Response to interpellation 2025/26:510 on the climate impact from transport within the city of Stockholm
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 climate impact from transport in Stockholm. L argues that the reduction of the reduction obligation was necessary due to inflation and high fuel prices 1. L emphasizes that electrification is crucial for the climate goals 1 2, that the government has invested in charging infrastructure, electric car premiums, and support for electric trucks 1 2, as well as that nuclear power is necessary for clean electricity 2. L argues that the state contributes to the municipalities through Klimatklivet and a budget that halves the price of public transport tickets 3. MP argues that the government's policy with cheaper fossil fuels has increased emissions 4. MP believes that the reduction obligation must be raised 5 6 and proposes climate contracts 5.
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 if I have taken the initiative for an analysis of whether the government's policy has contributed to the increased use of fossil fuels and the transport sector's increased emissions in the city of Stockholm during 2024 and 2025 and if I can, in that case, report the results. She has also asked if I and the government plan to present any new tools or any new support to Sweden's municipalities so that they can increase the pace of climate work at the local level, and if so, which ones, as well as whether I consider it right that the state subsidizes fossil fuels used for private car use in cities and how I intend to act based on my view on the issue.
Let me begin by thanking you for the questions.
During the mandate period, we have handled an inflation shock and sharply increased prices on, among other things, fuels. The reduction of the reduction obligation that was made during 2023 was necessary given the large effects that would otherwise have threatened companies and households. That emissions then temporarily increased, we all know.
We are currently in a global energy crisis. The war in Iran and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have resulted in significant disruption in the global energy market and rapid price increases for fuels. Therefore, the government has once again acted quickly and presented an extra supplementary budget to support households.
At the same time, the crisis and the war clearly demonstrate the problem of remaining dependent on fossil fuels. A fossil dependency is not only worse for the climate but also for society's sensitivity to, for example, oil price shocks.
To break the fossil dependency, electrification is required. An electrification of the transport sector is also crucial to succeed with Sweden's climate goals.
During the mandate period, we have made several initiatives to accelerate this work. We have invested in the expansion of charging infrastructure, introduced a new electric car premium, and through support enabled market introduction for electric trucks and work machines.
As part of the recently presented supplementary budget due to the war in the Middle East, the government has, among other things, proposed a measure to facilitate those who use public transport. The government is investing 6.5 billion kronor to halve the price of monthly tickets within public transport during the second half of 2026.
That we succeed with the electrification of the transport sector is important for our climate work, important for our competitiveness and important for our resilience.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer!
The reason I asked this question was a newspaper article in the Stockholm newspaper Mitt i. It was about how the city of Stockholm, which has high climate goals and has had a clear reduction in its climate emissions for a long time, has now had increasing climate emissions over the last two years. In 2024, emissions from the transport sector increased from 600,000 tons to 700,000 tons, i.e., an increase of a full 100,000 tons in a single year.
It is the government's rearranged climate policy with the lowered reduction obligation and cheaper fuels that is also causing problems in the city of Stockholm. When it becomes cheaper to drive a car and refuel with fossil fuels, people simply do so. The reason to buy an electric car also decreases when fossil fuels are made cheap. The incentives to change cars do not become any greater when electric car bonuses come and go and have a very unclear implementation.
This is extra problematic in a city that has all the prerequisites to transition quickly and where the dependence on private cars is less than in any other place in Sweden.
The government's policy has thus meant that Stockholmers who drive cars within the city have significantly increased their use of fossil fuels. This should be difficult to defend for a minister who works for reduced climate emissions.
When Climate Minister Britz is interviewed about this, he deflects and points back at the municipality. Here, one is a bit surprised. Johan Britz is, therefore, the Climate Minister, the one who has the most power but also the greatest obligation to ensure that Sweden meets its climate goals. Therefore, he should see Stockholm as an important city to lean on.
When the City of Stockholm does its part and reduces its emissions, it also affects the government's accounts. Despite its position and the obvious fact that it is the government's policy that has caused the high emissions in Stockholm, the Minister for Climate Action attacks the Stockholm government and says that they lack ambition. It is unfair.
When it comes to climate work, it is often said that a large part of the work needs to be done locally and regionally. That is why it is the municipalities and regions that need to do the heavy lifting. That work can be made much more difficult if the government counteracts their work. It is difficult for a municipality to decide what cars citizens should have or what fuel they should tank.
The City of Stockholm has expanded its charging infrastructure for many years. The number of charging points on the city's streets has doubled every year since 2020. Many Swedish municipalities today have an active climate work with ambitious climate goals and climate action plans. Several of them have come a long way and have climate goals that are more ambitious than the national climate goals. It is, of course, an important part in ensuring that Sweden's national climate goals are achieved.
I believe that few of the municipalities appreciate when the Minister for Climate, who has the responsibility for climate in a government that has increased emissions, blames the increased emissions on the municipalities. The City of Stockholm, which the Minister for Climate calls unambitious, has for example as a goal to be a fossil-free city by 2040 at the latest. It shall be a climate-positive city that stores more carbon dioxide than is emitted. Furthermore, the City of Stockholm shall be a fossil-free organization already by 2030. The City of Stockholm has as a goal to halve the consumption emissions in the city. It is ambitious compared to the government's policy and perhaps worthy of praise from a minister responsible for reducing Sweden's emissions.
I am therefore interested in why the minister claims that the City of Stockholm lacks ambition. What are the measures that the Minister for Climate and Environment considers the Stockholm government is lacking? Does the Minister for Climate and Environment think it is right that the government subsidizes Stockholmers' car driving?
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Madam Speaker! This is an important discussion. We began by stating that emissions have increased due to the lowered reduction obligation. It was necessary for reasons including household economics, inflation, and also because it is a dead end, a cul-de-sac, to believe that we can push biofuels into the tanks of existing cars and that it would be the solution to the global climate crisis.
The solution to the global climate crisis is electrification, just as the Steering Committee Report has pointed out. It is about doing everything we can to ensure that electrification can continue. Unfortunately, we are falling behind the curve here. This government has, during this mandate period, invested heavily in electrification, in using tax money in the right way, and in not giving electric car premiums to those who would have bought an electric car anyway. That is not a good use of tax money. Instead, we shall ensure that there is an electric car premium aimed at those who would otherwise have difficulty making that investment.
We have invested in the climate premiums, which has enabled an accelerated electrification of buses, trucks, and certain pieces of work machinery. They have tripled during the period 2024–2027 compared to the period 2020–2023. The targeted electric vehicle premium that I mentioned has had a successful start with over 4,000 applications during the first weeks.
A decisive factor for people to dare to choose electric cars is that there is charging infrastructure. It is not only the purchase price that can be a hurdle, but it can also be the concern about not being able to charge and not knowing how far one can drive. Therefore, during this parliamentary term, we have invested several billion kronor in support to enable tens of thousands of new charging points. There are today twice as many charging points in Sweden as there were four years ago.
We have also enacted legislation that a tenant or housing cooperative member shall have the right to request the installation of a charging point for charging electric vehicles, and we have made the tax exemption for charging at the workplace permanent.
So we solve the climate issue locally and nationally, and in a way that other countries can follow so that Sweden can be an example and lead the way in this important work.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.
I have two things to say. When you make fossil fuels, liquid fuels, cheap, people do not switch to electric cars. They continue to drive on the cheap fuels.
When the City of Stockholm has worked on reducing emissions, it has also been seen that the existing car fleet needs to be able to run on something other than fossil fuels. Electrification will not be enough for us to meet the ambitious and necessary climate goals that both the city and Sweden have. We need to reduce emissions also from the car fleet that is already driving in Sweden. Therefore, we also need an increased reduction obligation.
When I ask the Minister if the government has any tools for the municipalities to improve their climate work, it is a serious question. The fact remains that climate work needs to take place locally, but a prerequisite is that all levels are steering in the same direction. This applies in particular to the state and the government.
The City of Stockholm has worked for a long time to reduce emissions from the transport sector. Congestion charges have kept the number of transports down for 20 years. The charging infrastructure is being expanded significantly. Electric car pools, climate-smart transports, and work machines are being procured. New and better sidewalks and cycle paths have been built and are being expanded more and more every week.
One works with environmental zones and summer streets, and nowhere is the public transport as good as in Stockholm. Housing construction has for a long time focused on locations near public transport to reduce the need for cars in everyday life. Much has been invested in ensuring that people have it well and enjoy where they live so that they want to be in the city.
Stockholm is a city with a well-developed, substantial organization and great muscles. Progress has been made in reducing climate emissions. But not all municipalities always have the same conditions or resources.
A climate minister has much to gain from getting the municipalities on board in the climate work, not least because the climate emissions from the municipalities ultimately end up in the minister's own accounting of Sweden's climate emissions. Here, the government could instead go and provide support in a much better way rather than accusing. For example, Klimatkommunerna is driving a proposal for climate contracts, where Swedish municipalities promise to work systematically to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to national and international climate goals. Klimatkommunerna proposes that a climate agreement be established between the state and all Swedish municipalities. The agreement consists of the state financing a part of the municipalities' climate coordination, the strategic work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and simultaneously establishing a national coordination function. At the same time, the municipalities undertake to implement measures to reduce their climate impact, to develop action plans and concrete measures for this, and to follow up on the reductions regularly.
The purpose of this is to accelerate the transition to a fossil-free society through local leadership. The climate municipalities have been pushing for this for several years, and it would be interesting to know if the government can stand behind this proposal. Above all, I want to know which measures the minister considers the government can contribute with in the work of helping the municipalities to reduce their climate emissions.
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Madam Speaker! This is a very good discussion. Let me mention two things that have affected the municipalities positively.
We have made record-breaking investments in Klimatklivet during the mandate period. Klimatklivet is one of the government's broadest investment supports for climate measures across the entire country. It is good to know. Stockholm County is one of the counties that has received the most approved applications, and the county accounts for almost 30 percent of all charging infrastructure applications in the country.
To say that the state is doing nothing is a bit strange because it is the budget that this chamber has decided on that means the city of Stockholm can receive support for its charging infrastructure initiatives.
The County Administrative Board in Stockholm has also specifically stated that Klimatklivet contributes positively to the electrification of the county's vehicle fleet.
I also want to mention the major investment we are making in an extra supplementary budget due to the war in the Middle East. It means that during the second half of 2026, we will halve the price of monthly tickets in public transport.
I am curious about one thing. Does Katarina Luhr share the assessment that the solution to the climate issue is electrification?
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! I can start by answering the question. Electrification will be a very important part of solving the climate crisis. Various measures for efficiency will also be an important part. There are also many other parts that one needs to work with.
We cannot, as the climate ministers have spoken about before the minister, put all our eggs in one basket. But electrification will be an extremely important part for us to solve the climate issue.
We stand today in a climate crisis where the world's combined emissions risk leading us into a situation that can no longer be managed. We know that emissions must decrease rapidly, as we are getting an accelerating climate effect from the rising temperatures. In the current situation, electrification is not sufficient to reduce emissions fast enough.
We have everything to gain from reducing our fossil emissions as quickly as possible. That is why I am both amazed and angry when we have climate ministers who pretend that the solution lies elsewhere and who go on the attack against municipalities or others when someone says that the increased emissions are a major problem.
For any climate minister, it would be logical to pick the low-hanging fruit. By creating conditions for others to do the work, it takes some weight off the minister's own shoulders. It is clear right now that the government's policy has made it difficult for almost all actors to do their part in the climate transition.
I also think it is a problem that the minister seems to refuse to listen to experts. He brushes off criticism and maintains that an effective climate policy is being pursued when everyone around him can see that it is not true and that emissions are increasing.
I really want to emphasize here in the debate that most municipalities are working hard to fulfill their climate commitments. It is more than what the government has done during the mandate period. I would very much like to see the minister show some respect for this and, at best, also assist the municipalities in their hard work.
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Madam Speaker! As I mentioned, the government does exactly that through substantial investment support so that, among others, municipalities can invest in charging stations. The answer to the transport sector's transition is electrification. It cannot be avoided that this is what matters. Therefore, electrification is one of the government's primary priorities within climate policy during this mandate period.
To succeed with both the infrastructure – charging stations – and the availability of all the clean electricity that is needed, nuclear power is what must be done. I agree that the solution is found nowhere else. It is here. We have the technology. We have the opportunity to electrify the transport sector in Sweden, so that we continue to be an example for the rest of the world.
The dead ends and cul-de-sacs that previous governments have engaged in have caused us to lose momentum in the electrification. We have lost pace. We should have done more earlier. But if one is against nuclear power and believes that we should save electricity rather than use more electricity, one runs into problems with the logic of buying into the idea that electrification is the future.
The government's continuity in the work with electrification and the breadth of the initiatives we have undertaken throughout the entire mandate period serves Sweden well in the uneasy times we find ourselves in. It is an important work that we will continue, and for my part, it is welcome if it increases further in tempo.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.