Response to interpellation 2024/25:618 on Sweden's climate goals
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 is firmly determined to reach net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest 1 and that current policy has contributed to reduced emissions 1. L emphasizes that Sweden has the lowest emissions in the OECD 1 and that they are expanding successful initiatives such as Klimatklivet and Industriklivet 2. L claims that they have the largest climate and environmental budgets, except for 2022 3, and are working with nuclear power, wind power, and simplified permit processes 4 2. S argues that Sweden will not reach any climate goals with the government's policy 5 6 7 and that the government's flip-flopping regarding the reduction obligation is harmful 7.
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)
Madam Speaker! Jytte Guteland has asked me whether I consider that, in light of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's assessment – that Sweden does not appear to be meeting any of the climate goals – there is a need for further climate policy measures.
Let me begin by saying that the government is firmly determined that Sweden shall reach its ESR commitment and reach all the way down to net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest. The national interim targets are important checkpoints on the way toward the long-term climate goal. The government has also tasked the Environmental Objectives Council to review the design of the national interim targets so that they better align with Sweden's commitments in the EU.
The basis for the government's climate policy is to create the best possible conditions for the climate transition of households and companies. To do this, long-term measures and investments are required, for example in infrastructure and fossil-free energy.
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has submitted its basis for the government's climate report. The basis includes, among other things, updated scenarios for Sweden's emissions and analyses of the fulfillment of Sweden's climate goals. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency assesses that the government's policy over the past year has contributed to reducing emissions by 0.5 to 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents within the ESR sector by 2030, primarily through the proposal to increase the reduction obligation. We now see that the emissions forecast from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency continues to be largely in line with the ESR commitment, excluding LULUCF.
Madam President! In the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's basis before the authority, it also states that more is required to reach our climate goals, and it is a task that we are currently in the middle of.
Just a few weeks ago, the government presented its proposal for the autumn budget. There, I was able to present new initiatives to strengthen Sweden's climate transition. For example, we are increasing Klimatklivet's authorization from 4.6 billion to 6.5 billion kronor, a decision that enables new initiatives for climate measures throughout Sweden. We will also increase the scrapping premium from 10,000 kronor to 25,000 kronor to accelerate the electrification of the vehicle fleet.
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's basis shows that emissions are expected to decrease in the future. As Minister for Climate and Environment, I am proud that climate policy is beginning to show results, while the work to reach our climate goals continues. It is a task that will require further measures.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Climate and the Environment and I stood here and debated during the extra session of the climate policy debate on Friday, but not everyone in the Swedish people has followed that debate. Therefore, it is important to repeat what is happening right now:
Transport objective: F, result not approved
The ESR target: F, not passed result
LULUCF: F, not approved result
Neutrality 2045: F, result not approved.
Recently, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency presented its annual basis for the government's climate reporting. According to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden does not appear to be reaching any of the climate goals for 2030, 2040, or 2045. The Climate Policy Council has pointed out the same thing previously.
The long-term climate goal is that Sweden should have no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2045, and that goal is therefore also not reached with the government's policy.
In a previous question regarding what the government intends to do in light of Sweden not reaching its climate goals, the Minister of State answered: "The government is following the developments closely and if it turns out that there is a need for additional measures to achieve the goals, then this is of course something we will need to handle."
So, the Minister for Climate has expressed himself, and therefore we Social Democrats want to ask: What does the Minister for Climate intend to do now that we are in a climate crisis situation, not only for the planet but also for the government's policy? We have a need – an urgent need – for new climate policy measures. What does the government want to present?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Guteland, for another opportunity to discuss Swedish climate policy!
I consider it worrying in the way the Social Democrats further polarize climate policy by portraying it as if there are starkly different assessments being made of, for example, the previous government's climate policy and the current government's climate policy. The previous government received criticism from the Climate Policy Council for not reaching Sweden's climate goals and for not living up to the Climate Act.
The previous government increased emissions in 2021. At that time, we did not stand in the chamber with this high tone and this polarizing method, but we spoke much more constructively about how Sweden's climate policy should be developed.
I want to point out first and foremost that I think it is deeply problematic that one continues to fuel this extreme image, even though Sweden, with this government's climate policy, has the lowest emissions in the OECD, both per GDP and per capita. We are, therefore, still the best in class. I think it is quite sad that I have to stand here and be attacked to get that image out, because the opposition seems to want to win the election by smearing Sweden's climate ambitions, Sweden's climate commitment, and Sweden's fantastic achievement in having low emissions.
If one had instead been more truthful and wanted to discuss how we should constructively develop the climate policy, one might have been able to talk about the fact that Naturvårdsverket's underlying data also this year shows that Sweden has the ESR target within reach.
Since Jytte Guteland was one of the members who worked out these fantastically powerful climate laws in the European Parliament, she knows very well that the ESR target is an annual target, an annual trajectory, and a powerful part of the climate goals. Many say that it is also the hardest goal to reach of the goals we need to reach because so much rests on the transport sector, so I would say it is positive that we have the ESR target within reach. But just as I explained in my response, Madam President, this is a task that will require further measures.
I hope that we can devote the rest of this interpellation debate to talking about what the climate policy should contain and how we can build a more stable foundation for Swedish climate policy by reducing the polarization and lowering the tone in order to discuss the concrete content instead of shouting out who gets an F for different climate goals, given that the previous red-green government also received an F for so incredibly many climate goals. This is a difficult question.
What is it, then, that this government means that we should do in purely political terms?
An important part of this is that when we meet the industry, which accounts for a third of our emissions, or the transport sector, which accounts for another third of Sweden's territorial emissions, very many talk about the fact that electrification requires that one can rely on the electricity being there. How shall we then act to provide better conditions for both offshore and onshore wind power and nuclear power in Sweden?
Sweden, through this government, is now looking at a financing model for nuclear power. We are working on a reorganization for offshore wind power. The state shall designate which areas are suitable so that we can then have an auction. This may make that work go faster and become more financially stable. We are establishing a support for the municipalities so that the municipalities feel that they earn money and simply profit from having land-based wind power in their municipality.
These are some examples of what we do to ensure that electricity is available so that people dare to transition and stop using fossil fuels.
We are also working heavily on infrastructure policy, on the supply of skills, and on simplifying permit processes – issues that are extremely important for this work in a concrete sense.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for that report!
I have three answers based on what the Minister has now raised. For the first: It is not us who are barking; it is the experts. For the second: We have our own policy, and we are clear about it. For the third: We are very happy to cooperate with you, but you have chosen to cooperate with the Sverigedemokraterna. It is inscrutable why a liberal party chooses to do that. We stand up for liberal democratic values, and that is not what the authoritarian party Sverigedemokraterna does.
For the first thing, it is not us who are scolding the government; it is the experts. The Climate Policy Council is just one of all the agencies that have been critical. Also the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, IVL, the Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish Transport Administration and even the environmental movement broadly and researchers broadly have said that the government's line increases emissions and threatens Sweden's credibility. Several of these have also said that it is a trend break in Swedish climate policy, that one is slamming on the brakes, that one is turning around – yes, the metaphors are many. It is therefore not as the government tries to make it out regarding that an ambitious climate policy remains firm with the current government.
At the time when the Social Democrats were in power, we had an ambitious climate policy. At that time, we were at the forefront, also globally. It wasn't enough, but we were there and had the opportunity to reach the goals by 2030. With the current policy, we do not.
Secondly, we have our own policy. It seems to be the new thing that the Minister for Climate wants us to rule Sweden. When it comes to our policy, we are clear that we do indeed have a series of measures that allow us to reach the 2030 goals. Our policy also extends far beyond that.
We have the reduction obligation; that is one example. There, we have tried to find a balance between climate benefit and the price at the pump. It is a sustainable solution that ensures that producers also get long-term conditions and not this flip-flopping that the current government has. Unlike your reduction and your yo-yoing up and down, we want to take responsibility both for the possibility for the Swedish people to refuel and, above all, for climate policy to be possible.
We also have a larger climate budget. This government has reduced the budget by 31 percent since 2022. We have real climate initiatives where the government has removed a number of them, not least those that enable electrification with environmental bonuses and other measures. The government has, in practice, saved on the climate area. We have instead chosen to develop our policy during the period in opposition.
Thirdly, we would very much prefer to cooperate with you instead of you choosing to cooperate on climate policy with the Sverigedemokraterna. In this chamber, we have on several occasions extended a hand to the Minister for Climate and pledged to seek broad agreements, but we have received zero response to this. Instead, the Minister for Climate seeks support from the majority that has been chosen with the Sverigedemokraterna as the basis, and they attack the climate policy.
But I do not want to be quarrelsome. I obviously want the government to succeed because it is important for the climate, so I am giving the Minister for Climate and Environment yet another opportunity to demonstrate what could be the way forward for us to reach the climate goals by 2030 and have the possibility of climate neutrality by 2045 at the latest.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Yes, it would be very good if we could discuss the content of the climate policy and discuss how the policy should be developed and move forward. But once again we hear how Member Guteland prefers to point out that I want the opposition to account for its policy and claim that I therefore have no policy of my own.
The fact is that this government is quite clear on climate policy. We see it as absolutely crucial for the climate transition in Sweden, where we are to phase out fossil fuels, that there is something to replace the fossil fuels with.
One can join Miljöpartiet and what Amanda Lind says at regular intervals. Then she possibly distances herself from it, but it is this with downsizing and that the compensation for succeeding in reaching climate goals is that Swedish industries and companies shall shut down. But unless one believes in that, one needs to replace the fossil fuels with something.
Madam Speaker! Depending on whom I stand here in the chamber and debate against, I hear either renewable energy or fossil-free energy. It depends a bit on which Social Democrat is standing in the speaker's chair because it is so incredibly difficult for them to take a stand on the issue of nuclear power in Sweden. It is, among other things, such a thing that creates instability in our climate policy work – that the largest party in Sweden's Riksdag does not know what it thinks.
Another such question, Madam Speaker, is the one the member herself highlighted now. The reduction obligation was the first thing she mentioned as a concrete climate policy tool to reach the goals. But when the Social Democrats governed alone in Sweden for half a year, they did not want to continue with the Green Party's climate policy and raise the reduction obligation, but instead, they paused it. That was in 2022. As soon as they got the opportunity from the Social Democrats' side, they paused their primary climate policy tool. And now that they are in opposition, they beat their chests and claim that they will raise the reduction obligation.
Madam President! I mean that it does not become particularly credible when the one who did not manage to shoulder the heavy responsibility when sitting in power suddenly claims that one will increase the reduction obligation and forcefully drive through a progressive fuel policy. I think it becomes quite difficult to rely on that.
We also recently heard that Miljöpartiet and Amanda Lind came out with new demands for a significantly increased reduction obligation and that fuel prices should increase. Is that a policy that the Social Democrats share, or do you have your own line? We received no answers on that on Friday, and I assume that we will not receive any further answers on that.
The reason why I ask these questions quite often, Madam Speaker, is quite simply that I do not get answers on how one should view one's coalition's fuel policy. We hear how the spokespersons for the Green Party say they are convinced that the Social Democrats stand behind this, and that implies significantly increased fuel prices.
Let it be so that this is how the Social Democrats want to succeed with the climate transition, but that is not the case for the liberal, bourgeois government. We choose to continue to stand at the forefront globally, not least by having the largest climate and environmental budgets, apart from 2022. That year was the only year that Sweden had a climate and environmental budget that was larger than the Tidö government's budgets, and which the chamber should be well aware of, Madam Speaker, it was therefore the M-SD-KD budget that governed Sweden in 2022.
It is simply false to claim that we are lowering the budgets significantly in comparison with the previous government's. The only budget for climate and environment, expenditure area 20, that has ever been larger than our Tidö budgets is the M-SD-KD budget that the Social Democrats were allowed to govern with because they did not get their own budget through here in the chamber.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the Climate for the answers.
There is still a much greater interest from the government to talk about the opposition than about their own policy. This interpellation debate is about the fact that experts broadly, across the entire spectrum, describe that the government is missing all climate goals.
If I had been in the clothes of a government minister, I would have been significantly more concerned that authorities and Expertsverige say that climate policy has been slowed down and that all climate goals are being missed than over how S manages to keep the opposition politics together. But it is classic to devote more time to rhetorical play than to the content of the policy.
From our side, we have been clear about how we want, for example, the reduction obligation to look. I described that it must be a balance between climate benefit and sustainable fuel prices. What the government does with flip-flopping and a reduction obligation that jumps up and down and is not predictable puts both the Swedish people and the climate in a significantly more difficult situation.
If one is clear about which path the producers can take and what expectations one has for a market, there are better conditions for stable prices that are sustainable in the long term. The flip-flopping we see regarding fuel prices will also be purely harmful to the Swedish people's wallets.
Looking more broadly at climate policy as a whole, it is difficult to understand where the Minister for Climate and Environment gets their calculations from. Perhaps it is from the cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna – I hope not. It sounds very strange when the Minister himself seems to believe that the own climate budget would be more ambitious than the one that the Social Democratic-led government had before the change of government. There is no one else who says that.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! One is not allowed to display props in the speaker's chair, but I can show you the tables after our debate, Jytte Guteland, if you have not been able to read in the state budget and in the government's underlying documents how the budgets have looked. It is crystal clear. Anyone who watches this debate can also go in and read the figures in the state budgets. There is no Social Democratic budget that has won in the chamber and which the Social Democrats have governed on that has been larger in the climate and environment area than the Tidö government's climate and environment budgets.
I genuinely understand if the member himself has not understood this, given the high tone and the polarizing debate that this government is conducting regarding climate policy. I understand that one does not comprehend how it could ever be possible that our budgets are larger. They are larger because we choose to expand many of the initiatives that have been successful and which, not least my party Liberalerna, has been involved in identifying and pushing forward in the previous cooperation.
We invest heavily in what works. Never before has Klimatklivet been as large as it has been under this government. Never before has Industriklivet been as large as it has been under this government. We are bringing forward a lot of new policy which we implement in different ways. We are working very committedly to ensure that, for example, the permit processes are simplified so that one does not put spokes in the wheels for all those operations all around our long country that are now trying to transition and therefore need new permits. We are working very committedly not only with the nuclear power issue but also with the wind power issue. We provide support to the municipalities for land-based wind power and support to rebuild the system for offshore wind power.
So, a lot is happening, Madam Speaker. In no way will I feel ashamed or worry about Sweden's baton in climate issues. We had the lowest emissions per capita in 2023 with this government's policy. We had the lowest emissions per GDP in 2023 with this government's policy. While my colleagues want to phase out coal, oil, and gas, we are building nuclear power and wind power in Sweden. That is how you truly transition, Madam Speaker.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.