Response to interpellation 2024/25:102 on a well-founded climate policy
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 has a strategy where climate policy is based on the latest data from the IPCC. 1 L believes that it is responsible to convey that the situation is serious in order to get other parts of the world to reduce their emissions 1 and that Sweden needs more nuclear power and hydropower to secure a growing economy with clean energy 1. 2 L argues that the government works based on established science and facts from the IPCC to reduce global warming 2, that Sweden should take the lead in the work 2 and that the focus lies on emissions that affect air quality and health 2. 3 L argues that authorities should be objective and impartial and use current data in climate action plans 3.
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! Elsa Widding has asked me if I have any strategy to ensure that climate policy is based on updated facts that are not based on old reports, such as AR1, and if so, what that strategy looks like.
According to Article 12 of the Paris Agreement, the parties shall cooperate on matters of climate change education, awareness, and public participation, as well as on access to information on climate issues. An important actor for making correct information available is the IPCC, the UN's scientific climate panel. The IPCC's task is to compile the current state of scientific knowledge regarding climate change.
AR1 is the first assessment report produced by the UN's climate panel IPCC in 1990. It has been followed by an additional five synthesis reports, in addition to a number of special reports. We are now at the beginning of the seventh assessment cycle within the IPCC's work, and the next synthesis report, which broadly summarizes the collective science's view on climate change, is planned for 2029. This means that today the best available overviews are in the sixth report, AR6, which came in 2023.
Sweden is represented in the IPCC through SMHI, the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute. In addition to representing Sweden at decision-making meetings and nominating Swedish experts to the IPCC's work, SMHI also works to disseminate the results from the IPCC's reports in a Swedish context. This is done through its own reports, conferences, and seminars together with other agencies, as well as by keeping the website www.smhi.se updated based on the latest information from the IPCC. SMHI has high credibility among society's actors regarding meteorology and climatology, and it is a good thing that the agency also is responsible for disseminating the results.
Alongside SMHI, Naturvårdsverket is also responsible for making knowledge about the environment and climate, as well as Sweden's environmental and climate work, available to the public and other stakeholders.
For the government, it is a self-evident matter that policy is based on the latest available scientific information on how the climate is developing and that the authorities under the government rely on the same basis. The government is aware that in other parts of society, there are sometimes perceptions based on outdated science or no science at all. It is important to safeguard open and democratic dialogue and free opinion formation, but also to safeguard citizens' right to objective knowledge and correct information about the climate. We all have a responsibility not to contribute to the spread of incorrect information. Therefore, I urge everyone to be vigilant against disinformation and to be critical of sources before passing information on to the next link.
Mr. Speaker! The answer to the question is yes, the government has a strategy to ensure that climate policy is based on current facts. The strategy is to base it on the latest data from the IPCC and to let it permeate the climate work at the relevant agencies under the government.
Elsa Widding (-)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister, who has now stated that the strategy is to base it on the latest report from the IPCC and to let it permeate the climate work at the relevant agencies under the government. That sounds great – significantly better than how it sounded from the previous government! But in what way does the government let the conclusions from IPCC's Working Group I, which thus represents the physical science, permeate the relevant agencies? I assume the Minister understands the difference between Working Group I, that is, the scientific one, and Working Group II, the alarmist one.
Unserious and unscientific voices are very strong in the public sphere. The question is why. UN Secretary-General António Guterres says, for example, in my translation: "Our planet stands on the brink. Ecosystems are collapsing, our climate is imploding and humanity bears the blame."
Not everyone is, however, equally alarmist. John Clauser, 2022 Nobel Prize winner in physics, points out that misguided climate science has metastasized into shocking journalistic pseudoscience. In his opinion, there is no real climate crisis. Why does he say so, and what does the science at the IPCC, which the Minister of State so meritiously referred to, say?
In the scientific basis of nearly 4,000 pages from the IPCC – that which focuses on the physical science, i.e., from working group 1 – no support is given for an imminent climate catastrophe, at least not when one considers the median scenario that the IPCC now finds most credible. In the same scenario, it is estimated that there will be an additional 1.4 degrees of warming beyond the temperature increase that has already occurred, i.e., 2.7 degrees by the end of the century. A temperature increase of only 1 ½ degrees lacks all reality grounding and is an unserious and unscientific invention from politics.
In report AR5 from 2013, the IPCC spoke of a reference scenario with emissions expected to increase to 1,200 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year until the end of the century. No wonder many became nervous!
In the latest report, AR6, from 2023, a median scenario is presented as most realistic. This concerns emissions of 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year by the end of the century. That is one-hundredth of what was believed just a few years ago. How does the Minister believe this changed picture is reflected in the Swedish climate goals?
Why does the IPCC believe the world will land on 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year by the turn of the century? Well, that naturally builds on the fact that the major emitters such as China and India stick to their plans to radically reduce emissions by 2060 and 2070 respectively. That is where somewhere the curve turns down. But why don't they do more here and now, perhaps the Minister wonders? The answer is that carbon dioxide is a byproduct of reliable energy that fights poverty and secures economic growth. Therefore, it must take some time.
If the world reaches 10 gigatons of carbon dioxide per year by the century's end, it obviously won't depend on a single drop of what Sweden does. Neither China, India, nor any of the other large emitters will ever want to follow in our footsteps because we are so obviously destroying things for ourselves. Politics sanctions the shutdown of functioning electricity production while gigantic projects in the north are sponsored before they can even be supplied with enough electricity. We drain the taxpayers, destroy the environment, steal our pension money, and favor venture capitalists.
Mr. Speaker! It is not the climate that is the problem for Sweden and the Swedes - it is the climate policy. Look at the horror example of Germany, which is now undergoing deindustrialization!
Sweden shall contribute 8 billion to the UN's green climate fund until and including 2027. How did one arrive at that figure? Why not 4 billion? Has the government asked Sweden's taxpayers how they feel about paying roughly 1,600 SEK per household to limit the developing countries' climate footprint? This is not a long-term wise policy.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Oh, oh, oh - that was many words in a short time. I note that we have visitors, young people who are sitting and listening to this debate in the chamber, and it compels me to point out that if Elsa Widding feels comfortable with there being a medium scenario where there is not so great danger and if she thinks that one should not be alarmist regarding climate issues, I do not share that assessment.
I do not feel calm and secure that we will manage with the level of warming that will be a consequence of the expansion of dirty, fossil energy that is occurring in many large developing countries with growing economies. Member of Parliament Elsa Widding does not need to tell me – or anyone else, I guess – that the reason why countries like China and India, but also USA, are increasing their emissions and their fossil use is that they want to strengthen their economy. We are all quite aware of that. One does not do it because one wants to destroy the planet; one does it because one wants more money.
What Sweden and the EU are trying to convey to other parts of the world is that Sweden is a good example of how one can strengthen their economy and at the same time reduce their emissions. How has Sweden done that? Well, by us building a hell of a lot of nuclear power in the 80s. When we had nuclear power, we could stop importing expensive oil, and when the later decades came, we also began to significantly expand wind power, not least 20 years ago. That made it possible for our energy system to expand.
Now we have reached a level of wind power - that is, upwards of 20 percent - which makes it starting to become tough for our electricity system, and therefore we need more predictable, clean energy. We need more nuclear power. We need to look at hydropower. We need to see how we can get a stronger system.
Why do we need so much electricity and energy? Well, primarily to be able to keep factories running, an economy that grows, companies that employ more and more people, and offices all over Sweden where lights are turned on and people sit and work, solve problems, and create products and services that can be sold not only in Sweden but all over the world. That is how we get our society to function. We therefore need to have a lot of energy, or rather electrical power. But we do not need to have the fossil energy, because when we use it, we increase the emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that is not good for our planet. That is what I am convinced of in any case.
Regarding the alarmism and the concern that, among others, UN Secretary-General António Guterres often expresses, I can understand that Elsa Widding sees dramatic headlines and considers them misleading. But there are very many people around the world who have not made the same journey as Sweden and who did not dare to introduce carbon taxes before I was born or have not dared to replace their dirty energy with clean energy. They need to hear that the situation is serious and that emissions need to be reduced.
It is of course bad when one tries to play on people's fears and create illegitimate unrest, but getting more parts of the world to understand that it is urgent and that we must start talking about how to implement regulations that reduce emissions and replace dirty energy with clean energy is simply responsible. In any case, I am not satisfied with leaning back when I read that the most likely scenario means that we will manage it. We need to keep the pressure on, not least so that other parts of the world will keep the same pace as Sweden.
Elsa Widding (-)
Mr. Speaker! One can be an alarmist - absolutely - or one can listen to the IPCC. I believe it is good for young people to do that later.
In chapter 12 of the IPCC 2023 report, one can read that the extreme weather events that have already occurred are limited. The report indicates low confidence that climate change causes increased frequency of floods, rainstorms, landslides, droughts, fires, cyclones, hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, sandstorms, hail, sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and erosion. Why are we not talking about it?
The physical scientific report from the IPCC also says that the probability of impact on snow, glaciers, ice sheets as well as lake, river and sea ice outside the Arctic due to the increased content of carbon dioxide is low. Storms have always occurred, they say, naturally. It is also worth noting that these assessments from the IPCC are supported by other serious organizations, for example NOAA.
The US government's EPA states that no significant increases in drought in the USA have been demonstrated between 1895 and 2020, entirely in accordance with what the IPCC says. Nevertheless, UN Secretary-General António Guterres expresses that ecosystems are collapsing and the climate is imploding. Why these false and panicked statements when science has come further and data tells us that it is not as urgent now to transition and reduce carbon dioxide emissions? If the world follows the climate panel's median scenario with a temperature increase of 2.7 degrees since the Little Ice Age, there is no panic at all.
Let us collectively try to put an end to the climate religion, which leads to an increasingly overshadowing planned economy in our society. How can it be that Sweden is to increase the pace while the threat regarding the climate is decreasing and the large emitters will not reduce their emissions until 2060?
As the Minister emphasizes, Sweden has done a great deal by transitioning the energy system to nuclear power, transitioning to district heating, etcetera. Today, we have among the lowest emissions per capita in the world.
In order for Sweden to be able to further reduce emissions, the Swedish people are urged to drastically reduce travel, reduce meat consumption, reduce car driving, and furthermore turn down the temperature during the winter - all this because the government apparently considers scenarios that the IPCC today finds unrealistic and which have passed their best-before dates as a result of more knowledge and better data.
With the latest report from the IPCC and the physical sciences as a basis, it is in principle impossible to speak with any credibility about extreme weather being or will be a major problem in the future as a result of our carbon dioxide emissions.
From the reports from the IPCC, we can read that since the beginning of the 1900s there has been a warming of 1.3 degrees at a global level, while most things are moving in a positive direction for the world's population, such as life expectancy, nutrition, GDP and death tolls from extreme weather events. Everything is moving in a positive direction, partly due to increased carbon dioxide content and a greener world.
The sea level continues to rise by approximately 300 millimeters per century. The actual and calculated economic effects of the warming are in the noise, which is also confirmed in two new studies from the two most cited climate economists, namely Nobel laureate Nordhaus and Professor Tol.
The reports point to a minimal difference in how rich the world will become with and without expected climate changes according to the IPCC's median scenario, that is, 2.7 degrees or 3 degrees, which I believe they calculate for the end of the century. Nor will GDP be significantly affected until the end of the century. It is about 2-3 percent lower GDP as a result of climate changes. This is not the whole world.
The political measures must be in proportion to the benefit. If the extremist climate policy that the EU is now driving and which our support for the UN's green climate fund aims for is implemented globally, everyone will be forced to pay more for food, and more people will starve.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I do not know whom Elsa Widding intends to debate in this chamber. It is not António Guterres who stands here in the speaker's chair. As far as I know, our liberal, bourgeois government has not said that people should stop eating meat, stop driving cars, stop traveling, or turn off the heating in their homes. If there is any evidence that the government is pursuing this line and asking our citizens to have such a lifestyle, you are welcome to point this out and show this evidence.
What we, on the other hand, focus on is getting rid of emissions. I have no problem with people driving cars. One can drive as much as one wants. What I have a problem with is if these cars generate emissions that affect not only the climate but also our air quality, our health, and us humans. This is something that I, as a politician, want to improve.
I want better air quality, I want to see a better existence in our communities and I want the vehicles we use to travel back and forth and which we will surely use for a long time to come to be clean. There is a difference in this.
The same applies to agriculture. I have no problem with people eating meat. On the other hand, I have a problem if we, for example, have a production that creates problems for not least our seas and if we see that agriculture's emissions affect the health of our seas. Then it is a problem that I want to address, but not by having people stop eating meat or even by having the Swedish farmers stop producing goods, products, and food products so that we instead import more. That would be a terrible "solution" to the problem.
It is important to keep in mind who one is speaking with here in the chamber. Now, it is a Minister for Climate and Environment in a liberal, bourgeois government that one is speaking with. We are also aware that not all researchers say the same thing, because they do not. There are researchers who say that we do not have a climate crisis and that the warming will not escalate to the extent that others claim. There are different opinions.
I can be completely honest in saying that I also see a problem in that certain researchers who think something different from the majority are heavily criticized and attacked for this. It is a problem. Everyone must be allowed to state their opinions and their assessments of the scientific situation. That is why it is so good with the IPCC, which balances this by compiling a large amount of research.
It is important that we avoid politicizing the IPCC. This is what I pointed out, not least when I was on site during the climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt and we discussed how we should handle the IPCC. When different groups tried to inject politics into the science and into the IPCC's function, Sweden took a critical stance on this. We do not think that politics should be allowed to leak into the scientific reports that are presented.
I mean, Mr. Speaker, that the picture that exists here of what the government is doing is incorrect. I understand that there is a lot of confusion all around. I will later in the chamber have interpellation debates on other parts of the climate policy where there is concern and which are also surrounded by misconceptions.
Let me be clear here: We ensure that our authorities use correct and up-to-date underlying data. We ensure that we do not work based on the alarmist headlines that often circulate regarding the climate issue. We work based on established science and facts.
We believe that the EU, the IPCC and Swedish authorities make correct and balanced assessments of what needs to be done for us to reduce global warming. We also believe that Sweden should take the lead in that work.
Elsa Widding (-)
Mr. Speaker! It is very good if we can stick to the IPCC. In such a complex issue, it is important that we stick to the scientific part of the IPCC. It is good that we agree on that. Then we can avoid talking about the 1.5-degree goal in the future.
A goal for which global temperatures should be avoided reasonably requires that one has first objectively taken a position on which global temperature is desirable. According to the UN's climate panel, the global temperature has constantly decreased on average since the year 1000 until the middle of the 1700s. The temperature during the last millennium was therefore at its lowest at the breakthrough of industrialism around 1750.
An interesting question in this context is which global temperature the Council of State considers optimal and worth striving for. Is it the temperature that prevailed at the breakthrough of industrialization in 1750, near the coldest point in 10,000 years, or is it perhaps the temperature of 1850 or 1950?
What is wrong with the current temperature? And what was wrong with the temperature during the Holocene temperature maximum 6,000 years ago, when Siberia's tundras were thawed, Scandinavia was glacier-free, and one could pick grapes in Central Sweden? At that time, the Sahara was lush, with many lakes.
In my question, I would like to have an answer that clarifies the minister's personal opinion, not an answer about the Paris Agreement, where the question I am now asking has never been answered substantively. The question is therefore: How warm does the minister want it to be? If the answer is that she wants it as warm as it was during the Holocene maximum, then it is completely idiotic to set goals that aim for us not to get as warm as we actually want it to be.
Dare to scrap the climate goals! Focus instead on a real vision for the country, that is to say a vision that actually benefits Sweden and its population instead of just benefiting international interests.
Nobel Prize winner in physics John Clauser is right. There is no climate crisis, in any case not according to the IPCC. If we in Sweden want to contribute to emission reductions, it must be done in a significantly smarter way.
With this said, climate change is one of many things that we must keep our eyes on moving forward, but it is not the whole world.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Today I have been asked to respond to an interpellation in which Member Elsa Widding asks what the government is doing to ensure that we use current and correct facts in our work. It is this question I intend to answer. My personal opinions on how warm or cold the planet should be I consider to be completely irrelevant.
As a politician, I joined my party, among other reasons, because I saw that it engaged in a large part of evidence-based politics where one sets emotions aside and looks at what science and evidence indicate can be positive solutions to various societal problems we face. That is how I intend to work as a politician. I will not base my actions on my personal preferences regarding whether or not I want to pick grapes in central Sweden. I mean that would be irresponsible.
The important thing here is that the state's value base, that is, that authorities shall work for freedom of opinion and objectivity, is allowed to dominate the work that the state carries out, not least through its authorities. Therefore, it is very important that our laws are followed and that section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act is followed, where it states that authorities shall be objective and impartial in their work.
That is why it is also important that the authorities base their actions on current and relevant science and on facts, nothing else. We mean that the sixth assessment report from the IPCC is such a relevant basis, and we also mean that this is evident in how we subsequently apply that basis both in climate action plans and in action plans for climate adaptation.
If Elsa Widding wants to mean that there is no danger with the climate transition, that there is no need to hurry and that it is not a crisis and so on - and that a warming would only lead to rivers in the Sahara and grape harvesting in central Sweden - it is fine for Elsa Widding to continue mobilizing her support behind this, while I continue to work to put a stop to global warming.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.