Response to interpellation 2023/24:155 on measures in the climate action plan against increased climate emissions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L argues that Sweden should pursue an ambitious and effective climate policy to reach net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest 1. L emphasizes that efficiency is crucial to avoid carbon leakage 1 and that the government is investing in charging infrastructure and expanded electricity production, including nuclear power, to enable the transition of industry and transport 2 3. L believes that the need to review the interim targets depends on new EU regulations 1 3. L wants to focus on concrete measures 4 and stimulate electrification through scrap premiums and market introduction support 4. S argues that emissions are increasing under the current government and that the 2030 targets will not be met with current policy 5. S emphasizes the importance of achieving emission reductions earlier to avoid economic consequences for the people 5 6.
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! Jytte Guteland has asked me if I have taken measures to ensure that the climate action plan will counteract an increase in Sweden's climate emissions and whether the climate goals for 2030 will remain in place or if the government wants to reduce Sweden's climate ambition for 2030.
I would like to start by thanking you for the interest in the government's climate policy work. The coalition parties agree that Sweden shall pursue an ambitious and effective climate policy to reach the climate goals. We have a strong consensus that the climate transition shall be carried out with a focus on measures that take us all the way down to net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest. Before the year is over, we will have presented a climate policy action plan that sets out the direction in the longer perspective: the plan for the entire way to net-zero.
The coalition parties also see the national milestones as important checkpoints on the way towards net-zero emissions. The new EU regulatory framework on climate, Fit for 55, implies, among other things, that the European system for emissions trading, EU ETS, has been broadened and become more ambitious. Furthermore, all countries, including Sweden, have received new commitments for 2030 in the parts that are not included in the emissions trading.
Since the Fit for 55 package is now in place with both a changed system for emissions trading and updated targets within ESR, the Swedish interim targets need to be reviewed. This will take place within the parliamentary Environmental Goals Commission. All parliamentary parties are included in the parliamentary commission, and I do not want to anticipate its work.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister, who has come to the chamber to participate in this important debate on the climate action plan.
First and foremost: Global warming is happening here and now. We see its consequences not only in other parts of the world but also in Sweden. Many are the municipalities that are currently struggling to manage the risk of floods and protect citizens from the extreme weather that is now increasing even in Europe and Sweden.
We also know that the Swedish people expect a strong, active and ambitious climate policy from the Swedish government. Sweden's government has historically taken a leading responsibility and actually been the government that has come the furthest when it has come to concrete climate policy. The situation we have now is that we are eagerly waiting to see what the current government will do to change the climate policy from being less ambitious than before – contrary to the policy that previous Swedish governments have pursued, it increases emissions – to hopefully reach the goals by 2030.
That is why I have asked what the Minister for Climate and Environment intends to do so that the climate action plan will counteract an increase in Sweden's climate emissions. It is historical that it now looks this way in Sweden. Will the climate goals for 2030 remain firm, or does the government intend to abandon the climate ambitions for 2030?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me thank the member, who constantly asks important questions about Sweden's climate policy and about the policy that I intend to pursue.
I think the member is touching on something interesting here, namely that people demand that Sweden pursues an ambitious climate policy. That is true, but people also demand that Sweden pursues an effective climate policy.
It is actually the case that much research and many opinion leaders, organizations and professors in economics point out that the climate policy one pursues must be effective. One must demonstrate domestic emission reductions. We can, for example, imagine that a solution would reduce Sweden's emissions, but then perhaps it ends with Sweden importing something from another country instead. Then the emissions increase, but in another place.
Efficiency is a very important part of the climate policy we need to pursue moving forward, especially because it is so urgent and because Sweden has now come a certain way.
What the member was touching upon is completely true – we in Sweden are leading in the climate transition. Why is that? Well, because we have fantastic hydropower and a nuclear power supply that ensures we have clean energy in Sweden. Because we have so much hydropower and nuclear power, we have been able to add a lot of wind power. All this electricity production has meant that our dirty industry and our cars and other things have been able to be changed to instead run on electricity and clean energy. This is the concrete policy that has led to Sweden's emissions being low.
What is then the next step for Sweden to continue reducing its emissions? This government believes that there needs to be a plan for how Sweden will get all the way down to zero - not a one-sided focus on the short-term reductions bit by bit. How do we get all the way to zero?
Here we see that the government's policy needs to be the right thing at the right time. For example, we see now that more and more people want to buy an electric car. Electric cars are dropping in price, and one might think it is more pleasant to charge because the prices are lower. This is something positive.
But what is it that is missing? What is it that makes one perhaps turn away from buying an electric car? One knows that the charging infrastructure is lacking. If one does not live in a city, one might think that one will not be able to travel with one's car or travel a longer distance without there being fast, powerful, and proper charging infrastructure.
That is why the government chooses to invest very heavily in the coming years on, for example, charging infrastructure. We also choose to invest very heavily in the expansion of Sweden's electricity production, because we see that this is the right thing at the right time.
I believe this is very important for our climate policy moving forward. Sweden is a leader. We have very low emissions, and we will continue to have that. We shall lead this change worldwide. But we need to ensure that all the policy we put forward is not just the biggest and best but also effective. What is it that makes the ambitious policy also become effective and generate an effect in the form of reduced emissions nationally and does not generate, for example, carbon leakage?
One thing I see when I identify the changes in the policy that we are pursuing versus the policy that previous governments have pursued is precisely this. What is it that has led to real emission reductions everywhere, and what is it that has perhaps instead led to the exporting of the emissions?
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam President! I thank the Minister for this account of the principles behind the government's climate policy. In similar debates, we have heard approximately this argumentation from the Minister regarding the policy that the government intends to pursue. It is more difficult to follow what is actually happening in practice. We see that emissions have increased with the current government. It has become more expensive to buy an electric car and more expensive to travel by public transport. The goals for 2030 also do not appear to be achievable with current policy.
That is exactly why it is important to get answers on what the government will do so that all of this is not just beautiful words but also practical action. How will the government get the pace up on its own climate work?
We can note that the government has scrapped several of the proposals we have had. Several agencies point out that the 2030 targets do not look to be achieved. The government and the minister argue in their reasoning that this is not important; it is only important to reach climate neutrality by 2045. This contradicts what the researchers say, namely that it is very important to achieve the emission reductions earlier. It is important not only for the climate but also for the Swedish people. It will become more expensive for the Swedish people to postpone the bill. It is better to stay on track and be proactive in the climate work.
The discussion about effective climate work, which has become a slogan that the Minister for Climate and Environment would like to hide behind, is just words. What was not effective about leading the new industrialization? We Social Democrats do not understand that. We ensured that Sweden could reap great profits by being the best in the world at the new technology. If one lags behind and displays a clumsy climate policy, there is no reason for companies to be at the forefront. This will mean that Sweden loses jobs.
My question to the Minister for Climate is: What can we expect to see in the climate action plan for all these words to be able to be distilled down to something that resembles action? It is, after all, a climate action plan that is being debated here today.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Those were very big words from the member, who himself has sat in the EU and negotiated all the new legislation and who is surely himself well aware that the previous government - or the one before that, however it may be - in its climate policy framework put forward that we should review the short-term goals when the EU has very much new legislation. This was, therefore, something that the red-green government itself wrote in. To paint this as a huge balloon and as if this government were to scrap goals and change and lower the ambitions is misleading and directly problematic. There is no legitimacy in such claims.
It is about adapting to all the fantastic, progressive and ambitious new legislation that the EU is now coming up with. As a liberal, I think it is good that more countries want to join the high ambition and the pace of the climate transition. What is happening at the EU level right now is something positive, and it is only positive that Sweden takes these changes into account.
Such a review has been recommended by a huge number of different instances. It is nothing that is criticized – on the contrary, the Konjunkturinstitutet and the Expert Group for Studies in Public Economics have pointed out a need to take into account everything that happens in the EU, so that Sweden does not just play its own game in its own little world. One needs to take into account everything that happens, and that is what the government intends to do.
The members of the committee are also well aware that I cannot stand here and tell you about the content of the climate action plan. However, I would very much like to tell you about what we are doing concretely right now. I can tell you about it concretely if you are more interested in hearing such things.
In practice - purely concretely - 4.1 billion will go to charging infrastructure in the coming years. This is money that would not have been there if it were not for this government.
In practice - purely concretely - over 3.5 billion will go towards initiatives to restore wetlands in the coming years. It is more than ever for restoring wetlands, thanks to this government's large budgets on the environment and climate area.
To be concrete - in practice - has the Chamber dealt with my motion to remove formulations in the Environmental Code that put a stop to new nuclear power and the possibility of industrialization and green transition, where fossil industries and fossil transport are instead to become electric-driven. That electricity is needed, but unfortunately, the opposition chose to vote no. It is fortunate that this government has a majority in the Chamber and that these proposals still pass, so that we can get new nuclear power in Sweden and continue to transition Swedish industry and the Swedish transport sector from the dirty to the clean.
It is climate policy in practice. It is climate policy in purely concrete terms.
A major reason why the previous government lost power was that the voters saw that there was no will to expand Sweden's electricity system to the extent that was needed. But we are working with more nuclear power, more wind power, and more solar panels, because that is practically needed if Sweden is to continue to transition. It does not mean that everything that has been done is bad, but that the future is electric aviation, electric trucks, fossil-free fertilizer, and green steel. All these projects are just to be thrown in the trash without electricity with the right power at the right time and in the right place, and therefore we are putting the effort where it is truly needed.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam President! I thank the Minister for the Climate and Environment again for the answer.
It is interesting to listen to the speech on energy policy, because in the chamber last week, the Minister for Enterprise toned down the difference between my party and hers and said that she did not see the polemic that the Minister for Climate is now painting. I believe you may need to discuss with each other at the ministry what your strategy vis-à-vis us shall be. From the Minister for Enterprise's side, there seems to be a willingness to rather extend a hand in these issues, but here it sounded very polemical.
For us, the polemic does not lie there but in what is being done before 2030. Here, we experience that there is a lack of decisiveness. We see that it has become more expensive to buy an electric car and to use public transport, and that many instances doubt that Sweden can reach the goals by 2030, and we are afraid that it will be reflected in the wallets of the Swedish people if the climate goals for 2030 are not met. It is therefore not just a climate issue but perhaps primarily a climate issue. The researchers are clear that it is important to bring down the emissions curve earlier and not later. But it is also a wallet issue for the Swedish people. It is very likely that it will come as a bad Christmas present to the Swedish people in the future if one does not now transition all industries at the pace that is needed.
It is extremely important to reduce emissions from the transport sector. What is the Minister for Climate doing about the 4.1 million fossil-fueled cars with internal combustion engines out on our streets? We want the Minister for Climate's answer to that.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam President! I believe the member and I could stand here for hours discussing this, because there are so many aspects to it.
I understand that the member much prefers to speak about the importance of reducing emissions and the importance of having goals. It is much more comfortable to speak about that than to speak about their actual solutions to the challenges we face.
Let me be clear that there are differences between the opposition and the government, and I do not need to check with Minister Busch to see if she agrees with me to know that she does. There are clear differences. I would much rather talk about what we are going to do concretely about the challenges than about the importance of reducing emissions. I believe that no one in Sweden or the world has missed that it is important to reduce emissions. It is a very active discussion and debate, but when it comes to what we should do for Sweden to reduce its emissions in the future, the opposition becomes somewhat more speechless. Perhaps that is why one is much more interested in talking about something else.
I do not know if the Social Democrats are interested in having 300 terawatt-hours of electricity production by 2045. Do they want to expand our electricity system to that extent? Do they see a need for two new reactors by 2035 and ten new reactors equivalent to conventional ones by 2045? Do they see such a development of Sweden? Do they see a high-energy society in the future, or do they not? How is Sweden going to get all the electricity that the industry and the transport sector demand in order to become clean? I do not know the answers to that. What are the purely concrete answers?
If one wants to know what policy this government pursues in, for example, the transport area, I can quickly say that we are introducing scrap premiums to increase the pace of the phasing out of fossil vehicles and that we have market introduction support to get electric work machines and electric light and heavy vehicles into our transport fleet. We want to stimulate electrification to a large extent in various ways.
When it comes to what the opposition thinks, however, there are absolutely still question marks.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.