Response to interpellation 2025/26:220 on the availability of long-term sustainable critical raw materials

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Hanna Westerén has asked me how I, within my area of responsibility, intend to strengthen the Swedish total defense and secure access to long-term sustainable raw materials. She has also asked whether I consider it to be the government's responsibility to facilitate the business sector's transition and unite it with the construction of the total defense and access to long-term sustainable critical raw materials, and whether I, in that case, intend to take any measures in the area.

The total defense's ability to maintain industrial activity during times of crisis or high alert is important, and the supply of input materials such as lime constitutes an important prerequisite for maintaining these activities. To assist the business sector in ensuring the availability of socially important goods and services during crisis, high alert, and ultimately war, the government has decided to establish a new preparedness sector for industry, construction, and trade. Tillväxtverket has been appointed as the sector's responsible authority. Sveriges geologiska undersökning, SGU, and Boverket are new preparedness authorities.

Mr. Speaker! The course of the green industrial transition is set. Across the country, industry is making extensive investments in electrification, more efficient processes, and new technology, which simultaneously means strengthened competitiveness for Sweden. And as the investigation into the business sector's preparedness for supply shortages stated in its final report, increased resilience aimed at strengthening supply preparedness often goes hand in hand with the transition to a sustainable society. The State's role in this is to create good conditions for a competitive transition.

Hanna Westerén also mentions Heidelberg Materials' announcement that the company has decided to pause its CCS project after being denied support from the Swedish Energy Agency's Industriklivet program. It is the Energy Agency that makes decisions in individual cases within the framework of the support's regulations and economic limits. The policy in the area is not designed based on a single project but rather according to how emission reductions can be implemented in an effective way across the entire industry. In the industry, the question is not whether the transition should be carried out, but how it is carried out so that companies can continue to invest, export, and at the same time contribute to strengthened supply readiness.

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

Hanna Westerén (S)

Mr. Speaker! As tradition dictates, I begin by thanking the Minister for the answer. I also thank him for highlighting the efforts to promote the business community's contribution to Sweden's total defense. However, there is a part that I find missing in the answer, and it concerns in particular what I perceive as the somewhat lackluster conclusion regarding the cement producer that happens to be active in my constituency, Gotland. It is not a small actor we are talking about, even if Gotland is often perceived as small. It is a project that is anything but unimportant, which has now been put on hold.

I assume that the Minister, like myself, stays well-informed about statistics regarding both Sweden's emissions and Sweden's competitiveness. Every time Sweden's emissions are reported, it appears that one of Sweden's largest individual emission points is located on Gotland.

But, Mr. Speaker, it does not have to be so. The company in question has itself initiated a process to produce carbon-neutral cement by the early 2030s through so-called CCS technology, also known as carbon capture. This project could make Sweden a showcase for green Swedish industry. It could put Sweden on the map, but the application for support was rejected. I am fully aware of the reason for the answer and the scope of the project funds. What I want to know is how the government intends to support the transition of the cement industry in some other way.

I consider the project to be important for several reasons, which surely also appears from the interpellation. It is not only Swedish industry that is transitioning right now. It is happening to varying degrees throughout the entire European Union, and I want Sweden to take the lead in the industrial transition to secure Swedish jobs, to lower Sweden's emissions, and to secure the supply of critical raw materials – strategic raw materials in our total defense.

The minister's answer is informative – absolutely – but it also feels like a bit of an indication that we won't go any further than this. If there are no funds for the transition journey that the company wants to make, I wonder if the minister has any other tools in the box so that we can rely on the availability of carbon-neutral Swedish cement in the future – preferably from Gotland.

The Minister said: ”The policy in the area is not designed based on a single project but rather according to how emission reductions can be implemented in an effective way across the entire industry. In the industry, the question is not whether the transition should be carried out, but how it is carried out so that companies can continue to invest, export, and at the same time contribute to strengthened supply readiness.”

I understand this, and it is perfectly excellent that policy is not designed based on a single project. But when the company in question accounts for the lion's share of cement production, and raw materials such as cement are vital for our country's security of supply, it nevertheless becomes highly interesting how the government imagines the transition should take place in that case and under what premises. It is also not uncommon for other EU countries to support projects for carbon capture, and it would be beneficial if Sweden also did so.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are not going to discuss an individual application in detail, but I still believe, for the sake of understanding for those listening via TV or trying to understand here in the chamber, that we can look at what has been requested and what support is available.

It can be good to know that the application that came in was for 7.9 billion kronor. That is many Swedish kronor. During the period for which support has been sought, there is a total of approximately 1.8 billion kronor available in Industriklivet for all projects. One has thus submitted an application for an individual project that many times exceeds the total value available to support many different types of projects within the industrial transition.

According to the Swedish Energy Agency, the 7.9 billion that has been applied for would correspond to 40 percent of the company's total investment. This means that Swedish taxpayers would be responsible for a very large part of that project. We should then remember that state support has already been given for the feasibility study and design preparation at Slite, as a way to mark the value of this.

The company also clearly points to a financing gap estimated at a full 11 billion kronor. There, according to the Swedish Energy Agency, they have accounted for just over 3 billion in future support in a Contracts for Difference scheme – it is a state subsidy and a way for the state to participate in reducing the risk on larger capital-intensive projects. Such schemes are used all over Europe and, in that regard, also in the world. It is just that one rests their calculation on a Contracts for Difference scheme, which over all does not exist in Sweden for that type of project. There are no decisions, no rules, and no allocated funds.

Mr. Speaker! We therefore need to dig into this a bit. It is important for the prior understanding to know that Sweden has extensive systems to support the industry's investments in transition. But I believe we should be incredibly cautious about the state becoming some kind of patron for individual large corporations.

In other contexts, we hear heavy criticism from the opposition against private companies making a profit. I want all companies to make a profit. It is a sign of vitality and a sign that one has a healthy and good business and succeeds with what one does. But when we are to use the taxes paid on the wages of hard-working Swedish mothers and fathers for large projects, we must be very careful.

There are support systems. But it is difficult for our authorities to handle applications that far exceed the total amount of the investment funds available. I am aware that the Social Democrats have also not announced any new policy, direction, or other amounts for Industriklivet in their budget.

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

Hanna Westerén (S)

Mr. Speaker! I hear what the Minister says, but it remains somewhat of a mystery how we have ended up here. It is also astonishing that it is the Social Democrats' climate policy that we are to discuss. It is the government that is primarily responsible. How are we to transition Swedish industry?

I believe it is devastating that a huge CCS project at one of Sweden's individually largest emission points has been put on pause. What I want to know today is what we should do instead. I hear what the Minister says. Yes, 7.9 billion are enormous amounts. But how does the government intend to promote the transition of the industry? The risk is that the Swedish cement industry will no longer exist in a few years, because the transition will take place somewhere else and the jobs will move somewhere else. What is the price for good supply readiness? What is the price tag on that?

I also wonder about Contracts for Difference. It comes up in almost every climate debate, regardless of whether we are talking about the aviation sector's or the cement industry's transition. Even though it is not here today, it would be interesting to hear what the government's position is regarding Contracts for Difference. Is it a system worth trying or not?

I understand that we are not to discuss individual projects here in the chamber. That is why, in my interpellation, I tried to broaden the question and not explicitly mention the company in question. This is, in fact, about something much larger than Heidelberg Materials, me, or Ebba Busch. It is about the transition of Swedish industry.

Even though we have slightly different starting points, my view is still that the Minister for Enterprise, just like I do, wants the industry to lead the way for the green transition. Parts of the industry are truly standing still. They want to do things differently and make a difference. But they need to feel that the state is standing by their side, that they are joining forces for the transition. This is where it is failing now. This is where we have lost the thread.

I understand that it will be a no if the project funds are set aside to a certain extent and the requested amount far exceeds what is in the pot. But then the question is: What do we do instead? Is there any other way to support the transition of the Swedish cement industry and promote the availability of sustainably produced cement within the framework of total defense?

I do not hear what the answer is. I hear that Swedish industry is standing still and wants to transition, and that the government wants to promote that movement. But how?

Here we have one of Sweden's largest individual emission points. The hardworking women and men that Ebba Busch refers to are also here at my home. They work at the factory in Slite. It is their jobs we are talking about. Will their jobs remain in the future? Will they be part of yesterday's or tomorrow's industry? That is what we are discussing here today, and those are the questions I want answers to.

CCS technology is, honestly, the world's chance. I do not understand why we do not take it.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to establish a few things. I first want to return to Gotland's significance, as Hanna Westerén pointed out. Those who did not see Gotland's great value in the political debate earlier, five years ago, have certainly had a changed view now. Here we are in complete agreement. Gotland is central to Sweden from many different perspectives, to begin with in its own right. It is part of Sweden, and we have Swedish citizens on Gotland.

Even from a defense perspective, many have now understood Gotland's importance, in a completely different perspective than before. Consequently, a different view has also been gained regarding the infrastructure: the possibilities of getting to and from Gotland, the connections with the mainland, and the issue of the cable. We have finally made a decision to address the electricity supply from that perspective. The water supply, we have discussed previously here in the chamber, and so on.

Thank goodness there are many who have had that awakening, which Hanna Westerén hardly has needed. That is good. We can both welcome that.

Gotland is also important from the cement perspective. I am glad that the previous government dared to show decisiveness, which was quite unorthodox, in terms of decreeing a solution to the very serious threat that existed against cement production on Gotland a few years ago.

We also share the view on the need to pave the way for heavy industrial investments ahead. We stand behind the industry's transition. We see the value of CCS. Several other projects are also underway in Sweden, and we support them. We have also supported the Slite project already. But we cannot make decisions that presuppose money that does not exist and support systems that have not been decided.

Then Hanna Westerén raises the question: Is there anything else that can be done moving forward? We look a bit at what other good models we have, which we believe have worked well in Sweden and which have popular legitimacy. When we have pushed forward with tax funds in other large industrial projects, a good number of citizens wonder, rightly so, how we safeguard the funds. How do we safeguard pension money? How do we safeguard these coins, which I do not see as ours even though the state manages them? We need to get better at daring to make those evaluations.

We are now looking at the discussions on emissions trading. Perhaps one could imagine that CFD is something that could be tested in relation to that. But it is still in its infancy, and we are following it in other countries to see if it could be relevant for Sweden.

When I speak with the business community, it is clear that it makes a difference from a business perspective what we establish from a preparedness perspective and when it comes to the permit processes.

In the first part, we have now, as said, decided on a new preparedness sector. It will make a difference. Now capacity is being mapped, and responsibilities are being distributed: Who does what with which resources and under what conditions when Sweden needs to transition to a crisis and war organization? I am convinced that this will have an impact here, but it is still too early in the process.

The second point is that we now need to join forces, and here I hope for the Social Democrats' support, in order to prioritize shortening the long and complex permit processes. A faster and more predictable review is what is primarily pointed out from heavy industry.

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

Hanna Westerén (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister highlights Gotland's importance, and it is clear that as a Gotlander, one always becomes a little happy and warm about that.

It is not just about Gotland in its own right with everything it stands for, but what I want to emphasize is that Gotland – despite being so small – provides a resource that is important for Sweden. This is cement that supplies Gotland many times over, but it is also cement that accounts for the lion's share of the Swedish need. I therefore think it would be appropriate if that industry were given the conditions to transition.

Ebba Busch speaks of an awakening, and I truly welcome this awakening regarding Gotland's strategic location in the Baltic Sea. But it also generates, I believe, an increased vigilance over the resources we possess, and I would therefore wish for Ebba Busch to further elaborate on what role this awakening plays. Much of the Swedish cement industry is located on Gotland. How then does one promote that we can keep that type of cement production?

We have now received a yes to continued mining on Gotland. We have come through many instances and received the green light for safe mining on Gotland. But then comes this hiccup in the curve that puts our faith in the future on hold a bit. There are quite a few clouds of worry gathering over Gotland right now, and therefore it would be so beneficial with a positive announcement, a direction, a way forward. But that is not what I get from Ebba Busch today; instead, it sounds like theories about what we could do, and we need much, much more than that.

I can only regret that we are now about to miss a heavy and important freight train for Sweden, for that is what is about to happen.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by thanking you for the interpellation and for the fact that Hanna Westerén, with her commitment, raises the issue here in the chamber.

I think it is a clear answer that this will be prioritized now that we are getting a completely different way to approach the issues of preparedness. Now, unlike before, we clearly stipulate and establish in peacetime how production, construction, and deliveries shall be able to function during a crisis, high alert, and war. In this sector, society-critical goods and services are identified. Lime and cement are a crucial part of this, and the capacity will be mapped and responsibility distributed.

We are now in the middle of the process of ensuring that this is valued in the way it should be, so we are far beyond words about that this is important and that we should do something about it.

Regarding the second part, I nevertheless want to raise a warning finger. If the Swedish political debate becomes that all large transition projects require state funds, the funds will run out, this in a situation where we need to have a lot of funds for our defense and the total defense as a whole. We are to reach 5 percent of GDP by 2030. That is the line we have set. We also see that much of what holds back business investments concerns our own bureaucracy and national interests that overlap where it is not clear what is the decisive factor to be weighed in when making decisions.

Now we are well on our way to starting to clean up this and sending a clear signal that we will pave the way for the industrial establishments. It is right and proper for our competitiveness, for our growth and also for our security.

Thank you for the debate and Merry Christmas!

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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