Response to interpellation 2022/23:4 on Sweden's climate goals for the transport sector
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L argues that the government stands by national climate goals 1 and that climate policy needs to be adapted to the difficult situation of households and companies 1. L believes that the reduction obligation increases the proportion of fossil-free fuel 1, that climate policy must be long-term to avoid climate skepticism 2 and that the bonus-malus system is ineffective. L argues that the investments amount to billions and provide stability 3. 4 C believes that the government gives unclear signals 4, that one should start from the global climate crisis 4 and that jerky measures harm the business sector 5. 6 MP argues that the reduction obligation is a central measure 6. 7 MP argues that the government is dismantling climate policy 7 and that they will not reach the goals with the new budget 7. 8 MP argues that increasing the efficiency of engines is not enough 8. 9 MP argues that the government's measures are expensive and benefit those who already have cars 9.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Ulrika Heie has asked me what initiatives I intend to take to ensure that the transport sector's climate goals can be met by 2030, as well as what emission reductions these initiatives are expected to provide and when.
With bated breath, I would like to begin by thanking Ulrika Heie for highlighting an important aspect in her interpellation that easily falls by the wayside in this discussion on how Sweden should reach our climate goals. It is a very important message that Sweden's new, liberal and bourgeois government stands by the high national climate goals that exist. That unity within the government is a message of strength for Sweden internationally and an important part of the long-term perspective that is absolutely crucial for our climate work.
All politics, including Sweden's climate policy, needs to start from the tough situation that Swedish households and companies now face. Sweden is heading into a recession. At the same time, inflation is soaring. And Russia's war against Ukraine is pushing up fuel prices. The energy war, in combination with previous governments' decommissioning of nuclear power plants, has led to it being a shock for the Swedes when the electricity bills have landed in the mailboxes recently.
It is the government's responsibility that Sweden reaches our high-set climate goals. It is also the government's responsibility to change the policy, the path towards the goals, when they hit too hard against the individual.
When it comes to the reduction obligation, it is entirely correct that it constitutes a good way to increase the proportion of fossil-free fuel. It is fast, and it looks good. It is also correct that the effect of the reduction obligation is difficult to assess. Sweden moved forward alone with the highest requirements in the EU at the same time as there was a shortage of precisely sustainable biofuels in the country. This has, in addition to contributing to a difficult economic situation, led to the fact that Sweden is currently using a large part of the entire world's production of renewable fuel that is not produced from palm oil.
In just over a year, on 1 January 2024, the reduction obligation for the remainder of the mandate period will therefore be lowered to be in line with the EU's requirements. The EU is the world's largest environmental organization. It is there that we are currently negotiating where the minimum level should be. Since the issue is still being negotiated, it is not possible to determine the effect of the changes in the reduction obligation with certainty yet. I hope that the negotiation will lead to good results.
Vehicles and real estate are also about to be included in the EU's emissions trading system. When that happens, the reduction obligation has in a way played out its role, because we are then moving towards the instruments for the transport sector becoming EU-common. It is very positive, as it is much more powerful and effective to work across all of Europe than for Sweden to choose its own path in climate policy.
In the Tidö Agreement, the coalition partners establish that Sweden's climate and environmental policy shall be ambitious and effective. Swedish competitiveness shall be protected. Our common climate and environmental policy is based on the stewardship concept and strives to find the most cost-effective measures that simultaneously do not harm industries and the countryside.
The utility of the supports, the instruments, and the state organization in the climate area will be reviewed. This review should also include an assessment of the interaction with the instruments that exist at the EU level.
The government will also allocate funds for expanded charging infrastructure between support for public charging stations for light traffic and support for the electrification of heavy transport, among other things. This initiative has two focuses: partly to support the expansion in areas where it is currently slow, for example in rural areas, and where the economic conditions for operation of this are poorer; partly to remove obstacles and lower costs for and set requirements on the expansion of charging infrastructure. The obstacles that hinder the expansion, which have been analyzed by, among others, the Swedish Energy Agency and the National Board of Housing, must be assessed so that we can then take relevant measures.
Alongside this, we also continue with the construction of the infrastructure for electrified heavy transport. We know that the path that Europe and Sweden are taking is electric. Therefore, we must dare to make long-term, large-scale investments so that Sweden will be at the forefront in the fossil-free transition of the transport sector.
During 2023, the government shall, according to the Climate Act, present a climate action plan to the Riksdag. In it, we will provide more detail and with heavier evidence for the government's climate policy for the upcoming mandate period. But some of the initiatives and measures that we are making and taking specifically to transition the transport sector have also been presented earlier, in the budget bill.
Ulrika Heie (C)
Madam Speaker! I would like to start by thanking Romina Pourmokhtari for the answer to my interpellation. I will not read out the interpellation because it, for those who are curious, is available to be read. But I must say that I am a bit surprised by the answer I receive. I wish that the Minister for Climate and Environment were somewhat more concrete, even though she says that it is difficult to be concrete in this situation.
The climate crisis we face is by no means new. We have worked for many years to develop tools to be able to counteract it. We have made decisions on binding targets to reduce emissions in the EU and so on. We must, of course, fight to achieve them. In that case, words are not enough. Political decisiveness is also needed.
In the interpellation answer, the minister says that our climate policy needs to be based on the tough situation that Swedish households and companies face. That is one of the statements that surprises me. What affects our environment is, after all, transboundary. Should one then base it on something as narrow as the situation of Swedish households and not on the situation that all of humanity finds itself in? It is about the climate challenge that we see.
Right now, the major climate summit is taking place. We see alarming images of how the development looks across the entire world. That a representative who says we should have an ambitious and effective climate policy says that we must make a reduction because Swedish households are in a difficult situation surprises me very much. We have binding goals when it comes to reducing emissions from the transport sector.
I perceived it as the government formers saying that one stands by Sweden's climate goals. But now it sounds somewhat more vague to me. We are told that the climate policy should be ambitious and effective, but the Minister for the Environment says nothing about whether one should stand by the climate goals that exist.
As a member of the Centre Party, I am aware that the cost situation currently hitting Swedish households is very difficult for many, not least in the countryside. In that case, this becomes even more incomprehensible. Today, perhaps 5 million cars are rolling on our roads. 4.5 million of those cars are not rechargeable but are powered by gasoline or diesel. Shall we deprive those car owners of the opportunity to participate in the climate transition by saying that we will not include renewables in those fuels? Shall people who drive to work and drop their children off at daycare or scouts feel that they have no opportunities to participate in the climate transition if they do not buy electric cars? Shall we not give our companies the opportunity to transition?
Just as the Minister for the Environment said, we need to import fuels in order to be able to blend fuel and fulfill the reduction obligation. But we see fantastic opportunities regarding entrepreneurship, engineering, and business. One wants to be involved in creating the conditions for increased production and contribute to increasing the renewable in Sweden and other countries. But the current government gives completely different signals, and now they are saying: We do not know how we are to do it - should we really make these investments?
Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister for the Environment to be a little more concrete. There is an ambition to strengthen the climate work, but what is presented in the budget is that you are slaughtering the reduction obligation, abstaining from implementing the new travel deduction, and removing the environmental car bonus. Point by point, when the effects of the recently submitted budget are shown: It is difficult to assess how it will turn out. There will be somewhat increased emissions. There will be moderately increased emissions. There will be an increased fuel consumption. It cannot be assessed. It is difficult to assess. All the time, these are the kinds of things one has to read. Please, Minister for the Environment – be a little more concrete about how we are to be ambitious in climate policy!
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! The reduction obligation contributes to our ability to transition the existing vehicle fleet so that it can reduce emissions. It is a central measure that has had a great effect.
There are three ways we can work with to reduce emissions from transport and reach the goal of at least 70 percent lower emissions by 2030 compared to 2010. The first is to work with switching fuels in the existing vehicle fleet, which the reduction obligation has done. The second is to replace the vehicle fleet faster, for example through bonuses for electric cars, so that those who can afford to buy new cars buy electric cars. Then we get them out faster in the total fleet. The third is to reduce the total number of kilometers driven.
On all these three points, the new government has issued decisions that cause us to increase emissions. They are abolishing the reduction obligation, removing the bonus for electric cars, changing the travel deduction so that fewer sustainable modes of transport are included, and reducing the appropriations for the upgrading of the railway.
I have great understanding for the fact that there are many in our country who are in a tough economic situation. Those who have the smallest margins need to be supported in this situation. That is what we in Miljöpartiet want to do. But what is also needed is that the climate work is maintained, because we all, even those with the smallest margins, are affected by the consequences of climate change.
What I see with the government's policy is that even the countryside and the business sector are affected by the rapid and sudden changes. As the Center Party mentioned here earlier, the reduction obligation has delivered long-term rules of the game for companies. Investments have been made to achieve a sustainable production of domestically produced biofuels. This has led to business development, entrepreneurship, and innovation, especially in the countryside, which is very important in this situation.
In this situation, beautiful words about an ambitious climate policy are not enough. The emission reductions that do not occur today, next year, and in the coming years will require even more substantial emission reductions in the future. It is the sum of emissions over time that determines our climate impact.
Therefore, I ask: What concrete measures does one want to implement in the near term so that the goal of at least 70 percent lower emissions from domestic transport is reached by 2030?
Daniel Helldén (MP)
Madam Speaker! I begin by congratulating Romina Pourmokhtari on her appointment as Minister for Climate and Environment. It is nice for Stockholm. Unfortunately, it is not as nice for the Liberals or for Sweden. The Minister for Environment and the government are in the process of dismantling the entire climate and environmental policy. We see it. Everyone involved in this area and commenting notes that the government is removing the measures that exist, especially in the transport area.
This is problematic when it comes to meeting our climate and environmental goals, in this context, above all the climate goals. In the government's budget bill, it states very clearly that with the previous measures, which have existed until now, we will meet the climate goals for the transport sector until 2030. With the new government's budget, we will not meet them. It is stated in black and white that is the case. Still, the government and the minister say that the climate ambitions are fixed and shall apply. I find it difficult to believe this.
When the minister answers the interpellation, she begins to talk about how the EU is in the process of changing things. But we have our climate goals. The Swedish Riksdag must ensure that we reach them. All parties stand behind those goals, except for your coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna, who say that they might at some point be able to stand behind them. One cannot go and wait for some others to perhaps make some changes. The EU is good in the climate area, but we cannot put all our resources there. We must constantly have budgets that ensure we meet the climate goals.
What you should have done is to keep the measures that exist now. You should have kept the travel deduction. You should not have lowered the price of petrol and diesel by 14 öre and 41 öre respectively, which costs 7 billion kronor. You should have kept the bonus-malus system, which makes electric cars roll out. Then you can come up with other measures that you do not have in any package but that are to come in other contexts later.
This is putting the entire climate policy on exception. It is not responsible. I am incredibly worried about where it will land.
You scrapped the bonus-malus system in a day. Every new fossil fuel car on the roads is a lost climate car. The cars that are rolling out now will be rolling for 17 years. We know that the bonuses have a large effect.
It is as if you have not been able to think about it, or else the Sweden Democrats have simply taken complete control of the entire policy. Before the election, I collaborated with the Liberals in Stockholm City Hall. We have produced very good climate and environmental policy and have rolled it out. It has truly been a support. Now the Liberals are going straight in with the Sweden Democrats and are driving their policy in the climate and environmental area.
I am worried. Where is this going to end? It would have been more responsible if you, straight up in the budget, had let everything remain. Then you can sit in your chambers at the departments and think about new measures, and then we will see where it lands.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Then I shall try to succeed in the challenge of answering all your wise questions in a short time.
Ulrika Heie points out that we want to protect Swedish households in climate policy and that it would be a problem to have that as a starting point. I share that. The starting point of climate policy is to protect the climate and achieve the high goals that Sweden has.
It is about weighing in that aspect, which according to us has previously been missing. We see the result of it having been missing in the response we receive from the Swedish people in the area of climate policy. It needs to be taken in as an aspect.
If it is the case that we all here safeguard a long-term perspective in climate policy, it applies that the policy being put forward and which is to become reality among people also hangs together and that there is a response that is positive and does not create a climate skepticism.
COP 27 and the international climate negotiations are also mentioned. I will be attending on Sunday, and I look forward to doing so. At COP, the EU negotiates together. There is probably no one I could meet there who could say that the EU's positions or ambitions are weak and thus that Sweden's ambitions are weak.
In the negotiations taking place there, we will proudly present ourselves as a country that is at the forefront even for the EU's transition and as a country that has climate goals that are even higher than those that the EU has set for itself. The EU takes the greatest global leadership in the transition.
Regarding the reduction obligation and the criticism that I lean towards the EU in that case, the government proposes that we should align with the EU level. Thus, it becomes relevant to talk about what the EU level is. How are the negotiations going there? That is an important aspect in all of this.
It is also important to highlight, as I did in the response, that Sweden alone has moved forward with the very highest reduction obligation in the EU. It does not mean that we are to abolish the reduction obligation entirely, but only that we are to harmonize it to the level that exists in the EU and is currently still being negotiated.
It is also a temporary measure in an extraordinary situation where we have a tough economy and are heading into a recession. We have high inflation that is being fueled. Every time one goes to the store, one notices how the purchasing power decreases and decreases. We have a war in our vicinity that is pushing up fuel prices. All of this makes a temporary measure in an extraordinary situation, according to the government, necessary.
Elin Söderberg from Miljöpartiet mentions that there are three ways to reduce our emissions from the transport sector. I do not share that view. I believe there are four ways to reduce our emissions from the transport sector.
It concerns the parts that she herself mentions. It concerns that we electrify and transition to a fossil-free vehicle fleet. It concerns that we ensure that the fuels used in Sweden are fossil-free.
It is also a matter of us reviewing the transport efficiency that exists in our country. How can we ensure that travel takes place in a more efficient way? It is about people having simple ways to get where they need to go so that they do not hinder the journey they are on and the emissions that follow. Finally, one can also see that one can have more fuel-efficient vehicles.
There are several measures to be taken. We are working on several of them. How can we ensure that the energy efficiency of vehicles, for example, increases and that consumption drops as quickly as possible?
These are some examples of concrete measures that we want to work with in addition to what is stated in the budget. But after three weeks, what is stated in the budget is what we have to present so far. I can assure you that we are working very hard to always find new ways to tackle the transport sector's emissions.
Ulrika Heie (C)
Madam Speaker! Now the Minister for Climate and Environment said that this is seen as a temporary measure. But the lack of continuity means that the efficiency needed in environmental and climate policy will not be achieved.
It is long-term investments that companies need to make for the transition. To then point out that we have different temporary measures directly harms Swedish business. One needs to have long-term stable conditions to be able to succeed with this.
We have binding climate goals to reduce emissions by 50 percent by 2030. The transport sector accounts for approximately 80 percent of that. The remainder is accounted for by agriculture and forestry. If the transport part is not to achieve its climate goals - because the conditions for it are reduced when the reduction obligation is reduced with the proposal that is currently pending and which will begin to apply from next year - who will then be responsible for the remaining reduction?
Is it agriculture and forestry, which today accounts for 20 percent, that is to be further reduced? We are in a situation where we need more food and where food production is incredibly central. If we are to reduce it, we are talking about land in fallow and reduced livestock farming. We might be talking about a meat tax, I do not know.
If we are now talking about that you should think in the government and come up with new proposals, the question remains: What is on the table? What is being discussed? There is now a tool that does not have a very fancy name, the reduction obligation, but which nevertheless works.
There is a tool that reduces emissions. It is said now that if we maintain our work for the environment and climate, we will reach the goals. Now the government points out that with the budget it presents, it is the position that we will not reach the goals.
It is a bit tragic to read the Finance Minister's statement this morning. She says: When we don't reach the goals, we don't reach the goals. Where did the high ambitions go? Where did the great solemn orders go that we are a pioneering country? It is about how we in different ways create conditions for the Swedish business sector and so on.
I know that other parts of the government are looking at this. There, it is said that emission reductions in other parts of the energy sector will take ten years. What do temporary reductions of the reduction obligation mean if we do not have any other tools in place until in ten years?
The goal is 2030. Should we, as a country that has the prerequisites, reduce our climate ambitions? It is nice that the Minister for the Environment says she will be proud when she travels to the COP 27 meeting. But when a budget has been presented that reduces climate ambitions, I think it feels a bit contradictory to say in that way that one is proud of Sweden's climate policy when one is heading in another direction.
Now it is not a government party but a so-called cooperation party that says that it has not seen any climate crisis and so on. I can stand here and close my eyes and say that I do not see anything. Everyone understands that I do not see anything if I close my eyes. But that is not how it works.
It is incredibly important that we provide people with the conditions to be able to participate in the climate transition. Do not then lock out over 4 million cars from being able to participate in that climate transition by making it so that people do not have the opportunity to acquire an electric car.
Does the Finance Minister's statement mean that if we do not reach the goal, we do not reach the goal? Is that how simply the government takes the question?
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! There are four ways to influence emissions from transport. I did not mention the fourth one, making engines more fuel-efficient, because that is something we are working on at the EU level with euro classes. It is also a tool that means if we have more efficient vehicles but more cars, it does not lead to emission reductions.
If it were the case that we needed to come down to a few percent lower emissions from the transport sector, the efficiency of engines would be relevant. But we need to come down to zero fossil emissions in the long run, and quite soon if we are to meet the Paris Agreement. Still, I do not hear a single answer here, neither on how you will improve electrification when you scrap the electric car bonus, how you will replace the fuels when you remove the reduction obligation, how you will achieve increased transport efficiency when you worsen the travel deduction - which particularly affects rural areas and the countryside - or how you will get more efficient engines. The question remains: How are the climate goals to be reached?
It appears in the budget bill that with the policy established when Miljöpartiet was in government, we would have reached the 2030 goals, and with the proposals put forward by the new government, the 2030 goals are judged not to be reached. I believe that one needs to be clear towards the Swedish people: Either you work to reach the climate goals or you do not. What you do in practice shows that you no longer stand behind the climate goals. Which other government representative travels to COP 27 and has an increase in domestic emissions of 10 percent in their luggage?
Daniel Helldén (MP)
Madam Speaker! The Minister refers the reduction obligation to the EU and says that they might do something good there that will make this resolve itself, that is to say that you cannot reduce as much as you want to. Let us say that the EU does not do it – they will likely not raise the levels to the level we have today. Then we will not meet our climate goals. Sending the question away and saying that the EU is ambitious does not work. We have our own goals in the transport area, and we shall meet them. Otherwise, you will have to change the goals. I really hope you do not do that, because you claim that the government shall stick to the goals.
It is strange - the question ends up somewhere, but you cannot say where you are going to solve the problem, but it shall be somewhere in some future. Maybe it is in Egypt that you shall solve it, or maybe the UN does something - I do not know. Somewhere else it shall be done.
You speak of these being temporary measures. You could not lower the reduction obligation in the coming year, but you are going to do so in 2024. Right now, it is a war, and we have high prices for gasoline and diesel. In that case, it is a bit strange to proceed with this, because perhaps the gasoline and diesel prices will not be so high in 2024. And you have lowered the reduction obligation, so you are sort of solving a problem that might not exist then.
Furthermore, it is the case that both this matter regarding the reduction obligation and that you are lowering the prices of petrol and diesel - now it became marginal - is becoming terribly expensive. The whole issue of travel deductions and so on ended up in this pot. It is also about bonus-malus.
What you are doing now is that you are pumping in a lot of money to, among other things, Stockholm, to Östermalm and everyone who sits there with their cars. You should have looked for some smart measures if it is those who are short of money who need these measures, but you do not do that, instead, you just take a broad approach and find nothing.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
Before we continue the debate, I would like to remind that a member who, in a debate, speaks to another speaker should use the speaker's first and last name or the minister's title and not address each other as "you" or "you" (du or ni).
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me be very clear: There are climate goals that we want to achieve that Sweden's government stands by. When it comes to the transport sector, we will not use the same method as the previous government, that is to say a reduction obligation that is one of the highest among EU countries and which hits those who drive cars hard.
This is partly a question of supply and demand and that the biofuels that one wants to blend in to reduce emissions from the fuels do not meet the existing supply.
Ulrika Heie, C, then speaks, among other things, about how the market is now transitioning and that production of biofuels is being increased. It is certainly excellent that it is being done, because we will continue to have a strong reduction obligation for aviation, we will continue to be in great need of exporting the biofuels produced in Sweden and we will continue to use biofuels for blending even of Swedish diesel and gasoline. We are not removing the reduction obligation, but we are harmonizing it with the EU level after January 1, 2024. It is a level that has not yet been established, even though the Environment Party's Daniel Helldén assumes that it will not be higher.
When it comes to the bonus-malus system, it is very good that we can encourage people to buy an electric car. But when taxpayers are to pay tens of thousands of kronor for someone's brand-new electric car - something that most people can only dream of - it is a method of conducting climate policy that is not sustainable. This applies especially when a certain amount is budgeted for the bonus and far more people make use of it. Then we lose billions from the budget to finance people's new electric cars. It is an inefficient method of conducting climate policy also according to the National Institute of Economic Research and according to many others who review the Swedish economy.
When we say that we want to conduct a more effective climate policy, we mean that we do not want to spend money on things that do not result in significantly reduced carbon emissions in relation to the money one puts in. How can we get the most reduction in emissions with the money we put in? There, the bonus in the bonus-malus system is a prime example of how we pump in billions but do not get out the proportion of reduced emissions that would have been motivating.
What can be done instead, in concrete terms, to invest effectively and ambitiously in climate policy? This concerns, among other things, the parts that we have presented in our budget. It is a matter of expanding Klimatklivet, which previous governments have started – not just to maintain it, but to expand it and invest large sums of millions into developing it.
It is a matter of also developing Industriklivet, which previous governments have started and which we see is having an effect. It contributes to companies, one after another, daring to make decisions that go in a positive direction. In that case, we want to allocate more money to Industriklivet; we want to expand this initiative and not just maintain it.
It is also a matter of seeing where the previous government had overly low ambitions. Where was it that one did not add enough money? In that case, the wetlands are something that I, as a Liberal, am very proud to provide funds for. If we are to achieve an actual change for the wetlands we have in Sweden and contribute both to the carbon sink they constitute and to biological diversity, it must be long-term.
That is why I am proud that we are adding 200 billion so that we reach 300 even for 2023 and contribute to a long-term climate policy. But, Madam Speaker, we must work smarter than previous governments have done.
Ulrika Heie (C)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for many answers! But they perhaps were not as concrete as I had hoped when I wrote the interpellation.
Now, however, a concrete proposal came: that one should expand Klimatklivet and invest million amounts. Forgive me if I seem to be nitpicking, but there is a difference between millions and billions. When one now says that it is million amounts that are being invested when one makes billion cuts in other places, it doesn't quite rhyme.
I did not mention other parts of the budget. Now the minister himself mentioned the wetlands and says that it is such a fantastically large investment. We can return to that in another debate and then talk about what this actually means and does not mean.
When one says that we should harmonize the levels to the EU's level, it sounds almost harmonious, but it is rather a substantial reduction. This worries me very much, because one is essentially saying that one is not taking responsibility for reaching the climate goals by 2030.
I asked a very concrete question in my previous post. If the transport sector is not to reach the goal, the other part is land and forest. Do the Liberals intend to push in the coalition government that it is land and forest that should take a significantly larger share to reach the climate goal? That worries me very much. We have a situation with war and crisis in the world and need to increase our food production as much as possible. To then say that the sector should contribute to reducing production so that we can reach the climate goals is very foreign to me.
There are other measures. There are other tools. The Centre Party has presented such measures. It is not necessary to lower the reduction obligation to create opportunities for households' own finances. There are other tax incentives that could be used.
I want to wish the Minister for Climate the strength to continue pushing so that the climate goals are actually reached in this coalition government. It should not be as the Minister for Finance says, that we have to see if we reach the goals.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! It was good that Ulrika Heie reminded me that millions was a mild description of the investments we are making. It is true that it concerns billions. For example, we are increasing Klimatklivet by 400 million in 2023, by 500 million in 2024, and by an additional 500 million in 2025. When it comes to Industriklivet, we are investing 600 million per year 2023-2025. If one adds this up, we are therefore talking about billion-scale measures.
However, it is not the type of initiatives that we have seen from previous governments. It is not this pleasant initiative that sounds very good right now, but it is the long-term investment that pays off when the effects are achieved, quite simply. It is a long-term investment that provides stability for both the market and the individuals. They can know that in Swedish politics there is still a security in that the governments continue to work towards the climate goals that exist.
They are long-term investments. It does not sound as quick and good as the reduction obligation, but it is the electrification we are moving towards. In that case, it is a matter of having the courage to invest and the courage to commit early so that that development also benefits Sweden's goals for a fossil-free transport sector.
It is true that our investments are larger than I may have mildly expressed. But they are not enough. We must do more. I hope that you look forward to reading the climate action plan that we will present during the year, where we obviously need to explain how we will succeed with the high goals that Sweden has and which this government also continues to have every intention of achieving.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.