Response to interpellation 2025/26:404 on the statement regarding the Climate Policy Council's report
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the government's climate policy and the Climate Policy Council's report. L argues that the government's policy improves the conditions for reaching the long-term climate goal 1 2 3. L argues that the previous reduction obligation was unsustainable and that the new electric car premium is part of an effective climate policy 1 4. L says yes to nuclear power, electrification, and simplified permit processes 3. L considers fossil-free electricity to be the only thing that works in the long term 3. MP argues that the government's policy has increased emissions and worsened the possibilities of reaching the climate goals 5. MP argues that the government's measures are insufficient 6 and that the climate policy has been a total failure 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! Katarina Luhr has asked me what I mean by the statement that the Council's view that the policy has worsened the possibilities of reaching the climate goals is not shared by the government. She also wonders where the government's basis and calculations that the government's policy has improved the possibility of reaching Sweden's climate goals are presented. Finally, Katarina Luhr has asked me on what basis I base my position that the Climate Policy Council's report from 2026 is incorrect and which parts of the report I am referring to.
I would like to start by thanking Katarina Luhr for the interpellation. I then want to emphasize that the Climate Policy Council is an important part of the climate policy framework. In its report, the Council notes a number of the measures the government has taken but assesses that the policy has been insufficient. The government shares the report's view that the climate goals are not being met with existing policy, which is also clearly stated in the government's climate reporting. We agree that further measures are needed but argue that we have laid a foundation so that the climate goals can be met.
The previous government's scenarios for reaching the climate goals were based on a high reduction obligation path. The levels and the rate of increase that the previous government had set led, together with extensive inflation, to Sweden having fuel prices that were unacceptable for corporate competitiveness and for people's ability to manage their daily lives. The previous policy was, in other words, unsustainable, and the government therefore implemented a change with the effect that emissions temporarily increased during 2024. When inflation fell back, the reduction obligation could be adjusted upwards slightly again, and together with our other electrification measures, emissions in the transport sector are expected to have started decreasing again during 2025.
The government has during the mandate period implemented several measures to accelerate the transition of transport and appointed an inquiry with a mandate to produce proposals on policy instruments that ensure we reach the ESR goal by 2030 while simultaneously safeguarding the acceptance of climate policy.
The government's efforts for an ambitious climate policy within the EU, a redirected energy policy, and the work to make permit processes more efficient are further examples of how we are creating the conditions required to be able to transition and simultaneously strengthen competitiveness and social acceptance.
We are implementing measures in accordance with the climate policy action plan to reach all the way to net zero. The government's policy reduces Sweden's emissions and takes us closer to the long-term climate goal. The Climate Policy Council's report also confirms that the gap to the long-term net zero goal has narrowed, and additionally contributes with constructive proposals for the way forward.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer!
In Sweden, we have a Climate Act, and it is quite simple. In Section 2, it is written that the government shall conduct climate policy work aimed at preventing dangerous disruption in the climate system and which contributes to protecting ecosystems as well as present and future generations against the harmful effects of climate change.
In the last part of the paragraph, one can read that the government's work shall rest on a scientific basis and be based on relevant technical, social, economic and environmental considerations.
As assistance in this, the government has the Climate Policy Council. The Climate Policy Council was formed in 2018 as part of the climate policy framework. The Council shall evaluate whether the government's collective policy leads towards the climate goals decided by the Riksdag and the government. The Council consists of a number of researchers and experts in various fields and an office with three full-time employees.
Every year, the Climate Policy Council shall submit a report on how Sweden's climate work is progressing and how Sweden stands in the work towards the climate goals. This year's report arrived, as is known, a few weeks ago. The report shows that the Tidö government's policy during the mandate period has increased Sweden's climate emissions and significantly hindered the possibility of reaching both the short-term and the long-term climate goals.
The Council writes as follows: Overall, we assess that the policy during the mandate period has been insufficient and has worsened the opportunities to reach the climate goals.
The appointed Minister for Climate, Johan Britz, was not present when the report was presented but responded in a written comment to the media: The government does not share the council's view that the policy has worsened the opportunities to reach the climate goals, on the contrary.
The climate issue is not just any political issue, but an issue based on natural science, physical and biological processes. It is not a matter of opinion but of science. The Climate Policy Council shows clearly and distinctly, well-supported by calculations and available data, that emissions have increased and that the current trajectories toward the climate goals do not lead to the goals being met with the government's existing policy. This applies to both the short-term and the long-term goals.
What determines the climate impact is the total emissions over time. To do as the government does and significantly increase emissions during 2024 to then marginally reduce them in the years thereafter is not something that reduces the climate impact. On the contrary, it has reduced the remaining emission space. It is clear and plain for many, even for those who are not experts in the Climate Policy Council.
According to the Minister's previous statement, the government nevertheless considers that the Climate Policy Council is wrong. The Minister has given me an answer today, but not an answer that points out that there are any inaccuracies in the Climate Policy Council's report. Therefore, I want to ask again: Which parts of the report is it that the government and the Minister do not agree with? Where is the scientific evidence that the government bases its own assessments on?
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! The Government is determined that we shall reach the long-term climate goal, and we are pursuing a policy to ensure that this can happen. To succeed in this, it is absolutely crucial to continue the electrification of industry and of the transport sector.
Industry and the business sector play a central role both for the transition and for Sweden's competitiveness, and for them to be able to continue to be leading, we must provide them with the right conditions. It is not just about the expansion of fossil-free electricity production – such as nuclear power, which Miljöpartiet opposes – but also about faster permit processes, which the government has actively worked for. It is about the fact that the fossil-free electricity must be available at competitive prices.
It is therefore with pride that we can state that the historical realignment of Swedish energy policy is necessary and a prerequisite for us to manage the transition. We take responsibility for the energy policy, and we ensure that industry, business, and households get access to electricity when and where they need it. It is therefore why we assert that the conditions to reach the long-term climate goal are improved with our policy.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Minister Britz highlights several parts of the government's climate policy in both his oral and written response. I would like to go into some of these parts in a little more detail.
First and foremost, I want to comment on the part where the Minister for Climate Action points out that the government is implementing measures in accordance with the climate policy action plan to reach all the way to net zero. Here, I think it is important to remember that the Climate Policy Council already wrote the following in its 2024 report: "The government, however, gives a misleading picture of the action plan's expected contribution to the goal being achieved. The claim that the action plan leads 'all the way to net zero' lacks factual accuracy."
Nor even this year does the government's policy lead to net-zero in 2045. On the contrary, the increasing emissions during the mandate period have eaten up an even larger portion of our emission space until 2045. The fact that the government implements measures from its climate action plan is therefore not a guarantee that we will reach any climate goals. Furthermore, the measures in the climate action plan are completely insufficient, which leads to the second claim in the minister's written response.
The Minister writes: ”During the mandate period, the Government has implemented several measures to accelerate the transition of transport and appointed an inquiry with a mandate to produce proposals for policy instruments that ensure we reach the ESR goal by 2030 while simultaneously safeguarding acceptance for climate policy.”
I am somewhat surprised when the Minister raises these parts in his written response, because the steering mechanism investigation that the Minister refers to regarding how we are to reach the climate goals by 2030 has been discussed for several years, not least when it emerged that the government's most important climate measure was only an investigation and that it would take two and a half years to produce. The investigation has not yet been presented, and the latest information from the media is that it will not be presented in the near future. It is upsetting in a situation where measures are more urgent than ever.
Regarding the next claim, that the government is accelerating the transition of transport, I really want an answer on what the minister means, because that is also something for which we have seen no results. I quote the Climate Policy Council again: ”During this parliamentary term, electrification has stalled. This is largely due to the low prices of fossil fuels, which have made the cost calculation for switching to electric power less attractive. The government's abolition of the broad electric car bonus has also led to fewer electric cars sold, especially in the leasing market.”
This is what the Climate Policy Council writes.
Making fossil fuels cheap obviously means that we lock ourselves into a fossil infrastructure, which we are suffering from now. Sweden, unlike a few years ago, has a noticeably lower share of electric cars in new car sales compared to, for example, Denmark. Norway has, as is known, been ahead of us for a long time.
I would therefore like to know why the Minister highlights precisely these easily controlled issues as arguments for the Tidö government's climate policy. Does the Minister of Climate believe that the Climate Policy Council is wrong about this? Does the Minister believe that the government's policy has contributed to the fact that electric car sales have increased during the mandate period?
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you again for this discussion!
I think it is good that we clarify this: Is electric car sales in Sweden low or high? It is a reasonable question to ask. I would say it is high if it is second highest in the EU. Then one can compare with Denmark, which is highest, and then with Norway, which plays in a league of its own. But electric car sales in Sweden are high. That is good. Electrification and the transition to electricity instead of fossil fuels is what we need for the climate, for competitiveness, and for our energy independence.
We removed the previous electric car premium because it was expensive and inefficient. We should not have that type of climate policy in our country. We shall have accurate and effective climate policy, and therefore we have launched a new electric car premium that is targeted at households with lower incomes and those who live in areas with poor public transport provision. It is households that truly need support to be able to transition to fossil-free driving.
Just a few weeks after the start, which was barely a month ago, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency had received several thousand applications for the new, accurate and effective electric car premium. In the autumn budget, we are increasing the investment by an additional 100 million kronor so that more households can gain access to this premium.
In addition, in the autumn budget, we also propose a new compensation to state agencies that gives them the opportunity to lead the way and reduce the use of fossil fuels. Both the electric car premium and this proposal will contribute to reducing emissions from the transport sector.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Mr. Speaker! In this year's report from the Climate Policy Council, one can read the following: "We now note that the year has passed without necessary decisions with significant effect being made, while the forecast for Sweden's goal fulfillment has worsened. Responsibility for taking these measures is thus pushed over to the next mandate period."
That the government during the mandate period has removed steering measures for reduced emissions without replacing them with anything else, that the government has increased emissions and that at the current moment there is no plan for how the government can reach the climate goals is serious. But it is also true, and therefore it is extra problematic if the government and the Minister for Climate and Environment do not want to admit that it is a problem. Acceptable climate policy has not been conducted during this mandate period. Climate policy has rather been a total failure.
Through the Sweden Promise between the Liberals and the Sweden Democrats, the Liberals have shaken hands with the Sweden Democrats on continuing the climate policy according to the Tidö Agreement. This means, therefore, a continuation of the climate policy that the government has pursued during this mandate period. If that happens, there is no chance at all that we will reach the climate goals or that Sweden can do its part of the climate work that needs to be done. So, one can only act if one stops listening to the science. Therefore, I ask: Is that how it is going to be? Is that why Minister Britz and the government refuse to take in what the experts at the Climate Policy Council say?
Finally, I want to know: Does the minister agree with what is stated in the Climate Policy Council's report or not?
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! Our position is that our policy improves the conditions for achieving the long-term climate goal. In that regard, Katarina Luhr and I may not be entirely in agreement.
The government has changed the steering measures. It is primarily one steering measure we are talking about here, and that is the reduction obligation, which became unreasonably high. I note that there is probably no party in the Riksdag that today proposes that we should return to the reduction obligation path that prevailed when we took over in 2022, in a high-inflation economy where households were pressured from all sides.
We are therefore saying no to unreasonable reduction obligations, but we are saying yes to nuclear power and to electrification. We understand that those who do not have an energy policy also do not have a climate policy. That is where climate policy begins, and that is where climate policy ends. Fossil-free electricity is the only thing that works in the long run if one seriously wants to tackle the climate issue. We are therefore saying yes to nuclear power and yes to simplified permit processes, so that things can move faster and so that we can increase the pace of the transition.
We also say yes to cooperating more in the EU and ensuring that the EU is an example to the rest of the world when it comes to the climate transition. But being an example depends on other countries following suit. I am significantly more concerned about the climate policy in China and the USA than about the climate policy in Sweden, and the member should be as well.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.