Response to interpellation 2025/26:555 on the defense's climate adaptation and ability to meet a broad threat profile
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 Armed Forces' climate adaptation and its ability to meet threat scenarios. M argues that the Armed Forces are conducting active climate work through projects with electric vehicles, electrification, and renewable fuels 1. M believes that the Armed Forces are doing a good job as emissions have decreased despite expansion 2. M emphasizes that the Armed Forces' core task is armed combat against Russia and that climate adaptation is not its main task 2. MP believes that the Armed Forces must phase out fossil fuels and adapt to a future energy system 3. MP argues that the Armed Forces need a clear plan for the phasing out of fossil fuels 4. MP criticizes the government for a lack of extra ambition 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.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! Emma Berginger has asked me what concrete measures I and the government have taken to ensure that the Armed Forces and the total defense are adapted to a changed climate.
The interpellor has further asked me whether I have acted to strengthen the Armed Forces' ability to handle climate-related crises such as forest fires, floods and other extreme weather events that can occur simultaneously with other security threats.
Emma Berginger has also asked me whether I and the government ensure that the consequences of climate change are integrated into the long-term defense planning and the development of the total defense.
Finally, Emma Berginger has asked what measures I and the government intend to take to reduce the Armed Forces' dependence on fossil fuels and ensure that the defense can function in a future energy and fuel system based on electricity and renewable fuels.
The security policy situation remains serious, and the total defense faces a historical reconstruction. The Armed Forces' main task is to defend Sweden and allies against an armed attack, based on the collective defense within Nato. One of the goals for the military defense is also to protect the functionality of society by, with existing capabilities, assisting the rest of society both in peacetime and during high alert.
In the national security strategy, the government states that the upgrading of the total defense is a complex task that actualizes trade-offs in relation to other societal interests. The difficult global situation has meant that the upgrading necessarily entails that the total defense's activities must be accorded great importance when such trade-offs are made.
In the security strategy, it is also stated that climate change, primarily in the long term, constitutes the most serious non-actor-driven threat to the entire society, which already today has direct consequences for our national security. For example, extreme weather affects the production of food and water supply.
We must have a robust preparedness that can handle the entire spectrum of threats. The ability to prevent, withstand, and manage crises and accidents constitutes a foundation for society's resilience. It is therefore important that synergies and coordination gains between the work on climate adaptation, civil defense, and crisis preparedness are realized. Resilience and robustness are part of NATO's collective deterrence and defense.
Emma Berginger's questions hit broadly across several societal sectors. Higher demands are placed on all actors in society when war is the dimensioning threat and climate change needs to be managed. The Government has carried out very large investments within total defense.
Regarding the Armed Forces' work, the authority takes several measures and carries out development work within the environmental and climate area. When it comes to climate adaptation, the Armed Forces, like other authorities, have a regulation-based responsibility to initiate, support, and evaluate the work with climate adaptation. This is in accordance with the ordinance (2018:1428) on authorities' climate adaptation work.
Emma Berginger (MP)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Defence for the answer.
We both stand behind the fact that Sweden finds itself in a serious security policy situation and that it is important to build up the total defense's capability. Miljöpartiet stands together with other parties in the Riksdag behind the agreements that now ensure that the upgrading takes place and that the Armed Forces are provided with large resources to increase its capability.
In that upgrade, it is important to ensure that the Armed Forces' activities, infrastructure, and materiel are adapted to the ongoing climate crisis. It is both about reducing climate-impacting emissions and about ensuring the Armed Forces' ability to operate in a changed climate and in a society that has transitioned.
The climate crisis is a fact. In its wake, we see extreme weather events such as droughts and fires, which is highly relevant this summer in both Europe and Sweden. But we also see torrential rains, floods, erosion, landslides, sea-level rises, and so on.
Being able to handle these extreme weather conditions and extreme weather events in all parts of the conflict scale is crucial for the Armed Forces to be able to maintain its capability.
Even what may seem like minor effects of climate change can affect the Armed Forces' capability, for example the number of zero-point crossings, that is when the temperature moves above and below zero degrees, which affects the load-bearing capacity of the ground. The lack of snow can affect mobility, visibility and, according to experiences from Norway, even the soldiers' morale and well-being.
When I ask which concrete measures the minister and the government have taken to ensure that the Armed Forces and the total defense are adapted to a changed climate, the answer remains absent. I must conclude that the minister has not taken any such measures.
I also asked whether the minister has acted to strengthen the Armed Forces' ability to handle climate-related crises such as forest fires, floods, and other extreme weather events that can occur simultaneously with security threats. Nor here, based on the Minister for Defence's answer, can I see that he has acted to strengthen this ability.
The Minister for Defence refers to the fact that the Armed Forces, like other authorities, have a regulation-based responsibility to initiate, support and evaluate the work on climate adaptation, in accordance with the Ordinance 2018:1428 on authorities' climate adaptation work.
It is true that the red-green government in 2018 made a decision regarding this ordinance, which states that an authority specified in the first paragraph shall, within its area of responsibility and within the framework of its assignments, initiate, support and evaluate the work with climate adaptation, and if the authority manages or maintains state property, the authority shall also adapt this activity to a changed climate.
I did, however, ask whether the Minister for Defence has taken any measures in this direction. Has he at all followed up on or shown interest in the work that the authority should carry out according to the ordinance? Has he made any assessment of whether the authority complies with the ordinance? Is the activity already climate-adapted, or are further measures needed?
One of the reasons I wrote this interpellation is that I do not want the climate issue to be lost now that we are undertaking the historical upgrade. We are procuring equipment that is intended to function for decades. Therefore, I want answers on how the Minister and the Government ensure that the consequences of climate change are integrated into the long-term defense planning and the development of the total defense.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! British authorities released a report at the beginning of the year that was heavily rewritten when it was released. The report was prepared to identify security risks and facilitate the planning of the United Kingdom's security. The report highlights that critical ecosystems are on the verge of collapsing and that the loss of functioning ecosystems is the greatest security threat to the United Kingdom. Collapsing ecosystems cause shortages of food, water, and raw materials, and this in turn contributes to increased migration flows, conflicts, and war.
As most can understand, this is not a local problem for the United Kingdom but a global issue. If large and important ecosystems are destroyed, it will affect us globally, not least in Sweden. The consequences will be great and affect many things, from food production and drinking water supply to public health, migration and national security.
The British report emphasizes that it is about effects in the near term and that important ecosystems risk collapsing as early as 2030 if we do not act. That we are heading towards collapsing ecosystems in so many places in the world is due to several things, but an overarching factor is climate change. The report also emphasizes the importance of reducing climate emissions and of staying within the Paris Agreement for the ecosystems to continue to function.
I suspect that a major reason why the report was so rewritten, in addition to it being so clear about the risks, was that it was produced by the British intelligence service. I would have liked to see a similar report for Sweden. But it is perhaps even more important that the Swedish Armed Forces can present a clear plan for how they will work with the phasing out of fossil fuels and how they will reduce their climate impact. I am fully aware that the Armed Forces know that climate change constitutes a major threat, but the defense also needs to do its part in reducing its emissions and its climate impact. This issue really needs to be prioritized.
The Minister for Defence highlights in his response that the interpellation hits broadly across several societal sectors. This is a very important point, but this is also something that several ministers are trying to dodge. When I have asked questions about the British report to the relevant ministers, everyone has referred to the Minister for Climate and Environment, regardless of whether it concerned civil preparedness or the public health aspect of how climate change will affect us. This is very frustrating, and therefore I appreciate Pål Jonson's answer.
When it comes to phasing out the fossil, making us more independent of oil countries and adapting society to a changed climate, everyone needs to be part of the journey. Everyone – private individuals, authorities, and politicians – needs to do the work of identifying how to phase out the fossil. This applies in particular to the Armed Forces. This does not come as a surprise, but it is something that we have all known about for a long time. It is also something that cannot be prioritized away.
Emma Berginger has asked several questions, but I hear very few answers to them. It raises a suspicion that there are no climate measures to report. Therefore, I would like to hear if the Minister for Defence can elaborate on the answer regarding what measures are planned to reduce the Armed Forces' dependence on fossil fuels.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I gave a rather long answer. The challenge with the interpellation is that it contains four questions with different focuses. The questions concern both what measures the Armed Forces are taking to reduce its climate footprint and how the Armed Forces are being adapted to climate change. It is not so easy to give a concise answer to this, but it was a rather detailed answer. I will try to go through the questions that have arisen.
When it comes to the long-term perspective, I am, of course, well acquainted with the report from the British intelligence service on the security policy consequences of climate change. The closest we come in the work with the assessments is the Armed Forces' perspective plan, which extends to 2050. It touches upon the impact of climate change on the operational environment quite extensively, not least that climate change can drive different types of conflicts given that they can affect everything from food production to migration and erosion. The consequences of climate change from a security policy perspective have, of course, also been assessed by the Defence Defence Investigation (Försvarsberedningen) and in the security strategy, but it is primarily in the Armed Forces' perspective plan that one looks further ahead.
I oppose the notion that the Armed Forces would not conduct active climate work. That is actually not true. I will give three examples. The Armed Forces is currently working on a project with electric cars. They are working on the electrification of their vehicle fleet, including their truck fleet. They are working with renewable fuels linked to the combat aviation's fuel supply. Both FMV and the Armed Forces are also working on how to reduce their climate footprint in different types of procurements.
This work yields results, and I believe that should be taken into account. We know that society as a whole is increasing its climate emissions. But last year, the Armed Forces reduced their climate emissions by 4 percent, even though they are now conducting an operation that is significantly larger than it was a few years ago. I think that shows that the Armed Forces, through this regulatory governance, are truly taking these issues seriously. They are demonstrating concrete results. The buildup of the defense is one of the absolute largest societal reforms that we have implemented. Even though one has an operation that is increasing in volume and scope, the climate footprint from the Armed Forces is therefore decreasing. I think it is a good sign that the Armed Forces are taking these issues most seriously.
Emma Berginger (MP)
Madam Speaker! It is good to hear about the activities that the Armed Forces carry out. But my questions did not actually primarily concern what the Armed Forces do, but what the Minister for Defence has done in the performance of their duties. I asked what initiatives the Minister for Defence has taken to ensure that the Armed Forces and the total defence are adapted to a changed climate. I asked about the Armed Forces' ability to handle climate-related crises but also about how one ensures that the consequences of climate change are integrated into long-term defence planning and the development of the total defence. That is where I still lack the answers – what measures has the Minister for Defence taken?
It is very good that the Armed Forces are now looking at the possibility of using electrified vehicles, reviewing how they are procured and so on, but more is required. My question to the Minister of Defence is: What is the Minister of Defence actually doing, and what does he intend to do?
At the same time, it is important to remember that we can, of course, influence how serious the climate changes will become. That was not what I primarily asked about in the interpellation, but I certainly appreciate it if we can debate that question as well. Even if we cannot stop climate change, we can nevertheless mitigate it, and every tenth of a degree counts. Sweden has committed itself through the Paris Agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have a national climate goal which states that by 2045 at the latest, Sweden shall have no net emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere; after that, we shall achieve negative emissions.
To manage this, we need to phase out fossil fuels. A number of industries and sectors, including the transport sector, have developed action plans to transition and become independent of fossil fuels. An extensive electrification is taking place, but also a transition to biofuels in the parts that cannot be electrified in a simple way.
The Armed Forces and the total defense cannot stand aside and remain on the sidelines. One cannot have a free pass when everyone else is transitioning, and one needs to ensure their capability. Therefore, I have also asked what measures the Minister and the Government intend to take to reduce the Armed Forces' dependence on fossil fuels and ensure that the defense can function in a future energy and fuel system based on electricity and renewable fuels.
Madam Speaker! Nato sees the climate threat as a threat multiplier and points out in its strategic concept that the climate is a defining challenge for our time, with a profound impact on the allies' security. It is argued that Nato should become the leading international organization regarding understanding and adaptation to the impact of climate change on security. The Government has itself, in its national security strategy, pointed out the climate as an existential threat to humanity.
That is why I am interested in learning more about what measures the Minister for Defence and the Government have taken to manage that threat. In his response, the Minister for Defence points out that climate change already today has consequences for our security. For example, it is mentioned that extreme weather affects the production of food and the supply of drinking water.
What is the government doing concretely to manage this impact on our security? How is the food supply and drinking water supply ensured? I would like to have answers from the Minister for Defence on how this is viewed within the framework of total defense.
Katarina Luhr (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answers, Minister!
It is pleasing that the emissions from the Armed Forces have decreased. But the Armed Forces need to plan for fossil-free operations within its own activities. At the same time, there are other things that can be done.
One can, for example, influence how much renewable electricity can be generated through wind power. A larger number of offshore wind farms, for example, have been rejected by the government following objections from the Armed Forces.
In November 2024, 13 planned offshore wind farms in the Baltic Sea were rejected, and in the middle of July this year, an additional 11 were rejected. These were wind farms that could have provided a substantial addition to our electricity production.
I do not claim that all the wind farms would have been possible to build, but the Total Defence Research Institute has pointed out that there are different possible solutions to allow wind power and defense to coexist.
This is something that I think the Previous Government could have built upon. The Armed Forces could have received clear directives to contribute to the planning of new wind power, for example by pointing out other locations that could be suitable instead of routinely blocking projects.
The Armed Forces need to speed up the transition to fossil-free fuels, improve energy efficiency, and help with renewable energy where possible. By contributing to the planning of renewable energy, one could also support the construction of renewable energy in the electricity system.
It is not just about the climate, it is also about preparedness. A defense that is less dependent on fossil fuels and has less vulnerable supply chains also becomes stronger and more robust.
The Minister answers today that regarding the Armed Forces' work, the authorities are taking several measures and are carrying out development work within the environmental and climate area. Therefore, I would like to hear an answer regarding what measures the government plans to develop the climate work within the Armed Forces.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I will not take another turn in the debate by opening the discussion on offshore wind power more than to say that the government has nevertheless approved more offshore wind power than the previous government.
With that said, I shall address a number of the questions that have been put forward regarding what the government and I, as the responsible minister, have done. The Armed Forces report its climate work to the department. The government, of course, continuously directs its agencies through ordinances and instructions.
I assume, of course, that Emma Berginger has read the Armed Forces' annual report. In that case, she is familiar with the fact that emissions from the Armed Forces have decreased, in contrast to other parts of society, which I consider a great success and a testament to the fact that the Armed Forces is doing a good job. Despite expanding the operations, they are, among other things, working on energy efficiency. I think it is exemplary that they are working with that.
Let us also take the question linked to fuels. The members are certainly familiar with the fact that the Armed Forces are not covered by the reduction obligation. There is a very simple and clear answer. One cannot stockpile that type of fuel in cold climates. That is why we cannot apply the reduction obligation until research and development have progressed further with that type of fuel.
The main task of the Armed Forces is the capability for armed combat. I say this only so that we are completely in agreement on it, and I assume that we are. The dimensioning threat for the Armed Forces is naturally Russia and the military buildup that Russia is currently undertaking. That is the core task.
The Armed Forces also work to provide support to the rest of society, but it is not a dimensioning task. The Armed Forces have, of course, performed important tasks for Sweden. It has done so during the pandemic, during forest fires, and during various types of snowstorms. But these are not dimensioning tasks.
When it comes to adaptation, which Emma Berginger also asks questions about, it is not the Swedish Armed Forces' main task to adapt its operations to climate change. In a broader perspective, it is other agencies that have the primary responsibility for climate adaptation, and above all, it is SMHI.
The Armed Forces is one of 30 agencies that are part of a network managed by SMHI that constantly works with and analyzes how climate change affects their type of operations.
There is also extensive work within the Armed Forces. Naturally, risk and vulnerability analyses are conducted, and there is an ongoing assessment of how climate change affects the operational environment in which they find themselves.
Emma Berginger (MP)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answers we have received from Defense Minister Pål Jonson. They clarify that the Armed Forces are doing important work in the area. But I still hear no answer clarifying what measures this government has taken. One seems to be relatively satisfied with the ordinance that the previous government has created and with following the ongoing work.
It shows that one perhaps does not have any extra ambition to ensure that one makes the climate adaptation that we see as necessary to maintain the ability to fulfill the main task of being able to keep Sweden and allies secure in the event of an armed attack and that one does not take that task with a sufficiently great seriousness.
To meet that capability, one must be able to adapt to a changed climate. One must also be able to adapt operations to be able to function in a society that has transitioned.
With that said, I want to say that this is my last debate in the Swedish Riksdag. I want to thank the Minister for Defence for good cooperation during these years. The defense area as such is a bit special as we have a broad consensus on very much.
I thank you for this debate where we have, in any case, been able to distinguish our opinions from one another a bit. I would like to thank Madam Speaker and everyone else who works here in the Riksdag for the time I have had here for almost eight years and for a good cooperation.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I have tried, to the best of my ability, to demonstrate the work that the Armed Forces are doing to be able to manage their climate footprint. It has obviously had a good result in that, despite increased activity, they are reducing their climate emissions. It is naturally also a result of the regulatory governance and the regulatory letters that exist and the requirements that we set.
The serious security policy situation entails that the primary task for the Armed Forces is to defend Sweden and our allies, even if it can provide support to the rest of society as far as possible and work with climate change.
Madam Speaker! With that, I would like to thank Emma Berginger for a very good cooperation and also for this debate. It has been a privilege to have worked closely with Emma for several years within defense policy.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.