Response to interpellation 2025/26:275 on costs if climate commitments are not met
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 S argues that the government does not answer questions regarding the fiscal consequences of missing the ESR commitment 1 2. 1 S claims that the government is not taking sufficient measures in the transport sector and that one should be open about the costs of purchasing overperformance or paying fines 1 2. 2 S argues that their own policy would have provided good conditions to reach the goals by accelerating electrification and biofuel production 2. 3 S believes that the government does not have a grip on the costs of its missed climate goals and that money should go towards investments here in Sweden 3. 4 L argues that it is difficult to calculate exact figures on hypothetical fines because climate emissions are unpredictable and the LULUCF sector contains large uncertainties 5 4. 4 L emphasizes that the government is working to reach the goals and is investing a record amount in charging infrastructure 4. 4 L denies that emissions increased last year and argues that Sweden has the lowest emissions per person in the EU 4. 6 L argues that Sweden still has the capacity to meet the goals and that the opposition is not transparent about its own policy 6. 6 L argues that the government is investing more than the red-greens in expanding the charging infrastructure and that the state is responsible for the infrastructure for electrification 6. 6 L sees it as positive that S proposes the same amounts as the government for the financing of nuclear power 6. 7 L believes that S wants a significantly increased reduction obligation which would have consequences for Swedish households and that S is trying to mislead the voters 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.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Aida Birinxhiku has asked the Minister for Finance what analyses the Minister has had prepared within the Ministry of Finance regarding the costs for Sweden in the form of purchase of emission credits or other compensation if the ESR commitment to 2030 is not met, as well as what analyses the Minister has had prepared within the Ministry of Finance regarding the risk for and the size of any fines that may follow from violations of EU law linked to the ESR commitment to 2030 not being met.
The work within the government is distributed in such a way that it is I who am to answer the question.
Sweden is, like all EU member states, bound by the ESR Regulation. The Government works to ensure that Sweden fulfills its commitment in accordance with the Regulation. Sweden is one of the countries with the toughest ESR commitment to 2030. There are links between the ESR Regulation and the LULUCF sector which mean that any potential deficit or surplus from the LULUCF Regulation's first commitment period is automatically covered by space within the ESR sector.
The LULUCF sector has large inherent uncertainties regarding both how the future of net uptake develops and how measurements and calculations are performed. Sweden has among the highest net uptakes of carbon dioxide in forest land in the EU.
During the 2010s, growth in the Swedish forest decreased. This was largely due to factors that politics has difficulty influencing, such as drought and extensive attacks by pests such as the spruce bark beetle. The decline in growth has had a significant negative effect on the reported Swedish net uptake, not least at the beginning of the first commitment period. According to the government, it is not reasonable that Sweden be burdened or punished for a development that fundamentally lies outside of political control. Therefore, the government has conducted an active and constructive dialogue with the EU Commission together with other member states, such as Finland, to emphasize these challenges.
At the same time, there are also positive signs. The statistics for 2024 show a recovery in forest growth over recent years and thus an increased uptake of carbon dioxide in forest and land. This may have significance for Sweden's LULUCF commitment, but given the uncertainties in reporting and the natural variations within the sector, it is still too early to draw any conclusions on how the commitment within the sector will turn out. Thus, at the current stage, it is very difficult and too early to determine what the conditions for meeting Sweden's climate commitments within the EU look like.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the Climate for the answer. This is an interpellation that I submitted to the Minister for Finance, because it concerns analyses that it should reasonably be up to the Ministry of Finance to perform. The Minister for Finance chose to hand over the interpellation to the Minister for the Climate. I actually have no views on who delivers the answer, Madam Speaker. The problem is that my interpellation questions are not being answered.
What I am requesting, then, is what it will cost Sweden if we miss our ESR commitment by 2030. It is a highly justified question given that the current government, in its own budget bill, states that Sweden will miss its ESR commitment by 2030. Furthermore, other forecasts show that the rate of electrification is even slower than previously estimated and that the gap to reach this commitment is even larger than the government previously accounted for.
This obviously has major consequences for global warming and for climate change, issues that we talk about far too rarely. But it is also about our economy, about lost jobs, missing growth, and investments that do not happen.
Furthermore, it is about costs that this government does not seem to want to talk about, namely the costs that may result from us both needing to purchase over-performance from other countries that have done the work, and paying EU fines because we do not meet our commitment according to the ESR regulation. These are funds that we could use for much better things, such as increasing the pace of the climate transition.
Madam Speaker! What the Minister for Climate is presenting here regarding another sector, the LULUCF sector, actually only reinforces my argument about the need to take measures to be able to reduce emissions in the transport sector, which this government is not doing. On the contrary, during the last year, we saw the largest increase in emissions in 15 years. Therefore, it is not enough that the government claims to be working so that Sweden can live up to its commitment according to the ESR Regulation. What do we see in practice? Well, that the plan seems to be to await an investigation, the so-called Styrmedelsutredningen, whose report is not to be submitted until May. It is far too late to be able to take sufficient measures during this parliamentary term, and the Minister knows that very well.
According to the Minister, forecasts are subject to uncertainty, but that is, so to speak, the nature of forecasts. It is no reason not to produce them at all. We see that other member states have done exactly that. Furthermore, the government's actions contribute to increased uncertainty because they postpone measures into the future and make us more dependent on fossil fuels.
Madam Speaker! The Minister concluded by saying that it is too early to comment on what the conditions look like. But the government itself states, as it does, that Sweden appears to be going to miss the ESR commitment by 2030 with current policy. Then the Minister should reasonably be able to answer the question regarding the fiscal consequences of Sweden doing so due to this government's policy. I would like to have an answer to that question.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! This interpellation debate becomes a bit odd given that it is not possible to calculate a figure for a potential amount to be received after 2030 in a hypothetical scenario with a certain outcome, not least since climate emissions are very unpredictable and there are great uncertainties because the LULUCF sector is included. The member wants to use this to her advantage in this debate. She claims that the government is irresponsible for not having calculated a figure that is de facto impossible to calculate exactly. One can make general assessments, but they vary greatly from year to year.
I do not know if the member has made any attempt on her own, asked the Riksdag's investigation service to look into it, or in any other way tried to investigate how the calculations are made. But had the member done so, she would probably have realized that this is not an attempt by the government to withhold something or evade responsibility, but it is simply a fact that it is difficult to calculate a figure based on hypothetical emission figures until 2030 that are to lead to fines, especially as one does not know the details of how the fines are calculated based on the emission figures. There are very many difficult variables to take into account here. Despite the fact that there are doctors in mathematics in the government, it is not our focus to devote time and resources to calculating any figures for any potential fines, but the government is working to achieve these climate goals.
Madam Speaker! It is not the government's view that we will miss the climate goals, but what we are doing is an assessment based on each budget: What is the situation today? What do the forecasts look like? What is missing for us to succeed in reaching the climate goals?
Then more politics for electrification is required. Electrification needs many things, not least charging infrastructure. There, this government is investing more than any previous government. A record number of charging points are being set up with this government. But in the end, one also needs electricity, fossil-free energy. Therefore, it is this government's greatest focus in climate policy.
Madam Speaker! The member is telling lies and claims that the largest increase in emissions in decades occurred last year. The fact is that emissions decreased last year, so I would like it to be recorded in the minutes that it is not true that emissions increased in 2025.
Even in the year during this mandate period when Sweden's emissions increased temporarily, namely the individual year 2024, Sweden was best per capita of all EU countries. Per person, we had the lowest emissions in the entire EU, and I think that is something that is good. I think that is something that one should take note of.
I think this debate deserves to deal a bit more with actual politics, that is, how to solve the climate challenge and reduce emissions, and a bit less with hypothetical scenarios based on hypothetical sums. The Member's party itself does not have any particularly much better answer as to what such a hypothetical sum would look like because it is very difficult to calculate. It is based on parameters that we do not know.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! There is much to untangle after that entry, including the fact that the Minister seems to claim that it is impossible to carry out such an analysis when we see that other member states have done so.
Furthermore, the Riksdag's investigation service has looked at what consequences this would entail regarding the purchase of over-performance. That it is difficult is one thing, but it is not a reason not to make those types of forecasts and furthermore not to be transparent towards the voters about what it costs Sweden when this government misses the climate goals as a direct result of the government's policy.
Madam Speaker! We have indeed had some debates in this chamber, but I can only state that the Minister for Climate gladly uses her contributions to talk around the issue, talk about other parties and talk about things she would rather talk about, that is to say, everything other than giving a clear and straight answer to the interpellant's question, which is, somewhere, the very point of an interpellation debate.
My question is very simple, Madam Speaker, and can be answered with a yes or a no. Either the government has produced analyses of the costs resulting from this government's climate policy, which should then be disclosed openly, or the government simply has not done so. In that case, one should disclose and be open about it and immediately begin that work, just as other member countries have done.
Madam Speaker! If the government notes both that existing measures are not sufficient to reach the goal and that they do not intend to present any new measures to reach the goal, then there is no plan. One plus one equals two, Madam Speaker. The Minister for Climate issues a running bill to the next government and does not even seem to have a handle on how large it will be. Either one has a handle on the figures, or one does not. I understand that the Minister for Climate would like to talk about other things, but it is not possible to talk around the figures.
Speaking of figures, Madam Speaker, Indikator actually showed on Monday that it is extremely few who think that it is Romina Pourmokhtari and her party who stand for an ambitious climate policy. This applies even within their own ranks. I think that is something the Climate Minister should keep in mind when she claims that we Social Democrats have no policy for this.
With our policy, Madam Speaker, we would have had good conditions to reach the ESR commitment by 2030. We would have used these four years to actually accelerate electrification and Swedish biofuel production, not to contribute to the largest increase in emissions in 15 years during 2024.
When the Minister here says that emissions decreased in 2025, I also want to bring to the record that she is comparing specifically with that record-breaking increase in emissions and not with how it looked when the government took office in 2022. New figures from SCB show that emissions are 3.1 percent higher compared to when the government took office in 2022.
I want to repeat my question, Madam Speaker. There are other countries that have done it, and the Riksdag's investigation service has looked into it. Why can the Minister for Climate and Environment not be transparent? The Government itself states that we will not reach the goals by 2030. How can one then have no grasp of the fiscal consequences of Sweden not doing so due to the Government's climate policy?
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I note that the member chooses to ignore the fact that I said she had just spoken falsely when she said that Sweden's emissions last year increased more than in several decades. That is incorrect. She then chose to immediately correct and express herself in a different way in her second speech, instead of addressing the fact that she had said something that is not correct and that it was wrong.
It is also a bit difficult to understand what the member means when she talks about having calculated the consequences of purchasing overperformance. The member is welcome to clarify what it is she is referring to that RUT has looked at. Purchasing overperformance is not the same thing as an assessment of costs for potentially unfulfilled climate goals.
It is, of course, very convenient for the opposition to discuss analyses of potential fines after 2030 in this interpellation debate. The fact is, however, that Sweden still has the capacity to meet the country's climate goals, despite the fact that we have the toughest climate goals in the entire European Union.
There are only a few countries that have the same high target level as we do. Those countries have a fossil heating sector, and Sweden's heating sector is largely already clean. This means that we truly have a unique situation among all EU countries in that we already have the lowest emissions per person but at the same time an expectation to reduce our emissions the most.
This is not, at least, something that the member's own party has negotiated for Sweden. It is argued that with its own party's policy, goals are reached and everything is peaceful and pleasant, but one chooses not to point out that in order to do this, one plans to significantly increase the reduction obligation on diesel to a level almost twice as high as today.
It would be very interesting to hear if the member could answer whether fuel will become more expensive in the event of a change of power, or how much more expensive it will become at the pump in the event of a change of power. However, every single Social Democrat I have asked this over the past year has flatly refused to answer. It would be a unique opportunity if the member could actually answer for her party's policy instead of misleading the voters. She ignores questions about what the consequences would be of the party's pursued climate policy and how it affects the Swedish people's attitude, not least regarding climate issues and their view on their own household economy. To stand here and reflect on possibly fulfilled climate goals is so incredibly convenient.
We really need to work to reach the climate goals, and the government's way of handling the challenge that Sweden faces is, as said, to invest in electrification. This government is investing more than the red-greens in expanding the charging infrastructure.
Just the infrastructure for electrification is something we believe is the state's responsibility and that the state needs to take a step forward on. We are also working very actively to expand the Swedish power system so that there is actually clean electricity both for our transport sector and for our industry.
It is very positive that the member's party is now proposing exactly the same sums as the government does for, for example, the financing of nuclear power. It is a very welcome announcement, not least for the Swedish industry's transition.
As has been said, it is too early to make analyses of what any potential fines would cost. I look forward to hearing the member's reasoning regarding the consequences of purchasing overperformance, so that I can understand a bit how she reasons.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Madam Speaker! It is very interesting to see that the Minister thinks I should do this job instead. The Minister talks about how we Social Democrats should be transparent about the consequences of our policy, when the Minister first says that Sweden does not look set to reach its ESR commitment by 2030 and then does not even have a handle on what costs this will entail on the Swedish side.
I note that I will not receive answers to my questions today, Madam Speaker. I also note that the Minister is always frustrated by legitimate criticism from the opposition but never by missed climate targets. That is how it usually sounds.
Madam Speaker! I also want to answer the question, and I will give a very short and simple answer: No, we Social Democrats have no proposal to increase the fuel tax.
I also want to answer the question about the real costs of the government's policy. We are not getting any answer from either the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Climate and Environment. What we have received instead is a bill for the next government, and the Minister for Climate and Environment doesn't even have a handle on how large it will be.
I think the Minister for Climate should ask themselves whether the taxpayers' money should go towards buying over-performance from other member states and towards paying EU fines, or if they should go towards investments here to increase the pace of the transition, create new jobs, and strengthen our prosperity. It is truly investments that are needed when we see how this government's mandate period has looked.
Madam Speaker! The Minister for Climate and Environment can always hope that there won't be a change of government, but the confidence in this government and not least in the Minister for Climate and Environment's own party indicates something completely different. Not even the Liberals seem to believe in the liberal minister's climate policy, and perhaps that is why the Minister for Climate and Environment seems to spend so much time on us Social Democrats and what we will say or not say in our upcoming government negotiations. If anything, Madam Speaker, it shows that no one seems to believe in this government's climate policy – not even the Minister for Climate and Environment himself.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Now that I have heard the member reason regarding the consequences of purchasing overperformance, I realize that she does not seem to understand the difference between fines in the event of unmet climate targets and the purchase of overperformance from other member states. The member claimed in her second speech that she has figures that she has looked at, and she criticizes the government because we do not have figures. What she has de facto looked at, however, are completely different figures than those she asks me about in her interpellation.
It is perhaps a sign of ignorance spilling over into climate policy when the member in question also stands here and says that the Social Democrats do not want to increase any fuel taxes. No, but you want, as you said, a significantly increased reduction obligation, Aida Birinxhiku, which was what I said. You want to nearly double the reduction obligation on diesel. You want it at 19.3, and we have it at 10.
This would have consequences for Swedish households when they refuel – consequences that the member refuses to take responsibility for and refuses to stand for here in the chamber. Had it instead been another Social Democratic member standing here and debating against the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Energy, one would certainly have talked about that one absolutely does not want to raise the prices at the pump.
In this way, one tries to mislead the voters and claim that one can reach climate goals without it having any consequences for the wallet. It is unserious.
It is a pity that one does not choose to understand what one asks about in interpellation debates. The interpellation debate de facto concerns, that is to say, hypothetical fines in cases where climate commitments are not met, are as stated completely uncertain parameters to base on when calculating such amounts because they do not exist.
The government continues to work on the electrification, and we will simply have to see how the voters vote on election day.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.