Response to interpellations 2024/25:134, 150 and 163 on international climate negotiations and national climate policy

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Joakim Järrebring has asked me if I consider that the sharp increase in greenhouse gases during the first quarter of 2024 gives reason for concern regarding Sweden's opportunities to meet the climate goals, and if I plan in the near future to present new policy instruments or measures that can ensure that emissions turn downwards and that the climate goals for 2030 and 2045 can be reached.

Elin Söderberg has asked me if I can elaborate on what I mean by "move us further away from Sweden's climate goals", if I will resign if the preliminary statistics from SCB for the second quarter of 2024 show increased emissions, and if I will resign if the final statistics for 2024 show that emissions have increased compared to 2023.

Elin Söderberg has also asked me what assessment I make regarding how the domestic political climate work affects Sweden's negotiating position within the EU and with other countries before and during the international climate negotiations, as well as how I intend to act based on my standpoint.

Let me begin by stating that emissions have not increased since the government took office in the autumn of 2022. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has published statistics for 2022 and preliminary statistics for 2023. In 2022, emissions decreased by 5 percent compared to the previous year, and in 2023, emissions decreased preliminarily by 2 percent compared to 2022. It remains to be seen what the final assessment will be, but this is the preliminary result. It simply is not true that emissions have increased since the government took office for the years for which the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has published statistics so far.

This year, the government expects a temporary increase in emissions as a result of the lowered reduction obligation, which applies in 2024. The increase shown by SCB's quarterly statistics is therefore expected and is in line with the assessment of the emissions development that the government has made and reported in the climate report. With the new reduction obligation being introduced in 2025, Sweden is assessed to reach the ESR commitment by a margin. Sweden's total emissions are calculated to decrease until 2030.

One should also point out that the quarterly statistics published by SCB differ from Sweden's official emissions statistics for territorial emissions, which Naturvårdsverket publishes. SCB publishes production-based emissions of Swedish actors. This includes emissions occurring outside Sweden's borders, Mr. Speaker, while Naturvårdsverket publishes territorial statistics, that is, statistics on emissions within Sweden's borders. It is the territorial statistics that are reported to the EU and the UN and that are used for monitoring Sweden's climate goals.

That the emissions are judged to increase temporarily in 2024 is primarily due to the fact that Sweden's government lowered the reduction obligation. The reduction obligation was lowered in a situation where households and companies were under heavy pressure from high inflation and high gasoline and diesel prices. In order to be able to conduct an ambitious, effective and fair climate policy, it is required that there is an acceptance for the policy being pursued. The previous government's policy led to rising prices, and it was necessary to carry out a reduction to create acceptance for the climate policy and reduce the burden for heavily pressured Swedish households and companies.

Mr. Speaker! The new reduction obligation, which is introduced next year, means that the blend of biofuels increases and that emissions decrease. The price at the pump does not increase because the government is simultaneously introducing a fuel tax reduction. We also ensure that electricity from public charging stations is included, which creates incentives for the expansion of charging infrastructure throughout the long country of Sweden. Together with other initiatives in the budget bill for 2025, this will lead to a reduction in emissions over the coming years, and Sweden is judged to reach its ESR commitment towards the EU with a margin.

Regarding the question of how politics affects Sweden's role in international climate work, I can state that Sweden continues to be a leading country globally and that our negotiating position ahead of the climate negotiations at COP 29 in Baku remains ambitious. We have among the lowest emissions per capita within the EU and are one of five countries with the highest requirements within ESR.

We are a strong voice in international contexts and conduct an ambitious international climate policy globally. The climate issue is a global issue that requires global answers. The Government is now developing the international climate work in order to encourage more countries to reach net-zero emissions. Particular focus is placed on getting the countries that constitute the largest emitters in the world to succeed in making the transition.

The government has begun a new chapter in Swedish climate policy, which I look forward to continuing to write. As Minister for Climate and Environment, I am proud that the ambitious and effective climate policy we are pursuing is showing results. We have presented several important and effective measures as well as new instruments, not least by presenting a budget that is expected to reduce emissions and bring us closer to Sweden's climate goals. During the climate negotiations at COP 29 in Baku, Sweden will bilaterally, through the EU and together with other global partners, push for more countries to increase their ambition in climate work.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by clarifying that the government has chosen to merge three interpellations into one debate, which I think is somewhat problematic as it gives the minister much less time to answer the questions posed in the interpellations.

To begin with, the Minister states in his statement: "Let me start by stating that emissions have not increased since the government took office in the autumn of 2022." This is not correct. We have already received preliminary statistics for the spring of 2024, which show that emissions increased during the first and second quarters of 2024. The Minister also describes in his statement that it is expected; a policy has been pursued that made it expected that emissions would increase in 2024.

In the interpellations that I and the Social Democratic member have submitted today, we have referred to SCB's statistics for greenhouse gas emissions when we have demonstrated that emissions are increasing. I therefore consider it problematic that the minister in his statement says: "It is simply not true that emissions have increased since the government took office for the years that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has published statistics for so far." In our interpellations, we have not referred to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's statistics.

Anyone can read the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's statistics for 2022 and 2023 - the statistics for 2024 have not been published yet - but what the interpellations are about today and what there has been a lot of writing about in the media is instead the preliminary statistics we have received from SCB, where we see that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing for both the first and second quarters of 2024. This is relevant because my interpellation was about how the Minister Romina Pourmokhtari has on repeated occasions given promises to resign if we move further away from reaching the climate goals or if emissions increase.

In my interpellation, I have asked what the Minister intends by "if we move further away from Sweden's climate goals" and if the Minister intends to resign if it is revealed at any point that greenhouse gas emissions increase.

The answer now clearly refers to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's statistics. Then the question is whether the resignation promise should not be fulfilled now that SCB's statistics arrive. Will the Minister for the Environment push this forward to perhaps resign when the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's statistics for 2024 arrive? Yes, you hear.

Mr. Speaker! I noted Climate and Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari's pledge to resign because I judged it to be one of various rhetorical devices to give the impression that the government is pursuing a very powerful climate policy. To say on repeated occasions that one is pursuing an ambitious and effective climate policy and furthermore make statements about promising to resign if we move further away from the climate goals or if emissions increase gives the population an image that we have someone here who truly takes climate policy seriously.

When we see the government's actual actions and the consequences of them for greenhouse gas emissions, the truth is that we are moving further away from the climate goals, that emissions are increasing and that climate risks are worsening.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. It was good that it becomes clear for those who may be listening to the debate that we are talking about different statistics.

The starting point for my question was SCB's figures. I believe the Minister and I agree that it is a problem that we cause increased emissions, whether they are imported or consumption-based, when we receive very clear indications that the climate transition in the world at large is not meeting the requirements. We receive several signals that the 1.5-degree goal is practically impossible to achieve. Every small tenth of a degree that we manage to press down the warming with is incredibly important, in contrast to what was said by the interpellator in the previous debate with the Minister.

Now that I have placed my question in this perspective, I think that there is a political reality for every politician and every government. Sometimes what is politically desirable is not possible, and one must settle for what is politically possible. For me, it does not matter how one manages the climate transition. Changing the climate policy can absolutely be right.

The previous government pursued an effective environmental policy to the extent that we were on track to reach the 2030 goals. More was required to achieve the whole. What we could not quite see the previous government managing was to do it in a way that had support from the population at large. The minister has conveyed this in many debates, and I completely agree with it. I truly believe that it was a strongly contributing cause to why we now have the government we have.

It has also required that social democracy has had to engage in self-criticism and develop its own climate policy in order to better meet the demand that everyone should benefit from the green transition. We do not see the transition as just a burden, but we also see it as an incredible opportunity for Sweden and the Swedish people to be able to share in growth even in the future. I know that the minister and I are in complete agreement on that.

In previous debates with the Minister, I have asked whether it would not have been better to let the policy that would lead to continued reduced emissions remain in place before presenting new policy. I can understand the arguments, which were also presented in the Minister's response, that we had an economic situation that required compensating the Swedish people in a number of different ways. But it could have been done in a different way than by removing the reduction obligation, even if it needed to be adjusted.

Now it has become quite erratic. First, the reduction obligation was lowered. Then, it is being raised. It is the substantial reduction, which is now to be changed at a later stage, that causes a large part of the increased emissions, just as the minister pointed out in his answer.

I actually just want to repeat my question: Is this a result of what is politically possible, or is it also what is politically desirable?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Member Söderberg refers in her speech to the fact that she has also looked at SCB's statistics. What statistics is she referring to, other than SCB's production-based emissions statistics, for which there is a preliminary quarterly assessment? What statistics, other than SCB's preliminary production-based emissions statistics, has Member Söderberg looked at when she makes the assessment that Sweden's emissions are increasing? That is what I wonder.

Member Söderberg argues that it is not true when I say that Sweden's territorial emissions have not increased since I took office. Does Member Söderberg mean that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's statistics and the government's state budgets are misleading when we write that Sweden's emissions decreased in 2022 and in 2023? In 2023, they decreased preliminarily by 2 percent and in 2022 preliminarily by 5 percent. Does Member Söderberg then mean that it is a falsehood? If not, how does she mean that what I say is a falsehood?

I think quite strong accusations are being made here in the chamber. Is this what Miljöpartiet wants to go down in the history books, to claim that everyone who does not say what Miljöpartiet says is lying? The member claims that I am speaking falsely when I refer to Naturvårdsverket's statistics, Sweden's statistics, on territorial emissions instead of referring to SCB's quarterly reports on production-based emissions.

It is a completely different thing that is being measured. Sweden's emissions abroad are also measured through what our companies produce. Member Söderberg suggests that I am being untruthful when I do not refer to other statistics that do not belong to the statistics we report to the UN and the EU.

It would be very good, Mr. Speaker, if the Swedish people could get a little more clarity on what is truth and what is not, and what is correct and what is not. What is correct is what the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency as an authority and the government write in its climate report according to the Climate Act. Sweden's emissions decreased in 2022, are judged to have decreased in 2023 and are judged to increase in 2024, due to the government's temporary reduction of the reduction obligation but also other things such as delayed plans for steel production. Then they are judged to decrease again in the years 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030 due to the climate policy that Sweden's government and the EU jointly pursue.

We are judged based on the policy the government presents to meet the climate transition: a larger climate step than previous governments', an investment in transition in agriculture where we have started Kväveklivet, an investment in lowering the thresholds so that even heavy vehicles are electrified, and not least an expansion of both wind power and nuclear power. This policy collectively means that we are judged to live up to one of the highest climate goals in the EU, namely Sweden's ESR commitment. We are judged to reach that goal with a margin, but there are other climate goals that Sweden does not yet reach.

Just as there are many other climate ministers who have not resigned when emissions have increased, for example when they increased in 2021 or after the financial crisis, I intend to stay and work hard. I see that Miljöpartiet is trying to make me resign through failed votes of no confidence or in other ways, but no, I will not resign. And why not? Yes, because the government's assessment is that emissions will have decreased when we leave in 2026 in comparison to when we took office in 2022. In that case, one has reduced emissions.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am somewhat surprised by the high tone that the Minister chooses to adopt. I feel that both I and Minister Romina Pourmokhtari, as well as others here in the chamber, have a clear picture of what constitutes Naturvårdsverket's statistics and what constitutes SCB's statistics. Naturvårdsverket reports territorial greenhouse gas emissions per year with a time lag. That is what we report to the EU and the UN. SCB can report preliminary statistics for production-based emissions quarterly. News has recently emerged regarding the preliminary statistics from SCB regarding the emissions for quarter 2 of 2024. That is the statistics we have to go on to get a picture of the measured emissions in 2024.

What I think is important to clarify here is which statistics are being referred to when the Minister makes various statements. As of today, it is the case that we have received statistics from SCB for the first half of 2024. This statistics clearly show that emissions are increasing, precisely in line with the forecasts. In that case, it is incorrect to say that emissions have not increased – it is like pretending that the first half of 2024 has not already taken place. On the other hand, no one has said here in the chamber that the statistics that Naturvårdsverket reports for a full year and which are reported to the UN and the EU have shown any emission increases for 2024; those statistics have not arrived yet.

The question of whether we are moving further away from the climate goals can be looked at, among other things, by reading this year's and previous years' climate reports, where the forecast is assessed in relation to our climate goals. In the climate report presented in the autumn of 2021, that is before the budget bill for 2022, one can read that the gap to reach Sweden's interim goal for the ESR sector by 2030 then stood at 0.5-1 million tons. But in the climate report presented in the autumn by the current government before the budget bill for 2025, one can read that the gap to reach the Swedish interim goal for the ESR sector is 7.1 million tons. I mean that it is a clear proof that Sweden, as a result of political reforms that have been implemented, has moved further away from reaching its climate goals.

The total emissions are also expected to increase over time as a result of reforms that the current government has implemented. This worsens the conditions for achieving the environmental goal Limited climate impact and meeting our contribution to the Paris Agreement. It is not even the case that the emission reductions in 2024 are insufficient; emissions are increasing, which is very serious.

At last year's international climate negotiations, it was agreed to take action "this critical decade" and to phase out fossil fuels. The government has returned home to Sweden and instead phased in more fossil fuels. In the Climate Change Performance Index, where climate policies between the world's different countries are measured, Sweden has plummeted from rank 12 in 2022 to rank 37 in 2024.

Against this background, I ask: What does the Minister mean by "moving us further away from Sweden's climate goals", and how does she view Sweden's position in international climate negotiations?

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think the debate shows that it may have been unfortunate to merge these three interpellations. I think they have somewhat different starting points. I also did not receive any answers at all to my questions in the Minister's latest contribution. But perhaps I can get them now.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, Member Järrebring shall receive answers to his excellent questions, which focus on how the government's realignment of climate policy can contribute to a good balance. Many will benefit, even everyone, as the Member himself mentioned. We shall have an increased quality of life and a better standard of living in our societies. It is not about turning off the heat and turning off the lights. One must not put a stop to the fantastic development that, not least the market economy, has created. More people are escaping poverty. One can start companies. One can make the economy grow and ensure that more people get to live with a high standard of living.

This is interesting from an international perspective. We encounter countries that are significantly increasing their emissions - in contrast to the EU, which is leading in reducing its emissions, and in contrast to Sweden, which has the lowest emissions in the entire EU together with Portugal. What is it then that makes it differ so strongly? Well, countries like China and India want to grow their economies, want to lift more people out of poverty, and simply want to become wealthier countries.

That is exactly why it is so incredibly important that we ensure that the climate transition does not mean that the EU and Sweden rush ahead, plant a flag on the moon, and lean back. We need to ensure that more parts of the world begin to reduce their emissions instead of significantly increasing them. In the EU, emissions are decreasing. The EU has adopted legislation that ensures it is in line with the Paris Agreement, and Sweden, together with Portugal, is at the forefront in the EU and has the lowest emissions per capita.

Mr. Speaker! What comes into focus is a concept that I am particularly interested in, namely global solidarity. How do we ensure that we show solidarity in the climate transition and bring more people along in the transition that the whole world needs to carry out? This is a global issue, and a global issue requires global answers. In this regard, it is especially important to develop international climate work, which I believe has been neglected for a long time. One has not looked at how Sweden can be a stronger partner in other countries' climate transition.

Yesterday, we in the government commissioned an investigation that will work operationally to find collaborations where Sweden can contribute to reduced emissions in other parts of the world. It is about how, with Swedish authorities, Swedish knowledge, and Swedish companies, one can find solutions that other countries are in need of. There are many countries around the world that have climate plans but cannot execute them. This can be due to a lack of knowledge, a lack of a solution or product that is needed, or a lack of money. Therefore, the government has increased climate aid. This is being done as part of our international angle in climate issues.

Member Järrebring wondered why we cannot stay the course. Then I wonder if Member Järrebring's party, the Social Democrats, would have stayed the course on the previous climate policy, which was subsequently distanced from. Would they have stayed the course on the plan to go up to the level of reduction obligation that would ensure that Sweden's transport goals were met nationally? Would they have continued to pursue that policy if they had gained power again? Now it is very good that the member balances and points out that there were major problems with having a policy that did not work with the people but against the people.

Finally, I want to mention that Member Söderberg could not point out any source other than SCB that measures production-based emissions and not territorial emissions, which is what the Swedish government reports to the UN and the EU and regarding the Paris Agreement. What is that source, I ask again, other than SCB that is used to make the statement you make here that Sweden's emissions are increasing?

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin by saying that there are no other sources than the statistics that SCB has presented for the first and second quarter of 2024 that I have looked at when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. My "also" - or whatever I said - referred to the second interpellor in this debate and to the various reports in the media about increased greenhouse gas emissions. They have all looked at SCB's statistics, so have I as well.

The climate issue is global, but it requires local implementation. Minister Romina Pourmokhtari will soon travel to the international climate summit COP29. The reason I have asked questions about how Sweden's image and trust are affected as a result of the government's policy in these global international contexts is precisely because it is so incredibly important that we move positions globally.

It is a matter of us inspiring each other, agreeing on powerful emission reductions, and then implementing them. We all need to take powerful measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect our populations from the most serious risks resulting from climate change.

What I see from the current government is that last year they went to the international summit. Then they went home to Sweden and have implemented reforms that increase greenhouse gas emissions. We are moving further away from the climate goals that we have agreed upon here in Sweden's Riksdag. It is not a good example for other countries.

Mr. Speaker! I hope that the Minister for Climate can push for Sweden to ramp up its climate policy instead of dismantling it.

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

Joakim Järrebring (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer to my questions. It was rhetorically clever to send the ball back regarding whether we had stuck to our policy. It was almost in the cards that I had already said: No, we could not have done that.

My point was rather that since the government has now made two changes to the reduction obligation, it might have been smarter to approach the restructuring in a different way.

I fully understand that this is difficult. This applies especially when one collaborates with a party that can, at best, be described as skeptical of the causes of climate change.

We will have to continue to delve more specifically into long-term climate policy in the upcoming interpellation debate. I hereby thank you for this debate.

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to Member Järrebring for a good clarification regarding the difficulties for the fuel policy and how Sweden shall handle it even moving forward.

I am very proud that we are now, in 2025, presenting proposals on the reduction obligation that include electricity from public charging stations and which are at a balanced level and which take us towards part of our ESR commitment without unnecessarily burdening households financially.

It is something that I do not judge will lead to such significant price increases on biofuels as the previous reduction obligation did. One only has to look at the websites that provide statistics for fuel prices to notice that.

The prices of biofuels are falling sharply. That might not be so fun for those who had large profit margins in their production of biofuels. But it is certainly good for also increasing the use of biofuels.

I believe that we will see a positive balanced path forward. We will be able to do that even during changes of government if it is the case that the Social Democrats stick to the course that is now stated, where one does not say that one will go back to the previous climate policy with all that it entailed.

Mr. Speaker! I also received remarks here about a high tone of voice. I just want to point out that I can read the word "resign" in every case four times in one of the members' interpellations.

I mean that one might then be more interested in a high-toned debate about whether I should resign or not than in a substantive debate about how we in Sweden should actually work with climate policy, as I and Member Järrebring have been able to devote ourselves to today.

Sweden's image and trust globally are extremely strong. The only thing that causes possible tremors in this are the allegations, not least from the opposition parties nationally, that Sweden would be poor at reducing emissions. We are the best in the EU together with Portugal, and the EU is the best in the world.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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