Response to interpellations 2023/24:37 and 44 on the climate goals

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Elin Söderberg has asked me if I stand by the national climate goals. Joakim Järrebring has asked me if I intend to abolish the national climate goals and, if so, how I would justify this given Sweden's previous leadership, responsibility, and international commitments in the issue of climate change.

Just as the Prime Minister said in his government statement, Sweden shall pursue an ambitious and effective climate policy to reach the climate goals. The government's role and responsibility in the climate transition is first and foremost about removing obstacles that hinder the fantastic transition work taking place throughout our long kingdom, as well as creating conditions so that the entire society can transition. It is about removing obstacles that hinder the work and about creating conditions. That is how the government intends to tackle climate policy moving forward.

It is important to remember that we must reach net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest and have negative emissions thereafter. This is part of Sweden's climate goals, and it is a goal we have previously been on track to miss. We need to ensure that we can achieve this.

The Government considers that it is through a major structural transformation that this can be achieved. A major structural transformation needs to be made to create a society where fossil carbon emissions are not only reduced but eliminated entirely, so that we reach our climate goal of net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest and net-minus thereafter.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Since I asked my question to the Minister, it seems to have become even more chaotic and uncertain as to what actually applies to the Swedish climate goals. The government's rapid investigation has leaked to the media. The Minister's department claims that what has leaked is incorrect. We will have to see what is presented tomorrow.

Since the Minister for Climate and Environment does not provide any answer to the question I have submitted - whether the government stands by the national climate goals or intends to abolish them - I read between the lines that the answer is that the government, with a very high probability, may decide to scrap parts of the national climate goals.

This creates great concern and uncertainty among investors, companies, municipalities, regions, and organizations. It is this concern that has led to more than 200 and later nearly 400 companies over the past few days signing various appeals with a very clear common message: Do not tear up cross-border agreements and, above all, maintain the 2030 goal!

What is the Minister's answer to all these companies and organizations that demand that the Swedish 2030 goal should remain?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! We now stand at a crossroads. The decisions we make will not only shape our nation's future but also leave an imprint on the global climate struggle. Climate change is not a distant threat but an ongoing crisis that is already affecting us and will continue to do so if we do not act powerfully and meaningfully.

Sweden has long been a pioneering country in climate policy. Our commitment has been demonstrated through ambitious goals, such as the goal to reduce emissions from domestic transport by at least 70 percent compared to 2010, which is a concrete step towards achieving our broader goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 63 percent by 2030.

The recently emerged information that the government is considering changing this goal is not only worrying but also challenges the very core of our climate policy principles. It is one thing to set goals, another to stand by them, especially when the challenges become difficult and when real action is required rather than rhetoric.

But let us not forget, Madam Speaker, that our goal of a 63 percent reduction in carbon emissions is not only an internal target but also part of a larger global commitment. The world looks to us as an example. Our ability to stick to our goals and lead by example has a significant impact on global climate policy.

It is important not only to focus on the immediate costs or political complications but also to see the long-term gains for our nation and for the world. Every step we take toward reducing our emissions is a step toward a safer, more sustainable, and more just future for everyone.

We must also consider the technological and economic opportunities that an ambitious climate policy can offer. By investing in green technology and promoting sustainable practices, we can stimulate innovation, create jobs, and promote green economic growth throughout the entire country.

But this debate is not just about figures or percentages, but also about the values and principles that govern our society. It is about being responsible, forward-thinking, and brave enough to act for the common good even when it is difficult and challenging.

I look forward to continuing to discuss these issues more in-depth with the Minister during this debate. I also hope to receive a concrete answer to the question I have posed to the Minister. Does the government intend to abolish the national climate goals, and perhaps specifically the 2030 goals?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! In my response I said: Just as the Prime Minister mentioned in his government statement, Sweden shall pursue an ambitious and effective climate policy to reach the climate goals. That is the answer to the question. There are no proposals from this government to abolish climate goals. There are no proposals from this government to tear up climate laws. And much of what the members themselves describe from the rostrum is shared by the government. Sweden shall be an example. Sweden shall lead the way. Sweden shall reach net zero 2045, five years before the rest of the EU.

But there is an aspect where we do not seem to share the same picture. It is precisely about how we ensure that we carry out this work effectively, so that we do not just talk about having goals and that we will reach them and stop the climate crisis. It is about how we will actually ensure that we do this in an effective way.

That is why the government chooses to remove some of the measures that previous governments have implemented to reach the short-term goals. For example, there was a strong measure, the reduction obligation. A short-term goal was then reached by reducing emissions from the transport sector.

It sounds excellent if one only focuses on the fact that the government reached one of the goals – it reached none of the others, but it reached one. If one only focuses on that fact, it is obvious that it looks excellent. But if one focuses on what the member himself takes up – Sweden's responsibility and international commitments, not only national ones – one clearly notices what effects follow from the national policy that has been conducted.

It is something that becomes sad in this, Madam Speaker. We had a very lively debate regarding this during the election campaign. We noticed that there was no government alternative that wanted to stick to this method – to regulate Sweden's climate transition only through fuel prices. Everyone, that is to say all government alternatives, spoke about the importance of reviewing our fuel prices. There was one party that continued to stick to the former, and that was Miljöpartiet. Therefore, I become a bit confounded, Madam Speaker.

We can, of course, continue to talk about alleged threats to Sweden's Climate Act and alleged threats to Sweden's climate goals. Or we can talk about how the opposition thinks we should conduct climate policy moving forward. I simply do not get a clear answer on what, for example, the Social Democrats, who went to the election on a platform to scale down the reduction obligation, think regarding the reduction obligation. What is it we are supposed to do to succeed in transitioning in Sweden if we remove the reduction obligation?

We will certainly have a lively debate on this when we in the government have presented much of the policy in our climate action plan. But I note that we from the government side have now pointed out what we intend to do to handle the reality that households face, with a 60 percent increase in the diesel price over two years. And I note that the response from Sweden's largest party, the Social Democrats, is missing regarding this. They would rather speak in broad strokes and about the great threats to Sweden's previous leadership.

Sweden has continued a leadership. Internationally, we have a leadership. Yesterday, I sat and negotiated in the EU's Council of Ministers so that we should have a sharp entry from the EU when we meet the other countries internationally. I also want to work so that we succeed with the high-reaching goals that we now have at the EU level. That is not done by only having individual measures that, for example, strongly drive up the prices for other countries' transition. It is about actually taking international responsibility. It is about ensuring not only to be an example but also that others follow suit. It is a perspective where the opposition and the government stand far apart when it comes to our climate goals.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is pleasing to hear the Minister for Climate and the Environment say that there are no proposals from the government to abolish climate goals. I will, of course, continue to follow this. It is about what the government's rapid investigation, which will be presented tomorrow, says and how the government will act and what the government will say even after this.

Clear climate policy leadership with direction and sector goals is extremely important for Sweden's climate work moving forward. Now that emissions within the transport sector are increasing such that we in Sweden are no longer expected to reach our climate goal within the transport sector, our interim goal, by 2030, and thus also not our EU commitment for the non-ETS sector by 2030, we note that it leads to great uncertainties about what will happen.

Will the government ensure that there are high costs for Swedish taxpayers by purchasing emission allowances from other countries? Is it the forestry sector that is to overcompensate for increased carbon sequestration, in order to use flexibilities between the forest and land sector and the non-trading sector of territorial emissions? Or is it the agricultural sector? Should we significantly reduce animal production in Sweden, given that emissions in the agricultural sector mainly consist of animal digestion and that is the alternative we have to work with regarding the non-trading sector if we do not manage to reduce emissions from the transport sector and simultaneously reach our EU commitment?

In the face of this, we stand as a major question mark, given that the government is pursuing a policy that increases emissions within the transport sector and is ordering a rapid investigation into how EU policy will affect the Swedish climate goals. Then there are leaks from the Government Offices regarding whether the investigation could lead to the government intending to tear up climate goals.

Clear messages are needed, clear political leadership, and thus also developed goals where we clarify the transport sector's commitment, the agricultural sector's commitment, and that it is actually the sum of emissions over time that determines the climate impact.

From the Green Party's side, we would like to see a national carbon budget, and we have been clear about that since the election campaign. It is important that we receive information on what applies regarding the climate goals. What we have seen in the last few days are various measures that the government is putting forward to pave the way for a climate failure. In the autumn amendment budget, it is stated that they want to use emission allowances from the ETS sector, i.e., the trading sector, to compensate for a climate failure within the non-trading sector, for example transport and agriculture. This could potentially cost the state up to 6 billion kronor.

We need clarity, and all the companies that have signed debate articles and climate pledges need clarity. What applies? Does the government stand behind the national climate goals? Is the government prepared to present a climate policy that actually leads to us reaching the climate goals, reducing emissions, and protecting us from climate-related risks?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! I understand that there is a great interest in what the Social Democrats, the largest party in Sweden's Riksdag, are pursuing in terms of policy, but that is not why we have this debate. We have this debate because the government is here in Sweden's Riksdag and is answering questions from the Riksdag.

With that said, this is an important debate. It is our duty as elected representatives to safeguard and defend our planet and our citizens' future. We all agree on that, and I therefore think it is central that the Minister can account for what the government intends to do with the Swedish climate goals and, above all, the sub-goal for 2030.

During the day, we in the media have been able to take part of the proposals in the rapid investigation that the government has commissioned, and it was with great concern that I took part of the information a few weeks ago that the government is considering scrapping the sub-targets for 2030. This is the very background to this interpellation.

Now we hear that the proposal from the investigator is that all national climate goals shall be scrapped. A few hours after we could read that in the media, the government refuted: All national climate goals shall not be scrapped. However, that leaves an opening for that something might perhaps be scrapped, and here I still think the minister is answerable.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has long been an example on the global stage when it comes to climate policy. But now, at a time when the world needs united, determined, and scientifically grounded action more than ever, we risk losing our footing and compromising our ambitious goals with the government's policy.

The climate crisis is not a question of political superiority or ideological victory, but is about securing a sustainable and viable future for everyone. It is about acting with integrity, responsibility, and above all courage – courage to stand firm by our agreed goals and courage to, with open eyes and a firm determination to act in our citizens' best interest, meet the challenges that lie ahead of us.

Madam Speaker! In today's newspaper Aktuell Hållbarhet, prominent environmental figures such as Tomas Kåberg, Johan Rockström, Anders Wijkman, and Eva Svedling argue that the government's climate policy is a catastrophe for the climate, green technology companies, and electricity consumers. When the government and the Minister for Climate and Environment respond to similar criticism, reference is often made to the overall economic situation. But when we consider the economic aspects of climate policy, let us not forget the long-term costs of inactivity. The damage caused by extreme weather, rising sea levels, and loss of biodiversity can have a profound impact on our economy. Every krona we invest in reducing emissions and supporting sustainable development today can save us many more kronor in future damage control and reconstruction.

Regarding the technological possibilities we face, Sweden has always been a pioneer in innovation and technological development. There is a wealth of opportunities awaiting us in the transition to a green economy.

In conclusion, I would like to once again let the Minister answer my fundamental question regarding whether the climate goals shall be preserved. I pose the question linked to the sub-targets for 2030, for that is where I believe the government and the Minister are hovering.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Let me once again state that Sweden has climate goals that have been adopted by the Riksdag. The Government has not proposed to remove Sweden's climate goals. There are no such proposals to change Sweden's set climate goals, and there are also no proposals to abolish these, even if one reads such headlines in the newspaper.

I also note that Member Söderberg refers to leaks from the Government Offices, and I wonder if Member Söderberg knows that it is that which was supposed to be the source of the claims in the media that I have denied. Is there any information that has emerged for the Member but which has escaped me, namely that it is supposed to be leaks from the Government Offices that form the basis for these claims in the media?

I can only state what I have stated in my answer, namely that Sweden stands by an ambitious and effective climate policy that shall lead to us reaching the set climate goals - in plural, not only the goal that I choose to highlight. The reason why I so often choose to highlight Sweden's climate goal of net-zero emissions by 2045 is that it is not an interim goal. It is Sweden's climate goal, a goal that the previous government appeared to be going to miss and a goal that this government, with our current policy, is now closer to reaching than the previous government ever was.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! What I am referring to are the reports that have been in the media that the Prime Minister would act within the Government Offices to review and perhaps change or phase out climate goals. That type of information in the media naturally creates concern and means that I now have the opportunity to ask the Minister for Climate and Environment straight out what the government intends to do regarding the national climate goals.

I continue to focus on precisely the 2030 goals. As the Minister for Climate and Environment herself says, she focuses constantly on precisely the long-term goal for 2045, and that is very important. But the path to 2045 is also central, because it is the sum of emissions over time that determines our climate impact. When we can transition quickly here in Sweden, we are proactive in the EU and can then push China, the USA, and other countries, which means we get better conditions to meet the Paris Agreement globally and avoid the most serious consequences of climate change.

Before the government's national climate meeting this spring, a preliminary meeting was organized within the framework of the companies' climate agreement where 100 Swedish companies participated. Business leaders were then asked to answer which of the Swedish climate sub-targets they considered to have the greatest significance for their continued competitiveness: 2030, 2040, or 2045. All participants answered 2030. Not a single business leader preferred a later year, and in Dagens industri, 200 companies write about the importance of the 2030 target. Does the Minister for Climate and Environment take the companies' reasoning into account? Can the Minister for Climate and Environment increase their focus on the targets in the near term?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Madam Speaker! The common agreement on an ambitious and effective climate policy that is established in our Climate Act is not just a text on a piece of paper, but an agreement with our future society and with our children and grandchildren. I am therefore pleased that the Minister states that the government has no ambitions to make changes to our Climate Act.

The Minister for Climate and Environment often and gladly repeats that the Sweden Democrats and the government agree to pursue an ambitious and effective climate policy. But ambition and effectiveness within climate policy are, after all, not measured in beautiful words but in concrete actions and measurable results. It is clear to everyone that a policy that results in increased emissions rather than decreased ones cannot be called either ambitious or effective. It can rather be described as short-sighted or a betrayal of the responsibility we collectively have for future generations.

I would like to thank the Minister for the debate and conclude by urging the Minister to, even if we do end up in a situation where the government wants to revise the national climate goals, nevertheless stand firm on the high level of ambition in our national climate goals. Otherwise, I would like to know how the Minister can defend a reversal of policy when science speaks a clear language about the necessity of drastically reducing emissions here and now.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the members for the questions and an exciting discussion about Sweden's national climate goals!

When I speak about the 2045 goal, I also want to highlight the importance of us now pursuing a policy that brings us closer to Sweden's climate goals for 2045 than the previous government did. It is true, as the members belonging to opposition parties would like to mention, that there is a short-term goal that the previous government was on track to reach, but we also heard how the answers were missing from the member on how they intended to handle the reality of high fuel prices, which both the Social Democrats and the Left Party went to the election on a platform to lower.

It is a bit like debating with a straw man. It is claimed here that we would abolish climate laws and goals. Those are very big words. I can truly understand that it becomes very worrying for Sweden's fantastic business sector, which is transitioning at a rapid pace, when one debates in the way that is being done. Despite the fact that I have quickly and with all my might refuted rumors that we are abolishing Sweden's climate law and climate goals, one chooses to refer to these articles from the speaker's podium.

I can only regret the picture one wants to paint of Sweden not holding a leadership in the climate transition. Sweden is leading. Sweden is a fantastic country that succeeds in transitioning at a rapid pace and which will continue to do so, but it is not enough to be an example if others do not follow. We must take responsibility for the entire EU's transition - not just for our own reduction obligations and achieved, short-term goals but for how we ensure that the entire EU and the entire world can seriously transition. Then a different policy is needed.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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