Response to interpellation 2024/25:177 on the climate goals for 2030
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 has taken measures to reach the climate goals by 2030 through increased appropriations for fossil-free vehicles, expanded charging infrastructure, and changed reduction obligations 1. 2 L considers it responsible to include electricity from public charging stations in the reduction obligation and that the government is investing in transitioning the heavy transport fleet 2. 3 L argues that the government implemented ETS 2 early and broadly to reduce emissions 3. 4 L claims that the reduction in fuel taxes did not lead to increased emissions 4. 5 V argues that the government's policy leads to increased emissions and that significantly increased investments in public transport and electrification are required 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! [She] has asked me if I intend to advocate for new measures in the near term - and if so, which ones - that fairly reduce emissions to reach the 2030 goals by ensuring that the measures facilitate and reward reduced use of fossil fuels. She has also asked if I intend to advocate for additional policy instruments, in addition to those signaled in the government's climate action plan, to be introduced before May 2026 to reduce emissions from domestic transport in line with the adopted climate goal of reducing emissions from the sector by 70 percent by 2030 at the latest.
Kajsa Fredholm has also asked me if I intend to work for increased national investments in public transport to achieve these goals and commitments for the climate by 2030 and for a unified plan to be developed to increase the uptake of carbon dioxide in forest and land in accordance with the Climate Policy Council's recommendations.
Since the government took office in the autumn of 2022, Sweden's emissions have continued to decrease. According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's statistics, Sweden's emissions decreased by 5 percent during 2022 compared to the previous year, and preliminary statistics for 2023 show a further decrease of 2 percent in comparison with the previous year. Despite an expected temporary increase in emissions in 2024 due to the reduced reduction obligation, the government assesses that the climate targets for 2030 in the ESR sector can be reached with some margin, thanks to new measures in the budget for 2025.
Mr. Speaker! Emissions from the transport sector also continue to decrease. The reduction was 1 percent during 2023 compared to 2022. Sweden's goal is to reduce emissions from domestic transport, excluding domestic aviation, by at least 70 percent by 2030 compared to 2010. So far, those emissions have decreased by 34 percent, which means that further substantial measures are needed.
The EU's steering measures are becoming increasingly important to reduce emissions. The new emissions trading system ETS 2 covers carbon emissions from buildings and road transport, new carbon requirements for light and heavy vehicles, as well as promoted use of renewable fuels and expansion of charging stations through various EU regulations.
The Government has taken several measures to complement the EU's steering instruments. Among other things, the appropriations for market introduction support for fossil-free vehicles and work machines have increased significantly for 2024-2026. The charging infrastructure is crucial for electrification, and through Klimatklivet, over 180,000 charging points have received support. The Government has also introduced changes in the reduction obligation to promote fossil-free fuels.
The government has also introduced measures to strengthen shipping's role in a sustainable transport system, including an investment support to shift freight transport to shipping and rail, which reduces emissions.
To reduce the climate impact from aviation, Mr. Speaker, Sweden has introduced environmentally differentiated takeoff and landing fees and supports the development of electric aviation. In the government's infrastructure bill, a historic investment in infrastructure is proposed for the 2026-2037 period. It is an increase of over 200 billion kronor compared to the 2022-2033 period. We know that a well-functioning transport infrastructure, not least with railways, improves the conditions for all types of public transport.
The forecasts for the land sector show a smaller net uptake compared to Sweden's commitments under the LULUCF Regulation. These forecasts are strongly dependent on the growth in the forest. This is a sector with large natural variations, and the parliamentary Environmental Objectives Council has an additional directive to propose a strategy to reach the LULUCF commitment (dir. 2022:126), with a report expected in February 2025. We look forward to receiving the Environmental Objectives Council's proposal and will subsequently prepare these further in the Government Offices.
The government has also appointed an inquiry to propose policy measures to contribute to a phasing out of fossil fuels and to achieve climate commitments in the EU (dir. 2024:98). This inquiry shall ensure that Sweden's high climate commitments towards the EU are met without households and the business sector being affected by unreasonably high costs.
The Government takes the climate goals very seriously and will take the necessary measures to achieve them. Through a combination of national initiatives and EU instruments, we are working from Sweden's side to reduce emissions and achieve our climate goals for 2030. The Government follows the developments closely and always analyzes the need for additional measures.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much for the answer, Minister!
The climate crisis affects us all. Most of us agree that we need to secure a sustainable future for future generations. Sweden has every opportunity to lead the way and show the world how to reduce emissions while simultaneously building a better society. For us in Vänsterpartiet, it is a self-evident matter that we must act to secure a better future.
The government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy hinders the possibilities of reaching the climate goals by increasing the demand for fossil fuels and by the alternatives not being built out in time. This policy has led to sharply increased emissions during 2024. It contradicts our common goal of a just and sustainable transition, where the most vulnerable should be protected from the negative effects of climate change.
With that said, it is good that the government here establishes that the 2030 targets apply and shall be reached. I thank them for that. But there are problems, namely that the government's policy is not sufficient to reach the 2030 targets, the national transport target, and the ESR target. The proposals in the climate policy action plan are not sufficient. The increase in the reduction obligation will not be enough. Then add the commitment in LULUCF, which it is very uncertain whether we will achieve.
All referral bodies that have commented on the issue of the increased reduction obligation agree that the increase is good but that it is not sufficient to meet the EU's ESR requirements and Sweden's national 2030 goals. This includes, for example, the Swedish Energy Agency and Drivkraft Sverige.
Trafikanalys assesses "that the proposed increase of the reduction obligation is insufficient to reach the set goals with greater certainty" and notes that reduced tax on petrol and diesel reduces the incentives for electrification.
The proposal to include public charging of electric cars in the reduction obligation is questioned by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, as it "contributes to increased emissions through reduced blending of biofuels".
A summary of the consequences is made by Lund University:
"Sweden must rely on the possibility of purchasing emission allowances from other member states or on emission reductions within an area such as LULUCF where we are also not judged to fulfill our commitment. We therefore want to emphasize the importance of significantly stronger measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector."
The conclusion is that the opportunity we have to reduce emissions in the near term lies primarily within the transport sector. Therefore, I ask: Why is the government delaying the proposals that are required?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I understand that the Left Party is very eager and wishes that all climate goals should be reached now. Therefore, I find it interesting to read the Left Party's budget proposal. What the government does in its budget for 2025 is that we present a new reduction obligation and utilize the opportunity that the EU has given us to include electricity from public charging stations. We believe that it is quite right to do so in order to follow the development occurring within the EU where they want to include electricity, where they believe that the electrification of the vehicle fleet is very important, and where they perhaps also take into account the development surrounding biofuels that has occurred.
Biofuels and what we use in connection with the reduction obligation perhaps should not only go towards high reduction obligations for passenger cars. Perhaps it should, on the contrary, be able to be balanced against the reduction obligation that we have now within the EU decided that we shall have for aviation. It is a very sharp curve. Shipping also wants to utilize fossil-free fuels. These are just two examples of many industries and sectors that want to use biofuels in order to be able to have climate compensation.
The change to include electricity from public charging stations is simply something that is only responsible to do. We are very positive that the EU has also realized this.
In the Left Party's budget motion - their shadow budget, Mr. Speaker - the reduction obligation is not mentioned. It can therefore be assumed that the Left Party approves of the government's proposal for a reduction obligation and thus has no proposals of its own for a policy that would live up to the 70-percent target, where we currently stand at only a 38 percent reduction.
It is very positive that Vänsterpartiet, in its shadow budgets, wants to make large investments in Klimatklivet and on electric car premiums. It is a policy that we share. We also want to make large investments in Klimatklivet, not least for charging infrastructure. We want a new electric car premium that we want to target towards rural areas and people who have a long way to public transport. But what I notice is that it becomes a bit difficult to debate against an opposition that, in practice, does not have proposals regarding what we are critical of here.
One can, of course, demand more from the government than from oneself. However, I want to point out that I do not notice the Left Party putting forward any proposal other than the one the government is pushing to achieve just these goals, i.e., the transport goals for the climate in the short term in Sweden nationally.
Mr. Speaker! There are many different measures we need to take to reduce emissions from road vehicles. One of the most important is that the EU's emissions trading system will in the future include road transport. From 2027 onwards, there will be a price on carbon emissions from our road transport. This is a very sharp steering instrument that we expect will have large effects.
There are also stricter carbon requirements now, namely requirements for zero emissions for 100 percent of new light vehicles by 2035 and for 90 percent of new heavy vehicles by 2040.
Sweden needs to make a journey here. We are very good at having a high proportion of rechargeable vehicles in our traffic. We are not quite at the level of Iceland and Norway, but we are up there at the top when it comes to the proportion of rechargeable vehicles in passenger car traffic. However, we are lagging behind when it comes to heavy vehicles. There, we have large emissions.
These are large vehicles that consume a lot of fuel, and therefore the government is currently investing very much in converting the heavy transport fleet. I believe this is a typical thing that is important to prioritize during this period, when we notice that electric cars are becoming increasingly cheaper and that it is still a major challenge to convert the heavy vehicle sector, where the prices are higher and thus also the threshold.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answers. I do not mean that the government's proposals are bad, for example, the increase of the reduction obligation. What I mean is that they will not be sufficient by 2030. That is the point of entry in this.
It is a problem that emissions during the first half of the year increased sharply due to price reductions on gasoline and diesel. According to the climate annex in your budget, the emission reduction also appears to be paused during this mandate period. The government has had half of the mandate period to come up with real proposals for reduced emissions so that we can reach the goals by 2030. Instead, I feel that decisions are being pushed forward. I am afraid that this mandate period could be lost. It would have been possible to reduce emissions within the transport sector at a faster pace if one truly wanted to.
The Left Party's climate policy is based on the premise that society needs to transition in a comprehensive, urgent, and structured manner to achieve the climate goals and avoid a climate catastrophe. Many of the necessary changes to our production and consumption need to be implemented in the next ten years. Here, the 2030 goals play a necessary role, and the minister knows that. The longer we postpone emission-reduction measures, the more costly and drastic it will become in the future since we only have a carbon budget to stick to, and the more difficult it will become to implement a just climate transition.
There are a number of proposals that the government could have introduced. We in Vänsterpartiet have, just as the minister has read in our budget, submitted proposals and funds to, for example, address the maintenance debt on the railway. If more passengers and more freight are to be able to use the train, the railway must function and be expanded at a faster pace than what is currently planned and the case.
We are investing in an expanded and functioning public transport system throughout the country, where it is possible to do so. We want to introduce a monthly pass that will cost 450 kronor, a Sweden card, and an electric bus premium. A transport-neutral travel deduction is also completely necessary to introduce, and those who live in the countryside and do not have access to public transport need to be compensated for it.
We want to strengthen the state support for the urban environment agreements. There, an increased share of passenger transport should be able to take place with public transport and bicycles.
We are also investing in Klimatklivet, just as the Minister mentioned, though quite a lot more than the government does. We also want it to be extended.
We also want to introduce an electric car support aimed at those with lower incomes. Here we perhaps have the same proposal, I don't know. I thought the minister mentioned it too.
That the government has taken two years to put together an investigation that is to produce proposals indicates that they are not taking the climate issue as seriously as is required. Now half of the mandate period has passed. The government still says that they will not do anything, but instead, it is being placed in investigations for the future.
I wonder again: How is the government going to have time to launch the emission-reduction measures required to reach the goals by 2030?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I find it difficult to contain my laughter when the member says that the government says that we have not planned to do anything, that there are no real proposals and that we have put it in an investigation and wasted two years.
I will simply repeat what the government has done since we took office. We have, therefore, not refrained from doing anything at all, as the member claims here in the chamber, but we have done quite a few things, which I apparently need to repeat.
What the government has done is that in our climate action plan we have decided that we shall implement ETS 2 as early and broadly as possible. If one understands climate policy, one also understands how enormous effects such a decision has when it comes to reducing emissions.
The chairman himself is very proud of the proposals that Vänsterpartiet wants to invest in in its budget. I note that quite a few institutions have pointed out that these do not have demonstrated effects when it comes to reduced emissions. It certainly sounds great to stand here and rattle off the proposals that Vänsterpartiet wants to invest in. Due to a lack of time, I cannot go into what they are. But the government has a different position regarding several of them, and that is simply because there are no demonstrated effects when it comes to emission reductions. But it certainly sounds great to invest money in things that do not reduce emissions but sound good for the climate.
What does the government do instead? We do things that actually have an effect, for example, applying the ETS as early and broadly as possible. The government is investing very heavily in establishing a market introduction support that includes climate premiums for both light and heavy vehicles as well as light trucks and work machines, so that one can find environmentally friendly work machines. There are even electric-powered work machines available to purchase. We have ensured that the support can also be used if one leases vehicles, because quite a few small business owners cannot afford to buy such large, expensive vehicles and lease them instead. We have opened that up.
We also ensure that all support we introduce for the transport sector does not exclude the second-hand market, as the second-hand market becomes very relevant as that sector develops.
Our government has invested very heavily in the charging infrastructure.
We have introduced changes to the reduction obligation to promote fossil-free fuels.
We have strengthened the role of maritime transport in our sustainable transport system and created various investment supports to shift freight transport to maritime and rail.
We have drafted a proposal for an infrastructure bill that suggests such large investments in railways that the authorities say they cannot receive more money than that, because it is not possible to carry it out at a different pace.
So it sounds very good when Vänsterpartiet stands here and says: We want to do the same thing as the government with investments in railways, but we want it to go even faster. Then I can inform Kajsa Fredholm that the authorities say: We cannot deliver more than this. And it is that level, that maximum level that we can settle on, that the government has settled on. It is simply not a correct statement that this government would have a worse prioritization of this.
A well-functioning transport infrastructure is, in our view, extremely important, not least for public transport. This has implications for this.
We have done many more things that I do not have time to talk about today. But as can be heard, Mr. Speaker, I become quite frustrated by these loose claims that the government is doing nothing, that the government wants to waste time, and that it is a lost mandate period where one appoints an inquiry.
That is not correct. This government is bringing forward very many different proposals that we also believe must have a demonstrated effect on emission reductions, so that we can justify them to Swedish taxpayers. That is how you conduct a climate policy that is not only ambitious but also effective.
Kajsa Fredholm (V)
Mr. Speaker! There is much one wants to answer here, but now I only have two minutes of speaking time left.
The government's policy so far leads to emission increases. It is the previous government's work that has led to the reductions during the first two years of the mandate period. The government's policy leads, as it looks now, to emission increases. There is no doubt about it. And it is not only I who think so, but there are experts who think so as well.
We still have the opportunity to reverse the development, but it requires action here and now. If we prioritize a green transition and invest in sustainable solutions, we can achieve the climate goals by 2030. Then we need to significantly increase investments in public transport and electrification and strengthen economic incentives for fossil-free choices and transport-efficient solutions. And we can reduce emissions and at the same time create new jobs and a sustainable economy.
We can have a future, if we do this, where our roads can be dominated by fossil-free vehicles that everyone can afford, where public transport is cheap and smooth and exists across the entire country, and where our forestry and agriculture help to capture and store carbon dioxide and protect nature.
It is possible to achieve this, but it requires the right decisions. It is unfortunately something that I lack in the current policy of the government and the Sverigedemokraterna, even though the ambition of the minister is naturally there.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I only intend to comment on the claim that emissions in Sweden decreased in 2023 and that it had nothing to do with the government taking office in 2022/2023 or with the government's state budget for 2023. That it was the previous government that caused the emissions to decrease in 2023, I have never heard anyone else assert.
The forecasts in 2023 were that emissions would increase because this government lowered the fuel taxes. The reality and the outcome was that the government lowered the fuel taxes and that people in Sweden got more money in their wallets but did not drive more cars. The tax change we made therefore did not lead to increased emissions, even though the authorities and everyone possible assumed that it would. Therefore, emissions decreased last year. That was not due to any hocus-pocus from a red-green government that is not in power. It was simply due to the fact that when we lowered the fuel taxes, people did not drive more but kept more money in their wallets.
It is a typical example of watermelon politics, where it is green on the outside but red on the inside. It is socialism packaged as climate policy, but it had de facto no effects on Sweden's emissions.
I think it is very positive that we noticed that Swedes could keep more of their own money in their wallets without Sweden's emissions increasing. But I now understand that Vänsterpartiet now argues that it was thanks to the previous government and that it had nothing to do with the policy that was conducted.
The policy we pursue in state budgets has a significant impact. Therefore, the temporary reduction of the reduction obligation that occurs this year is calculated to show effects. Whether it does or not, we do not know, because the measurements that Vänsterpartiet refers to do not measure Sweden's territorial emissions, but they measure Sweden's production-based emissions. These are two different things. But we will have the opportunity to discuss that in the next interpellation debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.