Response to interpellation 2023/24:86 on uranium in the upcoming mineral strategy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD is positively inclined towards uranium mining because nuclear power is needed for the climate transition 1. KD argues that the current ban hinders the extraction of critical metals for wind turbines and electric cars 2, and that Sweden risks becoming too dependent on China 3. KD wants to investigate the ban and listen to the mining industry before uranium is included in the mineral strategy 1 3. KD believes that more mines are required to save the climate and reach Sweden's climate goals 4, as critical mineral production is necessary to build wind turbines, nuclear power plants, and electrify heavy industry and transport 4. SD believes that Sweden has great potential to increase the self-sufficiency rate of uranium. SD argues that it is morally wrong to keep uranium in the ground at polymetallic deposits 5. SD believes that there are no reasons why the ban cannot be removed already since existing legislation is sufficient to prevent environmentally harmful activities 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.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Finally! Eric Palmqvist has asked me if I intend to work for the lifting of the uranium ban and for uranium to be included in the upcoming mineral strategy.
In the budget bill for next year, 2024 (prop. 2023/24:1 utgiftsområde 24), the Government announced that the Government intends to develop a new mineral strategy to strengthen domestic metal production in a changed geopolitical context. The strategy will be guiding for how the Government shall work in the future to strengthen and develop the Swedish mineral industry and the entire mining cluster.
On 1 August 2018, a new provision was introduced in the Environmental Code which means that it is not possible to break, process, or physically or chemically enrich uranium-bearing material during mining activities or through recycling of extraction waste, if the purpose is to extract the radionuclides or use the material's radioactivity.
The current ban on uranium mining has major consequences for the possibility of mining other metals and minerals needed for the climate transition, as they are often found together. Uranium is often found together with, for example, molybdenum, vanadium or nickel, and the interest in utilizing these mixed deposits risks decreasing as a result of the ban. The ban can therefore hinder Sweden's opportunities to start domestic production of critical metals and minerals needed for the production of wind turbines, electric cars and mobile phones.
It is therefore truly important that the ban on uranium extraction is evaluated, something which is also emphasized in the bill (prop. 2017/18:212) that forms the basis for the ban. It is, however, too early to answer the question of whether uranium will be included in the mineral strategy. But I believe the government's open stance toward uranium has nevertheless become clear.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Minister, for the answer! I must admit that I do not fully understand the Minister's hesitant stance regarding allowing uranium mining already now. I will come to this further on in this debate.
First of all - it is very good that the work on a new mineral strategy is now being initiated and that decisions are to be made regarding such. The one we have is a few years old and not completely up-to-date.
Sweden is a country with rich metal and mineral deposits. We have a mining industry that has historically built the prosperity we see in Sweden today and can do so in the future as well, even when it comes to the green transition, because we have very many metals and minerals in our bedrock that are in demand.
When it comes to uranium, we have approximately 25 percent of the uranium deposits in Europe, which are expected to be in demand when not only Sweden but several other countries announce that they want to invest more in nuclear technology. We therefore have great potential to increase our self-sufficiency rate – this applies not only to uranium but also to other metals and minerals.
Regarding the uranium, it has been assured time and again that we no longer rely on Russian nuclear fuel. But we do not have full control over whether there is Russian uranium in the nuclear fuel. Uranium and nuclear fuel are not the same thing, rather nuclear fuel is something one produces from uranium. This is a speculative question, and I do not know. But there is a concern from my side.
Regarding the future of uranium, the government wants a new mineral strategy in place. I wonder what the plan is and when it will be finished and put into use. I also wonder if, from the government's side, the investigation of the uranium ban will be awaited before the mineral strategy is finalized. Furthermore, I wonder if the business community, primarily the mining cluster, will be granted input regarding the upcoming mineral strategy.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I begin by trying to answer as clearly as possible. I am not hesitant regarding uranium mining; I am positively inclined. I think we should not be hypocritical when we are as dependent on nuclear power as we are. We need more nuclear power ahead if we are to manage the climate transition, with strong economic growth and a good welfare. In that case, nuclear power is needed in the mix, and in that case, we need to have uranium. For that reason, I am positively inclined toward uranium mining.
When these issues have been looked at previously, some have thought it has been difficult to assess whether it is truly economically interesting. It depends on how one views these mixed findings in general.
There are also two completely different types of uranium deposits in Sweden that we know about. There is a great deal we do not know. That is why the government has now clearly prioritized in the budget to ensure that we find out more and gain better knowledge about what actually exists in our ground, beyond the deposits we already know about today. One type of deposit has a very high uranium content, and the other is much lower grade and mixed with much else.
I think it should be up to the actors themselves to make the assessment of whether it is economically interesting for them to break this or not. It also depends on how easy it is to conduct mining in Sweden in general.
Everyone agrees that there should be high requirements for the environment, safety, and much more, but not that there should be such miserably long lead times and such great unpredictability regarding which actors have the right to appeal, how many times, in how many stages, and so on. This is what we are streamlining now. We are not just saying that we love mines; we are also delivering on that in action by redesigning the framework for how we work with the mining industry. We in the government are positive towards uranium mining, but we will return sharply to the issue because the law would need to be changed then, and we are not there now.
Regarding the mineral strategy, we have started it. There has been a terribly high pace at the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise since we took office. A full 97 percent of everything decided in the Tidö Agreement is either completed or started at the ministry that I am responsible for. We have a high pace and high delivery. We have started the mineral strategy, but it will take some time before we reach the goal with it. Can I say when we will reach the goal with it? No. Can I say if uranium will be included in it? No, it is too early to say. Why then? Yes - among other things as an answer to the last question from Member Palmqvist - because we also want to listen to the mining industry. A mineral strategy could contain everything or very little. Where are we going to settle ourselves, other than that we generally are paving the way for the mining industry in Sweden in a completely different way?
The Swedish mining industry is among the most environmentally friendly and safe in the entire world. More than a quarter of Europe's known uranium reserves are in Sweden's bedrock. We need, in a broad sense, to review how we utilize the resources that exist in the Swedish bedrock, below the surface in Sweden, and pave the way for this to a greater extent than has occurred until now.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I note that we have consensus on very much regarding these issues. Much of this is policy that I myself have also championed in the Committee on Industry.
It is not possible to sweep under the carpet that the four Tidö parties have had a relatively similar view on many of these issues and that it has been easy to reach an agreement on them. Just regarding the uranium, however, it feels a bit like it is we who are taking the lead. But I note that the minister, in any case, takes a positive stance on uranium mining.
I also noted that there was talk about polymetallic deposits. I believe that there is not only an economic but also a moral aspect to this. If you extract something from the ground where there is a deposit of something, you take everything, just as you do when you slaughter animals and so on. You use exactly everything that can be used. If you have uranium in the deposit, you do not put it back into the ground, which is what one actually has to do today. You should not put it back into the ground, but rather extract it in the best possible way. That is how it is in many other mines today: you primarily extract one mineral and get a battery of other metals and minerals as a bonus. It is not reasonable to put the uranium back into the ground, I believe in any case.
I heard that the minister went into a small side track regarding whether it was profitable or not. But that has nothing to do with the ban. The ban is only about whether it is permitted or not. Then you have prospecting companies that examine the bedrock and see if it is extractable and if it is in such a concentration that it is economically justifiable and so on. That has nothing to do with the ban, as I see it at least.
When it comes to the expansion of Swedish nuclear power, we agree that it would be extremely appropriate to begin the work of making ourselves self-sufficient in the fuel we need - just as I have heard from the minister here. I believe there is a security policy dimension to this as well. Would it then not be logical to include uranium and its role in the Swedish metal and mineral strategy, given the security policy situation?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! So that people can keep up and feel that for once there really was an answer to this specific question: It is too early to say. I will not say it yet. I want the work on the mineral strategy that has just started to be allowed to proceed a bit and that we get to listen to everyone before I put my foot down. Otherwise, we could have an arrangement where the Minister for Energy and Industry with responsibility for mining issues writes the strategy himself and does not listen to anyone else.
I can say what I think should be included in it already, but then we haven't listened to the other parties. I think it is better with a government that listens to the actors and then lands on what should be included in the mineral strategy and what should not.
With that said, I wish that no one listening to this debate or discussion should feel any doubt about why we have this type of ban today. The answer is: Miljöpartiet. The answer is: This is yet another area in Swedish politics that has been allowed to be paralyzed, not necessarily because of what the Socialdemokraterna have thought on the issue, but how the Socialdemokraterna, in yet another decisive area for Sweden, have allowed Miljöpartiet to steer the entire area from the backseat.
I do not know how many acquaintances I have both in politics and outside of politics who are Social Democrats, and we are so in agreement on the issue of the mines that we could form old KDS. But the Green Party has truly put a huge spoke in the wheel of that which is completely crucial for us to manage the green transition, which is crucial for more job opportunities, so that we can really achieve this job engine in so many parts of Sweden and for Swedish prosperity.
We now face a situation in Europe - in the world, in fact - where many of the critical metals and minerals that are needed go through China. China accounts for 70 percent of the world's production of minerals and metals that are on the EU's critical list. Understand the consequences of this! All of Sweden and all of the EU have said that it is the green transition that matters, and we are putting all our eggs in that basket, but what is needed to achieve the green transition are metals and minerals that are to go through China. Then we have, in principle, placed our entire future in the hands of one country.
It is as if we have learned nothing from being so dependent on a single country as we were on Russia and as we were on a fossil fuel source like Russian gas. Everyone knows what enormous impact it had to be so dependent on Russian gas as Europe was. It will appear as a summer breeze in comparison to the dependence we have on China when it comes to minerals and metals that are critical for the green transition.
Sweden has the answer to this problematic dependency. Sweden is literally a gold mine, and we are wasting that opportunity. Why then? Well, among other things because of how we have designed much of our environmental permit review. Some have wondered why this is to be investigated again now. Well, because when Miljöpartiet was allowed to be part of the governance, the investigator was not even allowed to look at material requirements in the Environmental Code. The investigator was not even allowed to submit proposals that in theory could mean that environmental protection in some part would be worsened. Finally, the organization and processing of the Land and Environment Courts were also not allowed to be included in the investigator's review, and that is perhaps the entire core of the environmental permit status and the environmental review system. Then it is not so strange that approximately 95 percent of the extraction we have comes from mines that are over 50 years old.
We are heading towards a new golden age if we take advantage of the gold mine that Sweden literally is. But it required a different cooperation to achieve that.
Eric Palmqvist (SD)
Madam Speaker! I heard a hiccup all the way down from Gränna when Alf Svensson heard about a Christian Democratic social democracy. I still think I understood what the minister intended.
It is true that quite a few of us parties agree on precisely these issues, for example when it comes to permit processes. We have a different energy policy here in Sweden today thanks to those of us standing here today than we had when the uranium ban was established in 2018. It happened on ideological grounds, not because it was a problem. We had not had any uranium mining in Sweden for many decades. It was therefore not the case that something that was a problem was banned.
Since we last had uranium mining in Sweden, there is new mining technology, there is new environmental legislation and new permit processes, the Mining Act has been modernized and so on. There is a lot of new legislation in place, and it is a different technology. It is therefore not possible to lean on the fact that this was a problem and that by forbidding the problem we must review how we get this problematic activity to function. This is an industry that is part of the mining industry, and one must look at the modern conditions.
I do not see why it would not be possible to remove the ban already, given that we have the legislation we have. We have the Mining Act, the Environmental Code, and the Radiation Protection Act. We even have the Nuclear Energy Act and the municipal veto. Which of these legislations is it that we are not confident in and that we do not feel is sufficient to prevent potentially environmentally harmful activities? Where does the problem lie? Which legislation is it that the Minister feels is not sufficient and instead necessitates further investigation before this can be permitted?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I would like to begin my final contribution by saying to everyone listening here in the chamber, to everyone listening remotely or watching this afterwards, and to everyone who is engaged in combating climate change – to everyone who, so to speak, belongs to the Greta Thunberg generation – that I wish we were significantly more who realized the following: If you want to save the planet, if you want to save the climate, and if you want Sweden to have high-reaching climate goals and achieve them, yes, then you also need to love mines.
Everything we need to manage the green transition is in the ground. It is political will that is needed, as well as clearly set goals. We need to be able to build wind turbines and nuclear power plants, and we need to be able to electrify our entire heavy transport sector, which accounts for approximately one-third of Sweden's emissions. We need to be able to electrify the entire heavy industry, which also accounts for approximately one-third of Sweden's emissions. We need to be able to succeed with projects similar to those being looked at regarding the production of green steel - emission-free steel. That could cut Sweden's total carbon emissions by approximately one-tenth in one fell swoop.
If we are to succeed with all this, however, a lot more electricity is needed, and to manage to create that, we need all these critical minerals and metals that are in our ground. I therefore hope that more climate activists out there start demonstrating for more mines in Sweden and for us to pave the way for that.
What is it that is causing the delay? Yes, we are working very hard. We will return to the question regarding uranium, but a small indication is that we were four parties who, in this chamber, voted no when the Green Party was allowed to lead the Social Democrats in 2018. It will not happen under my leadership.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.