Response to interpellation 2025/26:363 on unused climate subsidies
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns unused climate subsidies and the government's management of Klimatklivet and Industriklivet. L argues that these are central tools for the climate transition 1 and that unused funds are due to factors outside the government's control 1 2. L argues that the government creates long-term perspective through increased appropriations 3, works with authorities for better appropriation levels 4 and moves funds to maximize utility 4. L considers the transition of the transport sector and industry to be crucial for competitiveness 2. S argues that the government's policy is inefficient 5, that unused funds are due to political volatility and short authorizations 5 and that carelessly managed appropriations create uncertainty for companies 6. S argues that increased climate ambition leads to more jobs 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.
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! Åsa Westlund has asked the Minister for Climate and Environment what lessons the Minister draws from the fact that almost 4 billion SEK allocated for Klimatklivet and Industriklivet were not used in 2025 and how the Minister plans forward to avoid that allocated funds do not come to use.
The interpellation has been handed over to me, and I would like to start by thanking the interpellator.
Sweden shall move from fossil to fossil-free. Just as the interpellator points out in their question, the government sees Klimatklivet and Industriklivet as two central tools for the government's climate policy. During the mandate period, the government has therefore made large budget investments in the supports.
Klimatklivet and Industriklivet complement each other and together contribute to Sweden's climate transition on a broad front. Klimatklivet enables climate investments throughout Sweden that reduce emissions and bring us closer to our climate goals. Industriklivet promotes the development of innovative technology, which is crucial to maintaining a high pace in the transition of industry so that Sweden reaches all the way to net-zero emissions by 2045.
At the same time, we see that not all funds are being spent. This is largely due to circumstances beyond our control. This includes, among other things, projects that do not come to fruition and therefore do not receive support payments, or already approved projects that are delayed, which causes payments to be postponed.
How much funding is allocated each year is also affected by which applications are received and the processing times at the agency. To take these uncertainties into account and to be able to grant multi-year projects, it is important to have a balance between grant authorizations and grant levels. The Government continuously analyzes the need for grant levels and authorization frameworks so that they fit the support needs and forecasts as well as possible. For example, the Government has decided on increased administration funds for Klimatklivet during 2026 to shorten processing times. The Government has also given Naturvårdsverket a reporting requirement regarding how the agency has worked to shorten processing times.
In addition to this, the government proposed in the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1) an increased appropriation for Klimatklivet all the way to 2030, which creates conditions for long-term perspective and multi-year projects.
Åsa Westlund (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Government has promised the Swedish people to stick to the climate goals and conduct an effective climate policy, but the results we see right now point in the exact opposite direction.
With this government, Sweden's emissions have increased and Sweden has moved further away from reaching the climate goals. At the same time, billions of kronor that the Riksdag has allocated to reduce climate emissions through Klimatklivet and Industriklivet are not being used. It is very difficult to see this as an effective climate policy. Klimatklivet and Industriklivet are intended to do something very concrete, namely to enable investments that reduce emissions, strengthen industry, and create jobs in Sweden.
Climate investments are often large and multi-year. Companies and municipalities make decisions with a long time horizon, and in that case, stable and long-term rules of the game are required. But during this mandate period, several central steering instruments have changed rapidly. At the same time, the frameworks for investment supports have been relatively short, and this has sent a signal to those considering investing that the support exists today but perhaps not tomorrow. That type of uncertainty arises when there are political contradictions regarding the direction forward, something that has been very clear in the government basis.
The Minister said in his response that the fact that the money allocated for climate investments has not been used largely is due to "circumstances beyond our control." Responsible authorities point, on the contrary, to two factors that have directly affected how the funds could be used and for which the government and the government base are directly responsible.
The first factor is political volatility and uncertainty, and the second factor is authorizations that are too short and too small, that is to say, exactly such things as the government and the government base are directly responsible for. Nevertheless, the Minister states that the whole thing largely depends on things that lie outside the government's control.
My question is, of course: Does the government dismiss this substantive criticism from its own agencies? And would it not be appropriate if the government took some of the responsibility and did not try to shift the blame?
Jytte Guteland (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer to Åsa Westlund's interpellation!
My colleague raises a very important issue concerning the lack of leadership we have seen regarding the government's climate policy, but also the fact that the funds that do exist within both Industriklivet and Klimatklivet are not being used and utilized fully today.
Swedish companies are concerned about the lack of climate policy and repeatedly testify about how the inconsistency the government has had regarding climate policy threatens the climate transition but also threatens Swedish companies' investments.
Jan-Olof Jacke, CEO of Svenskt Näringsliv, expressed this in an interview in DN already one and a half years ago: ”In Sweden, we have very many companies that are far ahead technologically and which have more or less pledged their balance sheet on the fact that the transition will take place. To start wavering on the conditions again, that creates an anxiety and it absolutely does not stimulate investments.”
Teknikföretagen are also concerned. They see that the weak climate policy also threatens many companies in Sweden. In a debate article in Dagens industri last year, they wrote: ”Europa behöver nu mer än någonsin en tydlig och förutsägbar klimatpolitik.” They urged the government to stand behind ambition levels for 2040 at 90 percent. The government claimed that it did, but it did so with large exceptions for emission reductions they wanted to make in third countries. Teknikföretagen criticized this, as they want to see the transition happen in Sweden and in Europe.
Scania and Volvo have several times testified that what is needed in the transition for Swedish vehicle companies to be able to deliver is clarity that we want to invest in electrification and that we stand by high ambitions both regarding transport goals and in directives that regulate climate policy.
It is very worrying for Swedish companies and thus also for Swedish jobs that the climate policy is as erratic as it is.
If all of this, that is, what Svenskt Näringsliv, Teknikföretagen and individual Swedish companies are saying, is not enough to convince the acting Minister for Climate and Environment and also Minister for Employment Britz about the importance of transitioning and being clear in the climate transition, I also want to point out what we see in other countries.
We see that China is now taking the lead when it comes to electrification in the world. I believe we can agree that it is very clear to the rest of the world. We also see that it is in China that they want to develop tomorrow's cars.
Does the Minister for Employment want Swedish jobs to be secured at companies like Volvo and Scania, or does the Minister for Employment think it doesn't matter if the jobs end up in China or in Sweden?
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! Let me first say a few words regarding Åsa Westlund's question concerning long-term perspective and such.
Several of the projects within both Klimatklivet and Industriklivet continue over several years. In that case, a long-term budget level and authorization framework are important. There I believe we are in agreement. That was why the government in the budget bill for 2026, that is, this year, decided to increase Klimatklivet's appropriation all the way to 2030. It enables an authorization of 8 billion kronor. The investments all the way to 2030 and a high authorization thus contribute to predictability and long-term perspective for Klimatklivet. Here the government has done more because it has not been good enough previously. So we are working.
For Industriklivet, predictability and long-term perspective are enabled through steady grant levels of approximately 650 million kronor per year in 2026, 2027, and 2028 and an authorization of 3.85 billion kronor.
Then a few words about Jytte Guteland's post about the EU and a bit of that sort of thing.
Negotiations are currently underway within the EU regarding the design of the union's climate goals for 2040. Here, Sweden was driving to keep the ambition at 90 percent in emission reductions by this target year. But much work remains to specify what the goal should look like and how it can be reached, for that is what is important. We must talk measures. We must talk tools. We must talk systems. It is very easy to talk years and percentages. The Government works so that the upcoming climate framework shall be designed in a way that strengthens the EU's competitiveness and enables a socio-economically efficient way to reduce emissions.
Then I want to include a small warning against using China as an example regarding climate work. As I mentioned earlier, they have twice as high emissions as Sweden per person, and they burn masses of coal. It is not an example to follow. Sweden is an example with fossil-free electricity production and a high degree of electrification that we are now progressively increasing, day by day and step by step, both in the transport sector and in industry.
Åsa Westlund (S)
Mr. Speaker! It can be interpreted benevolently that the Minister recognizes that the government has previously handled the appropriations and authorizations for Klimatklivet and Industriklivet in a careless, if not sloppy, manner, now that it is being emphasized that a longer time horizon should be had and the framework set until 2030. But it still makes me wonder how the government ended up here during the term of office.
Was it the case that some party, say the Liberals, fought for high appropriations for Klimatklivet and Industriklivet and didn't quite understand that an authorization was also needed? Or was it that some other party thought that we can give a little more money to Klimatklivet and Industriklivet, because they won't go away anyway since we haven't needed to give them an authorization? How did this negotiation actually go? Was it pure negligence, or was it that some parties pulled the longest straw to shape a policy that does not lead to concrete emission reductions but is just money on paper?
That is what we have seen during this parliamentary term. The government always emphasizes that Klimatlivet and Industriklivet are central tools in the government's climate policy. It is true that they are very good tools, but they have not functioned under this government. The money has remained in the account and been paid back to the government when the year has ended – this is because the government, interpreted charitably, has been negligent in providing long-term conditions or, closer to the truth, has been so in disagreement that they have not succeeded in establishing these long-term conditions.
It is clear that it is easier to be long-term when one might be resigning in a few months than when one expects to remain in office. It is also a bit of a sign of poverty – when one does not know if one will lead the country any longer, then it is appropriate to set the frameworks.
In this case, I still welcome the fact that there may be long-term perspective ahead. But what becomes more and more apparent every day with this government and this government base is that the political uncertainty remains – the political uncertainty that has created this jerkiness during the mandate period and which, in the latest budget, led to a dramatic cut of Industriklivet. It is that uncertainty that makes Swedish companies not really dare to invest as much as they otherwise would have. Consequently, Sweden misses out on investments, growth, and new jobs that we otherwise could have obtained.
I really hope that we can achieve a new government after the election that has clarity and stands behind the climate goals. I also hope that the parties that originally stood behind the climate goals and were prepared to work for them, the seven parties, can re-establish that unity so that we avoid a situation where a number of parties adapt to the eighth party, which does not want to see any climate work in Sweden, which questions the entire issue of climate change and which definitely does not care that it risks Swedish jobs when we lower the climate ambitions as recently happened at the EU level.
I want to ask the question again to Johan Britz: What was it that made the government not provide long-term conditions for Klimatklivet and Industriklivet earlier during the mandate period?
Jytte Guteland (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you once again, Minister, for this important debate!
The interpellator, my colleague Åsa Westlund, has addressed the important parts regarding why we are not getting out the money that actually exists for the climate transition of industry. I join Åsa Westlund's questions about what the government's hesitation is due to when it comes to Klimatklivet and Industriklivet.
With this said, I want to point out once again that the lack of leadership within climate policy affects Swedish companies and Swedish jobs. Therefore, the combined portfolio that the minister has is very important. It should be in the minister's interest to break the Swedish unemployment and ensure that Swedish companies get momentum on the investments that have been made or are intended to be made in the green transition, because the green transition is so important for creating more jobs.
It is actually the case that increased climate ambition leads to more jobs for Sweden. I am therefore surprised when the Minister does not understand my reference to China's investments but instead wants to make a joke and try to make it sound like I do not know that China in many ways is a climate villain. Of course I know that! But China is investing right now, and when it comes to electrification, the jobs risk ending up in China. I wonder if the Swedish government is aware that this flatness regarding climate policy risks Swedish jobs and Swedish investments.
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! The Government is working continuously, with the help of the authorities and their budget basis, to ensure that the appropriation levels and authorization frameworks fit the support needs and forecasts as well as possible. The result is quite clear. To take an example, since the start of Klimatklivet, support has been granted to more than 262,000 charging points. This concerns charging infrastructure throughout Sweden, which is needed for us to be able to transition the transport sector. At the same time, Industriklivet has granted approximately 7.4 billion SEK in support to reduce the process-related and often hard-to-reach emissions within industry. This clearly shows the importance of these two supports to enable the climate transition and for Sweden's climate goals to reach net-zero emissions by 2045.
A tool that the government has at its disposal is the possibility of moving money that is not spent on a support to the following year. For example, Klimatklivet had a large appropriation in 2024, which resulted in that not all funds were spent. The government therefore decided to move all remaining funds to 2025. This in turn resulted in Klimatklivet receiving a larger appropriation in 2025, which would be difficult to spend. Therefore, the government decided in the 2025 budget amendment to move funds from Klimatklivet to Industriklivet.
Now, in hindsight, we know that this resulted in unused funds for Industriklivet 2025, but at the same time, it allowed Industriklivet to open additional application rounds in 2025 to support new projects to accelerate the industry's climate transition. This highlights how we have tried to turn things around to get as much out of these supports as possible.
Åsa Westlund (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
It is still very clear that emissions have increased during this government. Sweden has moved further away from the climate goals, and it will be tough for the government that takes over after the election to meet them. An important reason why Sweden's emissions are increasing is precisely the inefficient policy that the government has pursued. There has been a jerkiness and an uncertainty that has caused companies not to dare to invest and that products have not been in demand.
One of the things we are very much in agreement on here is that Klimatklivet and Industriklivet are good tools. The Minister of the Government does a good job of explaining how the money that has been used in this way has actually been of benefit – but then think about what an additional 4 billion could have done in terms of benefit. That is the problem.
These funds have sat idle under this government. They are funds that have been allocated by the Riksdag to be used to reduce Sweden's climate emissions, but the money has been left lying around and has not been put to use. That is what is so serious. I do not understand how one can be so careless with such an important issue as the climate and the climate steps that also to a large extent affect the business sector and the jobs we have in Sweden.
I want to point out once again that the responsible authorities point to what the government is responsible for when they say what has been lacking. There has been political instability, uncertainty, and authorizations that have been too short and too small. That this has not functioned satisfactorily is something the government must take responsibility for.
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by stating that I agree with the interpellant's views on and share the concern that all the money the government has invested in Klimatklivet and Industriklivet has not been able to be paid out. It is a pity!
As I mentioned in my initial response, this is largely due to factors that politics cannot control. I have simultaneously clarified that it is important that we do what we can. We have talked about the duration of the grants. The authorization frameworks have now been adjusted.
Another example is that the processing times within Klimatklivet's so-called Ladda bilen-support have been too long. The Government has therefore decided on increased funds for the administration of Klimatklivet during 2026, from 75 million kronor to 125 million kronor. We have simultaneously given Naturvårdsverket a reporting requirement. The agency shall report to the Government how they have worked to shorten the processing times and how the processing times have developed.
The transition of the transport sector and industry is crucial both for the future competitiveness of Swedish companies and for us to reach net-zero emissions by 2045. How the state can best and effectively support the transition is, and will continue to be, a question of great priority for the government. I am pleased that this prioritization is also found in this chamber.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.