Response to interpellation 2023/24:540 on expectations for reduced greenhouse gas emissions
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The government presented a climate action plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest 1. L argues that expanded nuclear power is the most important measure to reduce emissions through electrification of the transport and industrial sectors 1. L welcomes all fossil-free power sources and argues that a balanced electricity system with both base load and renewable power sources is necessary for the climate transition. L claims that the government has approved more offshore wind power than MP did previously, introduced grid reduction for solar panels, and has climate policy regarding carbon storage and nature conservation 2. MP claims that the government lacks a plan and that nuclear power provides no climate benefit 3. MP argues that a one-sided focus on nuclear power risks delaying electrification and increasing emissions 4. MP wants a green climate action plan with measures for all sectors, including increased carbon sequestration and negative emissions 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)
Mr. Speaker! Elin Söderberg has asked me whether I, following the fact that the government welcomes all fossil-free types of power, have taken the initiative to an analysis of how much the greenhouse gas emissions are expected to decrease, and from which year, and whether I in that case can account for the results of the analysis.
The government presented its climate action plan in December. The action plan aims to reach the national climate goal for 2045. In the climate action plan, the government presents statistics on historical emissions and a scenario showing how Sweden can reach all the way to net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest.
A strategy to reach all the way to net-zero emissions differs from a strategy whose primary purpose is to reduce emissions in the short term. The Government therefore presents measures in a number of areas that provide the conditions for the entire society, including companies and households, to make the decisions needed for Sweden to reach net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest, while simultaneously strengthening both household finances and the competitiveness of companies.
Electrification and a massively increased use of climate-neutral electricity is a prerequisite for transition in Sweden and in many other countries. For us in Sweden, expanded nuclear power is the single most important measure for us to be able to reduce our emissions nationally through electrification of the transport and industrial sectors.
The transition to net-zero emissions by 2045 presupposes hundreds of thousands of decisions by companies and people all the way into the 2040s. No government can credibly say, two decades in advance, exactly when investments and technological leaps will take place. The government's task is to create the conditions for the climate transition. The climate policy action plan that we have presented does exactly this.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! On February 20, I asked the Minister for Climate and Environment if she had initiated an analysis of the climate impact resulting from the fact that the government now welcomes all fossil-free types of power. The background was that the Minister for Climate and Environment had claimed that the government's action plan provides the conditions to reach the net-zero goal by 2045, primarily because it welcomes new nuclear power. This was written in a mocking tweet in response to DN's review of the seriously misleading graph in the government's climate action plan.
According to the rules, the Minister for Climate and the Environment should have answered my question by March 12 at the latest, and now the Minister for Climate and the Environment arrives at the rostrum empty-handed, more than two months late. The government has no plan to reach the climate goals. Referring to the government's climate action plan provides no evidence whatsoever that there would be any climate benefit from new nuclear power, and that the government continues to express itself misleadingly regarding climate policy is extremely serious.
Mr. Speaker! The government's climate action plan has met with strong criticism from several bodies. The Climate Policy Council writes that the government gives a misleading picture of the action plan's expected contribution to the goal being achieved and that the claim that the action plan leads all the way to net zero lacks objectivity. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency writes in its latest report that the 2045 goal is not reached with decided policy measures and that the gap to the goal is around 22 million tons. The Fiscal Policy Council writes that a coherent and understandable strategy is needed so that individuals and companies can make the right investment decisions at the right time and thereby transition in a cost-effective way, and that the government's climate action plan does not provide clear and concrete information on how the climate goals are to be reached but instead rests on hopes that future measures will lead to the goals being achieved. The Swedish Energy Agency assesses that it is not possible to reach Sweden's goals for renewable energy within the framework of Fit for 55 given the government's reduction of the reduction obligation, and that if the EU goals were to be extended to after 2030, the announced expansion of nuclear power risks meaning that the share of renewables does not increase to a sufficient extent or even decreases.
Mr. Speaker! Since 2018, when KD left the energy agreement on live television due to a lack of climate policy, the Tidö parties have used nuclear power as a fig leaf to hide that they have no climate policy. The governing parties have spent at least six years shaping public opinion for new nuclear power with reference to the climate instead of developing their climate policy. Today, the Minister for Climate and Environment cannot, on a direct question, present a single piece of evidence that new nuclear power would provide any climate benefit. After at least six years of shaping public opinion, almost two years in government position and two months delayed to the chamber, the Minister for Climate and Environment comes completely empty-handed. Why has the government not analyzed the effects on the climate transition before proceeding with investments in new nuclear power?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I am honestly astonished that the words "no climate benefit" are used and refer to nuclear power. I wonder if the Environment Party's climate policy spokesperson has met the companies that are in the middle of the transition and which want to phase out the fossil fuels from their operations, from how they produce products and from how they sell services worldwide. Every time I meet companies, which is usually some time a day, the first thing they mention is electricity because electricity is their biggest concern when it comes to whether they will succeed with their climate transition.
It is completely out of the question not to discuss electricity when discussing the climate issue, but I understand that it is frustrating for Miljöpartiet, which for so long has wanted to keep these issues separate and argues that energy is energy and that climate policy is something else and is about electric bicycles, what one eats, congestion charges and other things that Miljöpartiet sees as its climate policy. But that logic fails significantly, because all around Europe we see that more and more climate ministers and energy ministers are linking these issues together. At the UN climate summits, the energy issue of renewables or nuclear power is a large part of the discussion, because in many countries people talk about how they are to get their energy system and their power system to move from fossil to fossil-free and get rid of coal, oil and gas.
That the Environment Party's climate policy spokesperson stands here in the chamber and says that there is no climate benefit with nuclear power is, for me, as I said, completely astounding. In Sweden, we have an almost entirely clean energy system.
Thank you that oil became very expensive in the 70s and that nuclear power was built then – a nuclear power that everyone now simply assumes should be there and keep running in all future. But that is not the case, and we need to think one step further. The government does. We know that the foundation for Sweden's low emissions is our strong, clean electricity system, and it must be defended. Here, electrification to remove the fossil is a basic principle and, in our view, the answer to the climate challenge.
It is perfectly okay if Miljöpartiet does not share the government's view and if the member's party wants to continue to talk about how to regulate transport and build cities as well as focus on transport efficiency, congestion charges, environmental zones and the transition of food production and consumption. It is perfectly okay that Miljöpartiet has this focus, but to claim that the nuclear power issue would be a fig leaf to avoid talking about the climate is completely upside down. I am truly surprised.
At the same time, this is telling, Mr. Speaker, because I do not quite understand what Miljöpartiet thinks about nuclear power. On one hand, the former spokesperson Daniel Helldén has spoken out very critically and said that Miljöpartiet cannot join a government that wants to build new nuclear power, on the other hand, the new spokesperson Amanda Lind has said that Miljöpartiet certainly can do so. I understand that this is a tough issue for Miljöpartiet and that it is a great challenge for you to reach the same energy policy maturity as my party Liberalerna has.
When one claims that there is no climate benefit with nuclear power, one certainly has not spoken with all the Swedish companies that are in the middle of the transition and which have a single great wish for us: more clean electricity.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari has not presented any arguments supporting the government's unilateral focus on new nuclear power from a climate perspective. I also note that I receive no answer as to why the effects on the climate transition have not been analyzed before proceeding with new nuclear power.
Just as the Minister for Climate and Environment mentions, more electricity is incredibly important for the climate transition, and Miljöpartiet has a sharp policy for more electricity in the near term.
The government has therefore not conducted any analysis and cannot say anything about when new nuclear power can be expected to be in place, at what cost, or whether it would have any climate benefit. That government representatives continue to argue for new nuclear power with reference to the climate transition is yet another example of irresponsible and misleading conduct from the current government. There are, in fact, plenty of analyses that, contrary to the government's claims, show that an electricity system with new nuclear power leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions due to delayed transition.
In December 2023, two doctors of economics wrote in Svenska Dagbladet that the government's investment in nuclear power raises electricity prices and increases the risk of electricity shortages before 2035, and that the state support could become very expensive for taxpayers and electricity consumers because it could amount to hundreds of billions of kronor already for just two nuclear reactors. Since low electricity prices and access to electricity are crucial for, among other things, the industry's climate transition, such a development poses significant risks for the climate transition.
In a report from Chalmers 2023 comparing a future electricity system with and without nuclear power, it states that if an overly one-sided focus is placed on facilitating just nuclear power, electrification risks being delayed, and if market actors must wait for the costs of nuclear power to become more predictable, investments in wind power, where there is currently a large investment interest, risk being omitted.
That the electrification is postponed is relevant from a climate perspective in that it means the total emissions of greenhouse gases will be greater over time than with a policy that leads to faster electrification.
Mr. Speaker! The question arises: What problem is the government trying to solve? For me and the Miljöpartiet, the climate crisis is the problem we are trying to solve. It appears that the problem the government is trying to solve is how they are to build new nuclear power, regardless of what it means for the climate transition.
I repeat my question: Why did the government not analyze the effects on the climate transition before proceeding with a reorganization of the energy policy that prioritizes new nuclear power?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Something that still warms my heart as we have this discussion is that it becomes so incredibly clear for Swedish voters. We have a fateful EU election ahead where the climate is high on the agenda, and the Green Party stands here and argues that it would be bad for the climate to build new nuclear power. They lean on the researchers who highlight that aspect. They argue that renewables on their own should be able to live up to this with some kind of green baseload plan that has been presented where we are to have incredibly large batteries that in some way are to live up to the same capacity as the baseload in nuclear power can offer.
Suppose we were to get rid of the nuclear power we have now, which accounts for about 40 percent of our clean electricity system. Then, the Green Party means that, in addition to the 20 percent of renewables we have now with the capacity that wind power contributes to the electricity system, we should have 40 percent more of renewables, and that hydropower should be the only balancing base power in our electricity system. I do not know if one does not understand the laws of physics or where this logic of how the electricity system should function comes from.
There is a difference between types of renewable energy and base load. We are so grateful that we have hydropower in Sweden, but it is not enough if we are to have as much electricity as we need for the climate transition. This logic simply does not add up.
I must also mention that Elin Söderberg misquotes me, Mr. Speaker, when she refers to my tweet. She claims that I have only pointed out the new nuclear power. If Elin Söderberg had read carefully, she would have noted that we welcome all fossil-free power sources, not just nuclear power.
This is extremely important to me. This was absolutely crucial for me to be able to sit in this government. When I ran for the Riksdag, I ran on the slogan that we need both wind power and nuclear power to manage the climate transition.
This is something we Liberals have understood, but the Green Party has not. One cannot choose a favorite and believe that wind power alone solves all problems. Different types of power fulfill different functions in our clean, strong electricity system, which makes it so that companies want to establish themselves in Sweden. That the green transition is happening in Sweden is largely thanks to our clean electricity system.
If one does not understand that one needs to stand guard, protect and take care of the system and ensure that it is in balance, which it only is when there are both base power and renewable power sources, it becomes very clear to the Swedish voters what climate policy reality one gets with Miljöpartiet. It is very nice sprinkles, but no ice cream. That the electricity system functions is, like, the foundation of it all.
I understand that one wants to focus on other things and that it is argued that this is not climate policy, but it is climate policy. It is climate policy to the utmost extent. When I sit and negotiate at the COP meeting with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and we are arguing in the final stages about exactly what should be stated in the international climate agreements, it is precisely this we are arguing about. It is precisely this that the discussions and debates are about: how we are to phase out the fossil fuels that need to be replaced by the clean in our energy system. It is energy we are talking about. It is that which drives our entire economy and all the productions and services that our companies maintain.
It is therefore extremely important that we have a functioning electricity system. One cannot choose one's favorites - it is the whole that needs to function.
We welcome all fossil-free power sources through many different measures, which I will gladly mention in my final speech. It is what makes our policy provide better conditions to reach the long-term climate goal of net-zero 2045.
Elin Söderberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! It is true that we in Miljöpartiet rely on research. That is also why we have developed our energy and climate policy as we have.
In my question to the Minister for Climate and Environment, I have given an excellent opportunity to provide real arguments and evidence. To welcome all types of renewable production or to also include new nuclear power, as Romina Pourmokhtari wants, is the difference between our parties. I would then like to know what evidence there is that a welcoming of new nuclear power would have any climate benefit. I have still not received any answer to that question.
Miljöpartiet has presented a green climate action plan for Sweden to show that there is policy that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the most serious risks of climate change. Our climate action plan contains measures for emissions in all sectors within Sweden's borders, for consumption-based emissions, for increased carbon sequestration in forest and land, and for achieving negative emissions and measures that support the transition, where a powerful expansion of electricity production is an important part.
The Tidö parties have instead reduced all environmental policy to climate policy, all climate policy to energy policy, and energy policy to basically only being about nuclear power.
When we talk about the industry's transition, it is about delivering terawatt-hours before 2030, and in that case, nuclear power is completely irrelevant.
We in Miljöpartiet want to see concrete planning targets for 2030 and 2035 - not only for 2045. We want to make twice as much electricity available by 2035, and we want the renewable energy system to rest on a stable foundation of green baseload power.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! It is very nice to hear that the Green Party, damn it, works with politics based on research, and no one else does. If only it were so. We know that there is so much research pointing to, for example, the need for nuclear power to reach the 1.5-degree goal. If one, for example, reads through the IPCC's various models for how one actually reaches that extremely high goal that we set at an international level, there are few models that exclude nuclear power.
There is a magical reality or future that Miljöpartiet imagines, where renewable power sources manage without nuclear power or hydropower. But it is not possible. We need to expand. If one does not want to exploit our national rivers - I have not heard any such statement from Miljöpartiet - there is no reality where Miljöpartiet can offer a heavily expanded large clean electricity system for Swedish companies to transition with.
However, this government can, and that is why I am so confident sitting in it. We welcome all fossil-free types of power.
Even if Elin Söderberg and Miljöpartiet choose to only repeat the mantra that we should only focus on nuclear power, I can easily, without looking at my papers, disprove it. We have approved more offshore wind power than you managed to do during all your years in government. It is not a coincidence, but it is because we have added funds: 15 million specifically to increase the pace at which the county administrative boards handle these applications. Furthermore, I quickly initiated the appointment of an inquiry to change how this process works because it is completely backward and inefficient. That is exactly what Miljöpartiet did not do.
We have a tax reduction for the installation of solar panels; we have as much politics as anything. We welcome all fossil-free types of power, and that is the only thing that can give us the healthy, good foundation to further build our climate policy on. We also have climate policy when it comes to carbon storage, when it comes to ensuring that we protect more nature that is valuable, and when it comes to ensuring that we take extra good care of the Baltic Sea.
So there is more, and above all, all fossil-free types of power are welcome, in contrast to the previous government's policy.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.