Response to interpellation 2025/26:164 on support for Swedish companies in the green transition

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Jytte Guteland has asked me how I intend to support Swedish companies in the green transition.

The question is posed against the background of a statement from Svenskt Näringsliv, where they warn against beginning to "waver on the conditions" in the climate policy, and a statement from Teknikföretagen, which does not want it to be possible to use Article 6 credits under the Paris Agreement to meet the EU's goal of a 90 percent reduction in emissions.

Strengthening the conditions for companies' climate transition is an important part of the government's climate policy. We work both in national policy and in EU policy to strengthen companies' opportunities for transition. Nationally, we work, among other things, on achieving more efficient permit processes and on securing sufficient fossil-free electricity to cover future electricity needs in line with increased electrification.

In the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1), the government has presented a number of measures that support companies' transition. These include a billion-kronor supplement to Klimatklivet, an extension of support for light electric trucks, and permanent tax exemption for the benefit of charging at workplaces.

An important part of the climate policy is that Swedish companies offer a range of solutions and innovations that can contribute to the climate transition abroad. In May, I and Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade Benjamin Dousa sent a letter regarding Swedish climate solutions to the parties under the Paris Agreement to demonstrate the contribution that Swedish solutions can constitute in the global transition.

Mr. Speaker! A predictable climate policy is important for companies to dare to invest in emission-reducing technology. In the negotiations on the EU's climate law, which includes a target for 2040, Sweden has belonged to the group of countries that have pushed hardest for a 90-percent target.

Regarding the possibility of using international credits under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, the Swedish position is clear: Sweden supports a possibility to use international credits, but the focus needs to lie on actual emission reductions and permanent negative emissions within the EU.

In the general direction for the Climate Act reached in the Council on November 5, there is an opportunity to use Article 6 credits to reach the 90-percent goal by 2040 in an ambitious and cost-effective way. It is only in the negotiations on the upcoming climate framework that it will be determined how the contribution to the goal from Article 6 credits will be designed. An important question will be how the framework can secure a maintained transition pressure for industry. It will also be important that the Article 6 credits used maintain high quality and environmental integrity.

Here, Sweden can contribute valuable experiences from our ongoing national program for international climate investments.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for Climate for the answer!

Swedish emissions increased according to the latest available statistics by 7 percent last year. That is very bad; it is the largest emission reduction in 15 years. Several agencies have expressed that Sweden risks missing the climate goals by 2030, and companies are concerned that jobs will be lost if the climate transition stalls.

The European Commission has shown in its impact assessments for the work on the Climate Act and the climate package that higher climate goals lead to more jobs. The development benefits all member states, and Sweden is one of the countries that benefits most from ambitious climate policy. At the same time, companies are currently saying that they are concerned about the lack of climate policy and that the Swedish climate policy threatens their transition and thus opportunities for business development and jobs for Swedish companies.

Svenskt Näringsliv's CEO Jan-Olof Jacke expressed it very clearly in an interview in DN: "In Sweden, we have very many companies that are far ahead technologically and that have more or less pledged their balance sheet on the fact that the transition will take place. To start wavering on the conditions again, it creates an anxiety and it absolutely does not stimulate investments."

At the same time, both the Minister for Climate and the entire government are wavering on climate policy. We have seen this repeatedly. Contradictory messages are being sent. For example, the Prime Minister uses SD's language and calls us in the opposition climate posers. He undermines the 2040 targets by saying that a significant part of the emission reductions can occur in third countries instead of within the EU. He also has a supporting party in the Riksdag that believes that targets for 2030, or targets at all, might not be needed when it comes to climate policy.

This government has put itself in SD's lap when it comes to climate policy, and now it is visible. Now that policy is appearing in reality and reducing the ambition for Sweden. Consequently, one also undermines the conditions for more jobs at a time when we have mass unemployment. Half a million Swedes are unemployed – a hundred thousand more in the recent period with this government. We have an unemployment rate of 9 percent and one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the entire EU. And so, one does not want to ensure investment in that which can provide jobs for the Swedish people, namely a green transition.

I want clearer answers from the Minister for Climate Action on why there is such contradiction regarding Sweden's climate policy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Jytte Guteland for the opportunity to debate this, and thanks to Romina Pourmokhtari for the answer!

One must still say that it has been very difficult years for Swedish business. We have seen growth that has been at the bottom of the EU, and the government began the mandate period by making significant cuts to our innovation systems by reducing the grants to Vinnova, our innovation agency. In the latest budget bill, they proceeded to almost scrap Industriklivet, and now they have also chosen to pause the green credit guarantees that can be issued to Swedish companies that want to be at the forefront of the green transition.

What this has done, Mr. Speaker, is to create enormous jolts in our systems, especially for the business community which no longer knows what the direction is from the government when it comes to climate policy and industrial policy and what it wants the business community to invest in.

For us Social Democrats, it is perfectly clear that Sweden during the last 30 years has had a higher growth than the average in the EU. We have had it because we have had tech companies that have highly innovative solutions within different sectors. We have also had a strong industry that has also stood very strong during the last 30 years. It has not only strengthened the growth, but it has of course also created jobs in Sweden.

Now we have the opposite, Mr. Speaker. We have a growth in the EU's bottom line and ever-increasing unemployment, while our climate emissions are increasing. This does not create a good basis for those who want to invest in Sweden because they believe, or have believed, that Sweden is part of the solution to the climate crisis.

I want to dwell a little on the EU and what we can do together in the EU, something that was also highlighted by Romina Pourmokhtari. One way that the EU has chosen to address not only the climate crisis, Mr. Speaker, but also the ever-increasing competition from other economies around the world is to focus on how we can become strong together and strengthen our competitiveness by investing in strategic technology areas.

Here, they have launched what is called the competitiveness compass. It contains a framework called IPCEI, which aims to allow for projects that go beyond the otherwise quite strict state aid rules that exist within the EU, in order to have projects of common European interest and thus be able to use state aid in a slightly more generous way.

Sweden and the Social Democratic government allocated almost 1 billion kronor to be part of two of the initial projects, which aimed at battery production and would strengthen the entire European automotive industry. This government has unfortunately not been part of a single one of the projects that have been approved by the EU Commission under the IPCEI framework, which is sad to see. It means that it is companies in other member states that will go ahead and benefit from receiving more generous state aid and in a way also strengthen not only Europe's competitiveness but also that country's. Obviously, it will mean more jobs in those member states.

This instrument is incredibly important – especially when we see that countries like the USA and China use state support in a way that we might not even want to do in Sweden – so that we can compete. I would therefore like to ask the Minister if the government will enable companies to participate in more Ipcei projects concerning green transition, innovation, and industrial development.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Several different discussions arose in the two statements from the members. I will do my best to answer the questions that were raised.

We have recently had tough negotiations in the EU regarding a new climate law. In these negotiations, Sweden, together with Finland, Spain, and a few other countries, advocated for a high ambition level of 90 percent. We pushed for the EU to adopt a new climate goal for before 2040 that laid a good foundation for the negotiations that subsequently took place at a UN climate meeting where they were expected to present new policies in their national climate plan, i.e., that which the EU produces together.

We have pushed to defend Swedish industry. We know that Swedish industry wants a high ambition. Here, the government is in complete agreement with the Social Democratic members: We know that the Swedish industry wants a high level of ambition and high climate goals, and that is a great strength that we shall take advantage of.

I mean that it is perfectly clear: What Swedish industry also, in particular, demands in order to succeed with the climate transition is large amounts of clean electricity and good capacity. This is absolutely crucial for Sweden to continue to have low emissions.

A discussion is now being held, Mr. Speaker, about whether Article 6 credits are a threat to this goal and that the Swedish government has worked to have Article 6 credits involved more in the goal in various ways. Then one should be clear that Sweden and I personally sat for 22 hours to ensure that it did not become so, i.e., that we did not get a goal that was under 90 percent and where Article 6 credits are to be used.

We have ensured that there are no provisions binding the member states to use Article 6 credits. What ultimately became the outcome of the negotiation was an opportunity to use Article 6 credits for those countries that required this to agree to 90 percent. We believe this was a very important part of the negotiation for it to become as, for example, Swedish industry has requested. Several have mentioned that they do not want Article 6 credits to be in focus.

From the Swedish side, we have the possibility of not using Article 6 credits to achieve the goal. It is a possibility that I am happy and proud to have succeeded in defending. It could not have happened without Spain. We were few countries and few negotiators who pushed for this, but we are glad that we actually succeeded with that part.

Since then, it has been a very tough situation. Countries like Italy and Poland are very critical of the costs that come from the climate transition and the EU laws we have. It is a debate that we have also had in Sweden. Not least the Sweden Democrats, but also all other parties in our government cooperation, pushed very hard during the election campaign because there was too much focus on fuel prices. It was precisely the fuel prices that were the reason why in 2024 we saw an increase in Sweden's emissions instead of the decrease that we seem to see in the other years. This is important to keep in mind. If one only criticizes the increase in emissions, it becomes interesting to ask whether that means the Social Democrats are advocating for higher fuel prices again. If one can say it straight out, we get a more honest climate debate.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, before I hopefully get the opportunity in the following contribution to answer further questions, I mean that it is not through Vinnova's agency grants that the primary climate work with Swedish industry takes place, but rather it is instead, for example, through Klimatklivet, which is larger than ever before.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the Climate again.

We Social Democrats appreciate the parts of the Minister for Climate's response that concern precisely clean electricity. Electrification will be extremely central in the climate transition. This also applies to what was just put forward by the Minister for Climate regarding Article 6 and the desire to tighten the rules – that it has been the Minister for Climate's starting point in the negotiations.

However, we Social Democrats note that the ministers who were highlighted predominantly belong to Social Democratic governments. It might have been easier for the Minister for Climate and Environment to push through a climate policy if they had cooperated with us at the EU level and also in Sweden. We believe that many of the concerns the Minister for Climate and Environment has with the policy are due to the fact that the government is sitting in the Sweden Democrats' lap.

A nightmare situation now prevails regarding unemployment in Sweden. There are half a million unemployed. We know that unemployment has completely exploded during the recent years, and this government seems to lack answers. Svenskt Näringsliv says that the green transition is one of the answers for more jobs in Sweden, and they want clear leadership.

In my first post, I pointed out that the CEO of Svenskt Näringsliv, and also Teknikföretagen in a debate article, have urged the government to back an ambition level of at least 90 percent by 2040, with the clear prerequisite that Article 6 credits within the framework of the Paris Agreement shall not be used.

I absolutely understand that this is fig-language for the vast majority, but it is about not making emission reductions that should be made at home in another country outside the EU. Many of the conservative representatives think that one should let someone else do the work. It is this that the Swedish representatives for the large industries within the industrial sector think is so bad. It is known that there are conditions to lead the climate transition, but when the politicians say that the work should be done in third countries and that one should rely on old technology within the EU and in Sweden, the capable Swedish companies are treated with stubbornness. Then it becomes harder to achieve their strategies.

This became very clear before the climate summit held in Brazil when Scania's sustainability chief said that while Scania has invested billions in the transition – mainly in electrification – the Swedish climate leadership is weak. These are clear messages from the companies that want to make the transition with clean electricity. There is a lack of policy instruments in Sweden to help large companies in the transition. It is about what my colleague Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro took up, about Vinnova and providing support, that is to say policy instruments that ensure that electrification becomes possible.

The Minister for Climate speaks a lot about infrastructure. But what happens when the trucks have to compete with cheap fossil alternatives? Well, then those who have transitioned, who have trusted in electrification, become losers. This government is investing in the fossil, not in the green transition. That is the problem for both the climate and for unemployment.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to respond to some of what Romina Pourmokhtari said.

First and foremost, we can state that we both consider Klimatklivet to be an important measure. But it is not through Klimatklivet that companies receive the most support to carry out innovations and commercialize them on a global market, so that we not only solve the climate crisis but also strengthen our competitiveness. This, in turn, increases growth and reduces unemployment in the country.

I also want to address what was said regarding energy policy. I completely agree that electrification is absolutely crucial for the climate transition. In that regard, we Social Democrats have consistently, since before the 2022 election, wanted to have a broad agreement with, among others, Romina Pourmokhtari's party so that we can create the conditions needed in Sweden to be able to compete.

But I received no answers, Mr. Speaker, to the question about the IPCEI framework, that is, the projects that are judged to be of common European interest. They allow companies and member states to use state aid more generously in order to also be able to compete with, for example, China and the USA, which use state aid in a way that we do not.

It is regrettable. It is the instruments, which are now being presented by the commission, that will ensure that we actually emerge from the many crises. Then we will emerge stronger through increased self-sufficiency and increased preparedness, and we as a nation and continent contribute to lowering emissions throughout the world.

Ipcei is a strategic compass. It is intended to counter fragmentation and increase cooperation between the member states. It is regrettable that Romina Pourmokhtari did not answer the questions. If the government does not intend to carry out more projects according to the framework, other countries will do so, and it will cause other countries to move ahead, that Sweden becomes much poorer, and that Swedes are left without jobs. It is regrettable, Mr. Speaker.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying that in Finland there is a right-wing government, in Germany there is a right-wing government, and in the Netherlands there is a right-wing government. They were three of the most important partners Sweden had when we pushed for an ambition level in the EU's new climate goals.

Spain has a social-democratic led government, and it is a good colleague when advocating for a strong climate ambition. But the majority of the countries are led by right-wing governments, and they advocate for tough climate laws, new climate goals, a 90 percent ambition level. It is not as simple as one wants to portray it.

But I want to thank the members from the Social Democrats who give me the opportunity to so clearly account for the great victory that the Swedish government has succeeded in. We negotiated for 22 hours so as not to give up on the level of ambition that we wanted to see in the EU, with a climate goal of 90 percent by 2040. There were so many who believed that the EU would fail, that the EU would not agree on a stronger ambition in climate work. But Sweden succeeded in winning in the negotiation and gaining support for our line of 90 percent, exactly what the business community is requesting.

Mr. Speaker! We are providing a billion-kronor supplement for electric trucks in Sweden in the budget that the government recently presented. We have never invested as much on charging infrastructure in Sweden as during this parliamentary term. Thus, we ensure that there is an infrastructure for all these electric trucks that are now being sold on the market.

It is true that Klimatklivet does not necessarily connect exactly to the part of the discussion we have here, but it is the primary way to finance the infrastructure for electrification. It is the domestic market we need to build up so that Swedish companies can succeed in exporting more of the electrified clean goods and services. The electricity infrastructure is absolutely crucial, and that is where the government is investing.

Mr. Speaker! I really want to turn against the blackening that occurred in a previous speech where one of the members claimed that people have thought that Sweden is part of the solution. Does one mean that Sweden is no longer part of the solution? It is a foolish assertion. Sweden is the country in the EU that has the lowest emissions per person. We are best in the EU at low emissions.

Take Germany as an example! Germany has 16 times higher emissions than Sweden. This is largely due to the fact that the red-greens who ruled in Germany for a long period devoted themselves to decommissioning nuclear power. They only wanted wind power instead. It ruined the conditions for German industry to strengthen its economy and caused them to rely increasingly on fossil coal power. It is a country that is not an example.

Sweden is the country with the lowest emissions per person in the entire EU, furthermore, it is the individual year when Sweden's emissions increased. It is something that honors, and it honors all Swedes, not just the government and not just the business sector but also the members from the Social Democrats.

I still want to point out that we in Sweden should be proud that Sweden has very low emissions, thanks to the fact that our business sector has a fantastic commitment. Every day, they dedicate themselves to reducing their emissions in their processes in various ways and because of the products they sell.

In Sweden, we also have clean electricity. We have hydropower, we have nuclear power, and we have wind power and solar energy. We do not have a lot of coal power, which the red-greens in Germany occupy themselves with rewarding.

I think it is bad when we talk about that one would have thought that Sweden was part of the solution. Sweden is definitely part of the solution and shall continue to be so, not least thanks to our fantastic business sector.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by being kind enough to say that we Social Democrats appreciate much of the Minister for Climate's commitment, drive and willingness for negotiations and interest in forming coalitions with others regarding ambitious goals. That type of leadership is good.

However, the climate minister's way of relating to the truth is less good. But perhaps it is a matter of a lack of knowledge about who one cooperates with in these other countries. When the climate minister brought up the party colors of the governments in the different countries, she actually forgot that the German environment minister is, at least last we checked, Carsten Schneider, who belongs to our sister party. So there are social democrats in the German government. And in Holland, it is presumably an expedition minister. It therefore becomes a bit strange to hear that it was right-wing cooperation that the climate minister referred to.

Perhaps we can then remind them that it would be better for the Liberals to cooperate with Social Democrats instead of sitting on the lap of the Sweden Democrats. I believe that a good deal of the climate minister's concerns have to do with exactly what context one has ended up in.

It will be my final word in this debate: Read up on who it is that are the good forces in the climate work! The Climate Minister should show more respect to them. Then the climate policy and also the work against unemployment will become more successful.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, members, for another fantastic debate on how Sweden will succeed with the climate work!

It is absolutely true that Germany is governed by a coalition where the Federal Chancellor comes from a right-wing party but where there are also social democrats. When it comes to the Netherlands' government, it was a liberal colleague, from my sister party, whom I cooperated with during the negotiations in the EU.

The point, which I hope we are still in agreement on after this debate, is that Sweden is the strong voice for a high climate ambition in the EU. We sat literally all night and negotiated, Mr. Speaker. After 22 hours of negotiations, we managed to ensure that the Swedish business community received its 90-percent goal with high ambition. It was not easy, because there were not many countries that wanted to see it in this situation. The reason that they did not want to see it is the costs.

I hope that we in Sweden also ensure that we reduce the polarization in climate policy moving forward. Instead of discussing who one cooperates with and does not, one must realize that the majority that now exists in the chamber for a right-wing government is, among other things, a consequence of the fact that the only answer the red-green government had regarding climate work was fuel prices.

This government wants a broad palette where we focus on building nuclear power and wind power. We also focus on fuel policy, but as part of the whole to solve Sweden's climate challenges. We do not focus unilaterally on high fuel prices.

Mr. Speaker! It is therefore concerning that I have not received an answer during this debate to the question I asked regarding whether the Social Democrats want high fuel prices again, should there be a change of power at the next election.

I hope that the climate debate going forward can focus more on the fact that Sweden is an example and on how we shall continue to be that. And that is only possible if we ensure that we maintain our clean electricity system, and the clean electricity system requires nuclear power.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)