Response to interpellation 2025/26:96 on the National Audit Office's review of the government's climate policy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L welcomes the Riksrevisionen's audit and argues that the government is working continuously to improve climate reports and climate action plans 1. L argues that scenarios are uncertain 1 2 and that the government has already decided on assignments to strengthen the agencies' analytical capacity 1 2. L denies that the government chose an optimistic scenario to be in a tough situation, but instead argues that none of the previous scenarios were accurate 3. L argues that it is positive that S supports a targeted electric car premium in its shadow budget 4. S argues that the government's climate policy is based on optimistic foundations without a stable basis 5. S considers it unserious that the Prime Minister speaks with absolute certainty about emission reductions with enormous margins of error 6. S wants to increase the pace of electrification and argues that the government has reduced climate investments in the budget 7. S argues that it is important to give the agencies better analytical capacity and that cooperation is possible there 8. S argues, however, that greater decisiveness is required as Riksrevisionen directs serious criticism at uncertainties in the government's climate policy 8.
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! Jytte Guteland has asked me if I intend to take any measures in light of the deficiencies and uncertainties in the underlying data for the government's climate policy that the National Audit Office highlights.
On 21 October 2025, the Swedish National Audit Office presented an audit on the state's work with basis and evaluation in the climate policy framework. The Swedish National Audit Office's overall conclusion is that the work of the government and the authorities is deficient, particularly regarding the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's work in producing a basis for the government's climate reports and climate action plans, which includes scenarios for the development of emissions. The Swedish National Audit Office argues that the basis contains large uncertainties that are passed on to the government's climate reports and climate action plans and that the uncertainties entail a risk that the government underestimates the need for measures to reduce emissions.
The Government welcomes that the Swedish National Audit Office has audited this work. That the work with underlying data and evaluation is effective and transparent is central for Sweden to be able to meet the climate goals. Scenarios for climate emissions are by their nature uncertain, and therefore it is important that the methods used are transparent. The Government is working continuously to improve the work with climate reports and climate action plans. This audit will be able to be used as a basis in that work going forward.
The review and the recommendations are now being analyzed within the Government Offices, and the government will, in accordance with the guidelines, return with a communication to the Riksdag at the beginning of next year, where the government reports on which measures the government has taken or intends to take in light of the observations the Swedish National Audit Office makes in its report.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the Climate for the information regarding the National Audit Office's review and report.
Let me begin by reminding that the government's climate policy has been scrutinized before, and then it was about which scenarios the climate policy is based on and which scenarios one uses to support its climate action plan and climate policy.
Last year, criticism was directed at the fact that the Minister for Climate and the government chose the more optimistic scenario of the two presented by Naturvårdsverket. The government based its assessments in climate policy on data from various agencies, such as Naturvårdsverket and Energimyndigheten. There were several scenarios, but the government chose, as stated, a more optimistic one which showed that they would meet the EU's goals with the new reduction obligation. The bleaker scenario from Naturvårdsverket, the government chose to ignore, and there was a great deal of criticism regarding that.
Now comes part two of this mess. It turns out when the National Audit Office audits the authorities and the government that the underlying data is very optimistic and lacks a stable foundation. The basis for climate policy is to some extent based on the assumption that electrification will maintain a certain pace, that the industry will be able to get the electricity supply it needs for the transition, and so on. Furthermore, there is a circularity between the authorities, where the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency refers to the Climate Policy Council, which in turn refers to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and all of them actually lack stable and solid underlying data. This is a major problem. When the government additionally chooses to use these data and takes the most optimistic underlying data as the basis for its policy, it risks undermining Sweden's climate policy.
If I were the Minister for Climate, I would be very concerned in this situation. Why does the Minister for Climate not summon the authorities during the autumn and winter but wants to wait until next year to do anything at all? That is my follow-up question. This is alarming, and the Minister for Climate should therefore summon the authorities here and now. Why does she not do so?
Åsa Westlund (S)
Madam Speaker! The reports from the Swedish National Audit Office truly shed light on the great uncertainties that exist within climate policy. It is difficult to ignore, and everyone must take it into account. It also requires of us as those politically responsible that we are open and transparent about how difficult it is and how uncertain these figures can be.
The Minister for Climate and Environment has previously promised that she would resign if emissions increased. After that, she has said that she does not intend to resign because Sweden's emissions are projected to be lower in 2026 than in 2022. But no updated official calculations show that this is true. I have also heard the Prime Minister say the same thing. He has apologized for the poor climate policy and the increase in emissions by stating that they are now erased and that 2026 will be below 2022's levels. Even if this were the case, it does not mean that emissions have continued to be reduced as much as they should be to meet the climate goals. But the Prime Minister saying that emissions will be lower in 2026 than in 2022 gives a strong appearance of correctness and certainty in these figures.
DN requested the underlying data, and it turned out that the Prime Minister had based his statement on a scenario where emissions were 0.2 per mille lower in 2026 than in 2022. It can be stated in this context that the margin of error for the 2023 emissions reported to the UN was 300 times larger, that is, an enormous margin of error. It is therefore completely unserious to say that emissions will be lower in 2026. At best, one could say that they will hopefully be at the same level as 2022.
My question is: How does the government take the criticism from the Swedish National Audit Office into account in its daily work so that the Prime Minister does not continue to give this incorrect impression?
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! It was very good that Member Westlund mentioned the Swedish National Audit Office in the final sentence of the speech in any case, so that it links to the interpellation debate we actually have today.
I understand that one would like to continue the previous debate and discuss what I have said regarding my position on the climate goals and their compliance. We can, of course, also discuss that. I can briefly account for the claims made here in the chamber that I, Madam Speaker, would have said that I would resign if emissions increase.
What I said in a long interview in Klotet on Sveriges Radio was that I, as Climate Minister, want us to move towards the climate goals and reach them, and that if I notice that our policy takes us further away from Sweden's climate goals, I will resign.
We are no longer moving away from Sweden's climate goals when Sweden's emissions decreased in 2023, increased in 2024, and are projected to decrease in 2025 and decrease in 2026. The way one reaches climate goals is actually not to stare blindly at exactly how emission curves look from year to year, but it is about what policy one has as a basis to reach emissions, that is, what one does so that there is clean electricity in Sweden so that we do not need to use the oil plant in Karlshamn.
But the opposition does not want that discussion. They only want to talk about goals and figures instead of about political proposals. It is boring. If we had done that, we could have talked much more about Sweden's climate policy future, which I believe looks bright. Sweden has the lowest emissions per person in the EU, and Sweden is doing a huge amount to continue to have that. Sweden is in a good position.
We have goals that we do not reach because they are set very high, and we fight to reach them with more and more politics every day. It is a challenge that we share with several different countries that have very high, ambitious goals. It is a good thing, but the opposition does not want the optimistic debate, Madam Speaker.
We must instead return to discussing other matters, for example, Member Guteland's claims, or logic, I would like to say, here in the chamber, regarding the fact that the Swedish National Audit Office's review shows that there is potential for development for the scenarios and forecasts that are being worked towards. The great uncertainties are something that we are aware of and that we are working to manage.
It is claimed here that there were two scenarios from last year and that the government chose the optimistic one because it is in a tough situation. I disagree with that. There were two scenarios last year. Neither of them was correct. I think it would be good if the members could be clear about that.
So, there is no reality where the opposition predicted exactly what would happen and got it completely right, because neither of the two scenarios was correct. It is not that strange. The scenario was also wrong for 2023. It showed that Sweden's emissions would increase in 2023, and I had to stand in the chamber and on TV and defend why Sweden's emissions were calculated to increase. But then the emissions actually decreased in 2023. That became the result.
The reason is that the forecasts are uncertain. It would be very good if we could have a debate about it, because I truly think it is a problem. How can we ensure that the forecasts we make for what the emission curves will look like become more and more certain, instead of the opposition using them as a fabricated punching bag – that the opposition predicted reality and the government did not. Reality is not that simple.
We need to improve the various forecasts that are made. The Government is actively working on that. Regarding the report, we are analyzing it right now. We are doing a lot to try to improve the forecasts because we have been aware of the issues for some time.
We have, for example, decided on a number of assignments to strengthen the agencies' analytical capacity and ensure that they have a better ability to conduct climate impact assessments. We have developed the work on emission inventories and attempted to review our various socio-economic models to find a more accurate balance in how the forecasts look. But there is potential for improvement, and I am happy to discuss that with the members here today.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! I thought I would start where we agree. It sounds good to find out how the agencies' analytical capacity can be improved. My question in this debate was precisely about what the government wants to do to ensure that the underlying data is correct so that climate policy – ultimately Sweden's climate policy – is based on a secure foundation where we know that the assumptions the agencies make are correct.
What the National Audit Office says is that, for example, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency bases its scenarios on underlying data that may in themselves contain well-intentioned ideas or assumptions, for example that electrification will proceed faster and that the industry will receive the supply it needs. If this is not the case, it is serious, because it means that all of Sweden's, i.e., the Swedish government's, climate policy is built on a hollow foundation.
It is this that I would like to hear about from the Minister for Climate and Environment. I would wish that we, in the final conclusion, could receive an account of what the Minister for Climate and Environment wants to do to ensure that we do not build our policy on such uncertainties.
Since then, there has been a lot of anger from the Minister for Climate's side in this debate. I would wish that the tone of voice were lowered a bit, that we could have a conversation and that the Minister for Climate could listen to the proposals that the Social Democrats have.
For example, we have said that we want to increase the pace of electrification. We are concerned that it is stalling. We are concerned that the government does not want an energy agreement. We see that the business community is yearning for it. We think it is very negative for transport emissions that there has been a fluctuating policy regarding the reduction obligation. It has meant that Sweden's fuel has stalled and that we are definitely losing both jobs and opportunities moving forward.
Furthermore, we Social Democrats are very committed to having an ambitious climate policy where the goals are met, and in this debate we heard that the Minister for Climate also wants that. It was somewhat contrary to the previous debate, where I was ridiculed for having the approach that we will meet the goals by 2030. But a climate minister's greatest desire must be that we meet the climate goals, right? That is my starting point.
It would be considerably more pleasing than being upset over the opposition's questions to try to cooperate on concrete policies where we can speed things up. It is well-established among collective authorities, both in Sweden and outside Sweden's borders, that it has stalled, that emissions have increased more than in 15 years in Sweden, that the government has reduced the climate investments in the budget, that electrification has stalled, and that the reduction of the reduction obligation has resulted in transport emissions increasing.
We Social Democrats want to do exactly the opposite. We want to invest in this. We believe that it is good for Sweden to lead the transition. It is good for the jobs. It is good for our industries' opportunity to move forward and be world-leading where it happens and not let China take the ball.
We want Sweden to take the lead at the climate summit, preferably with a minister represented as well, not specifically the climate minister in this case – we have full respect for that. But a minister should have been present.
Åsa Westlund (S)
Madam Speaker! My question was, therefore, how the government is already working to clarify that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the figures, for example by not, as the Prime Minister, stating with absolute certainty that climate emissions will decrease in 2026, when in fact it is a figure that is exactly at the same level as 2022 and is furthermore accompanied by enormous uncertainty.
I also want to ask the Minister for Climate Action how she views the guidelines that she has now, at least according to the media, given to Naturvårdsverket regarding presenting a scenario. If the agency wants to show that it is a very complex reality by having several different scenarios, which both the government, the public, and the opposition can access, but then is told that it may only submit one scenario because otherwise it would become far too complicated – does this not precisely contribute to making it appear as very certain matter and to obscure the view regarding the great uncertainty that actually exists? That is my question, and I am happy to repeat it.
I also want to assist regarding what Jytte Guteland is insisting on. What is the government's action actually regarding increasing security? Is it intended to call in the authorities to strengthen the work in some way, so that we – both the government and the opposition – get better grounds?
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I then choose to repeat what I have already pointed out regarding how the government handles an improvement of the scenarios, namely that we have decided on several different missions to strengthen the agencies' analytical capacity.
We have developed the work with emission inventories and reviewing different models for the economy to simply see how we can strengthen our assessments of climate effects.
We have commissioned assignments to develop guidelines regarding climate impact assessments and the cost-effectiveness of climate policy to ensure that we obtain a better assessment of how things look.
Before the development of the 2023 climate action plan, the number of agencies commissioned to work on developing the basis for the action plan was increased. This is something we believe can improve the accuracy compared to previous years.
We have had several different round-table discussions where we have in different ways tried to gather input from the business sector, civil society, academia, and others to handle these issues, but also many others. For example, the government has given a mandate to a special investigator, who has looked at how Sweden's climate policy can be developed based on changes at the European level. It is also a way to strengthen and improve both our analytical capacity and the view on the proposals.
So, very extensive work is ongoing. And I have discussions with directors-general at regular intervals, so I see no particular reason to call them in.
I also think, Madam Speaker, that this debate would have been very interesting to have, for example, after the 2023 results. One could have called for such an interpellation debate in 2024 and asked what the government is doing to improve its capacity and analyze these forecasts. The forecast showed that emissions would increase, but they decreased. However, one did not want such an interpellation debate because, unfortunately, in this instance, there is a greater focus on criticizing the government's climate policy. One wants to find a new angle on that question.
I understand that one wants a debate on climate policy. One wants to discuss the different scenarios because the opposition preferred a different scenario than the one the government chose. But the thing is that the forecasts are uncertain. Sometimes the forecast says that emissions will increase, and then they decrease. This time, the forecast said that emissions would increase by a certain amount, and then they increased by a different amount than the forecast claimed. This is something that is difficult to predict.
It is the reality, Madam Speaker. It is the question that we are discussing today. Much can be done to improve the analyses, but this is fundamentally about the fact that it is uncertain to calculate emissions. It is uncertain in different models for the development of the economy. It is something that one will constantly need to work to improve.
I mean that it is good if, for example, Naturvårdsverket wants to provide us with a basis for the budget that we are to build our policy on, but it becomes difficult to set two different reduction obligations. We have a reduction obligation. We have a budget. We have an item for how much we are to invest in restoring wetlands. Then it is good if we have an assessment to base it on and not two assessments that a working group looks at to then deliver an assessment to me, which I am to build a budget negotiation on. This is what I mean is an improvement, as an answer to that question.
It is fantastic that the member highlights that one wants to increase the pace of electrification. Great! I believe that most of us want to do that, but we want to do it in different ways. That is what becomes so interesting.
The government is also criticized for a wavering policy regarding the reduction obligation. Does that mean the opposition wants to go back to its previous reduction obligation plan? The Social Democrats also have a new plan for the reduction obligation. Then one is to cooperate with the Green Party, which now wants to abolish the reduction obligation after a certain number of years. I would therefore say that the wavering is a consequence of reality.
Jytte Guteland (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for that answer!
I and we Social Democrats also think it is important that better analytical capacity is provided to the authorities. The part of the answer where the minister describes the importance of providing better conditions for the authorities to handle these underlying documents with more certainty, we can agree on, and in that regard, we are happy to cooperate.
But we would wish that there were greater capacity for action when it comes to how the authorities' work should be strengthened, because the Swedish National Audit Office directs sharp criticism towards this. It is also new criticism. The Minister for Climate and Environment wondered why the interpellation came now. The Swedish National Audit Office's critical report on the fact that there are great uncertainties regarding the authorities and the government's climate policy arrived now, and it is on that occasion that we stand here today. It is indeed very serious criticism. It is said, for example, that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency should not have reported which uncertainties exist in their assumptions in the documents to the government. The government's climate action plan therefore also contains great uncertainties from the documents.
It is very important to gather the authorities as soon as possible and discuss how one can ensure that we build on reality and not on weak assumptions about rapid electrification or anything else.
Then the minister was critical of the opposition and thought that we would be responsible for the lack of electrification. But it is actually the Minister for Climate and Environment who has dismantled a good deal of the subsidies to, for example, buy an electric car. We have initiatives where we want to speed up and help so that more people buy electric cars, for example. This government has halted that development.
Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Let me begin by mentioning to the member from the Social Democrats that you Social Democrats in your shadow budget actually support a targeted electric car premium and not the type of electric car premium that you first created and that we abolished. As far as I interpret your budget bill correctly, you think that our electric car premium is a better model than the one you previously introduced and which we are now changing. I think that is a good thing. It is very positive. You have realized that we need to support the countryside. We need to ensure that more are on board with the electrification train. I think that is very good.
But the discussion is about the National Audit Office's report. It is true that the National Audit Office did not audit these forecasts earlier. But when the member repeatedly insists that, for example, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency would overestimate the pace of electrification, I think it would be appropriate to mention that sometimes the pace of climate work is underestimated. For example, it was assessed that emissions would increase in 2023 because this government lowered fuel taxes. Then emissions decreased despite us lowering fuel taxes because people did not drive more, but could instead use the tax money that they had not been deprived of by the state for something else instead. That is where the money ended up, not on refueling more often.
I also think that is quite relevant in the climate debate, that is to say that the uncertainties are large in our forecasts. Which direction the uncertainty is greater or smaller in is also a debate. But if the debate is about how we should become better at calculating the climate, perhaps we should not all the time focus on when one has calculated in a certain direction and ignore when one has calculated in another direction.
I also believe it is good if we have more agencies working with the underlying data so that they become more accurate. I will, of course, continue to work on improving the underlying data. We will be able to give a formal answer on how we handle the report's underlying data in the Riksdag after the turn of the year, when we have analyzed the underlying data in the manner required according to standard procedures in the Government Offices.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.