Response to interpellation 2024/25:677 on mining in alum shales
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that increased access to minerals is necessary for the fossil-free societal construction, competitiveness, electrification, and defense capability 1. KD argues that Sweden is a leading mining nation and that the government prioritizes strengthening the mineral industry to reduce dependence on third countries 1. KD considers that the current suitability requirement for alumschist is sufficient and that the pace in the permit processes should be increased 2. KD argues that new mining is required for electrification and digitalization 3. KD considers that minerals should come from the Swedish, ethically and environmentally sustainable mining industry 3. V considers that the government's line entails risks for the environment, health, and local communities 4. V argues that the precautionary principle must apply and that a moratorium is needed for mining in sensitive areas 4. V argues that the climate transition must not become an excuse to rush past environmental responsibility 4. V argues that overconsumption must be reduced and that recycling must be prioritized long before new mines 5. V considers that the government's focus on self-sufficiency risks becoming a green industrial nationalism 5. V considers it hypocritical to believe that increased production in Sweden guarantees that the minerals stay in the country 6. V argues that the strategic benefit is lacking because there is nothing preventing export to countries one wants to become less dependent on 6. V argues that established Swedish mining companies do not want to touch alumschist and that the projects are primarily driven by foreign speculators 6. V argues that one should not allow experiments on Swedish wilderness or destroy the water supply around Storsjön if mining experts do not see it as sustainable 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Lorena Delgado Varas has asked me what should be done to stop mining projects that do not have safe and sustainable extraction methods, how I intend to handle the potential environmental and health risks identified in connection with mining in alum shales, particularly regarding the release of heavy metals and toxic substances, and whether I plan to introduce stricter regulations or moratoria for mining in sensitive areas where there is a risk of water pollution and impact on food production.
Madam Speaker! For me, it is a matter of course to come to the Riksdag and respect the common rules, codes of conduct, and procedures that apply in our parliamentary democracy. That is why I am here as a government minister and answering an interpellation that has been submitted to me. But it makes me both angry and distressed to have to do so with a member who has repeatedly expressed anti-Semitic slogans, spread anti-Semitic theories and spreads anti-Semitism and who is not excluded from their own party. I will respect the order and provide answers on the merits, but I find myself compelled to take a stand against anti-Semitism in the chamber.
Increased access to minerals and metals is necessary to enable the fossil-free societal construction, strengthen competitiveness, electrify Sweden, and strengthen Sweden's defense capability.
Sweden is today Europe's leading mining nation, and we shall continue to be. We need more mines to reduce Sweden's and the EU's dependence on raw materials from third countries. The work to strengthen and develop the Swedish mining industry is a priority for the government.
The Government is working on developing a new mineral strategy to secure domestic metal production in a changed geopolitical context.
In decisions regarding a processing concession, submitted by the mining master at the Mining State, a prospector must provide evidence that the deposit can likely be exploited economically and that the extraction is not unsuitable in relation to other public interests.
On 1 July 2022, a so-called fitness requirement was introduced, which means that the applicant must be able to demonstrate that they are fit to conduct mining of alumschist and also have the technical and economic conditions to complete a mining operation. The fitness requirement is therefore new since 2022 and is thus a higher requirement specifically for mining in alumschist.
To start a mining operation, a permit is required according to the Environmental Code, which is decided by a court and ensures that the extraction meets the same environmental requirements as other industrial activities. The Government assumes that the permitting authorities ensure that all assessments regarding extraction from alunschist follow applicable laws and regulations. The Government otherwise works purposefully to streamline the permit processes while we shall continue to have high environmental requirements.
Research, development and innovation is a prerequisite for Sweden to continue to have a first-class mining industry and globally leading mining technology companies in the future. The Government is therefore investing a total of 328 million kronor during the coming four-year period to strengthen research in the minerals area.
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
I have reason in this situation to point out that the debate is about the interpellation and nothing else. This applies, of course, to both the Minister for Energy and Industry and the interpellor.
Lorena Delgado Varas (V)
Madam Speaker! I also consider it distressing that the Minister chooses to start by being part of a circus but has not had problems with shaking hands with, among other things, an army that commits genocide.
Moving on to the mining issue, for that is why we are here. I thank you for the answer. I would, however, like to point out that the government's current line regarding mining in alumschist involves serious risks not only for the environment and people's health but also for the democratic influence of local communities.
We know that alunschist contains a number of dangerous substances – including uranium, cadmium, arsenic and other heavy metals – which risk leaking into groundwater and surface water. This threatens the drinking water supply and agriculture. To then say that the Environmental Code shall ensure that the requirements are met is not enough. We know that the permit processes do not have sufficient resources and often lean on the companies' own environmental impact assessments.
I personally believe that the precautionary principle should apply, especially when it concerns mines in areas with food production and high sensitivity to water pollution, such as the area around Storsjön. Several foreign mining companies have been granted permits to prospect near Storsjön, which is one of Sweden's largest lakes and a drinking water source for thousands of people. One of the companies has also applied to start an open-pit mine in the form of an open-cast mine – this in an area that is incredibly sensitive and incredibly significant for people, animals, and ecosystems.
I also do not share the government's priorities, where increased mining in sensitive areas is justified by defense capability or competitiveness. The climate transition must not become an excuse to bypass environmental responsibility. A green transition must be socially and ecologically sustainable and not be built on continued exploitation of natural resources and sacrifices in local communities. There is no sustainability in poisoning land and water in Sweden to reduce dependence on other countries.
When it comes to defense capability, a society's resilience to crises actually builds on having access to water and food. Both will be lost for thousands of people if we deliberately poison areas through ill-considered mining.
The so-called suitability requirement from 2022 that the minister mentions is not sufficient. It constitutes a minimum requirement but lacks both clear measurable criteria and actual control.
Research shows that extraction from alunschist is extremely difficult to do in a safe way. There are no good examples anywhere in the world, on the contrary. Therefore, we need a moratorium, that is to say a stop, for that type of mining establishment until independent research has been conducted to find out if it can be done without damage to the environment, health, and biodiversity.
TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN
I remind [you] of what is stated in the Rules of Procedure regarding the interpellation system and expect that this debate will not become a general political debate, but that both participants in the debate stick to what applies to the interpellation system and nothing else. Now I also heard comments from the member here, which I must react to.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I shall try to clarify a little more in the answers to Delgado Varas's questions.
We are in complete agreement on parts of the issue. I particularly appreciated the part in the motion about resilience and our water resources as an entirely unique and under-debated part of the Swedish total defense. It is truly something that is quite unique for Sweden. We share the view on the large environmental values that are at stake in many areas in Sweden.
I mean, however, in connection with Delgado Varas's comment on the precautionary principle, that Swedish legislation is fundamentally a precautionary principle. Other countries would have engaged in exploitation, in the true sense of the word, of their natural resources if they had had the kind of enormous deposits that Sweden has. We actually have a completely unique opportunity when it comes to Europe's supply of iron ore, steel, and many other critical and strategic raw materials.
Despite great geopolitical potential, high demand and strategic interest, it is very unusual for new mines to be opened in Sweden. Every mine must undergo rigorous testing processes, not least from an environmental protection perspective. This is what we want to safeguard. But we are now increasing resources to be able to investigate what is in the Swedish ground and what is extractable and what is not. How can we create better clarity regarding what one can expect for outcomes in different processes, i.e., greater legal certainty, but also tempo in the permit processes? It is exhausting for the local population and the immediate environment affected by such processes to live in uncertainty for so long. It also does not make it sufficiently lucrative for the companies that could be considered when it becomes too protracted.
As has been pointed out here, the previous government specifically investigated the issue of the regulatory framework for extraction in the rock alunskiffer and whether it needed to be tightened. Since July 2022, we have had a tightening: An applicant for extraction from just alunskiffer, as opposed to other rocks, must demonstrate that it is suitable and so on. That was what I set out in the response. We believe that this is fundamentally sufficient. I have the greatest confidence in both the provisions of the Environmental Code and the Swedish environmental permit process. My only point has been that we need to increase the pace.
We know that the alternative is much more dangerous and despicable dependencies. It is dependencies on countries that use children. It is dependencies on countries that have a completely different view on labor rights, on ethics, on morality, and on the environment and climate. It does not make us sufficiently independent.
Sweden could be the answer to increased independence for the entire European Union. It is an opportunity that we should not forfeit by practically making it impossible to open mines in Sweden when we currently have very cautious legislation that places great emphasis on precisely the environmental values.
Lorena Delgado Varas (V)
Madam Speaker! I would like to thank the Speaker for raising the rules of debate. They are quite important.
Thank you for the contribution, Minister!
I want to continue to raise, and object to, the reasoning that we must open more mines in Sweden to reduce exploitation in other countries. This is actually based on a false dichotomy which says that we only have two choices: to destroy our own environment or to destroy others'. I mean that there is a third way: to seriously reduce overconsumption and fundamentally change our resource use.
The problem is not only that we break [the limits] but also how much we consume, and what. The climate transition requires a certain amount of mineral extraction. We all agree on that. It also requires, however, that we stop living as if the planet had infinite resources. If the whole world were to have the same consumption level as Sweden, we would have needed four globes. This is often taken up as an example.
It is not sustainable to build electric cars for every household, make batteries for every gadget, and create new technologies for every individual solution without simultaneously questioning the amount, the need, and the pace of consumption. We cannot solve an unsustainable system by replacing fossil fuels with an unsustainable mineral dependency. We must take responsibility for both our own mines and our imported goods.
Of course, none of us accept child labor in cobalt mines in Congo or that rainforests are being cleared in the Amazon. When it comes to that, we have fought very hard for companies to take much more responsibility. Sweden imports enormous amounts of minerals and metals without, for that part, placing sufficient requirements on the environment and human rights.
Just moving the problem somewhere else is not quite taking responsibility. One needs to see the whole picture. It is about, among other things, the requirements for due diligence, where the importing companies must report environmental and social risks in the supply chains. It is also about binding treaty, which gives societies opportunities to oppose the transnational companies that commit crimes.
Large-scale recycling is also needed. There are amounts of metals in products we already have. Urban mining, i.e., recycling of electronics and metals, must be prioritized long before new mines. We do not just need words, but we need that budget is actually allocated to it.
We need a societal planning without over-extension. Electrification should occur where it is useful and not where it fosters continued car dependency or energy waste. We talk about this too little.
A just transition requires global solidarity, I argue, and not just national self-sufficiency. To say that Sweden should become self-sufficient in minerals to reduce our dependence on third countries sounds very responsible. However, it risks becoming, in practice, a green industrial nationalism where we protect our industry but not our nature, our water supply, or our local communities.
The transition must be fair – not just technically possible. It must be based on the principles of sustainability, reuse, reduced consumption, and global responsibility. That is what I believe, in any case.
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! Sometimes the differences become very clear in connection with interpellations. This is such a clear moment. I mean that it is a total fantasy and, I want to say – and this word I do not use lightly – a hypocrisy we hear being put forward here by Vänsterpartiet.
We are in complete agreement on the need for circularity, for recycling, and for increasing the economy in recycling – which is one of the parts that the Swedish EU Commissioner Jessika Roswall has a special responsibility for increasing the incentive for in the whole world, and not least within the internal market in the EU. But even if we manage to do this to its full potential, it will require new extraction if we are to electrify, reduce our emissions, digitize, and enable prosperity for more – speaking of justice and solidarity. My question to Lorena Delgado Varas becomes, Madam Speaker, where this is to take place if it is not welcome in Sweden.
I want to assert that what I am calling for here is not Swedish nationalism, but rather that we in Sweden should dare to be proud of selling one of our great advantages – that which made our name fly across the world in former days. This could also become future days – where we not only secure our own independence but can also become a great power that helps to secure other countries' independence. I spoke about the EU's independence and the EU's self-sufficiency here. It is the potential in the Swedish mining industry. It is the power we could possess.
Look at what Trump has done with Ukraine! There, minerals are truly a power factor. I do not think anyone should have to negotiate to reach a business settlement regarding something that should be a moral obligation, namely that it is the strong who stands on the side of the vulnerable. It is the one who has been victimized who deserves the world's support – in this case, Ukraine. They should not have to pay for it. It is a question of ethics and morality.
With that said, the Swedish mining industry is a significant power factor in the dark world we live in. Let us not take it lightly.
When it comes to the question of hypocrisy, it is still the case that I suspect that Delgado Varas perhaps – at least via the Riksdag – owns a computer or a smartphone. All of this requires the type of minerals and metals that we are talking about here. When it comes to what is in my hand, the question is: From whose hand should these minerals and metals have come? Should they have come from a child's hand? Should they come from someone who has completely different prerequisites for trusting that, when one goes to work, one will also be able to come home to one's family alive again – or should they come from the Swedish, modern, much more equal and ethically and environmentally sustainable mining industry? I know what my answer is to this.
The Environmental Code also has something called rules of consideration. I believe it says something about this in chapter two. There, the precautionary principle is part of the paragraphs. I think that is also worth highlighting.
Lorena Delgado Varas (V)
Madam Speaker! I completely agree that the mineral agreement that Ukraine was forced into is despicable. It is the same thing with the so-called peace agreement that one now wants to force Congo into, which means that one agrees to continued overexploitation for many years just to be able to obtain peace and freedom. I therefore completely agree with that.
What I would like to talk about is the hypocrisy the minister speaks of. I mean that it is hypocrisy to speak as if by producing much more here in Sweden we guarantee that we will get Swedish mineral products in Sweden or that this would somehow have an impact in that way. That is simply not true. We have a completely different type of economic system that does not allow for this.
It is often said – just as the minister did – about the need for Swedish minerals for the green transition. However, the system provides no guarantees that the extracted minerals actually stay within the country or even within the EU. There is nothing preventing them from being exported to the countries we say we want to become less dependent on, so the strategic benefit is not really there.
Now we are talking about alunschist, we are not talking about all types of mining, and the minister must be clear about that. Established Swedish mining companies do not even want to touch alunschist. It is primarily foreign speculators who are behind those projects.
If our own mining experts do not see it as economically or environmentally sustainable, why should we then allow experiments on Swedish land? Why should we allow the water supply around Storsjön to be destroyed?
Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)
Madam Speaker! I think we have come a bit of the way, but there are certain parts regarding the view on economy and transition that we will not be able to meet on. I would, however, like to thank you for the interpellation in substance and nevertheless summarize as follows: It is the government's view that we need to break more in Sweden and pave the way for a larger mining industry in Sweden moving forward.
It does not guaranteed land in Sweden – Swedish companies have the opportunity to buy this, and European companies have the opportunity to buy this. It is also the case that it will come with a higher cost, because it is more expensive to extract in Sweden because we value the environment so heavily, because we value sustainability issues so heavily, and because we value labor law issues so heavily. But when someone chooses to buy something that is extracted in Sweden, it still represents a win for all these values, which we say we want to protect so highly, compared to it being bought from somewhere else.
Regarding the question of alunschist, I want to emphasize once again that the regulatory framework has been tightened for those who wish to apply for a processing concession, through a specific suitability requirement, and that technical and economic conditions to complete an extraction must exist. If one adds that to our already very robust legislation in the area and what we do otherwise for the mining industry, not least in the field of research and innovation, one sees that it is moving in the right direction – with great value regarding precisely the unique natural values that exist in the area, the local population's fundamental rights, and not least the environmental values, and then particularly the water bodies.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.