Response to interpellation 2025/26:205 on the climate emissions of Swedish uranium mining
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned climate emissions from uranium mining. L believes that there is no decision regarding mining in Oviken 1 and that changes to the Environmental Code and the Mining Act are necessary for self-sufficiency of critical minerals 1. L argues that the regulatory framework is powerful 2 and that the government is presenting proposals to avoid treating uranium differently from other minerals 3. S argues that uranium mining in Oviken risks large climate emissions 4 and that there is a lack of environmentally safe technology 4. S argues that mining risks drinking water and food supply 5. S argues that they have decided not to allow mining in alumschist 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.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! Jytte Guteland has asked me if I have been aware that the decision to allow uranium mining in Oviken risks resulting in Sweden increasing greenhouse gas emissions by on the order of 20 million tons of carbon dioxide over eleven years.
Mr. Speaker! I want to first clarify that there is no decision to allow uranium mining in Oviken. This is part of a large debate that is currently ongoing and which was also highlighted during the party leader debate. There are, therefore, no decisions to allow uranium mining in Oviken, as claimed in the interpellation.
The Government on 28 August 2025 adopted a bill with proposals for amendments to the Environmental Code and the Minerals Act aimed at enabling the extraction of uranium in Sweden. Such a decision creates conditions for extracting uranium and other critical and strategic minerals that are often found together with uranium. Removing the ban on the extraction of uranium also enables the extraction of what would otherwise be considered mine waste, which means a more efficient management of resources and a fulfillment of the metals and minerals that are available in existing mines today.
This is important to reduce Sweden's and Europe's energy dependence and to secure our self-sufficiency of these types of metals and minerals. Increased access to metals and minerals is necessary to enable the climate transition and the fossil-free societal construction, to strengthen competitiveness, to electrify Sweden, and to strengthen Swedish defense capability. Sweden is today Europe's leading mining nation, and we shall continue to be.
To start a mining operation, a permit is required according to the Environmental Code, which is decided by a court. The court shall ensure that the extraction meets the same environmental requirements as other industrial activities in Sweden. This also applies to all potential future mining operations in Sweden. When it comes to extraction from alunschist, there is additionally a specific suitability requirement in the Minerals Act. The suitability requirement implies a tightening for actors who want to extract from alunschist, and it covers, among other things, the applicant's suitability and the technical and economic possibilities to complete the intended extraction.
Mining gives rise to greenhouse gas emissions – that is correct – from, among other things, work machines in mines and energy-intensive refining processes. The mining industry's greenhouse gas emissions are included in the fantastic emissions trading system that the EU has, namely the EU ETS, and they are therefore covered by the emission reductions required at the EU level. Since the EU's emissions trading system sets a cap on emissions from activities included in the system, it leads to the fact that new mines in Sweden do not increase emissions within the EU. New and existing mining operations are forced to buy emission allowances corresponding to their emissions, and it is emission allowances that no other activity can utilize. As the cap within the EU's emissions trading system is lowered, the operations will need to transition to fossil-free production in order to be able to continue their operations.
In conclusion, I want to make it clear that there is no fundamental difference between uranium mining and other types of mining. All forms of mining activities come with environmental risks, regardless of whether we are talking about copper, vanadium, or uranium. That is why Sweden must have the clear and strong environmental legislation that exists today, one of the world's strictest with requirements for emissions of pollutants that are set in a court hearing. If the high environmental requirements are not met, there will be no mining activity in Sweden. And that is how it shall remain in the future as well.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the Climate on the answer to the interpellation and for that we shall have this conversation on this important issue.
Uran mining and mining for other metals in alunschist is an issue that must be taken seriously. In and around Oviken, there is a concern about this, and there is a major debate ongoing about what is happening nationally.
My interpellation is, of course, of a more principled nature. It concerns the government's view that uranium mining can take place in Oviken, not whether it has been decided to take place in Oviken. Many are concerned that there will be mining there, and also of uranium. The concern is based on the fact that research shows that there could be large climate emissions. Researchers from SLU have shown that we risk emissions of approximately 20 million tons of carbon dioxide over an eleven-year period. That is as large as the emissions from road traffic during one year. It is therefore difficult to understand how the motivation for that type of mining exists there. How can we want to emit so much for the purpose of reducing emissions? It would, in that case, be one of Sweden's largest sources of emissions.
The Minister for Climate and Planning claims that this does not matter because the emissions are included in the ETS system, but we cannot count that way. We must still take responsibility for not creating new large sources of emissions today, when we know how urgent it is to push for the ETS system to reduce emissions and to meet our Swedish goals.
In the second part of the Minister's response, it appeared that there are fitness requirements that companies and venture capitalists must meet. Large foreign companies, when they enter sensitive markets in Sweden, must promise that they meet the fitness requirements.
It is a bit like – excuse me – asking the fox to guard the sheep. These companies will absolutely not say that they are unsuitable. This has been criticized in the debate. It has been said that very many companies would claim that they are suitable and that there is always someone to refer to who could handle the whole thing purely technically. The research is, however, very clear that there is no environmentally safe way to extract in this sensitive rock today.
I therefore want to ask the Minister again: Has the Minister been aware that a potential mining of uranium but also other minerals could lead to emissions of this magnitude? Did the Minister for Climate know this?
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I hear the member claim that in her question to me, she does not assume that there is a mine, but that this is a debate that is currently ongoing. Why then does she send a question to the government where she expresses herself verbatim about "the planned mine in Oviken" and uses the expression "the decision on uranium mining"? She fuels the enormous concern that exists among the citizens in Oviken, even though I point out once again that there is no decision regarding a mine in Oviken or regarding allowing mining in alumschist.
This is being done to scare citizens and win cheap political points. I think it is unworthy. It is unworthy of the political debate we need to have, and it is unworthy of the party Socialdemokraterna, Mr. Speaker. One moment, you have representatives saying "I love mines" when they meet the mining industry. But here in the chamber, others choose to say "venture capitalists" and "the fox" when they talk about mining companies.
How is it supposed to be? What is the reasoning in Sweden's largest party? I do not think it is worthy to pretend to keep both sides satisfied in this way before the Swedish people. It is inappropriate.
Let me therefore point out once again that there is no decision to allow uranium mining in Oviken. One can apply to receive such a permit. One of the reasons why one has the right to apply to operate such a mine is that the red-greens and the Socialdemokrater during the previous parliamentary term investigated a ban on operating uranium mines or having other types of mining in alumschist in Sweden, but then landed on the investigator's own view that there should be no ban on such mines and mining in alumschist.
The Social Democrats therefore spent the previous parliamentary term, when they were in government, on enabling mining in alunschist by not introducing a ban against it. Now they criticize us for decisions regarding mines that do not exist.
Mr. Speaker! I think this is unworthy of the debate that we truly need to have. As I mentioned in my first speech, Sweden is the country that has the greatest capacity to supply Europe with very many different types of metals and minerals that we need and that are required. If one says "No, they are not required," there will be no electric cars. There will also be no wind turbines, which also need these metals and minerals.
Then one might think, "It doesn't matter, because I don't want any nuclear power plants that need uranium." That is not what it is about. This is about the fact that today in Sweden there are mines where one extracts vanadium and other types of metals and minerals that are needed and that are not uranium, but that one has difficulty making their profitability work. Every time a little uranium is found, one must, in fact, handle it as waste and dispose of the amount of uranium that has been found. According to nuclear technology laws, one must have tests if there is suddenly uranium. It makes the whole thing expensive and unprofitable.
What does that mean? Is the mine being shut down so that we will not have any mines in Sweden? No, it means primarily that we will import more metals and minerals from China, Kazakhstan, Australia, and Canada. Is that how we are going to work moving forward? Or should we ensure that Europe stands strong in its climate work and that Sweden takes its responsibility and has a strong environmental legislation that allows for an ethical mining industry with good working conditions and good environmental requirements? In any case, that is what the Tidö Government thinks would be the right thing.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Mr. Speaker! I note that the Minister for Climate is very agitated about the situation. I think it is inappropriate of a government minister who is responsible for the issue to become so angry over a question that is completely justified.
The government has repeatedly sent out the message that it wants to see this activity. At the same time, there is already an opinion in Oviken that is very concerned. Therefore, the Minister has the chance today to say that she does not want to see mining in an area where people risk getting contaminated water. There is a lake there that supplies 55,000 people with drinking water. Researchers say that this risks becoming one of Sweden's largest sources of emissions. We know that there is no technology today for the mining of alunite that is safe for the environment and the climate.
It is therefore very strange when the Minister becomes indignant because I am asking a question. There are all the opportunities for the Minister to tell the local residents today: "You do not need to worry. We agree. There is no safe method. We will get larger emissions if we allow this mining. It is not safe for either the climate or the environment. I take the chance here today and say very clearly that I am listening to the local residents who are so worried."
It is just a Moderate who stands on the side of the Council of State, some politician who wants to be loyal to the government? That is probably the only person who has said that this is a good idea. Why can't the Council of State calm the local population if she is so concerned about my question?
I stand here as an opposition politician and want the Minister to be given space to calm the population. Take that space! Instead, the Minister becomes angry with me because I ask questions about the climate and the environment.
It is also legitimate questions, such as those being debated out there.
Firstly: There is a risk that we will get a mining industry that emits more than it saves.
Secondly: There is a risk that a huge part of Sweden's population will lose its drinking water supply. It is nothing that one sees coming in a year, but it happens slowly and gradually. But suddenly, one is left standing there with poisoned water. We have seen it happen before. And we know that it is extremely difficult to extract from alum shale.
For the third point: We receive references to other countries that do this and that we should do it here in Sweden. But that is not what we are saying. We are saying that we shall refrain from exactly alum shale because there are such great risks and because of the large lake that risks being contaminated. That is what we are saying.
I truly reject populism in the debate. I am asking legitimate questions, and I am asking them of the minister who can calm a large part of Sweden's population.
I also bring up the dairy farmers who today assert that they supply their region with milk and that their cows will be poisoned if the mining takes place. This means that there are also many farmers who are concerned. This can therefore also mean a risk for our food supply.
I decline populism. I want to hear the answers, and I give the Minister a chance today to calm a large part of Sweden's population regarding how it will be in this important issue.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! I note that the member wants me to calm the population in Oviken after the allegations she has in her interpellation regarding the decisions on the mine in Oviken when there is no decision on a mine in Oviken. I call that populism.
It is perfectly okay that the Social Democrats themselves do not understand what it is they are doing in these times. But I think it is completely obvious. It will also be completely obvious to the Swedish people when they see what the Social Democrats engaged in when they held power.
Something that was not pursued was to introduce a ban on mining in alunschist despite the fact that the issue was investigated. Swedish citizens' tax money was spent on investigating for over a year whether we should ban mining in alunschist. Then the Social Democrats, to the displeasure of some members of the Green Party, if I remember correctly, decided that mining in alunschist should continue to be allowed in Sweden. Now one stands here and accuses the government that it would be so terrible if we were to have a situation with contaminated water in Sweden. It is completely incomprehensible, Mr. Speaker, that such claims are being made.
It will not happen that a court grants a mine permission to conduct an operation in alumschist, which requires that specific suitability requirements are met and have not been granted since they were introduced, if I remember correctly, and to mine in a way that contaminates Swedish water. We have the strictest environmental legislation in the entire world. Since the environmental legislation came into place and we received a modern Environmental Code, no actor has until now been granted permission to mine in such sensitive land.
The Social Democrats investigated the issue and landed on not removing this possibility. And now you stand here and accuse me of the anxiety that exists among the population. I think one can have a bit more sense and balance and a bit more respect for one's own policy, which was pursued in a government position, when one takes this discussion – especially, Mr. Speaker, when one continues to have representatives who, unlike Member Guteland, stand and speak about how they love Swedish mines. Some order must be maintained.
If a mining company wants to mine in alunschist, it is first and foremost required that they have the economic and technical competence needed for mining in general. Then there is an additional hurdle with suitability requirements that apply specifically to alunschist, which must show that they have the environmental technical competence to handle alunschist, precisely so that one does not end up in a situation with contaminated water and other such issues. Until now, no such permits have been issued.
On the contrary, this regulatory framework is very powerful. It creates a high threshold that ensures that only the most serious actors with the technical competence can even come into consideration to apply for such a potential prospecting.
The person who lives in Oviken and is concerned about why the municipalities are not allowed to say no and why one is even allowed to apply to break into alumschist, I think should ask the Social Democrats why they did not forbid it when they had the chance and why they take a stand in opposition with this high populist tone and claim that it is this government that is creating an anxiety. I am asked why I do not calm the citizens. It is Member Guteland and half of the Social Democrats, those who do not claim that they love mines, who are creating this anxiety and do not take responsibility for the fact that they themselves did not ensure that this was forbidden when they actually had the chance.
I think this debate deserves a bit more height than what is being shown right now.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Mr. Speaker! When it primarily concerns the Social Democrats, we have been clear and took a decision at our latest party congress that we do not want to allow mining in alunschist. I, who was elected to the Swedish Parliament during this mandate period, was also present at our congress and pushed this issue, and we now have such a decision. We felt that it was important, especially considering that this government has on several occasions announced that it wants to remove the municipal veto. In that case, it is extremely important that the local politicians receive a clear protection.
Therefore, all those who are currently concerned regarding Oviken can know that the Social Democrats have provided clear protection in their own policy. We believe that the government's removal of the veto in this matter implies an ambiguity and an insecurity for everyone locally who is now concerned about the government's policy.
Populism or not – in this situation, it is entirely possible for the Minister to say very clearly that she does not want to see mining in shale, that she wants to protect Oviken and that she is concerned about Storsjön, about the drinking water and about the environmental risks that it could entail if companies enter and mine in the way that occurs today, which according to research cannot happen either environmentally or with protection for the climate.
The Council of State can protect the environment. The Minister for the Environment can be Minister for the Environment. She has the chance here today.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Mr. Speaker! We hear in the debate that the Social Democrats continue to refuse to take responsibility for the fact that resources, tax money, are used to investigate whether one should ban uranium mining in alum shales and then land on the conclusion that one should not ban it. One shall continue to allow Swedish mining companies to apply to operate mines in alum shales. One shall not do as the Green Party actually suggested one should do, and as that party wanted to do in government. The Social Democrats chose to override them on this issue and take the fight for mining of alum shales. Now one stands here and laments the concern that one oneself has caused by not proceeding with a ban on mining in alum shales.
One does this, Mr. Speaker, by hijacking the government's position on the uranium issue. This is where it becomes a bit complex. What the government has done is to present proposals concerning not treating uranium specifically as a mineral.
The mining industry conducted in Sweden today means that one extracts uranium but is not allowed to utilize it. It must be handled as waste. This, I believe, increases the environmental risks. What happens to the uranium that one does not use in a productive, useful way, for example, to turn it into a resource for Swedish or European nuclear power and sell it? Instead, because of the red-green government, it is to be handled as waste, with the costs it entails, which cause the mining industry generally to have poorer profitability and be competed out by China, Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia and other countries that do not have such absurd, discriminatory legislation.
The uranium that is mined in Sweden today must be handled as waste when it is accidentally found. I consider that a waste of resources, and therefore the government is presenting laws that mean we will be able to take care of the uranium in Sweden, with strong environmental protection and with great responsibility.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.