Response to interpellations 2023/24:538, 539 and 548 on the climate action plan

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Madam Speaker! She has asked me what reasons underlie my decision to present the plan to meet Sweden's climate goals of reaching net-zero emissions by 2045 as presented in the climate action plan. She has also asked me if I have initiated an analysis of in which years the emission reductions of which measures are expected to be reached in the reported emission curve and if I can, in that case, account for the results of the analysis.

Elin Söderberg has asked me what reasons underlie my decision to include a graph of a scenario that does not follow from the measures in the government's climate action plan, and whether I have taken the initiative for an analysis of which political measures from 2027 up to 2045 the calculations reflect, and if I in that case can account for the result of the analysis.

Jytte Guteland has asked me on what grounds I have chosen to use the economic calculation and graph used in the climate action plan to describe emission reductions of our own policy.

Madam Speaker! In December, the Government presented the climate action plan in accordance with the Climate Act (2017:720). The action plan aims to achieve the national climate goal for 2045. A strategy to reach all the way to net-zero emissions differs from a strategy whose primary purpose is to reduce emissions in the near term. The Government therefore presents measures in a number of areas that provide the conditions for the whole of society, including companies and households, to make the decisions needed for Sweden to reach net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest, while both the households' economy and the companies' competitiveness can be strengthened.

In the climate action plan, the government presents a scenario of the historical emissions and a scenario showing how Sweden could reach net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest. The scenario is based on the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's basis for the action plan and has been updated because the reduction obligation has been lowered to 6 percent during 2024-2026.

In the climate action plan, the government also establishes that Sweden is bound by and shall comply with commitments within the EU's effort sharing regulation, ESR. The government will therefore, during the period 2027-2030, appoint an inquiry to analyze and provide a basis for whether policy instruments can be designed, and if so which ones, so that Sweden's commitments in the EU can be met in a cost-effective and socio-economically efficient manner, and the graph also reflects this.

The assumptions and the basis for the calculations are set out in the documents that were registered in connection with the decision on the climate action plan.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Today is 518 days since Ulf Kristersson's government took office. It is therefore 518 days since Minister Romina Pourmokhtari took responsibility for the government's climate and environmental policy. During these 518 days, the Minister has managed to give many different and contradictory messages.

On December 6, 2022, the minister told Svenska Dagbladet, for example, that the Sverigedemokraterna would not be allowed to participate in designing the government's climate action plan. That statement turned out to be a bluff. The Sverigedemokraterna have, in fact, negotiated the climate action plan that the minister has presented.

Mr. Speaker! Seven of the eight parties in the Swedish Riksdag have agreed on Sweden's climate goals before the Liberals gave the Sweden Democrats a veto against reduced emissions. The Government has presented budgets on the climate area, all with the priority of increasing emissions.

What we in this chamber have heard during these 518 days since the government took office with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna is that when the climate action plan is presented, the answers shall also come - the answers on how emissions are to be reduced, the answers on how both the Swedish climate goals and the EU's climate goals are to be reached, and the answers on what the climate policy looks like that the Minister has, for 518 days, described as both ambitious and effective.

On December 21, the government and the Sweden Democrats presented the climate action plan, after several rounds in the media about whether it really needed to be presented before New Year's or if one should wait until the government was satisfied and happy.

Mr. Speaker! Dagens Nyheter conducted a review of the climate action plan and published an article on February 20, 2024. Dagens Nyheter attempted to obtain information on how the government has calculated the emission scenario that the climate action plan contains. It is a curve that, from the year 2027, falls steeply down to net zero in 2045.

First, Dagens Nyheter received no answer on how the curve was calculated. But after DN requested the information required to be able to appeal, the figures were released. Then the answer came: It is calculated on a high reduction obligation, that is, the proportion of biofuels that are mixed into the fossil fuel from the source countries. The government had just lowered the reduction obligation to 6 percent.

It is strange that in the government's climate action plan, emission scenarios are made with a significantly increased reduction obligation when, according to the government, it is the content of the climate action plan that creates the conditions to reach net zero. The answer DN received was that they had nothing else to calculate on. After 518 days with Romina Pourmokhtari as Minister for Climate and Environment, there is therefore no calculated emission curve to reach the goals, just a made-up scenario.

My questions remain. I give the Minister the opportunity to answer them. What reasons underlie the Minister's decision to present the emission scenario to reach net-zero emissions by 2045 as presented in the climate action plan? Has the Minister taken the initiative for an analysis of which measures' emission reductions are expected to be reached in which years in the declining emission curve presented in the climate action plan? Can the Minister, in that case, account for the results of the analysis?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The question asked to the Minister for Climate and Environment was why it was chosen to include this emission scenario in the climate action plan. I did not receive any answer from the Minister for Climate and Environment in her statement.

The government has chosen to include a graph in the climate action plan that does not correspond with the content of the plan. Only after DN's review and questions has the Minister for Climate and Environment admitted that the government has tasked officials with calculating what more is needed to reach the climate goals, that is, the gap between existing policy and what is required to reach Sweden's climate goals established in the Riksdag.

But instead of accounting for this gap, the government in the climate action plan has included both the gap and the emission reductions resulting from existing policies in the graph so that it looks as if we reach all the way to net zero, even though the reforms to reach that emission scenario are not in place. The government has subsequently repeatedly stated that they now have a plan for net zero emissions, even though that is not the case.

This is grossly misleading. That is why I have asked the Minister for Climate and Environment why it has been chosen to include that scenario in the climate action plan.

According to the Climate Act Section 5, the climate action plan should contain "to what extent the decided and planned emission reduction measures can be expected to contribute to the national and global climate goals being reached". It should also contain "to what extent the decided and planned measures within different expenditure areas affect the possibilities of reaching the national and global climate goals". Despite this, the government has chosen not to openly account for the gap between the government's climate policy and the climate goals.

Mr. Speaker! We face extremely serious climate-related risks that affect the Swedish population both directly and indirectly. That is why we have climate goals, and that is why we here in the Riksdag are expected to be able to deliver policies that protect the Swedish population from these climate-related risks.

We see the consequences here in Sweden already today. It is heatwaves, flooded basements and roads collapsing due to worsened extreme weather.

We also see that Sweden will be able to be affected indirectly by climate change in other parts of the world that affects Swedish companies and their supply chains. We also see the serious images in the IPCC's latest report which show the number of days per year in different parts of the world where, due to increased extreme heat, it will become a danger to people's lives. Such consequences will, of course, lead to indirect effects even for us here in Sweden.

I want to repeat my question to the Minister for Climate and Environment: Why has a scenario been accounted for that does not correspond with the policy in the plans?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is called the Government's Climate Action Plan - all the way to net zero. But there is nothing to indicate that the climate action plan leads to net zero. Nevertheless, the Minister for Climate has on repeated occasions used just this slogan to somehow market an empty storefront. Perhaps it is rather about the climate action plan all the way to net zero for the Liberals.

The climate crisis means that we are currently experiencing more natural disasters with severe storms, droughts, floods, and heat than before. Extreme weather is increasing. From having hit the EU and Europe approximately once every hundred years, it is now happening continuously. Researchers speak about that we will probably need to get used to this happening annually.

The Swedes have suffered many losses due to extreme weather. In recent years, our country has been hit by no fewer than repeated fires and floods. Farmers and agricultural producers in our country and in the entire EU are being hit very hard by this already, as supplies are being cut off due to drought and difficulties in cultivating what they used to cultivate.

Sweden has historically pursued an active climate policy, both to curb this and to stop global warming and to ensure the development of technology that can help and lead to opportunities for jobs and so on. But this year, the EU's climate council announced that none of the EU's member countries appear to be reaching the goals by 2030. Even Sweden receives criticism.

When we look at the Swedish climate action plan, we see, as said, that emissions are increasing instead of decreasing. To that should be added that the Swedish budget was a great disappointment in that regard. We can definitely state that the climate tools have been dismantled.

When the Minister for Climate is asked what should be done with this, the Minister says that it should be possible to buy emission allowances from other countries. But the questions then become: How would Sweden have the opportunity to do that? Which other countries are it that will want to sell these emission allowances, and at what price? How expensive will it be for the Swedish people going forward?

I would like, in like manner with the other interpellants, to point out the emission curve that is in the climate action plan, which appears deeply misleading and which DN alerted us all to some time ago. DN wrote that when they looked closer at this graph, it turned out that behind the falling emission curve lies a calculation where the reduction obligation is raised during the period 2027-2030 to a level that then remains until 2045.

The question that I, like the other interpellants, am asking is how it is that this emissions curve was included in the climate action plan. What was the purpose of having it there? Was it so that the Swedish people should believe that the climate action plan leads to net zero? Did the Minister for Climate and the government intend to mislead the Swedish people by retaining this graph?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the members for a very interesting debate! One wants to question our calculations and argues that they are based on incorrect grounds. What I can clearly point out is that all calculations in the government's climate action plan are based on the agencies' scenarios including the government's decided policy. They are not based on high reduction obligation.

I explained this clearly to Dagens Nyheter in connection with them making the report. I sat here outside for a very long time and showed all the emails and all the graphs where they had calculated which emission space needs to be resolved with the policy instruments that the policy instrument investigation is to produce. We are opening up for a broad palette of policy instruments so that we do not, in the same way as the previous action plan did, rely on the reduction obligation as a single and very powerful policy instrument to reach the climate goal.

Mr. Speaker! If one wants to call this a made-up scenario, as Member Anna-Caren Sätherberg chose to do, it becomes interesting to look at the scenario in the previous climate action plan that Isabella Lövin from Miljöpartiet presented, where the headlines in the media were that it did not reach the climate goals. After that, there was a discussion on how Sweden should manage the climate crisis. It was a very serious discussion that I unfortunately find lacking during this session.

If one argues that all scenarios and calculations for our decided policy, which are also based on investigations, are made-up scenarios, it becomes very odd that Miljöpartiet are the only ones who stand by the scenario that made it possible to reach one of the climate goals. Miljöpartiet has today, through its spokesperson Daniel Helldén, clarified that they want the reduction obligation we had before the government changed this.

It becomes very odd to claim that we are engaging in made-up scenarios when the members in the debate also refer to a calculation that one has chosen to back away from and no longer stands by because one does not want the previously pursued climate policy. It becomes a very diffuse debate. So it can be, for in politics things can change. But all calculations, forecasts, and scenarios—and one can only have scenarios, forecasts, and calculations in a climate action plan, not speculate about the future—are based on the government's decided policy and the authorities' scenarios. We have been open about that and clearly accounted for it here.

Mr. Speaker! Questions have arisen regarding which calculations underlie our graphs and how the officials have chosen to calculate in detail. I was curious about how one would calculate the policy we had in our climate action plan, that is, how one calculates investments in charging infrastructure, simplified permit processes, market introduction support, more money than ever before to restore wetlands, effects of scrap car premiums, and so on. It was clearly stated, just as it stands in the running text, that all the assumptions that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency makes underlie the development of target scenarios, and then the Government Offices include the policy we decide on.

The basis for this policy is not a scenario of a higher reduction obligation, but rather a scenario with a reduction obligation lowered to 6 percent for diesel and gasoline, which will contribute and already contributes to strengthening household finances.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! What we are trying to discuss today is the plan that is to create the conditions for Sweden to reach net zero and the emission scenario that this climate action plan contains. This graph is based on a reduction obligation of 26.9 percent, it turned out when Dagens Nyheter finally got these documents out. That is what we are a bit curious about. Why did they use something that they have just removed the conditions for?

Mr. Speaker! It is perhaps also important to point out that when the plan was released, the Climate Policy Council said that Sweden could lead the way, but that the government instead chose to present a climate action plan that increases emissions and fossil fuel use. The World Wide Fund for Nature said that instead of effective policy with large emission reductions in the near term, we get a multitude of investigations and insufficient proposals. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation said that the government's climate action plan violates the Swedish Climate Act and misses the EU's ESR 2030 target. They said that this is serious – pushing it to 2045 is not possible, because the coming seven years are crucial.

Johan Rockström, head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said that when Sweden's climate action plan was presented on Thursday, the focus on quickly reducing emissions had disappeared. Mattias Goldmann at the 2030 Secretariat said it is unlikely that Sweden will meet the EU's climate legislation with this action plan. Peter Alestig, who is climate editor at Dagens Nyheter, said that the government emphasizes that the transition should be cost-effective, which of course requires knowing what each respective measure costs and what climate benefit it provides. That is not known, because the measures being proposed have neither a price tag nor an emissions calculation. There are therefore no calculations of either costs or emission reductions.

Mr. Speaker! The Kristersson government is simply walking over. Nothing is to be done during this mandate period, because now they are to appoint inquiries for the next government to handle. It has been 518 days since the government took office, and the result is a liberal and Sweden Democrat cooperation that prioritizes increasing emissions. After 518 days, not even the inquiries that the government intends to appoint according to the climate action plan are in place. They have had 518 days to do it.

Mr. Speaker! So, 518 days later, the Minister is required to answer. What climate policy, what emission reductions, what resources, and what ambitious and effective climate policy does the Minister for Climate intend to take responsibility for during his mandate period of 2022-2026? After that, there will be, regardless of what happens, a new government in place.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must remind the member of the prohibition on requisites in the House's rules of procedure. It is naturally a challenge when one discusses a concrete graph in the debate.)

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The government is making Sweden more dependent on fossil fuels when we need to do exactly the opposite. Sweden needs reduced fossil involvement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the vulnerability to volatile oil prices as well as for geopolitical pressures. We must manage the transition of the existing vehicle fleet, and it is there that we see the government has backed down the most and thereby shock-increased the emissions of greenhouse gases.

In addition to the fact that a lowered reduction obligation leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions, that climate goals are not met, reduced crisis preparedness, increased dependence on non-democracies, increased vulnerability to price shocks from volatile oil prices, uncertainty for Swedish companies in the industry, unclear availability of winter diesel, and worsened incentives for electrification of the transport sector, the reduction of the reduction obligation risks entailing very high costs for the state and thus for Swedish taxpayers. It is clearly evident in the government's climate action plan that they want to use the state's, that is to say our common, resources to try to buy themselves free by purchasing emission space from other EU countries at costs that are unclear and very high - if it is even possible - and otherwise risk heavy fines. The government currently lacks a plan to reach our binding goal in the EU regarding emission reductions, primarily within transport and agriculture, even though it clearly states in the scenario we are now discussing that the graph assumes that the goal is to be reached by 2030.

The Minister for Climate and Environment mentioned in his latest speech that the calculations are based on the agencies' scenarios and the government's decided policy and that one has "calculated what emission space needs to be resolved." An investigation is intended to come with proposals for measures that can be implemented only after 2027-2030, that is, after the next election. It is a question of measures that are not implemented during this mandate period, but the climate action plan is supposed to be about what the government shall do during this mandate period. Everything is thus left to a forthcoming investigation to handle, this within an area where a large number of investigations have already been carried out. The transport sector's transition has been investigated in every possible way for several years by several governments. When we in Miljöpartiet entered the Government Offices, we, for example, continued the FFF investigation, which was commissioned during the Alliance government, in order to continue working on the transport sector's transition.

I wonder: Can the Minister account for the total emission space and the gap that is left for the incoming government to manage?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Early last year, we asked the Minister for Climate here in the chamber how she would gather a majority in the Riksdag to anchor a policy that is to reduce emissions. The Minister for Climate said then that we would get a broad anchoring in the Riksdag and that she would gladly turn to more parties than the supporting party Sverigedemokraterna. That was not true.

During the spring of 2023, we Social Democrats asked again what the government would do to reduce emissions, as they began to increase for the first time with the adopted budget. We were then told that we would receive the answers in the climate action plan regarding what instruments the government would apply to manage to lower emissions and live up to the goals. That was not the case.

When the climate action plan was finally presented, we were told it would lead all the way to net zero. It was apparently an effective climate policy in the new climate action plan, in contrast to the old one. This was not true either. On the contrary, it was clear in a review by DN that the old climate policy was more effective in getting closer to the 2030 goals.

Now we Social Democrats ask the Minister for Climate and Environment: How is this government going to manage to live up to the goals for 2030 and the own transport goal? How are we going to get a policy that lives up to already decided goals? Which instruments are they that the Minister for Climate and Environment intends when she speaks of instruments? How are these to be anchored? What is the plan? When are these to be presented?

The track record for this climate minister is currently truly at net zero. Our confidence that the words will lead to action is absolutely very small. When we are informed that steering measures are to be presented, we want to hear what the plan is for this government to stand up for this. The risk otherwise is that this is yet another trick, yet another maneuver so that the Swedish people will believe that the government is capable of action and that there is an efficiency. It may be that the Swedish people are instead supposed to expect the next government to take hold of these steering measures. We actually do not understand.

It is very clear that the supporting party that the government leans on, or rather sits in the lap of, has no intention of helping in these negotiations. When we ask questions and try to find out what the Sverigedemokraterna want to see for the transport sector, all answers are such that lead to more emissions and not fewer. The tool that the government's own investigator presented, namely an ETS for cars and transport, has been rejected by Sverigedemokraterna, so there is nothing one can point to.

Then a really big problem remains for this government. I would like to call it a crisis in climate policy. If it continues in this way, according to the calculations, we will need to reduce emissions in 2025 by 7-8 percent to reach the goals, then in 2026 by 11 percent and then in 2027 by nearly 18 percent. Who will pay at the pump then? Is it 40 kronor at the pump that the Swedish people are to bear, or is it billion-dollar fines that we will face when Sweden does not live up to the EU's environmental and climate goals?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! I hear Member Guteland. I hear her say that the old policy, according to DN, was more effective. But how is it then that the Social Democrats do not want to stand for that old effective policy? How is it that one wants to lower the reduction obligation from the Social Democrats' side, if it is indeed the case that the old policy was so effective? How is it that one does not, quite like the Green Party, which stands firm on the old climate policy that DN considers more effective, point out that one wants the same reduction obligation path that made it possible to reach one of Sweden's climate goals? Yes, it is because it actually is not just about what marks you have in your calculation on how a reduction obligation should rise to 60 percent in order to reach a climate goal – then it was still paused at 33 when it became an election year because it became too difficult for the Swedish people's economy. It is also about the fact that one needs to have a mandate for one's policy.

I understand from this debate, Mr. Speaker, that the members are very interested in the big whip that the Swedish voters rejected. I notice that it is that one that is of interest. One wants to go back to the old politics, which according to DN was more effective. I can only regret that, because there is a reason why the government chooses to change the climate policy that has been pursued.

The reason we are making the realignment we are making is that for the first time we will be able to provide the conditions for Sweden to reach the net-zero goal. This is primarily achieved by us welcoming all fossil-free types of power. We have a calculation where we do not only calculate for wind power but also for nuclear power. We can create an energy system where wind power and nuclear power interact to create security of supply and predictability regarding prices and other things, something that gives the industry a greater chance to succeed with its transition.

When members like myself are out meeting companies, the business community, and private individuals, I am convinced that the primary issues that arise are electricity and permits. That is what is important to succeed with the climate transition.

If one reads our climate action plan, one sees that there are developed arguments regarding how the population should cope with the socio-economic effects resulting from a more ambitious climate policy, but also that we must have an energy supply that is consistent with our climate transition.

If one is very careful, and reads very carefully in the calculations, it was ultimately a one hundred percent reduction obligation with that logic that would lead to one having reached the zero targets. We all know that is physically impossible, unless one converts all diesel cars' engines.

Calculations are calculations, and forecasts are forecasts. It is only a mapped-out plan for the direction one wants to go in. Our direction takes us to a place where we have the conditions to reach zero. It is thanks to the fact that we welcome all fossil-free power sources.

It is also thanks to much else. If you want to hear about the policy that the government pursues in the climate area, I will gladly tell you, Mr. Speaker. We are giving more than ever to Klimatklivet and more than ever to Industriklivet.

We are making a proper overhaul of the issues regarding permits and a proper overhaul of the energy policy. We are providing more money than ever before in Sweden to wetlands. We are making a historic investment in charging infrastructure of over 4 billion over the coming years.

All of that is what is included in the government's climate policy, what is included in our climate action plan, and what is to take place in the near future.

This matter of referring to the old policy being more effective according to DN becomes quite strange when one then chooses to back away from the policy that was pursued.

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

Anna-Caren Sätherberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Reference is made to the old policy. It was precisely the investment in wetlands, Industriklivet, Klimatklivet, and also investments in railways. We now have a proposal for a green tax deduction instead of a luxury tax deduction. The old policy is something that the government really likes and wants to use.

Mr. Speaker! In the climate action plan, it is said that the government intends to postpone all measures. It will become very expensive for ordinary people, and it will become very expensive for Sweden. When one removes steering instruments without managing to add others, it is not serious anymore.

I hope that the Minister for Climate and Environment takes responsibility for his time during this government period. 518 days have already passed, Mr. Speaker. But the Minister still has a chance to ensure that Sweden reduces its emissions and takes back the lead once again.

It is a matter of us in Sweden ensuring that climate policy moves forward and that we ensure that ordinary people have a chance to participate in it. That chance is held by the government. But the climate action plan that the government has presented is not the one that will ensure that we achieve exactly that.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Climate and Environment would rather not speak about the enormous gap that exists between the climate goals and the government's policy. Instead, she wants to speak about the conditions for the industry's transition through, for example, nuclear power.

But what the industry is demanding, we have probably all heard many times. It is electricity in the short term, faster permit processes and skills supply. In none of these three areas do we see strong investments from the government.

Today, the government presented its energy bill. There are no planning goals until 2030, which is what the industry is requesting. They want much more electricity in the near term. The Green Party has presented a policy for much electricity in the near term.

There is an investigation on faster permit processes on the government's desk, which has been submitted by the Environmental Assessment Investigation. But instead of proceeding with the proposals in that one, the government has appointed a new investigation where the first point concerns lowering the environmental requirements in Sweden to the EU's minimum level.

It is a way that harms Swedish competitiveness. Swedish competitiveness thrives on our high credibility when it comes to, for example, the environment, climate, and the work environment.

In the area of skills supply, we need housing construction so that people can move to where the jobs are, and companies are recruiting from all over the world. In that regard, the government has chosen not to provide funds for housing construction and is complicating recruitment from other countries.

In this serious situation regarding the climate crisis, the government chooses to increase greenhouse gas emissions and to present a climate action plan that hides the fact that they are not reaching the goals.

The Climate Policy Council will submit its report this week. How much weight will the Minister for Climate will give to the content of the Council's report? If it turns out in the Climate Policy Council's report that the government's plan for net-zero does not hold, will the Minister for Climate then supplement the plans?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! There is a crisis in Swedish climate policy, and the crisis started with this government. From having a policy that was world-leading in climate transition, we got a government that, for the first time, broke the trend and began to increase emissions instead of reducing them.

At the same time, we have a climate minister who is rhetorically skilled, who speaks of an effective climate policy and who is very eager to engage in debates. Sometimes it can be so in politics that if you think the debates and the talk are fun, you might perhaps become too good for your own good.

Right now, it is very obvious to the Swedish people, journalists, and politicians in this chamber that the Minister for Climate and Environment is standing in front of an empty storefront. There is a lack of steering tools for climate policy.

At the same time, the Swedish people long for an active policy that moves us forward and ensures that we manage the transition in a good and fair way.

At the same time, Swedish business says that they want clarity in the climate policy. They want to see leadership so that they know how they should invest forward to secure the jobs and the green technology in the transition.

At the same time, the EU Commission and the climate council at the EU level say that all EU member states must increase the pace. The Minister for Climate wants to lay the leading part in the opposition's lap and talk about what the Social Democrats do or do not do.

We are looking at the whole of the policy and working with our policy development. We have very clearly stated that we want to see a better distribution policy in our toolbox. We do not want a policy that increases emissions for transport. We want a leading electrification and also ensure that we have a better reduction obligation.

It is misleading when one speaks about where the opposition finds itself.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit condescending with comments that it would be rhetoric that has brought me to this place, Member Guteland. I, like all elected representatives in this chamber, have gathered support from the Swedish people. I was the most voted member, when I was a member, in my party after our party leader.

I have very strong support, not least among my voters but also among the Swedish people, for the politics we pursue. We know that many went to the polls and wanted lower fuel prices. In that case, one has to take out all the other tools in one's toolbox, and that is what the government is doing.

If that is the question one is more interested in, I would very much like to speak about the government's climate policy instead of speaking about the changes we have made to the previous policy.

If we want to talk about our climate policy, we can talk about how we, with this government, have Klimatklivet, which is a very broad investment support. It is larger than it has ever been before. We are working on how we can develop and improve Klimatklivet and ensure that more money is invested. But it is important to ensure that the money also reaches the companies so that everyone who, for example, is affiliated with Svenskt Näringsliv receives help from the state when they want to take the step towards a transition.

We have Industriklivet, which is also larger than it has ever been before. We are investing over 7.1 billion in the coming years up to 2026 on heavy, light-duty, and other environmentally friendly trucks, buses, and work machines. There is so much to mention here.

But the reason there is an unpredictability and a lack of consistency in the debate is, among other things, that one is not clear, for example, on how one views nuclear power and how one views fuel prices going forward. If one refers to the previous climate policy, it would be honest if one also adhered to it, which the opposition chooses not to do.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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