Response to interpellations 2022/23:223 and 224 on Sweden's climate action plan

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Elin Söderberg has asked me whether the Sweden Democrats will participate in the coordination of the climate action plan and, if not, at what stage I intend to invite other parties to negotiate and thereby build support for the climate action plan in the Riksdag.

Jytte Guteland has asked me what initiatives I have taken to negotiate the climate action plan so that it can both meet the climate goals and gain support in the Swedish Riksdag, and when the Riksdag can expect to see a timetable for the work on Sweden's climate action plan and its anchoring in the Riksdag.

I would like to begin by thanking you for the interest in the government's climate policy action plan.

We have initiated the work to develop a new action plan, and in this, we will provide a more detailed account of the government's climate policy for the mandate period. But already now, we have initiated the work to create long-term conditions to reach all the way to zero. We shall reach net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest, to thereafter achieve negative emissions. By reaching Sweden's national goals, we have good conditions to also meet the commitments that Sweden has within the framework of the EU.

The Tidö Agreement describes how the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats, and the Liberals in a cooperation project will develop and implement political reforms to secure the energy supply and achieve an efficient climate transition. The action plan will be prepared in accordance with the preparation procedures that exist in the Government Offices. The Government's climate policy action plan will be announced to the Riksdag in the list of government bills, in accordance with ordinary routine.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must say that I am disappointed by the Minister's answer. Romina Pourmokhtari neither confirms nor denies that the Sverigedemokraterna will participate in the coordination of the government's climate policy action plan.

The Minister clarifies that climate and energy policy is part of the Tidö Agreement. This would mean that the Sweden Democrats are to take part in the coordination of the climate action plan - the Sweden Democrats, who have several times said that they want to scrap the climate goals we have in Sweden.

The question I asked the Minister, and which she has a constitutional obligation to answer, is in what way the Sverigedemokraterna will participate in the process of developing the climate policy action plan that the government, according to the Climate Act, has an obligation to develop every parliamentary term.

The Minister refers to the Government Offices' preparation procedures. These are procedures concerning how the preparation between several departments shall take place so that the government can speak with one voice. Whether the Sweden Democrats participate in the coordination of the climate action plan concerns the agreement between the governing parties and the coalition partner Sweden Democrats.

This therefore says nothing about how the government's decisions shall be anchored in the Riksdag. The Sweden Democrats have no departments of their own and should therefore not be a part of the Government Offices' preparatory processes, but at the same time, one is a part of the government's coordination office.

I must say that I am deeply upset by the Minister's reluctance to clearly answer this question, especially since we have received different messages, in different media and at several different occasions, from Romina Pourmokhtari and among others the Liberal Party's party leader. I therefore want to ask the same question again. Will the climate policy action plan be coordinated with the Sweden Democrats' coordination office before it goes to the government meeting for a decision?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the Climate, who has answered our interpellations and is present here in the chamber tonight to debate them.

I have asked the Minister for Climate what initiatives she has taken to anchor Sweden's climate action plan, and I can state that after having read the written and heard the oral interpellation response, I am not much wiser than before the response was given to the Riksdag.

We interpellants - especially I in my interpellation, I would like to point out - describe the predicament that the Minister for Climate and Environment finds himself in. One hardly needs to be a brain researcher to understand that it is a very uncomfortable situation the Minister for Climate and Environment is now in.

On the one hand, the government points out the climate action plan as important. We have on several occasions heard the minister state that the climate action plan and its role is important. In a way, one can see it as that the climate action plan has been a kind of safe place to go for the minister in the climate debates - it has often been criticized how the government handles the climate policy, and then the answer has been: That is what we will sort out with the climate action plan.

On the other hand, we have a situation where there seems to be a very difficult anchoring situation in the Swedish Riksdag regarding the climate action plan. With a strong proposition from the government's side, with legislative proposals or thoughts on laws being developed, there is not much opportunity to anchor it in the Swedish Riksdag with a party as climate-skeptical as the one the government leans on - Sverigedemokraterna.

It is, therefore, undeniably an uncomfortable situation that the minister finds himself in, and therefore it is important to clarify how this shall proceed, Madam Speaker. How are we to manage it? According to the Climate Act, the climate action plan must indeed be ready by autumn 2023 at the latest, and we have not yet seen any attempts at negotiations or descriptions of how it shall be done to obtain a majority in the Riksdag.

The Minister has, however, described in interviews that one should naturally get this through the Riksdag but that one needs to establish a dialogue with many parties. This she said in an interview in Svenska Dagbladet. Then the action plan is to be voted through, she told Anna-Caren Sätherberg in connection with an interpellation debate in this chamber. These are clear messages that it shall be voted on in the Riksdag and that it shall be done in cooperation with several parties.

At the same time, we are now hearing in the media that the government may intend to refrain from handling a troublesome proposition and instead wants to take the easy way out and present a statement. This is something that is circulating in the media now. It could possibly be a convenient way for the government to handle the issue, but on the other hand, it would be a significantly less ambitious way. It would also mean less clear messages to the business community and society that want to know how Sweden will manage its climate goals.

There are therefore several questions that the Riksdag has the right to have answered, I and my party believe. It is important that we find out what the Minister actually has plans for regarding the climate action plan. Is it to be a government bill or a letter? Is it to be voted on in the Riksdag? Which parties should be involved? What is the timeline for this? So far, we are not much wiser than we were before the Minister entered the chamber.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! When I refer to preparation in accordance with the Government Offices' processes, I am not referring to the joint preparation that takes place between the departments, but to the preparation that takes place of all matters in our Government Offices.

It is clear that matters are handled both politically and content-wise within the Government Offices, and we intend to handle the climate policy action plan entirely in accordance with the routines that exist for how we handle matters and things in the Government Offices. There is no preferential treatment or any special, secret plan for how we are to do this, but we work with the action plan in precisely the same way as we handle other matters within the Government Offices.

Right now, we are at the phase in the work where we are pulling out the action plan. We are not at the phase where we are going to lay out a timetable for how it should be voted through or in what form, but it is the work with the content of the action plan itself that is currently ongoing.

I understand that there is a lot of curiosity about what will be included in the action plan. Many are asking about it – journalists, opposition politicians, members of Parliament and many others are curious about what will actually be in the action plan – but that is precisely what we are working on right now. To then refer to the preparation taking place and the processes we have, I think, is perfectly natural as an answer to the question. Who will negotiate this, and how will it go about? Yes, that work takes place in accordance with the routines we have within the Government Offices.

It may possibly be a tedious answer. I understand that the members would rather have stood here and discussed what content exists and how we should anchor this, Madam Speaker, and that the members are very curious about the controversy regarding the view that parties in the government base have on climate policy.

Now, the fact is that it is I, who am a Liberal, who is the Minister for Climate and Environment. This is a bourgeois government, consisting solely of parties that have voted through Sweden's Climate Act and that conduct a serious climate policy. There are even provisions in the Tidö Agreement that the policies of all coalition parties shall be ambitious and effective. I feel that this is a good basis for presenting a climate action plan.

Madam Speaker! It was referred here that my party leader and I would have thought differently about this and said different things in the media. Of course, my party leader Johan Pehrson and I use different words when we say the same thing, but we are completely in agreement about producing a climate policy action plan and assume that it will be ambitious and effective and that the coalition partners will stand behind it.

When it comes to getting the action plan through the chamber - regarding the fact that it must be a strong proposition - we have every opportunity to do so because we, unlike the previous government, have a majority in the chamber. I have good hopes that we will be able to present a wise piece of work that is well-considered and that is not only ambitious but also effective, so that we make the most of every krona and present politics where every krona spent on climate policy leads to the greatest possible reduction in emissions and so that we can manage the climate policy in a wise way moving forward.

I understand that this issue evokes a lot of engagement and that people would like to brainstorm content that does not exist and plans on how this is to be driven through that do not exist, but the handling is simply so tedious that it is carried out entirely in accordance with the preparation procedures that we have in the Government Offices.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Romina Pourmokhtari for the attempts to elaborate on the words. However, I still lack clarity.

What Romina Pourmokhtari has said very clearly is that this is happening entirely in accordance with the routines. I would have wished that the Minister could clarify whether the Sweden Democrats, according to these routines, are to be involved in coordinating the climate action plan. Is it the case that there are completely clear routines for how the coordination should take place? If the climate action plan is an item that, according to these routines, is to be coordinated with the Sweden Democrats, this information could have been given clearly today.

My assessment is not that the Minister and Johan Pehrson have said the same thing in different ways. There are clips from SVT where Romina Pourmokhtari expresses herself in such a way that several people have contacted me and asked if it is the case that Romina Pourmokhtari will negotiate the climate action plan with several different parties in the Riksdag to ensure a parliamentary majority for climate measures that can actually have an effect and ensure that we reach the climate goals. Johan Pehrson has in other media expressed that the Sverigedemokraterna shall, of course, be involved in coordinating the climate action plan. This gives very different messages, and therefore I and the Swedish people desire clarity here.

As mentioned earlier today, it is repeatedly referred to that the climate action plan shall answer all questions on how the climate goals are to be reached by the sitting government. Therefore, the climate action plan is of great interest. It is very important to get a picture of what conditions the government has to push through climate policy that can lead to us reaching the climate goals.

Madam Speaker! Romina Pourmokhtari said in her opening speech that the government has laid the foundation to reach the long-term climate goals. My view is completely different. What has been done since the government took office is that they have signaled reforms that will increase greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden by 10 percent by 2030. We have not seen any proposals that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We have not seen any new policy from this government. Some of the policy that the Green Party and the Social Democrats pushed through has been extended, which is welcome, but one also cooperates with the Sweden Democrats. After the government has to a large extent increased emissions from the transport sector, we now see rhetoric about also wanting to limit the industry's climate transition. This naturally creates concern for the conditions in Sweden regarding working long-term forward to secure the climate transition within the industry, the transport sector, and other sectors.

That is why it would have been welcome to receive clarity on how the process of developing the climate action plan shall proceed. Regardless of what the document for the climate action plan itself looks like – and we are not discussing content today but the action plan itself – the measures contained therein must have political support in order to be implemented. It is now central that we get climate measures in place quickly, because the climate transition is a race against the clock.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! These interpellations are not posed as a questioning of the Minister's own will or drive, but it is about concern for the climate policy and the possibility of achieving a strong one in Sweden as well. It is not about questioning the Minister's competence or strength, but in politics, the motto "I can do it myself" works very poorly. In politics, it is about creating trust and ensuring that one reaches common decisions and can make them together with others – not least in Sweden's Riksdag, this is completely crucial.

Therefore, this superhero attitude is not satisfactory. It gives me no peace of mind, and I believe very few are calmed by the fact that the government wants to take on that role, even if from a humanitarian perspective it can be understandable to want to take this upon one's shoulders.

What becomes very visible from the outside, and what I am convinced the Swedish people also see, is that the government stands very alone in an uncomfortable situation because the support that exists for this government rests on a partially climate-skeptical party. What the Sweden Democrats say in this house provides no support for an ambitious climate policy, and the same applies to the Tidö Agreement.

A large part of the analyses that have been made of the government's first five months have also failed the direction that Sweden is now taking. Therefore, it is of great importance to hear how the minister intends to get the climate action plan through and what form it shall take. Is it to be a government bill or a communication?

The Climate Policy Council urges the government to strengthen the possibility for climate policy through the climate action plan so that it becomes as strong and clear as the budget policy. There are, therefore, great ambitions here from the Climate Policy Council. The climate policy action plan from the previous government is also praised, and how the one from 2019 went through all relevant legislation. A review of the societal goals was conducted, and there were consequence analyses in accordance with the climate goals. It is, therefore, a major undertaking.

It is not about us having any state secrets here, but it is a grounding work that needs to be done. Not least those who follow the climate work at the EU level see that dialogue between institutions and between different parties is needed in order to get climate policy through. It is about a broad grounding work.

So, it is not about being difficult or in any way reviewing an ambitious Minister's will, but it is about a genuine concern for how Sweden will meet the climate goals. What role should the climate action plan play, and should it take the form of a bill or a letter? Above all: Which parties are it is that should be involved here?

Many different things have been said from the side of the government in the media. It has been about the government seeking broad support from many parties. I represent the Riksdag's largest party – it is not far-fetched to think that we could be one of these parties. Still, we have not seen any such contacts. Then one begins to wonder if this rhetoric is a way to divert thoughts from the lack of concreteness in the climate policy.

The government also went out early this year and invited a large climate policy meeting in Sweden where the Prime Minister, the Minister for Enterprise, and the Minister for Environment and Climate invited trade unions, the business community and so on. But of that, we have seen nothing.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! There are many questions to ask, so it is fortunate that there are several contributions.

Let me return to how the work is progressing with the development of the action plan and with tours, summits and other things. Believe me, it is in full swing.

We conduct a dialogue with very many parties to anchor our policy, and it is here that what Member Söderberg brings up comes in, namely what the actual measures are. It is said that they are not being requested, and that is a bit of the crux in this debate: In the interpellation, it is written that what is relevant is whether the measures in the government's climate action plan have support in the Riksdag, and then it is relevant to know what these measures are.

We are now in the process of pulling these measures out, and believe me, they are there. I would have liked to rattle them all out. But that is not how the process works; instead, one prepares matters and draws up an action plan. We will be happy to present it when it is appropriate.

On the question of what the action plan itself shall contain, Member Söderberg mentions that no policy has been presented to reduce emissions and that one relies entirely on the climate action plan. That is not true. The Government has presented climate policy, but I understand that the opposition is not so eager to market it. Let me do it instead.

We want to tackle the climate transition through electrification, which is completely central to transitioning transport and industry, through natural carbon sinks, and through innovation and by favoring the development that occurs on many fronts where Sweden generates emissions. We do this through the policy we have presented in our state budget and through legislative changes, investigations, and so on. A lot is happening.

Among other things, I look forward to seeing what the Environmental Goals Preparation Group will present regarding how we are to handle the LULUCF sector and how we are to expand our work with biodiversity. I also look forward to when we can move forward in the process of legislative changes to encourage more nuclear power in Sweden so that we can accelerate our restoration of the energy system and can electrify our industry and our transport to a greater extent. I also look forward to seeing the results of the major investments we are making in charging infrastructure.

It is also about the work that takes place in the EU during our presidency, where we push forward environmental and climate policy on many fronts: circular economy, packaging, recycling, chemicals, industrial emissions and nature restoration.

We are doing so much politics in this area, and the transition is constantly occurring. It is not a state council at the Government Offices that carries out the transition, but it is those who generate emissions who must reduce their emissions. Together with them, we shall find ways forward so that they will stop emitting. Sweden shall have a fossil-free economy, and we are working hard for that with electrification, innovation, and natural carbon sinks.

Madam Speaker! In addition to this, one can reflect on the different parties' various positions in climate policy. But now there is the Tidö Agreement, and in it, it states that we shall have an ambitious and effective climate policy. It does not need to become a debate about whether certain parties will live up to it or not, because I assume that everyone lives up to the agreement we have signed. In that case, it applies that all parties shall stand behind an ambitious climate policy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! We also have the opportunity to debate the content of the climate policy when Minister Romina Pourmokhtari mentions that the government is working for electrification and natural carbon sinks. It is remarkable because the government has abolished the electric car bonus, increased the cost of and complicated the expansion of wind power, and limited the incentive study to stimulate resources for municipalities that deliver renewable electricity. When it comes to natural carbon sinks, the government has lowered the budget for the protection of valuable nature and only moved money for wetlands.

Just like everyone else, Romina Pourmokhtari also made a choice in the autumn and chose to vote for Ulf Kristersson as Prime Minister - with the government and the government base this entails and with the climate policy that these parties advocate. In doing so, she chose to lean the entire climate policy work towards a cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna.

Since the government took office, the Sweden Democrats have proclaimed that they want to abolish the climate goals, and they question the entire green industrial transition. What the government has done is to back down on reform after reform that had the purpose of reducing emissions from the transport sector - to such an extent that it clearly appears in the government's budget that the climate goals for 2030 will not be met.

The question remains: How is Romina Pourmokhtari going to push through a climate action plan that ensures we reach the climate goals established by the Swedish Riksdag? Will the Minister for Climate and Environment produce a climate action plan with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, or will she seek support for a climate policy that actually delivers results?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for answering my interpellation and participating in tonight's debate.

I have taken note of the Minister's response during the debate, and I am not satisfied. Large question marks remain as to how the climate action plan will be anchored in the Riksdag.

I also note that the Minister is dodging the question of what form the climate action plan should take, whether it should be a government bill or a report. It makes a big difference for what weight the climate action plan will have.

Will it become, like that of the previous government, a proposition with the government's intentions and direction in the area and with clear conditions for society, the business community, and all of Sweden in this transition journey? It is about Sweden's climate goals and climate commitments in accordance with the climate policy framework but obviously also about the EU's ambitions in this area, which is natural to take into account.

Or will it be a letter, which does not have the same weight at all or provide the same direction for the Swedish people, the business community, the organizations and the welfare sector in the transition?

It is unclear what it is about.

I note that standard answers regarding preparatory work and internal work are being given, but that is not what we are requesting. What is being requested by many with me is clarity on where Sweden is headed with climate policy and how we are going to meet the climate goals, not least against the background that the government's first five months have started so weakly on the climate area.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank members Elin Söderberg and Jytte Guteland for the debate. I look forward to discussing the climate action plan further – something I assume I will be able to do even while we are developing it.

We are currently working on a climate action plan that we will present. In it, we will present more of our climate policy in depth and in detail. But there is climate policy, and it is presented both in the state budget and on an ongoing basis. We present a lot of policy all the time that I am sure one cannot avoid, but of course, as the opposition, one wants to criticize and claim that there is no clarity. I hope that with the mandate I have received from my voters and the mandate that the government has received from a majority of the Swedish people, I will be able to conduct a climate policy that contributes to prosperity, a strong economy, and efficiency, but also to ambition and to us reaching our climate goals.

Madam Speaker! There are many governments that have had many goals to adhere to, and there is no government that has been on track to reach all these goals, including the interim goals and the long-term goals - that is how it is. There are shortcomings in all of our policies.

We intend to work just as hard, if not harder, than previous governments to actually also reach the long-term goal that we shall reach net zero by 2045 and net-negative emissions thereafter. It requires long-term perspective and an efficiency that we believe has been lacking in the politics that has been conducted previously.

It is very much about there being electricity if we are to electrify. If we are to stop using fossil fuels, there must be an alternative, which has not existed with the previous government's irresponsible policy on the energy area.

There is much that we need to sink our teeth into. We are taking a holistic approach to electrification and natural carbon sinks, but also much more ahead.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)