Response to interpellation 2024/25:149 on a consistent and long-term climate policy in Sweden
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 L argues that the government is implementing initiatives for the industry's transition through new nuclear power, faster permit processes, and support for fossil-free transport 1. L emphasizes that Sweden should reach net-zero emissions by 2045 1 and that both wind power and nuclear power are needed for a balanced electricity system. L wants to continue improving the conditions for nuclear power and that the industry receives predictable rules of the game 1. L argues that the government has significantly increased the appropriation for Industriklivet and that the new reduction obligation of 10 percent is a tool to increase electrification. L wants low emissions per capita and simplified environmental permit processes 2. S argues that the government has too much focus on existing nuclear technology and that offshore wind power is most important for electricity production in the near term. S wants simplified permit processes for onshore wind power and that offshore wind power should be handled with equal treatment of different technologies 3. S criticizes that the appropriation authorization for Industriklivet and Klimatklivet is reduced by 30 percent 3 and argues that the Styrmedelsutredningen should have been completed earlier 3. 4 S believes that the government needs clearer leadership for long-term conditions and that the expansion of wind power is most urgent 4.
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! Joakim Järrebring has asked me how I, within my area of responsibility, can ensure that Swedish industrial initiatives such as Northvolt receive the long-term and predictable rules of the game required to promote sustainable investments and ensure the transition to a green economy. Joakim Järrebring has also asked me what measures I intend to take so that Sweden can maintain and strengthen its position as a leading actor in the climate transition in Europe and whether I will work actively to counter proposals that could weaken the EU's ambitious climate goals - for example, extending the use of fossil fuel cars - as well as how I intend to secure broad political anchoring for a consistent and long-term climate policy in Sweden.
The government is implementing many different initiatives and measures that have great significance for the industry's transition in both the short and long term. This concerns the possibility of building new nuclear power, changes to achieve simpler and faster permit processes, state support for the industry's structural transformation towards fossil-free, support for charging infrastructure for light and heavy vehicles, as well as market introduction support for fossil-free buses, light and heavy trucks, and work machines. The supports for market introduction also create a demand for batteries and other technology needed for a fossil-free transport sector and in this way also benefit the vehicle manufacturers' subcontractors, such as Northvolt.
Sweden shall pursue an ambitious and effective climate policy to reach all the way down to net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest. The Swedish climate goal is thus more ambitious than the EU's goal of climate neutrality by 2050.
In December 2023, the government presented its climate action plan. Our climate action plan contains about seventy concrete proposals that will either be implemented or started during the mandate period for emission reductions in all sectors.
In the government's budget bill for 2025, there are several important initiatives and measures leading to reduced emissions, for example, the introduction of the new reduction obligation, which also includes electricity from public charging stations, a strengthening of Klimatklivet, as well as a proposal for a new electric car premium within the framework of the EU's Social Climate Fund aimed at vulnerable groups in, for example, rural areas.
In October 2024, the government also decided on committee directives for the so-called Styrmedelsutredningen (Policy Instruments Inquiry). The inquiry shall analyze which policy instruments can be designed to phase out fossil fuels in a cost- and socio-economically efficient manner and to reach the long-term national climate goal by 2045 as well as our EU commitments in the climate area.
The government supports the EU Climate Law and the EU legislative package to achieve the EU's ambitious climate goals for 2030, also called the Fit for 55 package. This also means that the government supports the new climate goals for light vehicles that were adopted in April 2023 and which entail requirements for zero emissions from 2035. In practice, this means that new light vehicles with internal combustion engines may not be sold on the EU market from 2035 onwards. It is something that the government has worked for and has welcomed.
To overturn decided climate goals would mean that vehicles with internal combustion engines would continue to be permitted after 2035. We believe this risks counteracting important investments, delaying the transition to zero emissions, and disadvantaging those manufacturers who are at the forefront, not least Swedish ones.
Sweden's goal of net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest and the implementation of Sweden's ESR commitments towards the EU have a broad political anchoring, as the government and also all political parties in Sweden's Riksdag now stand behind these.
The government's climate policy shall be ambitious and effective, as well as take into account people's and companies' possibilities to live and operate throughout the country. This government also considers that the climate transition shall be fair. In the reorganization of the previous government's policy, the government has shown that Sweden can deliver on these principles and reach the Swedish very ambitious climate goals with broad acceptance in society.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer and for some important positions linked to the questions I have asked!
The starting point for why I submitted the interpellation was, as I also write, the messages from Northvolt. We are currently seeing a worrying development regarding the green transition in Sweden with many projects being paused. This is being done for slightly different reasons, but it is very often linked to the energy issue.
As I touched upon slightly in the previous interpellation debate, it is an incredibly important part of the climate policy work that we have a clear connection between this and transitioning the Swedish industry, innovating, and developing new technology. In that way, Sweden can continue to be a successful export country that is at the absolute forefront when it comes to innovations and new technology.
It is from this starting point that I hope the entire debate can be about what we do when we see the worrying messages that we are now receiving. The criticism that my party has put forward against the government in various parts concerns the view on the energy supply. I absolutely agree with the Minister when she repeats how important nuclear power has been for Sweden and for managing to phase out large parts of the fossil use we had within the energy sector in Sweden before nuclear power was established.
The Minister has also profitably highlighted the technological developments that have occurred, not least regarding wind power and solar power. I also, of course, think that what is happening in terms of research regarding the development of a fourth-generation nuclear power is interesting. It could contribute energy for a very long time to come if the technology becomes mature.
I and my party experience, however, that the government has a bit too much focus on the existing nuclear power technology and initiatives to try to get new nuclear power in place, when what is most important here and now and what can contribute to increased electricity production in the near term, above all, is the offshore wind power. We also know that much of the onshore wind power we have today needs to be modernized, and in that area, technological development has taken giant leaps.
The potential of the effect that can be extracted from modern land-based wind power is also very great. There, however, we have problems precisely with the permit processes, in that many of the existing wind turbines have environmental permits that do not make it possible to replace the old wind power with modern wind turbines.
I would have liked to see a clearer focus on what can get new energy production in place here and now. It is partly about ensuring once again that we expand the infrastructure needed for offshore wind power in the same way that the state took responsibility for the main grid on land. But I also see the need for simplified permit processes and modification permits for the existing onshore wind power.
Here I think the government should have a greater commitment. It is good and well if we get nuclear power in place at a later stage, but that is not what solves the green transition's need for energy in the near term.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I am pleased when Member Järrebring submits interpellations, because then one can truly talk about real climate policy. One can talk about what are the actual solutions for Sweden to reduce its emissions, for Sweden to be a leader in the EU, and for Swedish companies not only to be able to produce clean goods and services for Sweden and Europe but also to be able to export them worldwide. Just as during industrialization and digitalization, Sweden can truly be the country that contributes to an advancement for the climate worldwide.
This is therefore a very good interpellation debate. It is good that we get to talk about how we can actually deliver climate policy for real and not just stand and talk about goals, whose figures are correct and who has the strongest ambition in what one wants to achieve. Now we can instead talk about how one achieves it. How do we get all the way there?
In my response, I mentioned various initiatives and measures that the government is implementing, developing, and starting. If we set those aside, perhaps we can instead focus on what the member chose to highlight themselves, namely how we ensure that our electricity supply is in line with the needs of the industry.
This is a question that perhaps was not necessarily in focus for the interpellation. Without going into too many details, I can say that the government shares the member's opinion. If one reads the government's direction proposal regarding specifically energy issues, one notices that the government clearly states that it is wind power that, in the short term, will account for the large expansion of Sweden's electricity system.
What we see now, however, is that Sweden's wind power over the last two decades has gone from 0 to 20 percent of our system. This has meant difficulties for us to maintain balance, maintain good power, and maintain good prices. It is a problem that we must address.
Somewhere here, the political debate begins to lose patience, one might say. It often lands in trench warfare: wind power or nuclear power. The truth is, which the members are surely also aware of, much more complex than that. We will need to use all types of solutions that can promote a balanced, strong electricity system. We will need to see an expansion of intermediate storage for batteries, i.e., batteries that are medium-sized and can contribute with local reinforcing power. This may well be located in connection with larger land-based wind turbines.
We will need to see which solutions will be able to ensure that we do not just build offshore wind power, but also connect it to our electricity grid. Is it hydrogen? Is it gas turbines? How are we going to do it to make the whole thing work?
Unfortunately, it is far too rarely that one gets to speak about this issue in the political context because the debate often becomes a question of wind power or nuclear power. But I am convinced that we will need both onshore wind power, offshore wind power, and nuclear power to make this work. We will not manage without nuclear power, and therefore this government will continue to remove regulations that, not least the Miljöpartiet, but also the Centerpartiet, have contributed to and which hinder nuclear power in Sweden.
The government will continue to improve the conditions for nuclear power in Sweden so that we actually have enough power to seriously meet our climate goals.
Here we come to the question regarding infrastructure for offshore wind. It is a question that has been raised, not least when Vattenfall has announced that they want to pause their project for offshore wind.
When the Social Democrats say that you want to finance cables for offshore wind – do you mean that the cost should fall on consumers and operators? Is the connection fee, therefore, to be taken from everyone else, as was the arrangement when the previous red-green government was in power? Is it the operators who are to pay, simply?
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer and the questions! Ultimately, one can never escape the fact that it is the consumer who will have to pay. It is really just a matter of a setup for when things should be paid for, who should have the liquidity for it, and how to make an investment as efficient as possible in terms of financing costs and other things. I do not intend to delve into that part.
There is, of course, a difference in how we are handling offshore wind power right now compared to how we have handled the expansion of large-scale electricity production previously. The Social Democrats' message is that we should handle offshore wind power in the same way as we handled the expansion of nuclear power, that is, with equal treatment of different technologies.
I want to proceed in my reasoning regarding these long-term prerequisites, and I take my starting point in Industriklivet and Klimatklivet. There, we have previously in the debate had a consensus that this is good policy. What worries me is that the appropriation authorization is being reduced by 30 percent in light of the government's latest budget. It does not quite create the long-term prerequisites for transition that I believe are necessary and that I also believe I hear both municipalities and the business community demanding.
In the reasoning regarding how we are to meet our environmental and climate goals, we were also looking at the ESR sector and how we are to get stronger pressure to phase out the use of fossil fuels. We now have the Steering Measures Inquiry in place. However, the proposals it will come with cannot become relevant to implement until the next mandate period. We have criticized this previously. We would have gladly seen the Steering Measures Inquiry completed earlier so that we would have received a change of the reduction obligation in a more orderly manner together with additional steering measures.
An important part of the previously pursued policy for the transport sector was that we should overperform so much that we could use the flexibility that exists linked to LULUCF. We have a large contingency in LULUCF. We in the Environmental Goals Secretariat will present a number of proposals that we believe will take us a long way, but not all the way. There, it would have been good if we had had the opportunity to use the flexibility in the ESR sector. That is what our previous climate policy was built on, with its errors and shortcomings that we have already touched upon.
The overall picture here does not feel quite right. There is a concern, not only for me but also within the industry, regarding long-term perspective and what effects this will have on other parts of the industry that are important to us, namely the forest and forestry. The Minister is welcome to say a few words on this before we move on to the final amendments.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I thought I would begin with the more formalistic of the questions asked, namely those concerning the ceilings for Industriklivet and Klimatklivet in the authorization.
The government is investing in Klimatklivet, not least in the budget bill for 2025. Naturvårdsverket has, however, provided information that they will postpone their application periods because a large part of the funds in Klimatklivet are tied up in ongoing and upcoming projects.
At its core, it is very positive that Klimatklivet is so popular that the authorization process cannot keep up. Now that we have expanded Klimatklivet and invested more in this than ever before, it has become even more popular, and it has been possible to grant very many projects all over Sweden for the climate transition.
Many measures within Klimatklivet are multi-year. This means that one does not only burden the year for which something is budgeted, but also the years ahead.
Naturvårdsverket has issued the announcement that they are postponing new application rounds because they are calculating the ceilings for how much funding they can commit. We hope that the projects that have been granted so far proceed according to schedule. If they do, Naturvårdsverket can open for more application rounds in 2025 and thus make decisions on new projects. Naturvårdsverket expects to be able to provide more information about upcoming application periods at the beginning of next year.
The government is, of course, following this very closely. We are very keen that both Industriklivet and Klimatklivet can continue to work at the pace they do.
Industriklivet is managed primarily by the Swedish Energy Agency. The Swedish Energy Agency has chosen to close the tender linked to the same issue. Here, however, the funds in the appropriation are not exhausted, but it concerns the authorization framework.
We are trying to ensure that the appropriation is feasible. This government has significantly increased the increase of Industriklivet's appropriation, and that means there is a need to adjust how the work proceeds.
As one can notice, this is more of a technical question. We are, however, of course very positive that so many are applying to Klimatklivet and Industriklivet and making investments that the government, as the member mentioned, is positive about and wants to expand and strengthen.
I will now move on to the other parts of the questions. The Steering Mechanism Inquiry is not intended to hinder our current policy and development. In particular, the Steering Mechanism Inquiry shall look at complements to the policy that the government presents in its state budgets. What we have primarily presented is the new reduction obligation, which is 10 percent for diesel and gasoline and which also includes electricity from public charging stations to promote the expansion of charging infrastructure. It is one of the tools that the government uses to increase electrification and reduce Sweden's emissions.
We are also carrying out our initiatives on market introduction support, where one receives assistance from the state when wanting to purchase an electric vehicle. There we received a direct response from not least small business owners. They often use leasing, and in that case, one could not access these funds. Now we have improved the support so that even small business owners and those who lease to a large extent can have access to the funds.
In this way, we are actively working with the electrification. The steering committee investigation is a complement that shall also, not least, look at the social aspects and the justice aspects of implemented climate measures.
It is very important that we live up to our climate goals, including LULUCF. But to do so solely through overperformance within ESR is not an option for this government.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answers.
No, of course we are not going to meet LULUCF just by overperforming in ESR. That was not my point either. It is in the small part, some million tonnes, where perhaps it will be required where it would have been very welcome if there had been a flexibility to use.
My assessment, and the assessment I believe we will make in the Environmental Goals Commission, is that there will not be much flexibility to use either at home or from other EU countries. This remains to be seen, however. The important thing is that this debate has shown a number of areas where I believe the government needs to step forward and take a clearer leadership on the issue of long-term conditions.
I thank you very much for the answer regarding the technical part concerning Industriklivet and Klimatklivet. I interpret it as that an even higher appropriation would have been needed to be able to remain at a higher authorization in Industriklivet, but that there were other problems in terms of Klimatklivet. The Minister is welcome to correct me if I am wrong.
Additionally, I still want to emphasize the incredible conditions that exist with modern wind power. The wind power industry has also been very clear that it can contribute with other services than pure power production when it comes to the balancing sector. I see a greater focus on enabling both the replacement of existing land-based wind power and a faster expansion of offshore wind power as the most urgent matter right now.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker and Member! I mean, just as the Member himself explains, that the most important thing is to have a sufficient amount of power and clean electricity for the industry's transition. Therefore, we must resolve this political polarization, as if one side of politics stood for wind power and the other for nuclear power. That is not the case.
We must all be mindful that we are to have a functioning system that can deliver cheap clean electricity to the right place at the right price. That must be the goal.
I am therefore proud that I, as minister, have been able to implement initiatives ensuring that property tax shall go towards the municipalities' establishment of land-based wind power. It is something that has been very much anticipated and that several governments have tried to tackle. We promptly appointed an inquiry, which will soon deliver its result on how the process for offshore wind shall be changed.
I believe that not least the process change will be able to increase the profitability for offshore wind. I am not convinced that if one only pays for the cables, offshore wind will be fully successful. The question is far more complex. It is not least about the storage capacity. How do we do it? Is it hydrogen turbines? Is it gas turbines? How do we ensure that the large, strong offshore wind can also enter our electricity system?
I look forward to continuing to discuss this with Member Järrebring and others. I am also positive that more people realize that we need to simplify our environmental permit processes in Sweden. We cannot continue to complicate things to this extent. We will slow down the transition in Sweden, and we have neither the time nor the resources for that.
I look forward to continuing to argue on these issues, so that Sweden can continue to be a leader in the EU, together with Portugal, when it comes to having the lowest emissions per capita. It is certainly something for all Swedes to be proud of.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.