Response to interpellation 2023/24:34 on the transport sector's transition from fossil to fossil-free
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 is increasing the pace of transition through investments in charging infrastructure, biofuel production, and support for fossil-free vehicles 1. L wants to expand the electricity system 1 and considers it irresponsible to set large requirements for biofuels that are met through HVO imports 1 2. L argues that the reduction obligation is being scaled back because it drove up the diesel price 2, and that the removal of the electric car bonus has led to lower prices 2. L wants to invest in market introduction support for light trucks and scrapping premiums 3. MP argues that the government is creating a setback to fossil dependency 4 and that the policy increases emissions 5. SD argues that the reduction obligation is economically unsustainable 6 and that the government is doing a good job 7.
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! Elin Söderberg has asked me how I mean that the government has increased the pace of transition in the transport sector from fossil to fossil-free.
In accordance with the Climate Act (2017:720), the government's climate policy work is based on the premise that Sweden shall have no net emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by 2045 at the latest, to subsequently achieve negative emissions.
The government is making major investments in the transition of the transport sector in this year's budget. In parallel, work continues on the government's climate policy action plan, where the transition of the transport sector will be an important part. The action plan will be submitted to the Riksdag before the end of the year in accordance with the Climate Act.
To meet the climate goals and enable the green transition, Sweden needs to take further steps regarding the electrification of industry and transport. The climate transition therefore requires a reinforcement of our electricity production. Sweden needs to plan to be able to meet an electricity demand of at least 300 terawatt-hours by 2045. Therefore, the government wants the electricity system to be expanded so that people and companies throughout Sweden receive a secure electricity supply with stable and competitive electricity prices which can, among other things, contribute to the transition of our transport sector.
In the budget bill for 2024, the government proposes major investments in measures to increase the pace of the transport sector's climate transition. In this way, conditions are created for electric road transport to more rapidly replace fossil fuels.
The Government proposes a reinforcement of Klimatklivet with 800 million kronor in 2024. This means that the appropriation totals approximately 5 billion kronor next year, which is more than ever before. Klimatklivet finances, as the member surely knows, a number of measures that are completely central to the transport sector's transition, including investments in charging infrastructure, biofuel production, and support for fossil-free vehicles.
Furthermore, a new temporary market introduction support for light trucks is proposed, amounting to 450 million kronor during 2024. The appropriation is expected to increase to 550 million kronor in 2025 and to 660 million kronor in 2026. The Government also proposes the introduction of a temporary scrapping premium for those who scrap an older car with an internal combustion engine and instead purchase or lease an electric car. For this, the Government allocates 250 million kronor during 2024 and the same amount during 2025. In addition, the Government intends to carry out a broad review of the tax conditions for low-emission cars. The Government will return to this.
In certain vehicle segments, Madam Speaker, electrification has not come as far. In order to quickly get electric and environmentally friendly heavy vehicles and work machines out, the government proposes significantly increased appropriations for the market introduction of new climate-smart technology. An additional 992 million kronor is proposed for 2024, 1,493 million kronor for 2025, and 2,023 million kronor for 2026. Sweden is also ahead when it comes to the expansion of charging infrastructure for electric transport. In the budget, the government proposes targeted investments to increase and extend the support for charging infrastructure for light and heavy vehicles for the years 2025 and 2026.
To facilitate electrification, the government has, in addition to the budget investments, tasked the Transport Agency with designing pilot activities with heavier trucks, powered by alternative fuels, on a B-driving license.
Climate work is not limited to national measures. Sweden is proactive within the EU to transition the transport sector in Europe. During Sweden's presidency of the EU, several essential legal acts were adopted in the EU's climate package Fit for 55. According to newly decided carbon requirements, no newly manufactured light vehicles with emissions will be allowed to be sold within the EU from 2035. A new emissions trading system will be introduced for, among other things, road transport, which sets a common price on emissions from the transport sector within the EU and, in the long run, will enable a phasing out of fossil fuels.
The EU's institutions have also agreed on binding requirements for the expansion of charging and refueling infrastructure, as well as requirements for reduced emissions from shipping and aviation. These are important decisions that affect the transition of our transport sector. Yesterday, I was also able to personally contribute to us making decisions on stricter carbon requirements for heavy vehicles.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! It is remarkable that the Minister for Climate and Environment, in response to a direct question regarding the transport sector's transition, chooses not to mention the national goal for the transport sector's transition by 2030, but instead highlights Sweden's national goal for all territorial greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.
My question concerned the Minister for Climate and Environment's claim during the special debate on climate adaptation that the government is working hard to reach Sweden's set climate goals by increasing the pace of transition in the transport sector from fossil to fossil-free. The claim is directly incorrect. In the climate annex to the government's budget bill, it can be read: "As a result of decisions made between July 1, 2022, and July 1, 2023, emissions are estimated to increase by 5.9-9.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents by 2030." The reason is primarily decisions that the current government has taken and which affect the pace of transition in just the transport sector from fossil to fossil-free in the wrong direction.
It is incorrect to claim that the transition rate is increasing. We do not even have a transition rate today. What the government is doing for the transport sector is rather a setback to fossil dependency.
Why does the Minister for Climate and Environment not mention the 2030 target for the transport sector? And why does the Minister for Climate and Environment claim that the government is increasing the pace of transition from fossil to fossil-free when the fossil share in the transport sector and the fossil emissions are expected to increase as a result of the government's policy?
Beatrice Timgren (SD)
Madam Speaker! Before I continue the interpellation debate, I want to express my deep sympathy and sorrow for the families and relatives affected by yesterday's horrific act of terrorism. Two lives have been lost, and one person is injured. I feel a mixture of sorrow and shock but also concern. All indications point to that evil attack being specifically targeted at Swedes.
The goal of terrorism is to undermine our democracy, our freedom of speech, and our way of life. That is why it is important that we stand united behind our values and do not yield an inch to the evil of terrorism.
With that said, I want to address this interpellation. I want to start by asking a question. There is a lot of talk about us increasing the use of fossil fuels and the fossil emissions from the transport sector. What has Sweden's ambitious reduction obligation actually achieved? From the red-green side, it often appears as if the reduction obligation, in particular the Swedish reduction obligation, is to save the climate. But is that really the case?
Our reduction obligation is today three times as large as in other comparable countries. Several indicators point out that it is economically unsustainable for society and that it fuels inflation. It affects the countryside, where high diesel prices already constitute a heavy burden. It also affects farmers and the transport sector negatively. Ultimately, it affects us consumers.
Miljöpartiet rarely cares about consequences, or they do not see what consequences their policy leads to. I do not know which is worse, Madam Speaker. But I can at least state that consequence analysis has not been Miljöpartiet's strong suit. The Social Democrats and Miljöpartiet are not exactly known for seeing things coming.
We must also remember that biofuels also have an ecological cost. When it comes to the global impact, Sweden has almost half of the HVO production in Europe and about 30 percent of the global production. This means that the world market would have difficulty meeting a fully expanded reduction obligation.
If other countries were to try to follow suit, as the red-greens often emphasize, it would quickly become apparent that there is not enough raw material. Miljöpartiet and the red-greens would have to run alone in their symbolically green leadership jersey only to discover that no one is running behind; it is simply not possible. Perhaps it would work if one were to clear-cut every rainforest and only grow for biofuels. But that would lead to a humanitarian and ecological catastrophe.
Our view is that biofuels also affect the global market. We import a large amount of animal fat from slaughterhouse waste from countries such as Argentina and Australia. This in turn often forces them to use fossil oils. It simply becomes what is commonly called a zero-sum game.
Not even the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency can say with certainty what actual climate benefit our current reduction obligation entails. It shows an acute need to reassess our strategy and create a policy that is economically sustainable and that actually effectively reduces our climate emissions. It should not just look good on paper. This is something that this government and not least our Environment Minister are working very hard on.
Staffan Eklöf (SD)
Madam Speaker! We are now debating the transport sector's transition from fossil to fossil-free. But my thoughts go first and foremost to the victims of yesterday's cowardly act of terrorism and to their relatives.
When it comes to the subject of this interpellation debate, it is important that the transition to fossil-free is carried out in a realistic manner. I am therefore pleased with the change of government and the change of environment minister.
The National Audit Office has audited the reduction obligation and its implementation. In report number 13, it points out that the original decision on the reduction obligation risks leading to direct and indirect climate and environmental effects in Sweden and other countries. The National Audit Office states that the amount of biomass is limited and that there is a risk that raw materials used for biofuel production will be replaced with fossil raw materials in their alternative areas of use, just as we have heard my party colleague Beatrice Timgren report.
Further increases in demand from Sweden and other countries can also result in countries with regulatory frameworks that have weaker environmental requirements instead purchasing biofuels that have much poorer climate benefits. Calculations have shown that palm oil even leads to a larger climate footprint than fossil fuels if cultivation occurs in rainforest areas. Only a few years ago, the red-green government accepted such biofuels.
This means that the climate benefit that would be achieved with high biofuel blends risks becoming a chimera when the competition for the biofuels becomes too great. Yes, of course it would fulfill the EU's requirements for Sweden. But then the global climate benefit does not become real. Despite that, the public discussion in Sweden focuses only on reaching the goals we have committed to reaching. That is what we heard in the contribution from Miljöpartiet.
I wonder what the Minister thinks about the importance of achieving reduced global emissions when we are struggling to reach the goals that Sweden has committed to reaching. And what does the Minister think about the previous government's strategy in this regard?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! The first thing I want to bring up is that Member Söderberg mentions that it is remarkable that I do not bring up the transport goal. I shall explain why it is not at all remarkable. It is because I, unlike Miljöpartiet, do not want to speak only about what goals we have and that we have a climate crisis. I want to speak about the solutions. That is one of the main reasons why I initially sought out Folkpartiet and not Miljöpartiet, even though I was a very climate-engaged young person. I heard a lot of talk about the problems but very few discussions about the solutions.
If one looks at what needs we have to seriously transition not only our transport sector but also our industry, one sees that it is about the amount of electricity and energy. To shut down nuclear power plants would be very foolish, and to make political decisions that ensure one shuts down nuclear power plants is very foolish for the climate transition and for the transport sector's transition. If we seriously want to transition not only passenger car traffic but also heavy transport and other larger vehicles that roll on our roads all day with loads and other things that need to go back and forth in our elongated country, electricity is required. That requires that one does not exclude individual types of energy.
Madam Speaker! In addition to this, the reduction obligation has been discussed. I want to raise an aspect that was not taken up here. I agree with the view that it is not ambitious policy to set large requirements for biofuels that one meets through HVO imports. It drives up prices in other countries and means that they cannot transition and that they export products in an unreasonable way. It is irresponsible. It is a reality that the government must deal with when the diesel price rises by 60 percent in two years, as a consequence of both the pace of the reduction obligation and the war raging in Ukraine. That is the reason why the reduction obligation is now being scaled down.
Madam Speaker! Something we do not talk about often enough is that there was no government alternative in the election campaign that spoke about keeping fuel prices at the level they were at. And the fuel prices were a consequence of, among other things, the reduction obligation, which was the reason that the previous government succeeded in reaching one of Sweden's many climate goals: the short-term transition specifically for the transport sector.
There was no government alternative, Madam Speaker, that did not want to change the fuel prices. It is remarkable. I note how Sweden's largest party, the Social Democrats, still do not give any indication of how they stand on the issue. In that case, it is easy instead to only speak about goals – to speak about the fact that there are goals, that they shall be followed, that there is a climate crisis in Sweden and in the world. That is true, and we agree on that. Therefore, it becomes more relevant to talk about what one actually wants to do about the matter.
Madam Speaker! The electric car bonus has also been highlighted. It is indicated that the government does not want to transition the transport sector because we have removed the electric car bonus. Here, I want to highlight the strong criticism that has been voiced by both the Swedish National Audit Office and the National Institute of Economic Research against spending such large sums to finance entirely new electric cars. We noticed when the bonus was removed that electric car prices went down and that electric car sales continue at a rapid pace. It is one of many upcoming examples that this government is conducting effective and ambitious climate policy, in contrast to the previous government.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! It is pleasant that there are many contributions in the debate. Then we get the opportunity to clarify a great deal of things.
For us in Miljöpartiet, climate policy is about protecting the population from risk. I believe that one of the most important missions for a government is to protect its entire population from risks, whether it concerns external threats to our state, internal threats, or in this case, climate-related threats.
At the same time, we see a fantastic potential to seize the opportunities that the climate transition entails. The climate transition is a fantastic driver for innovation, social development, and better development towards a sustainable society with better air, better quality of life, cleaner local environments and more pleasant urban environments, as well as better community services in rural and sparsely populated areas. We can take advantage of the transition to build a good and sustainable society in the whole country.
It is against that background that I believe several of the entries in the debate need to be seen. What happens if we do not deliver climate policy – if we, as the government does, increase emissions in the transport sector, which means that we do not reach Sweden's commitments within the EU by 2030, and then also not the Swedish climate goal for the transport sector by 2030? Then we contribute to an aggravated climate change and thus aggravated climate-related risks.
I am open to discussing all possible solutions when it comes to the climate transition. Miljöpartiet has presented a long series of proposals in the climate area in our budget motions this year and last year. When we sat in the government, we worked on a long series of measures to build a more transport-efficient society, to achieve a transition of the vehicle fleet through not least electrification, and to achieve a transition of fuels in the existing vehicle fleet – where the reduction obligation was an important tool, but not the only one.
Climate policy needs to be implemented with realism, and I believe that the most realistic thing is to meet risks in an adequate way; we must manage the climate-related risks and consequences we face. Therefore, a climate policy that actually reduces emissions is needed.
The transport sector is also the sector where there is the greatest potential to reduce emissions in the near term. It is the sum of emissions over time that determines our impact on the climate. The IPCC is extremely clear that we must reduce emissions significantly in the near term to manage the climate crisis. It is the sum of emissions over time that accumulates in the atmosphere and contributes to global warming.
My questions remain: Why does the government present policies that actively increase emissions in the transport sector and simultaneously claim that they are working to increase the pace of transition in the transport sector? Then the goal is relevant. All climate goals are relevant, but right now we are talking about the transport sector's transition. Why did the Minister for Climate and Environment not mention this during their opening statement?
Beatrice Timgren (SD)
Madam Speaker! That we should have a realistic environmental policy is something that Member Söderberg and I agree on. But on the question of what constitutes a realistic environmental policy, we differ. I mean that the government and our Minister for the Environment are doing a good job of ensuring that emissions are reduced. It is not about doing something that looks good on paper by moving the emissions so that they do not occur in Sweden but somewhere else. This is what the reduction obligation is an example of, which cannot be scaled up.
Therefore, I believe it is remarkable that the stance of Miljöpartiet and the previous government is to increase emissions. Their idea for reducing emissions is to place great emphasis on the reduction obligation. It is said that one should protect their population from risks, but it is not with the reduction obligation that we protect Sweden's or the world's population from climate risks. That is because the climate issue is global.
Staffan Eklöf (SD)
Madam Speaker! We received a question from Miljöpartiet: What happens if we do not deliver climate policy? The answer is that it makes no difference at all if the climate policy does not lead to reductions in global emissions. It is important to keep that in mind.
My second question concerns the alleged cost advantage of the reduction obligation as a method to reach the climate goals. The Swedish National Audit Office has also here underlined that incorrect assessments were made during the introduction under the red-green government. The Audit Office notes that the cost advantage compared to other ways to reach the climate goals has decreased through the price increase that has already occurred today on biofuels, which the Minister mentions. The Swedish National Audit Office writes that the reduction obligation has so far driven up the price of diesel in Sweden more than was expected through an unforeseen increase in the price of HVO. This was not captured in the consequence analyses that the previous government had carried out. And it is not so strange because the Swedish National Audit Office considers them to be substandard.
Sweden imports a third of the global supply of HVO, according to the National Audit Office. This means that Sweden's demand can already today result in price increases both in Sweden and in the rest of the world - all other things being equal. But all other things will not be equal. Other countries also intend to increase their use of biofuels. This means that the situation where supply does not match demand will become a continuing phenomenon if Sweden has a high blend, and the problem will likely increase. Such a situation will drive up market prices for biofuels even further. What are the Minister's thoughts on this?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me start where Member Eklöf finished, namely in what we will do instead of the policy that previous governments pursued. This government is far more interested in truly reducing emissions, that is, ensuring that we do not generate emissions in our transport sector by electrifying and by increasing the pace at which we transition our transport sector to an electric-driven sector.
Madam Speaker! When I speak with younger talents in our country – children, quite simply – I usually refer to how the trains in the past ran on coal and went "chuff-chuff," but now they whiz past on electricity. That is what we want to happen with our transport sector in general – that cars and trucks also whiz past without humming.
What we primarily need to do to achieve such a society, which also has great environmental benefits in that it is quieter and a more pleasant working environment for our truck drivers and others who drive all day, is to ensure that the infrastructure is there and that the charging infrastructure is available not only for residents in Södermalm but in our entire elongated country. It is to ensure that we in different ways lower the thresholds for heavy vehicles, as it is more difficult to introduce electrified such vehicles into our transport fleet. Most of all, it is not to spend 7 billion on financing electric cars, passenger cars, which are now not in the same price class they were in when they were once introduced on our market.
It is there that it is so pleasant, Madam Speaker, to be part of a government that conducts not only ambitious but also effective climate policy. We simply take into account the criticism that is put forward regarding the economic aspects of the policy we pursue. When the National Audit Office and the National Institute of Economic Research point out that tax money is being wasted in inefficient policy, this government listens and ensures that measures are applied that are effective and that the money is placed where it actually makes a difference.
It is some of what we have introduced so far in our budgets. Of course, more will come in how we ensure that we change the structures so that we get a transport sector that is more electrified in its entirety.
Madam Speaker! Let me also briefly mention this idealistic picture of what the reduction obligation can mean for the transport sector. A picture is painted of residues from Swedish forest production being converted into something magical that is mixed into our gasoline and diesel. The reality is that we import large quantities of HVO and that we not only contribute to quite dirty sectors around the world with our funds but also drive up prices in a way that makes other countries want to slow down their transition.
There, Madam Speaker, I want to conclude by pointing out what the government, through me, will repeatedly focus on, namely that one is not an example if the rest of the world does not follow. We must seriously ensure that it is not just about us in Sweden planting the flag and being finished first and alone without us actually doing this together in the EU and in the world.
In this speech, Staffan Eklöf and Beatrice Timgren (both SD) concurred.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Madam Speaker! I can state that this is not actually a debate about the reduction obligation specifically. One will come later this year, and I look forward to taking it.
I have also at no point during this debate said that the reduction obligation necessarily must be raised so that it is specifically that which I am defending.
What I am a defender of is a climate policy that reduces emissions. I am prepared to listen to all different proposals to reduce emissions. But if the Sweden Democrats, for example, absolutely want to remove the reduction obligation, I would wish that the Sweden Democrats presented their own climate policy that reduces emissions as much as the Green Party's so that we can debate different paths to reach the climate goals, how we limit emissions, and how we protect the population from climate-related risks.
I have not seen any such climate policy. All the proposals presented today, both by the Sweden Democrats and by the sitting government, lead to increased emissions and worsened climate change and thus worsened climate-related risks.
To manage the transition in the transport sector, we need to work with all three legs – a transport-efficient society, an increased turnover rate for the vehicle fleet through electrification, and switching fuels even in the existing vehicle fleet – because the climate work is a race against the clock.
Madam Speaker! It is extremely worrying to follow how the current government handles the climate issue. In the budget proposals, the Minister for Climate and Environment announced climate investments corresponding to 4 billion, but only days later the government announced tax reliefs on fossil fuels for over 6 billion. Thus, a larger part of the reform space went towards increasing fossil emissions, so why does the Minister for Climate and Environment claim that the government is increasing the pace of transition in the transport sector?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me quickly move on to what we shall do instead of reduction obligations and electric car bonuses, something the member is requesting.
We are going to expand Klimatklivet, an initiative that we see has had a great effect in certain respects. We are building on it, and it will now amount to approximately 5 billion kronor. It is more than ever before, and it finances the transport sector's climate transition through investments in charging infrastructure, through investments in biofuel production, and through support for fossil-free vehicles.
In addition, we are introducing a market introduction support for light trucks, as we see a need to electrify that part of the transport sector. We also have funding of another kind for the heavy vehicles.
We have proposed the introduction of a temporary scrappage premium. It is something for which we allocate funds in order to increase the electrification of our transport sector. We will therefore not dope our fossil vehicles with imported biofuels, but instead seriously ensure that they emit zero.
We have also seen that within certain vehicle segments there is a need to get work machines out, and therefore we have increased the appropriations for the market introduction of climate-smart technology. These are sums so large that I can hardly keep track of the zeros when I am reporting them here.
That is what becomes relevant when one speaks about this, Madam Speaker, namely that our budgets are larger than all those that Miljöpartiet managed to get through during their time in government. Our climate and environmental budgets are large, and we invest in what works. To focus only on changes to fuel taxes is to focus on our measures for household finances, not on the major efforts we make to increase the pace of the climate transition in Sweden.
In this speech, Staffan Eklöf and Beatrice Timgren (both SD) concurred.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.