that we would have no measures to reduce emissions during this mandate period. She does this despite the fact that I was very clear in my response to the interpellation with five different examples of what the government has done and that we will return with an action plan where we present the exact effects of our climate policy in a more detailed manner.
That I cannot understand that one, despite this, claims that this is not policy that would reduce our emissions. It is as if it were the case that the industry is not transitioning. Have you looked at a newspaper during the recent period? The industry is transitioning at a rapid pace.
The Swedish business community has long done its homework and worked hard to eliminate emissions not only from its direct operations but from the entire value chain. Swedish industry, which utilizes components from all over the world, goes around and asks: Do the products and the components we need for our operations generate any emissions? If so, we want you to change that.
So that is how the Swedish business community does its homework. That is how they contribute to Sweden being competitive and having clean services and products that can be exported. It is not just to reduce emissions in Sweden, but also in the rest of the world.
It is very worrying that it is claimed that the industry's transition will happen in the future, after 2026. It does not align with my worldview and the view I have on Sweden's climate transition. Sweden is leading in the climate transition. And we do this because we know that the fossil-free economy is not just something in the future. It is here now too.
The Swedish business community and Swedish companies will benefit from having transitioned early. Many of them are in the middle of their transition, and many are almost at the final stage.
There are also industries that have not found alternative methods to conduct their operations. For that very reason, this government is presenting policy even for them. This concerns, for example, CCS and BECCS. This is something that is highlighted as an important part of the whole by many scientific bodies that advocate for a rapid handling of the climate crisis.
It is very nice that the member seems to believe that Miljöpartiet has had its own majority during the past period and has invented all of Sweden's climate policy entirely by itself. But that is not the case at all. There are many parties that have been involved, including my party, in the policy that has been conducted for the climate over the past years. It is precisely for that reason that we now, when I as a liberal am the Minister for Climate and Environment, are strengthening the initiatives that we see have given effect. We are allocating additional large funds to, for example, industrikliv and klimatkliv, which we see lead to the industry not tomorrow, not in five years, but actually now transitioning. That is why we are building further on those initiatives.
Madam Speaker! Nor is it that our investments in energy efficiency for small houses will be something that happens in the future. These are large sums of money that we have announced. We have also announced it for next year, 2024. And in 2025 it will increase. These are investments in energy efficiency, and they are for those households in small houses that can do it in a sensible way. It is such things that, for example, reduce our use of gas and other things that can be bad.
Nor neither is the rewetting of peatlands something that will happen in the future. And when we invest in tax reductions for investments in solar cells, it is something that provides an impact now.
It simply is not true that we do not have any climate policy for this mandate period. I can only regret that a party that claims to protect the climate expresses itself in that way.
Many of us advocate for a management of the climate crisis in Sweden. It is seven out of eight parties that have stood behind the climate policy framework, and this government is working hard to manage the climate crisis.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! All the reforms that the Minister mentions are, as said, very good. The Green Party was involved in pushing them through in the government, and we are glad that they continue to exist. But with the policy that Romina Pourmokhtari, together with the rest of the government and the Sweden Democrats, has pushed through since she took office, emissions increase in the near term.
One intends, among other things, to significantly reduce the reduction obligation. This will lead to strongly increased emissions during the mandate period. One has lowered the carbon tax for combined heat and power, which can lead to increased fossil emissions in the electricity mix, electricity production, in Sweden, which otherwise has been almost fossil-free for decades. One is abolishing the electric car bonus in a situation where the sale of electric cars is decreasing dramatically. The use of fossil fuel cars is promoted by the government instead.
There are measures that could have led to reduced emissions in the near term, but now it is instead measures that lead to increased emissions during the mandate period.
In order for there to be any result in the total, it is necessary for the government to present political measures that reduce emissions during the mandate period. They must then compensate for all emission increases that the government has pushed through and more than that if we are to see a real reduction in emissions this mandate period compared to the time when we were in government.
This is what I am looking for. I see no proposals from the government parties for effective measures that reduce emissions in the short term, over the next three years. Instead, we have seen several measures that powerfully increase emissions in the short term.
This is completely central, because it is the sum of emissions over time that determines our climate impact. And we have received extremely clear messages from the IPCC and from the research community that emissions must decrease dramatically in the near term if we are to have a chance to meet the Paris Agreement and avoid the absolute worst consequences of climate change. There is no business as usual scenario without climate-related risks.
Not transitioning is much more expensive than implementing the measures to reduce emissions in the near term.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I want to once again share the fact that seven out of eight parties in Sweden's Riksdag have voted through Sweden's climate policy framework. Seven out of eight parties have stood behind that we shall solve the climate crisis and that we shall handle the great challenge that we face.
In any case, I do not intend to speak as if there is only one party that has pursued policies for climate policy reforms - this applies to climate steps, industrial steps, investments to reduce the costs of solar cells, and investments in wetlands. I know that there is a broad majority in Sweden to handle the climate crisis and the great challenge we have ahead of us. And there is a broad palette of policies to meet that challenge. It is precisely there that the previous government made its biggest mistake, namely that it relied too much on a single policy instrument. The reduction obligation meant that we received significantly higher diesel prices than our neighboring countries and the rest of the EU. This had devastating consequences for companies and private individuals. It is therefore not only about people who privately drive a diesel car, but also, for example, about the work machines that are to lime our lakes and waters.
We cannot have a climate policy that undermines competitiveness and individuals' household economies. It is unsustainable climate policy and something that leads to a sharp swing in how we handle our greatest challenge. It is dangerous to do it in that way, and at least I want to safeguard the broad consensus that exists in Sweden regarding handling both climate and environmental policy in a responsible and sustainable way through more than one steering tool. We shall utilize all the tools that we can provide and not solely rely on high fuel prices.
It is time for us to present a sustainable climate policy that enables us to reach our climate goals and our commitments towards the EU in an effective way, with consequences that mean that the entire Swedish society embraces the climate transition and wants to get there because it is seen that it can benefit us economically. It is not possible to stifle the Swedish economy or the Swedes' freedom and a good standard of living in order to magically solve the climate crisis on our own in that way. That is not how it works.
Madam Speaker! Emissions do not stop at national borders, and that is why it is extremely important that Sweden does not do this alone. We love to talk about what a good example we in Sweden are for all other countries in the whole world, but one is not an example if no one else follows. We must act more solidarily in the climate transition. We cannot do that by emptying all of Europe's supply of biofuels, filling our cars with it and saying "so, we were first!" and planting the flag on the moon and being proud of it.
We must solve this crisis together, and we do so, among other things, by broadening the palette of measures we use to manage the crisis. We do this, for example, by investing in rewetting our wetlands, in Klimatklivet, in Industriklivet, and in carbon capture, something that will truly make a difference for the transition of cement production, refineries, and other things that definitely have a more difficult challenge ahead of them than some other sectors. We do it by increasing the tax reduction for investments in solar cells, and we do it by making our small houses more energy-efficient.
There is much that can be done, and it is important that much is done. But it is also of the utmost importance that it is done together, Madam Speaker, and not only focus on how Sweden here and now can solve this. When we look forward, we shall plan for Sweden to reach its climate goal of net-zero emissions by 2045 in a sustainable way.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! We were also seven parties that agreed on the reduction obligation when it was introduced. Today, Romina Pourmokhtari calls it an unsustainable climate policy.
It is very important that we achieve a broad acceptance in Sweden for the climate policy. Otherwise, the consequences are obvious; we see now that one is dismantling the climate policy and increasing emissions.
I would very much like to see several parties cooperating or individually presenting climate policy proposals that are believed to have broad acceptance among the population and that contribute to us reaching the climate goals by 2030.
I do not see this from the government, however. Instead, I see that the acceptance argument is being used and that the reduction obligation, as an individual measure, accounted for too large a proportion of the reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In that situation, one chooses to remove this climate measure, but presents no alternative policy.
I am in favor of all the measures that the Minister mentions - land rewetting, carbon capture, tax reductions for solar cells, Industriklivet, Klimatklivet, green credit guarantees, Fossilfritt Sverige. The list is long of measures that Miljöpartiet has pushed through and where Miljöpartiet and Liberalerna have held the same position previously.
Just because it is so crucial that we achieve emission reductions in the near term, I oppose the implementation of several measures that actively increase emissions without presenting any alternative policy that reduces them.
When it comes to the industry's transition, we see a fantastic development in Sweden. The green industrial transition can mean an incredibly strong societal development that provides added value across the entire country and strengthens Swedish competitiveness. But from the business community, it is also very clear now that electricity is needed in the near term, skills supply, and permit processes.
In all three of these areas, the government is failing in this situation. We need long-term leadership that takes the climate transition all the way through for the entire country.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! It is fantastic to hear the member promise that Miljöpartiet takes the climate crisis so seriously that one actually stands behind the proposals that one thinks are useful and does not only sit with one's own proposals and want to push them through all the way.
It sounds very good that one is open to dialogue and wants broad paths forward, because if we do not have that, we risk standing in a much more serious situation than we do now.
If it is the case that one means that all these measures we have proposed are good but not sufficient, one must start by reviewing how a cooperation would take place at a time when Miljöpartiet would get the opportunity to govern. One has a coalition partner in Socialdemokraterna who would have wanted to invest 100 million, as opposed to our 300 million, on rewetting wetlands. Unless Miljöpartiet gets its own majority, one therefore has a set of challenges to address.
It is the case that climate policy swings back and forth, and we must put an end to that. We must produce a policy that is sustainable, that holds over time and that leads to us actually reaching our long-term goal of net zero 2045 and net negative thereafter, something that the previous government was on the verge of failing to achieve.
That is exactly why we are changing the policy, because we know that the business sector needs stable paths forward to manage the transition and make the calculations work. That is why we invest in all fossil-free energy that can contribute to our business sector succeeding in the transition. It is also why we are addressing the issue of permit processes, which have been far too protracted.
There are good opportunities for all those who emit in Sweden to move from brown to green. This government contributes to that in a sustainable way, unlike previous governments, which put all their eggs in one basket.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.