Response to interpellations 2022/23:30, 39, 45 and 48 on Sweden's climate and environmental goals

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Joakim Järrebring has asked me what the changed ways of working are that will contribute to maintaining or strengthening Sweden's ability to reach its environmental and climate goals.

Märta Stenevi has asked me if I intend to reduce emissions by 55 percent within the ESR sector by 2030 and what specific measures, in addition to complementary measures, I intend to present to succeed in this.

Anna-Caren Sätherberg has asked me what initiatives I intend to take to safeguard Swedish forestry and reach the climate goals for 2030 and 2045, and when I intend to present the promised ambitious and effective climate policy that will ensure the climate goals.

Kajsa Fredholm has asked me what measures I intend to take to increase Sweden's chances of reaching the adopted climate goals by 2030, whether I intend to work for new emission-reducing measures to be introduced in the coming year, and whether I intend to work for new measures in the near term to be introduced to strengthen our carbon sinks and ensure that our unique natural values are not lost.

Since all questions concern the same area, I choose to answer them collectively.

I want to begin by outlining the government's starting points. Sweden's climate and environmental policy shall be ambitious. Our common climate and environmental policy shall be based on the stewardship principle and strive to find the most cost-effective measures, which at the same time do not harm industries and the countryside. The climate goals shall be reached, and Swedish competitiveness shall be protected.

Swedish climate policy has been focused on measures that have an effect in the short term but has lacked sufficient measures to reach our long-term climate goal. But the task is not to lower emissions; the emissions shall disappear. For that to be possible, a policy is needed that takes us all the way to the goal and does not lead to dead ends. The task of policy is to create the conditions for the transition to net-negative emissions after 2045.

The electrification of society is a fundamental prerequisite for being able to reach these goals. Solar, wind, and nuclear power are the three types of power that can be built sustainably on a large scale and secure the availability of reliable electricity at competitive prices. Both the climate transition and the competitiveness of the Swedish economy are entirely dependent on a reliable supply of climate-neutral energy at reasonable prices. Industry must be given opportunities to grow properly, as the export of climate-neutral goods and services from Sweden also has large effects on global consumption emissions.

It is also important to remember that it is the households and the companies that are responsible for the actions that concretely reduce our emissions.

I mean that we need to work to reach the climate and environmental goals, taking into account the tough situation that Swedish households and companies face. We must ensure that people can afford to travel to work and that they can live their lives. A major threat to the climate work is that people lose confidence in it.

Madam Speaker! The Government has begun to shape Sweden's climate policy based on these principles. I want to tell you about some of the initiatives that the Government has implemented so far. As some of the interpellations highlight, Sweden needs a transition of road transport so that we can reach our national climate goal and our commitment within the effort-sharing regulation. If we reach our national climate goal, we will also reach the EU commitment for the forestry and land-use sector. But the sharp price increase on fuels created extensive dissatisfaction that caused people to be on the verge of losing faith in the climate policy. There were even those who wanted to change our climate goals.

We will reach our transport policy climate goal. We will reach the milestone goals that exist for Swedish climate policy, but it must happen in a way that starts from the conditions of households and companies, otherwise it won't add up. Fortunately, we are in the middle of a major technological shift for road transport. Electrification is moving faster than anyone previously thought was possible, and there are now many more electric cars in different price classes. Now we need to ensure that the coverage of charging stations becomes so good that it works to drive electrically for residents in everything from sparse and rural areas to cities, and that needs to happen at a time when the number of electric vehicles is increasing.

The government is therefore increasing the pace of the electrification of transport by strengthening the investments in charging infrastructure. Klimatklivet is expanded by 400 million kronor during the next year in a special investment in charging infrastructure, and in the budget bill, the government also extends and strengthens the investment in support for public charging stations for light vehicles as well as charging stations and hydrogen refueling infrastructure for heavy transport. The appropriation is increased by 90 million kronor in 2023 and is expected to be strengthened by 1 billion kronor during 2024. In addition to this, the obstacles that are judged to hinder the expansion of charging infrastructure, which among others the Swedish Energy Agency and the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning have analyzed, shall be assessed, and measures shall be designed to remove them.

There are many proposals in the budget that contribute to us reaching our climate goals, and I probably will not have time to address all of them in this speech. We are also increasing the appropriation within Industriklivet, as you surely know. The land use sector is also a central part of the government's climate policy. The forest functions as an important carbon sink and also by that biomass can be utilized for renewable materials and products.

Madam Speaker! The Government has begun a restructuring of the climate policy, but we are not finished. Further measures are needed for us to reach our climate goals, and during 2023, the Government will, according to the Climate Act, present a climate policy action plan in the Riksdag, where we will account for the Government's climate policy for the mandate period in more detail.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Minister for the answer, even if it perhaps did not provide an answer to the question. Minister for Climate and Environment Pourmokhtari says in her answer: "I mean that we need to work to achieve the climate and environmental goals, taking into account the tough situation that Swedish households and companies face. We must ensure that people can afford to travel to work and that they can live their lives."

Despite this, the government does the opposite. After the government's abolition of the climate bonus, it is now almost twice as expensive to lease an electric car as it was previously. For those who do not have the possibility to buy a brand new car, an electric car, and thus also lower transport costs, is now out of reach. It is now only those who would have had the means to spend many hundreds of thousands of kronor on a new car who have the possibility to switch. Ordinary people who are dependent on a car are instead forced to continue driving on petrol and diesel.

The reformed travel deduction that all parties except the Sweden Democrats voted through this summer is being stopped – the travel deduction that was supposed to provide a fairer distribution between city and country, that was supposed to provide compensation also for those who travel by public transport, and that was supposed to put a stop to the extensive fraud. Instead, the government that the minister is a part of chooses to give even more money to city dwellers who cheat with the travel deduction.

The electricity price support that the government has presented is not only late and bureaucratically cumbersome – it is also a support that will provide the most to the billionaires, preferably in the metropolitan regions, who heat enormous villas, while the pensioners living in northern Sweden receive no support at all when their electricity bills go up in winter. Nor do they receive any significant support to improve energy efficiency. The billions roll out while those with the lowest incomes are to bear the billionaires' electricity bills without receiving any support themselves.

Madam Speaker! At the same time as more money is pumped into a travel deduction system that already previously included a fraud of tax funds of 2 to 3 billion per year, 7 billion is spent on a subsidy of fossil fuels. This was carried out at the same time as Minister Pourmokhtari gave speeches to the participants at COP 27 and urged other countries to reduce their fossil subsidies. It is, of course, nothing other than a hair-raising hypocrisy, because at the same time as the government makes it harder and more expensive for households to transition, it underfunds the welfare system. Closer to 10 billion is thus going just through the two reforms I last mentioned to fossil subsidies and fraud, while municipalities and regions sound the alarm that they will be forced to cut in school and healthcare because the government does not meet those needs.

Madam Speaker! The Minister says in his response that it is important to create confidence in the climate work. But I wonder: How can anyone feel confidence in a climate policy that increases emissions, subsidizes fossil fuels and forces low-income earners to foot the bill for billionaires?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, but I cannot claim to feel more at ease.

That we, all else aside, are facing a climate crisis and an environmental catastrophe, I believe that the minister and I agree on. In fact, seven of the eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag stand behind the Swedish Climate Act and have thus committed themselves to fulfilling Sweden's climate goals. But even though the minister and I share the same view, it seems to be a different story regarding the consensus within the government and the government support.

The Minister for Finance seems to take the fact that the government's current policy does not reach the 2030 targets, let alone the 2045 targets, with a shrug of the shoulders. To quote the Minister for Finance: If we do not reach them, then we do not.

And the party that has blessed the government and enabled Romina Pourmokhtari to be Minister for Climate and Environment has an even more deviant view. The Sweden Democrats believe that Sweden's climate goals should be scrapped and that Sweden, instead of investing in the green transition, should put money toward paying violation fees when Sweden does not reach the EU's climate goals.

Madam Speaker! To Dagens Nyheter, the Minister has said that she believes it is still possible to reach the Swedish climate goals despite a very difficult starting position. At the same time, the Minister has told Svenska Dagbladet that she is certain that Sweden will reach the climate goals for 2030. It sounds good that the Minister will work hard to do everything she can so that we reach the goals, but it is worrying that the Minister also admits that she cannot answer how.

In the long term, the solution is electrification. That is where the previous S-led government and the Minister for Climate and Environment agree. That was also why the previous S-led government had a long-term policy with the electrification strategy as its basis. One also had a policy that managed to reduce emissions in the short and medium term.

Madam Speaker! I and many with me wonder why the government has then placed itself in this very difficult starting position. The climate policy pursued by the previous S-led government certainly needed to be strengthened to meet the 2045 goals, but the forecast was still that Sweden would meet its 2030 goals.

It feels contradictory to first dismantle the policy that was projected to meet the 2030 goals and then say that we have a very difficult starting position. Would it not have been a more reasonable order to build on what worked and complement it with the measures required to meet the 2045 goals?

In response to my interpellation, the Minister accounts for various matters in the budget, in the same budget where the government states that the pursued policy does not lead to us meeting the climate and environmental goals.

In her response, the Minister also says that the task is not to reduce emissions. I would then like to ask the Minister if that means she is giving up the interim targets for 2030 and 2040.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Climate and the Environment for the answers.

To overcome the climate crisis, it is required that we tackle the challenges together. That is why we Social Democrats already at the change of power in 2014 gathered industry, research, other stakeholders and politics in an innovation council under the leadership of the Prime Minister.

Within the framework of Fossilfritt Sverige, 22 different industries have developed action plans to show how they can strengthen their competitiveness by becoming fossil-free or climate-neutral.

After the former Moderate Prime Minister said that industry in Sweden was basically gone, we did exactly the opposite. We made investments in industrial projects such as biofuels, plastic refineries, hydrogen production, recycling plants and battery production, and also started the work with faster permit processes. We invested in Klimatklivet and Industriklivet, invested in bio-CCS, biogas support, wetland support, environmental car bonus, charging stations and blending of renewable biofuels when we refuel, and invested in the railway and night trains home to me, to Jämtland, and much more. That is how we create the jobs of the future.

The green industrial revolution that started in northern Sweden is now spreading across the entire country. That is how we reduce our vulnerability and our unhealthy dependence on fossil inputs. That was how we were supposed to reach the climate goals by 2030. Now we have the right-conservative government's and the Sverigedemokraternas budget which increases emissions when they, among other things, say that the reduction obligation, i.e., that we top up with biofuels when we refuel, shall be lowered to the EU's minimum level on January 1, 2024. This may mean that the large-scale announced investments in Swedish biofuels, which would have provided more Swedish [content] in the tank, are not completed. The commitments that the Swedish government has negotiated within the EU regarding LULUCF, which concern how large a carbon sink Sweden should have, mean that one can no longer rely on the reduction obligation and must instead ensure in other ways that Sweden meets its condition. It may mean a significantly reduced logging of the Swedish forest.

The Minister is welcome to answer the questions I have posed in my interpellation which I feel I have not received answers to, especially perhaps in light of the fact that the government's coalition partner, Sverigedemokraterna, is opening up to scrapping the national climate goals by saying: It is just text on a piece of paper.

The Minister for Finance has commented on the government's ambition to reach the climate goals by saying: If we don't do it, we don't do it.

The Minister's party colleague here in the Swedish Riksdag writes: I would have liked to see Sweden reach the climate goals by 2030, but it is actually like believing in Santa Claus.

The Minister himself has, however, stated many times that we shall reach the climate goals with an ambitious and effective climate policy, and that I welcome.

But my questions to the Minister are then: Is the Minister's assessment that the government's and the Sweden Democrats' climate action plan will ensure that we meet the climate goals for 2030 and 2045? What initiatives does the government intend to take to protect Swedish forestry while simultaneously implementing what has been negotiated in the EU? And what does the Minister consider to be a reasonable level for the reduction obligation?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for Climate and the Environment for the answers.

The climate crisis and, in that respect, also the nature crisis is acute and a matter of destiny for all of humanity. I hope I can assume that we can agree on that. For Sweden to reach the targets bound to the climate policy framework and live up to the Paris Agreement's ambition of a limitation to 1.5 degrees, a package of measures with massive investments and steering instruments is required, which entails a strong political course change.

What is the government doing then? The Minister for Climate and Environment has repeatedly asserted during the autumn that Sweden's environmental goals for 2030 remain unchanged, even though the government in the budget bill reduces the climate and environment appropriations and then itself notes that emissions are expected to increase in the near term as a result of the proposed measures.

But when it comes to measures to reach the climate goals, the minister has said that they are pushed into the future and that they shall be presented in the action plan which I assume will come at the end of next year.

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must first step on the gas and increase them. Is that how the government intends? Because it is urgent. Global greenhouse gas emissions must reach their peak within a few years to then decrease rapidly in order for it to be possible to reach the 1.5-degree goal. At the same time, the depletion of biodiversity and functioning ecosystems is accelerating.

These two crises are, according to the Left Party, intimately interconnected and must be solved jointly. Sweden, as a welfare state, has a great responsibility to live up to its global commitments for the climate and biodiversity and thereby contribute to a sustainable and just distribution of limited resources.

Madam Speaker! We must not forget that functioning ecosystems are the foundation of our welfare. They strengthen the forests' and wetlands' function as carbon sinks and contribute to reducing society's vulnerability in the changed climate we are now in.

The government's budget bill can best be described as that one is now giving up the ambition to reach climate and environmental goals. Now, instead, the distance to these goals is increasing.

The Climate Policy Council notes that around one-third of the reform space in the government's budget goes to subsidies for gasoline, diesel, and car journeys. And the appropriation to protect and care for irreplaceable nature is significantly reduced, which has devastating consequences for strengthening nature's capacity as a carbon sink and safeguarding biodiversity. Admittedly, a limited initiative on wetlands is included, but that initiative is financed through a reduction of funds for the protection of valuable nature. The whole thing becomes quite incomprehensible. It would therefore be good if we could get at least some hint as to which measures the minister intends to take to increase Sweden's opportunities to reach adopted climate goals by 2030.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! The Minister for Climate and the Environment has made several statements during the autumn that have confused me. In connection with her taking office, she told SVT that the government has no lowered ambitions in the climate area and that climate policy shall be scientifically anchored. But only a few weeks later, she told Svenska Dagbladet that what is important is not to reach the climate goal by 2030, but to reach the goal of net-zero emissions by 2045.

These two statements are inconsistent. The research is clear that emissions must decrease sharply now if we are to prevent the worst consequences of the climate crisis. We have a limited carbon budget to adhere to. Calculations show that Swedish emissions must decrease by an order of magnitude of 20 percent per year starting now for us to stay within the budget's framework. However, Swedish emissions will increase sharply next year as a result of the government's policy.

Therefore, I want to ask the Minister: How will the government ensure that we stay within the carbon budget's limits? Referring to a climate action plan that will only arrive in a year is not sufficient. With the government's current policy, emissions will have increased by that time, which means that extremely large annual emission reductions will be required during the remainder of the mandate period for the budget to be maintained.

Madam Speaker! When the Minister for Climate and Environment is asked how the government, in the midst of a burning climate crisis, can pursue a policy that results in increased emissions, she often refers to the difficult situation Sweden finds itself in, with sharply increased costs for households. Vänsterpartiet shares the government's view that the economic situation is difficult, but on the other hand, our solutions differ radically from the government's.

While we want to strengthen the unemployment insurance fund and introduce a special supplement to the child allowance for single parents – measures that would greatly facilitate things for the most economically vulnerable families – the government's largest budget initiative is a tax cut on gasoline and diesel. It is a support that will largely go to high-income earners in the suburban municipalities of the major cities.

The government has every opportunity to direct support to those people who have truly been hit hard by the economic crisis, but instead of distributing the resources to those who need it most and instead of investing in reducing the economic inequalities, the government, together with the Sverigedemokraterna, chooses to let climate policy serve as a screen for the simmering frustration over society's injustices.

This is nothing other than a feint to hide that the right-wing parties are fundamentally pursuing the same policy as they always have: a policy designed to benefit the wealthiest in society. The Minister for Climate and Environment says that she cares about how ordinary Swedes are doing, while at the same time her government lowers taxes for high-income earners and slaughters the welfare system.

If the government had wanted to show real care for the people, it would instead have taken a leading role in international climate work and simultaneously secured supply and welfare for people across our entire country. It would be fully possible to do that, and we in Vänsterpartiet have shown this with our budget initiatives. My second question to the minister therefore becomes: Why should climate policy be sacrificed in the name of the economic crisis when it would be fully possible to help the most vulnerable without increasing emissions?

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! I tried to get a grip on the Minister's answer to the interpellants, and I must say that what the Minister said was very contradictory and in broad strokes illogical. Is it the case that fine words are to cover up the fact that the government is weakening the climate work?

It is clear that Sweden will most likely not reach its climate goals. The Climate Policy Council, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, and the government itself point out that the proposed measures increase Sweden's emissions. Why we should abdicate from climate policy, put ourselves in a bad position, and embarrass Sweden internationally with lowered climate ambitions is very difficult for me to understand.

I intended to add an additional question to this debate. It is something I would like to have some kind of clarity on and which has been raised a bit here earlier. It has to do with what the division of labor looks like within the government and the coalition partners when it comes to climate issues. I experience, in fact, that it echoes a bit empty when I hear the Minister of State talk about the so-called ambitious climate policy.

This is policy that has already been undermined, in the first instance by the government itself and by other organizations and authorities, and in the second instance by parties in the government support. The Minister states himself in his answer that there are those who want to abandon the climate goals. Yes, Sverigedemokrater are pure climate deniers. They do not even stand behind the climate goals and do not think we should achieve them. They go as far as to claim that there is a lack of scientific support for the climate crisis - and even further when they claim that the UN's climate report has a political agenda.

It is therefore to the largest party in the coalition that the Liberals apologize if anything goes wrong. The Moderate Finance Minister shrugs her shoulders; it doesn't matter that much if Sweden misses the climate goals, she thinks. The Christian Democrats have mostly been happy to move money from railway to road and will probably be in some kind of state of nuclear power Tourette's for the coming years.

It would therefore be good to get some kind of clarity on who it is that decides regarding environmental and climate policy. It would be very good to get a clarity in this because the Minister today has pointed out that additional measures are needed for us to reach the climate goals. Is it the Sverigedemokraterna, who do not believe in what we are debating today, who are to provide additional measures? Is it the Moderaterna, who shrug their shoulders and do not seem to care at all? Or is it the Kristdemokraterna, who also do not seem to have anything against actively contributing to increased emissions? How is the liberal Minister to behave regarding this when so-called additional measures to reach the climate goals are to be presented?

Madam Speaker! The Government cannot treat this issue as it treats, for example, welfare, that is, with the attitude: If we do less, it will be better. I do not think one will get that far with that, quite honestly, and I do not think one can treat this issue in that way. If one does less, I believe that it just becomes less. The climate transition work must be accelerated significantly for us to reach our climate goals.

We want to see a just climate transition, and the time to act for this is now. Everyone must have security in the transition, regardless of who one is, where one works or where one lives, and that requires an active policy for it. I am convinced that the overall policy must contribute to reducing emissions and go hand in hand with a just economic policy. That government does not seem to have those ambitions, however. It actively contributes to increased climate emissions and disgraces itself internationally.

Therefore, I want to know the following: Now that we risk driving up emissions, what can we expect from the government and this basis moving forward?

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

Sweden has long been known for its offensive and ambitious climate policy. Sweden has been considered a pioneer country, and many of us have been proud of Sweden's high goals. What is happening now is a total abdication from our climate goals, Madam Speaker. Or as Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson said about the possibility of reaching the climate goal by 2030: "If we don't do it, we don't do it." In the autumn budget, the government itself also stated that 6 of 19 milestone goals will not be reached on time.

I note that the Minister, in his answer, spoke about the greatest threat to climate work being that people lose confidence in it. The Minister also mentioned in his answer that there are even those who want to abandon the climate goals. I must nevertheless inform the Minister for Climate and Environment that it is primarily the largest party in the government support that are those who want to abandon the climate goals, Madam Speaker. That is where they are.

Is the Minister not worried that these are the circumstances that cause people to lose confidence? Is it not a problem for the Minister that the government base and other ministers seem to take the climate goals so lightly?

Madam Speaker! My final question to the Minister is whether she considers reindeer husbandry to be a green industry that can also be viable.

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

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! There are many questions to answer in this contribution; we shall see how many I manage to cover. Let me, however, get to the core from the start, so that we can address the major question that many seem to return to here in the chamber today.

It is about the government working in a different way than previous governments have done. It is about us changing the policy that is being pursued. There is policy that previous governments, the red-greens and the reds, have implemented, for example, which has involved financing the purchase of brand-new electric cars for those who want to buy such. It has been about travel deductions and how the design of that has looked. It has also been about another part of the policy; for example, Klimatklivet or Industriklivet, which are mentioned from Anna-Caren Sätherberg's side, is policy that we consider has functioned.

Then one mentions something that I think is particularly important. Repeatedly, we hear here in the rostrum that people speak about the interim goal for 2030. People speak about how the previous government was on track to reach the interim goal for 2030.

There is a reason why so many in the chamber today choose to focus on that specific milestone and not on our climate goal for 2045. The truth is that the previous government was on track to reach the goal for 2030. One had fuel prices that were difficult to manage for many people in this country, but which also ensured that one at least succeeded in reducing emissions from the transport sector.

What one would not succeed in, however, according to for example the Climate Policy Council's assessments, was to achieve the climate goal that Sweden has set for itself, namely to reach net zero 2045 and net minus thereafter. It is that this government chooses to work towards.

How then do I explain this without figures? I can explain it by using the words that I have used several times in the answer but which I seem to need to repeat. There are different ways to work with climate policy. One way we consider to be more short-sighted. It can involve setting a high reduction obligation that one does not change, despite there being war in our vicinity and despite people not being able to afford the fuel prices. Another way is to work more long-term, for example by expanding the work in Klimatklivet with 400 million in 2023, with 500 million in 2024 and with an additional 500 million in 2025. It can also involve expanding Industriklivet, an initiative that the previous government made, with 600 million.

We see that a certain part of the policy works very well. We see that both Klimatklivet and Industriklivet contribute to the important transition that needs to take place within the industry. But we also see that, for example, the design of the climate bonus becomes problematic. This is the view of both the Konjunkturinstitutet and the Riksrevisionen. That was why there was also a move to look at that question from the perspective of previous governments. That was why there was a look at how to change the compensations for the travel deduction from the perspective of previous governments.

It is therefore about conducting a climate policy that is ambitious and effective. All the measures I have now mentioned – climate steps and industrial steps but also others – are examples of how we will work effectively to establish a policy in the long term that also holds up in a time like this, when war rages in our vicinity and the economic situation is tough.

The entire government's climate policy is that it shall be ambitious and effective. It is not a personal opinion of mine, but it is something that appears in both the government statement and the Tidö Agreement.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must begin by thanking my fellow speakers after all the fine words about the previous and the government before that's climate and environmental policy. It is not without the old saying "One does not miss the ox until the stall is empty" appearing.

But I will become a little serious here. The Minister for Climate and Environment is a minister in an extremely weak puppet government that could only take office after a comprehensive agreement was made with the right-wing extremists in Sverigedemokraterna and a promise was made that all policies would be approved by them, so even within the climate and environment area. The consequence was that the Tidö Agreement's section on climate only contained proposals that increased emissions and no proposals that decreased them.

The new government, however, chooses to retain a number of reforms that the Green Party negotiated in government with the Social Democrats, for example green credit guarantees, Industriklivet, Klimatklivet, and investments in bio-CCS, which the Minister also gladly mentions.

Madam Speaker! It is of course pleasing that these reforms remain, even if not funded to the extent that we would wish and as we have also presented in our budget motion. Less pleasing, however, is that the government simultaneously strikes a number of reforms that are necessary to reach the goals. It is also directly outrageous that this is done completely deliberately.

It is clear and distinct in the government's budget that with these changes, they will not be able to reach the goals for 2030. The Finance Minister's laconic comment that if it's not possible, then it's not possible says a lot about the government's commitment to the issue. This attitude is also reflected in the budget. This government is simply giving up on the goals for 2030.

Mr. Speaker, the climate work cannot be postponed to the future. Every ton of carbon dioxide that reaches the atmosphere is stored there and contributes to the warming now, immediately. The effect of that warming, however, continues for a long time. We have the task of fighting for every single tenth of a degree that we can keep the warming down. It is therefore not sufficient to wait until 2045 to reach the emission targets if emissions have been increased on the way there. That is why the interim target for 2030 is so incredibly important. The emissions that occur in the next seven years strongly affect the possibility of keeping the warming down and thus also mitigating the losses of nature and species that will occur in the wake of climate change.

In an interview with Dagens Nyheter, the Minister stated that one would sit down in calm and composure with researchers, industry, and various agencies to "carve out the policy that will take us to the goal." This is a very alarming statement, for two reasons. It is alarming because it signals that this puppet government does not understand how urgent it is to keep warming down and that it means emissions must decrease immediately and steadily every year, not in a distant future. But it is also extremely concerning because it signals that the government has set out to govern the country without bringing along any policy whatsoever for the climate work. One is, admittedly, reusing our previously negotiated reforms, but one adds no new proposals.

Madam Speaker! I would therefore like to repeat my questions to the Minister: Does the government have any proposals at all to reduce emissions already in 2023? Does it have any proposals at all to reduce emissions during this mandate period? Does it have any proposals at all that ensure Sweden reaches its legally binding goals by 2030? Or is it simply the case that the government, which is governed entirely by the climate deniers in Sverigedemokraterna, did not have any climate policy at all with them to Rosenbad?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker and Minister! The enumeration that the Minister makes of the ambitious climate policy that her government is pursuing is actually just an enumeration of the previous S-led government's long-term policy for transition. Otherwise, reference is made to hopes in the upcoming climate action plan. I must, however, say that I feel anything but secure with this plan when we know that it is to be negotiated with the Sverigedemokraterna.

I also did not think I received an answer as to whether the government stands by the interim targets for 2030 and 2040. Should I interpret the minister's contribution as that the government is giving up on the interim targets? And how does the minister actually view the possibility of getting a climate action plan in place that will deliver an ambitious climate and environmental policy that ensures Sweden meets both the interim targets for 2030 and 2040 and our climate goals for 2045?

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Climate and the Environment – I really appreciate this! It is not easy when there are eight participants. It is also not easy to get answers when the Minister for Climate and the Environment has received as many questions as during this debate. Therefore, I will probably need to repeat myself a bit.

My interpellation to the Minister for Climate and Environment had its starting point in the forest. The forest is the green gold that creates jobs in the countryside and that creates so many added values, for example as a carbon sink and when it comes to the replacement of the fossil products that the Minister speaks of in his answer. Biofuels are part of that. Sweden has a unique opportunity, because we have so much forest, to also use the forest residues in an efficient and good way.

I heard that the Minister for Climate and Environment said that the long-term goal is what is important. And it is of course obvious that the long-term goal is important, but it is also important what is being done here and now.

In June, a majority of the parties in the Swedish Riksdag agreed that it was wise to use the reduction obligation as part of the work to meet our commitment. It is simply a matter of meeting the carbon sink that the government has now negotiated in the EU. It was considered wise not to give the forest a double blow through less logging and thus less forest residues and less profitability, if they do not become biofuels. But now we are there.

The Minister for Climate and Environment did not quite answer the question of how Swedish forestry should be protected when the government negotiates LULUCF and other acts within the EU. For me, biofuels are also about Sweden's preparedness. As I said, I want to see more Swedish in the thinking. I would rather see production in Sveg than in Saudi Arabia. I would rather see that we, in the shadow of the war that is actually taking place in Europe now, ensure that input goods are also produced in Sweden – for example, biofuels and fertilizer. There is a lot to think about right now.

I am also thinking about the jobs that this can create. I have always held the opinion that I do not want Sweden to fall into the back seat. I want Sweden to take the lead. And why do I want that? Well, because we are a small, export-dependent country. It is the technologies and materials we sell, and the political leadership together with the business sector, that makes it possible for Sweden to succeed so well in the world.

I am returning to my questions. I understand that it is difficult for the Minister to answer the question of whether she believes the government, together with the Sweden Democrats, will manage to produce a climate action plan that meets the climate goals, when we have actually heard what the different parties think on this issue.

My second question, which I also did not receive an answer to, was what initiatives the government intends to take to safeguard Swedish forestry while negotiating these acts in the EU.

The third question, which I also did not receive an answer to, was what the minister considers to be a reasonable level for the reduction obligation.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! We can state that the world is in a climate emergency. Global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced here and now. We do not have time to wait with measures for five, ten, or fifteen years, or however long it takes to build new nuclear power plants.

Powerful measures are required, in practice, to accelerate the emission reductions that are needed. I would like to highlight, as an example, the Left Party's historically extensive investment package for the climate. We want to invest 700 billion kronor over the next ten years to put more speed, in practice, into the climate transition.

Significant investments are needed in green industry, renewable energy, sustainable housing, and green transport. Large investments will also be required to protect valuable nature and restore natural carbon sinks.

To succeed with the climate transition, focus must also be placed on increased justice and equality throughout Sweden. This can only be achieved with more left-wing politics. But now we stand here, Madam Speaker. In a time when all the world's countries need to join forces to be able to meet the climate challenge, the government shames Sweden and lowers the Swedish climate ambitions.

At the UN climate meeting in Egypt, Volvo Cars' sustainability chief Anders Kärrberg said that Sweden's image as a pioneer in the environment has taken a hit as the government's budget for climate and environment is reduced by 5 billion. He described it as a very unfortunate signal to the rest of the world at a time when the world needs role models to avoid losing hope.

The government also notes in its budget bill that emissions may increase. This is the consequence of several climate-damaging proposals. As an example, the reduction of the fuel tax can be mentioned, which is also the government's largest reform. Additionally, the government is stopping the extensive reform to make the travel deduction fuel-neutral.

It is unfortunately obvious that the government's and the Sweden Democrats' lack of interest in climate and environment has led to a climate-hostile reform program. Those who placed their trust in the Liberals and hoped that they would be able to safeguard the climate perspective in a right-wing nationalist government have every reason to feel disappointed.

Why are resources for the environment being cut de facto? They are an important part of the climate transition. And why is the Ministry of the Environment being abolished? It has undermined the role of the Minister for Climate and Environment, since it is actually the Minister for Energy who now holds the purse strings. There is much to consider here.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! We can begin by stating that it is neither ambitious nor effective to postpone necessary emission reductions for 20 years.

The government engages in what is commonly called social washing in the business world, which in Swedish can perhaps best be translated as rättvisetvätt. Similar to the more well-known greenwashing, social washing involves misleading the public by glossing over one's own work.

The government's representatives, including the Minister for Climate and Environment, whitewash their climate-damaging policies by pretending that they aim to improve the living conditions for ordinary people. In reality, it is the already wealthy who benefit on the whole.

In reality, a rapid climate transition is most important for those who have the fewest resources. They are the ones who are hit hardest by the climate crisis. If we do not transition now, we risk ending up in a situation where future governments are forced to take extreme measures in a panic to manage an increasingly chaotic situation. In that case, it will also be those with few resources who pay the price, while the rich flee responsibility. The alternative is a rapid, controlled, and just transition – exactly the kind of transition that Vänsterpartiet advocates for.

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

Tony Haddou (V)

Madam Speaker! The climate transition is a collective project. We must therefore invest in the common good, redistribute, and do what is required. Sweden needs to become a pioneer in a transition where everyone is involved. Unfortunately, the Minister does not seem to have these ambitions but sits in a government base of climate deniers and ministers who shrug their shoulders. In that case, it will amount to little more than actively contributing to increased emissions.

We who are standing here debating are concerned that you have abdicated from the climate goals, and then I understand that the Minister does not want to answer questions about her government basis. She has not said a single word about it, because then she might risk having to apologize to the Sverigedemokraterna after this interpellation debate. But now the Minister has a chance in the next contribution to answer questions about that which has been repeated by several here: How does it look in the government basis?

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I heard the Minister's explanation - now that there is a new government, people work in a different way. Believe me, Minister: Many of us have noticed this.

One could think about the electricity price support, which will primarily benefit wealthy large-scale consumers – preferably those who have fixed prices – so that they get back twice as much, depending on whether they live in southern Sweden or not. At the same time, we see high electricity prices in Norrland, but people in Norrland receive no support. This will unfortunately only lead to people continuing to consume large amounts of electricity.

The government has rejected investments in the railway despite everyone who has traveled by train in recent years knowing that the need for investments is great. It maintains an outdated travel deduction that does not benefit those who, for example, carpool.

Another, Madam Speaker, it has been in the election campaigns both this year and in 2018. In Naturskyddsföreningens reviews, where all parties are reviewed, it turns out that the Liberalerna both in 2018 and in this year's election have promised high levels and high ambitions. But the Liberalerna unfortunately usually promise a lot and then hold thin. Or as another minister, who is also a party leader, said: One says one thing before the election, and after the election one says another thing.

I want to repeat my question about the reindeer husbandry to the Minister. Does the Minister consider it to be one of the green industries that should be given viable conditions for the future?

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

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Here, there is talk of waiting until 2045. Here, Anna-Caren Sätherberg highlights that the long-term goal would be the important one for me. Then one must listen once more. I have not chosen between the two goals. Sweden has interim goals and a long-term goal. We choose in this debate to speak a lot about one of the interim goals precisely because it was this goal – and not the other goal, for 2045 – that the previous government succeeded in fulfilling with its policy.

The interim goal is a step on the way there, and we will, of course, work to reach the goals set for 2030. I have been clear about this in many statements, but let me bring it up here as well. That requires further measures, and that is something the government is working hard on.

Something that is also required to reach the goals within the transport sector is electrification and the ability to transition to the fossil-free. This was something the previous government was not on track to succeed with. There was not charging infrastructure to the extent that society needs. There was not enough electricity for the industry to manage the transition. These are issues that this government chooses to handle in a much better way than the previous government did, with investments that I have detailed in my response.

Kajsa Fredholm of the Left Party spoke about how we in this government would have lowered our ambitions. It was also spoken of that the budget would be slaughtered. Let me mention that this is the second largest climate and environment budget ever. It is a historically strong budget.

At the same time, it is pointed out that we have lost our international reputation and that we should abolish the Ministry of the Environment. Perhaps that is why Volvo's sustainability chief goes around talking about the lost international reputation.

Representatives for Vänsterpartiet stand here in the speaker's chair and speak about lowered ambitions, but which ambitions are they? We in the government stand firm that Sweden shall achieve the goals. We are trying to pull out all the policies and all the additional measures that are required for Sweden to reach the goals also in 2045.

We have not abolished the Ministry of the Environment either, but we have merged the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Enterprise under the same ministry. It is called the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise. It could just as well have been headlines in international media about how Sweden is starting the first climate ministry. However, that is not what happens, because the political conflict is far more exciting. People instead stand up and talk about how there would be climate deniers in this government. Who then? Is it the Moderates who are climate deniers? Is it the Liberals who are climate deniers? Is it the Christian Democrats who are climate deniers?

Let me remind the House that it is I who is the Minister for Climate and Environment. It is a liberal Minister for Climate and Environment you are debating with - not the Sweden Democrats.

What is this liberal Minister for Climate and Environment doing then? In our spring budget amendment, which was put together in a short time, as you surely know, we launched expansions of Klimatklivet and Industriklivet. This is not about maintaining what the previous government did. We are investing an additional 500 million in Klimatklivet and 200 million permanently in wetlands. These are investments that are long-term and that are needed for the climate.

We also see, as we state in our own budget, that further policy is required. Further measures are required, and this government is working hard not only to produce measures but also to ensure that they have the support of a majority in the Riksdag. As everyone here surely knows, it was also this majority in the Riksdag that ensured that the previous investments in, among other things, bio-CCS and carbon capture – the long-term policy that needs to exist – received support.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! We are debating with a liberal Minister for Climate and Environment who is driving Sweden Democrat climate and environmental policy.

The Riksdag has adopted targets for how much Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions shall be reduced by 2030 and 2045 respectively. It is not – as SD, the largest party in the blue-brown government base, seems to believe – just text on a piece of paper. These are targets that have been established by Sweden's elected Riksdag and which are legally binding. They are the ones that the government, in its first budget, has stated that it cannot reach with its policy. The government treats these targets as optional. They are not.

For every single ton of greenhouse gas released into the world, global warming increases. For every tenth of a degree that the average temperature in the world increases, the consequences worsen. This is the brutal truth that all politicians in the entire world must accept. It is not possible to wait. Every action counts. For every tenth of a degree that the temperature increases between today and 2030, more homes are destroyed. More children starve to death, more species are wiped out, more conflicts arise, and more people are killed. These are the consequences we face.

Madam Speaker! It is with this truth before our eyes that one has sat in a government that has no idea at all how emissions are to be reduced. It is at best clueless and at worst cynical - one increases emissions today and hopes that someone else will solve the situation further ahead.

I sincerely rejoice with Minister Pourmokhtari as she describes her newly acquired friendship with the Maldives' climate minister, for friendship in a global world is a powerful tool for peace and development. But I hope that the Minister is honest in the conversations and tells that the policy that Sweden's government has pursued since she took office will submerge her new friend's home under water. This is the reality we live in.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I had a question regarding the view on the interim targets for 2030 and 2040, given that the Minister on November 18 said she was confident that Sweden will reach the climate targets for 2030. But in the answer to the interpellation, the Minister also answered that the task is not to lower emissions. Therefore, it becomes difficult to interpret what applies, but I trust that this is correct and that the Minister and the Government stand by the interim targets for both 2030 and 2040. I trust that it is the ambition, even if the policy is currently lacking.

The question that I did not receive an answer to is how the Minister views the possibility of establishing a climate action plan that has been negotiated with Sverigedemokraterna and which enables Sweden to reach its climate and environmental goals. I hope that I can receive an answer to that question.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The light comes from the north, the Minister for Climate and the Environment. There is the green industry, the renewable energy, the coldest winters and the longest and most expensive power lines. I also must mention the electricity support for the government when I have the opportunity. If one does not see 60 percent of Sweden's surface, one must get glasses.

But that was not primarily what I was going to say, Madam Speaker. I will make it very easy for the Minister for Climate and the Environment, so that she does not forget my question, which I am now asking for the third time. I am only asking one question, because then I believe all possibilities exist that I will receive an answer this time. What does the Minister consider to be a reasonable level for the reduction obligation?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that the government's lack of crisis awareness and will for reform risks delaying and even preventing the transition. When the climate bonus on electric cars is now abolished and investments in railways are withheld, the goal for the transport sector becomes very difficult to reach by 2030. Despite the fact that the Swedish people's will for transition is great and there is a demand for increased rail transport, the government chooses to ignore the opportunities that an expanded and strengthened railway entails, and instead continues with heavy subsidies for fossil transport modes.

Madam Speaker! Politics has for all too long placed its trust in market forces in the hope that the climate transition will be managed without the active involvement of society. But it is only the public sector that can take overall responsibility, and for that, large investments are required. That is the fact. Therefore, I am first alarmed and then almost despondent when I see in the government's and the Sverigedemokraternas budget and in the Palace Agreement that climate and environmental issues are treated almost as if they were something the cat dragged in. But that should not be so surprising, considering that most of the currently governing parties went to the election promising to, if not completely ignore, at least delay the necessary transition. For Vänsterpartiet, it is clear that society's commitment in climate and environmental policy needs to be strengthened and not weakened.

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

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for all the wise questions during this afternoon.

Let me once again highlight what I mean when we talk about the climate goals. This you all surely know, but what stands in our climate goals is that we are to have reduced our emissions to a certain degree by 2030 and that we are to have eliminated our emissions by 2045. That is what is meant when one says net zero. Furthermore, one talks about net minus thereafter. Then there needs to be an infrastructure so that we do not only reduce our emissions.

But that is not where the meaning ends in my answer, which the Social Democrats are certainly aware of. Only half the sentence is being read out. We are not to reduce emissions, but eliminate them. That is our climate goal. It is our common climate goal, which everyone in the Riksdag who voted through the Climate Act has signed on to that we shall achieve. Then it is not just interim goals for 2030, but also net zero 2045. It is something that this government intends to achieve but that the previous government was on track to fail at. After that, we change which policy is pursued. It is about how we can ensure that we have no emissions in 2045 and that we contribute to reduced emissions after 2045.

Standing here and discussing this might perhaps sound like an impossibility, but it is not. When you meet Swedish industry, where the transition happens every day, and when you meet those who create all the new ways for us to consume or transport, you notice that we are facing a transition. It needs to be met faster and smarter.

Let me also briefly mention the environmental policy and the value of biodiversity. In addition to the government's initiative on wetlands, I also look forward to the international negotiations at COP 15 in Canada, where we shall ensure that biodiversity is protected worldwide.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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