Response to interpellations 2024/25:221, 223 and 225 on the increase of Sweden's emissions

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Aida Birinxhiku has asked me what measures I intend to take to reduce Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions.

Adrian Magnusson has asked me what I and the government are doing so that today's young people and future generations do not have to experience a 3-degree warming, what measures I and the government intend to take to reduce emissions instead of increasing them, and if I intend to request my resignation on the grounds that emissions have increased.

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro has asked me what measures I intend to take to reduce Sweden's greenhouse gas emissions and what measures I intend to take so that Sweden will contribute to more countries living up to the commitments of the Paris Agreement.

The climate issue is one of the great challenges of our time. As the interveners say, today's youth and future generations will have to deal with the consequences of climate change. I would, however, like to emphasize that even today, the world's countries are increasingly affected by extreme weather as a result of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. The effects of climate change are therefore not just something that will affect future generations; this is to the highest degree a real problem already now.

To avoid the increase in the global average temperature exceeding 1 ½ degrees, powerful measures are needed in the short term. The world's total emissions must reach a peak and begin to decrease in the near future.

I have previously stated that Sweden's emissions have not increased since the government took office in the autumn of 2022. Naturvårdsverket 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 simply is not true that emissions have increased since the government took office when it comes to the years for which Naturvårdsverket has published statistics so far.

This year, we expect a temporary increase in emissions as a result of the lowered reduction obligation for 2024. The increase shown by SCB's quarterly statistics is expected and is in line with the assessment of the emissions development that the government makes and reports in its climate report. If the interpellants had read our state budget, this debate could have been held a good while ago.

It should however be pointed out that the quarterly statistics published by SCB differ from Sweden's official emissions statistics, which are published by Naturvårdsverket. SCB publishes statistics on production-based emissions from Swedish actors. This includes, among other things, those that occur outside Sweden's borders. Naturvårdsverket publishes territorial statistics instead, that is, emissions within Sweden's borders. It is the territorial statistics that we report to the EU and the UN and which are used for monitoring Sweden's climate goals and for the Paris Agreement.

That the emissions are judged to increase temporarily in 2024 is primarily due to the reduced 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 had led to rising prices. It was necessary to carry out a reduction to create acceptance for the climate policy and reduce the burden for pressured households and companies.

In this year's proposal for the state budget, we have restructured the policy with a new type of reduction obligation that lowers emissions without raising prices. The new reduction obligation, together with other initiatives in the budget bill for 2025, will lead to a reduction in emissions over the coming years and to Sweden being judged to reach its ESR commitment by 2030 towards the EU with some margin.

Regarding the question of how Sweden should contribute to ensuring that more countries live up to the commitments of the Paris Agreement, I would like to say that I have just returned from COP 29 in Baku, where Sweden, bilaterally, through the EU, and together with other global partners has pushed for increased ambition in climate work.

The Government continues to work on expanding and streamlining climate aid and on contributing to green transition in other countries through the new foreign trade strategy. The Government has also recently appointed an inquiry whose purpose is to submit proposals on how Sweden can strengthen and develop its international climate work. This will become an important basis for continuing to develop the international work and contributing to more countries being able to transition.

From the government's side, we have proceeded step by step with more colors in the broad palette of new policy instruments that we want to see to reduce emissions and reach the climate goals. But more was needed. More solutions and more new proposals were needed to ensure that we reach our national climate goals and ambitious commitments towards the EU both in the short and in the long term. Therefore, we have, among other things, appointed the Policy Instrument Inquiry, which shall continue to fill the government's palette of measures towards the transport sector.

We in the government have begun a new chapter in Swedish climate policy, which we look forward to continuing to write. It has been two years since we began our reorganization of climate policy. As Sweden's Minister for Climate and Environment, I am proud that our ambitious and effective climate policy is beginning to show results.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is certainly the case that the climate policy pursued by the government has begun to show results, namely that Swedish emissions are now increasing. This is clearly and explicitly evident from the quarterly statistics on production-based emissions that SCB publishes, which is the starting point for my question.

The Minister wants to talk about the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's statistics instead. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency indeed publishes territorial statistics every year with a time lag. It is therefore SCB's figures we have to start from to get a picture of the emissions for 2024. They increased during both the first and the second quarter.

If the Minister now so gladly wants to talk about the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's calculations, she should provide a representative picture of what these actually say about Sweden's emission reductions in the coming years. The fact is that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has presented two scenarios - one where Sweden, with the new, increased reduction obligation, just barely meets the EU's climate goals by 2030, and another where Sweden is far from reaching the climate goal. There is therefore no so-called main scenario where Sweden will reach the climate goals, even though the Minister for Climate and Environment gives the impression that is the case. It is not possible to simply pull out the calculation that suits her best.

That emissions are increasing should be something that concerns a climate minister, regardless of whether it happens in Sweden or outside Sweden as a result of Swedish activities, especially considering that the climate transition in the world is heading in completely the wrong direction.

Mr. Speaker! The Minister does not seem at all concerned about SCB's latest figures. She also does not seem concerned about the Konjunkturinstitutet's report, which was published on Monday. It shows that Sweden will not reach the climate goals for 2030 and 2040 with the government's current climate policy.

The Minister for Climate and Environment also does not seem to be concerned about the extensive criticism from the Climate Policy Council and the Fiscal Policy Council. I must say that it is a rather fascinating reaction considering that it is not about individual objections here and there, but about a proper dismantling of the current government's climate policy.

Mr. Speaker! Swedish emissions are increasing, and we are moving further and further away from the climate goals. That is the reality we have to face. The fact that the Minister takes to all conceivable rhetorical devices, such as promising that she will resign, does not change this fact. Therefore, I hope that we can set aside that type of rhetoric and talking points and have a more substantive debate.

What is the Minister concretely doing to reduce emissions and reach the climate goals? Is she prepared to take any new measures following the latest reports from SCB and the Economic Research Institute? Or is the plan still to await the so-called Steering Means Inquiry, which the Minister referred to, which is not supposed to be finished until the end of the mandate period, and let another government solve this? These are my questions to the Minister for Climate.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister Pourmokhtari for the answer, which one must nevertheless say was detailed. In the debate on this answer, we will certainly have reason to paint different lines of division between us, so at least here at the beginning I can afford a somewhat positive tone.

It is like this: The Minister said in an interview in 2022 that she would resign if emissions were to increase with her as minister. That was a rather sharp statement and a statement that committed her. For a politician, so-called cabinet issues, or red lines regarding the office one holds, are one of the most powerful things one can resort to. That is at least my opinion. This was also one of the reasons why I submitted this interpellation.

Mr. Speaker! A few weeks ago, the Minister debated these issues with another member. There were some heated tones, one notices when reading the minutes. We might end up there again today, who knows.

If one dissects the Minister's answer, I think it is quite interesting. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, which is the authority whose figures the Minister wants to use, states that emissions are decreasing for 2022 and 2023. There are no final figures for 2024 yet, but according to the SCB report, which is referred to here and which we interpellants refer to in our interpellations, emissions are increasing. The Minister says that it is because they are production-based - as if that would somehow make them less important, as Member Birinxhiku touched upon!

That is what the Minister says in one breath. In the next breath, she admits in the interpellation response that emissions will increase in 2024 and that it has obviously been the plan all along. Why then make a sharp promise to resign if emissions increase? It becomes something strange.

If the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency were to find next year that emissions increased in 2024 - will the Minister then resign? One could imagine that is the case given what has been said. But in the previous interpellation debate that I referred to, the Minister said that emissions should be measured against how things look when the entire government resigns in 2026. The Minister presumably imagines then that the government loses the election in 2026 and resigns, requests dismissal, or that some party falls out of the Riksdag and the government therefore must request its dismissal.

In that case - if the evaluation is to be made the day the entire Kristersson government resigns - the red line means nothing. Then it would have been better if the Minister had outlined the entire premise and said: I resign with the government if emissions have increased in 2026 according to figures from the following agency. It loses some of its news value and its impact; I understand that too. But it would at least have been honest to express it that way.

One can be critical of these rhetorical devices, just as Member Birinxhiku was pointing out, and especially when they also turn out to be rhetorical devices concerning the fact that the conditions are changing.

Mr. Speaker! The whole thing becomes a kind of semantic exercise where one eventually asks oneself what the minister's words are worth. Absolute statements are apparently not so absolute. It becomes a question of credibility, and no small one, both for the climate minister and for climate policy.

It is here that the shoe pinches for the undersigned. The Minister often says things that are intended to sound powerful and absolute. It sounds as if the Minister is the guarantor for Sweden's youth, and for all other Swedes in that regard, so that emissions do not increase. But when the figures then go the wrong way and point in another direction, she changes the conditions for what she has said. It is a remarkable behavior.

The Minister did not answer the question regarding her resignation in the interpellation response. But she will not be requesting her resignation; I can hear that between the lines. We can perhaps discuss that later.

I will set aside these rhetorical devices that have been used by the Minister for Climate and the Environment and instead align with Aida Birinxhiku's question: What are the concrete measures being proposed?

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister Pourmokhtari for the answer to my question and to the other interpellants' questions. These are incredibly important questions, not only for Sweden but for the whole world.

These are questions that obviously concern very many. There are many who are worried about the future we are heading towards, for it is beginning to become apparent that whether humanity will remain on the surface of the earth is a question of what decisions we make during the time that has been given to us as elected representatives for the moment.

Sweden has for decades been a prominent nation when it comes to climate work. We have sought cooperation with the world's countries to reach a common solution on the climate issue, for as a small nation we are well aware that we cannot do everything ourselves. This applies particularly within the climate area.

Sweden's emissions are very small in comparison to other countries. But nevertheless, we have emissions in Sweden that affect not only our climate but also our air quality and our nature. This applies particularly to the large cities.

It was against the background of national gain through international cooperation that the Social Democrats of the 70s took on the climate issue for the first time. The international work is incredibly important, and I am glad that the government raised climate aid specifically. I would like to dwell a little on that, Mr. Speaker.

In the government's climate action plan, it states that international climate funds are a cornerstone of global climate financing. But when the government took office in 2022, they reduced the appropriations to the world's largest climate fund, GCF, and in 2024, they then chose not to index the support. It is a reduction if one does not choose to increase the support in line with inflation. I believe I have heard Romina Pourmokhtari complain about inflation quite many times, Mr. Speaker, and I would say that this support would be needed for the world's largest climate fund.

Mr. Speaker! We cannot manage this alone. We must do it together. The difference is that we Social Democrats proudly lead the transition. We take on the leadership role to show, through good examples and initiatives in our bilateral and multilateral relations, that the climate crisis can be solved and that it is possible to transition.

Now the government is changing Sweden's climate policy, and not for the better. It seems to only convince Romina Pourmokhtari and no one else. According to CCPI, Sweden's climate index is falling, and we are falling behind Morocco and India. Romina Pourmokhtari can laugh as much as she likes, Mr. Speaker, but some who are not laughing are Sweden's youth and the world's youth, who will have to pay the price. I want us to have a serious debate on these issues.

The government's climate policy has primarily been about removing measures that would have reduced our territorial emissions but also the emissions outside our borders. My question is whether the Minister means that the Climate Change Performance Index is wrong. Is that not correct? Are not Sweden's reduced ambitions for emissions and the signals being sent regarding climate policy some problems? At times it appears as if the government does not care about what panels, experts, and their own agencies think.

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe that people think things and criticize just for the sake of it, but one does it because one wants to guide the government. One wants to give tips, one wants to give advice and one wants to see a different policy that one believes the government can implement.

I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. Now that the aid and climate aid are less – what does Sweden intend to do to improve its reputation and strengthen the image of Sweden as a nation that takes responsibility for the climate crisis? And in what ways does the Minister intend to take initiatives to support countries in their climate transition?

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! This government increased Sweden's climate aid by over 800 million just last year. And here the members stand and talk about reduced climate aid. Read the state budget!

The members of the committee also wonder if the government takes CCPI seriously. Who is CCPI? Have we ever talked about their reviews before? We should perhaps look a bit at who they are. CCPI is an interest organization that, among other things, thought it was good to increase Russian imports of fossil energy in favor of shutting down clean energy in Germany. That is one thing that at least makes me react and wonder a bit what type of organization it is that publishes its own ranking.

CCPI is an organization that claims that Sweden is falling in the climate ranking and that India is better than Sweden. In India, emissions have increased during 19 of the last 20 years. They have, in broad terms, doubled over the last 20 years. In Sweden, emissions over the last 20 years have decreased every year with the exception of certain specific years such as 2009, when we were to recover after a financial crisis, 2021, when we were to recover after the pandemic, and this year, when emissions are estimated to increase slightly because the government is temporarily lowering the reduction obligation.

In this ranking, it is therefore argued that Sweden, whose emissions have decreased every year over the last 20 years with the exception of two, is worse at reducing emissions and worse for the climate than India, whose emissions have increased every year with the exception of one and which has almost doubled its emissions over the last 20 years.

If a measurement shows that Sweden, which has significantly reduced its emissions over the last 20 years, is worse than India, which has nearly doubled its emissions over the last 20 years, at reducing emissions and being good for the climate, it is, in my opinion, simply a flawed ranking. Thus, we have concluded the irrelevant question of a German ranking.

If one is interested in real climate policy – you know, the kind that reduces emissions – one can speak about what Member Magnusson wondered about, Mr. Speaker. He asked which measures are those that are to reduce emissions in Sweden in the coming period.

Let us look at the temporary increase in 2024. If one reads the statistics on Sweden's emissions published by Naturvårdsverket closely, one sees that it is not only the reduction obligation and the policy being actively pursued for intervention purposes that affect Sweden's emissions, but it is also other things. A relevant such thing is when the industry, which has planned to reduce its emissions, needs to postpone its plans because they cannot get the amount of electricity they need.

When I meet people who work with reducing emissions in Sweden, who have large industries or who are active in the transport sector or even in agriculture, where one can produce clean fertilizer, everyone speaks above all else about one important issue. It is an issue that is far more important than all other issues, and it is about how we are to get all the clean electricity that they need for their transition.

It does not matter which government is in power if there is not enough electricity. Electricity is the most important thing for Sweden to succeed with its climate transition. In that area, the government is doing very much that I will not have time to account for during this short time, Mr. Speaker.

The government has increased climate aid by over 800 million. We have initiated various collaborations with other countries to reduce emissions in their countries. Sweden's emissions are assessed to increase temporarily this year, and the assessment in SCB's statistics is completely in line with what we ourselves have calculated in Sweden's climate reporting.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! I am not directly surprised by the tone, as this is how it usually sounds. But it is practically impossible to have an at least somewhat objective and constructive debate when the Minister for Climate issues his statements to mislead, spread inaccuracies about other parties' policies, and repeat the same talking points time and again.

It definitely raises questions about how the preparation in the Government Offices has looked in order to ensure a sufficient basis, but also about the Minister's responsibility to provide a picture of the circumstances that is as accurate as possible.

Mr. Speaker! I had actually intended to delve into something else, but I must address some of the points that the Minister usually repeats in these kinds of debates so that we can, in any case, stick to the facts in this interpellation debate.

Firstly: Just as Member Magnusson stated, the government says that emissions have not increased, only to say in the next breath that emissions are indeed increasing and that it was expected. It is a prime example of misleading and deceptive statements that also do not add up.

Secondly: The Minister states that Sweden is judged to reach the climate goals but does not specify which climate goals it is about. The fact is that Sweden looks set to miss at least three of the four climate goals by 2030. The goal that the Minister actually refers to is the so-called ESR commitment at the EU level. It is judged that it will be reached with some margin, according to the Minister. But as I mentioned in my first speech, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's calculations show that it is equally likely that it will not be reached, and such a scenario is not mentioned by the Minister for Climate and Environment at all.

For the third: To the extent that Sweden meets the ESR target by 2030, it will largely be due to previous governments' emission reductions and the business sector's ambitious transition, which the Minister speaks about but which is now being slowed down due to the government's policy.

Mr. Speaker! I must also address something that I have heard in very many debates: that the government would invest more in the environment and climate area than previous S-led governments. That is not true no matter how you calculate it. What is true, however, is that the environmental budget has decreased every year since this government took office and since Romina Pourmokhtari became Minister for Climate. For 2025, it decreases by approximately 16 percent compared to the previous year.

I understand that it must be difficult to administer this and that one therefore, during press conferences together with the Minister for Finance, claims that these are so-called historical investments, but that does not make it any truer.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to continue but realize that time is running out and therefore want to return to the questions I asked earlier. Is the Minister prepared to take any new measures following the latest reports from SCB and the National Institute of Economic Research? Or is the plan to wait for the report from the Steering Means Inquiry, which will not arrive until the end of the mandate period, which in practice means that one simply lets another government handle the whole thing?

Now that I have taken the time to address one by one the points of speech that we often hear, I would like to give the Minister a new chance to set them aside and answer the questions I had in a factual, constructive, and clarifying manner. That is surely the least one can demand in an interpellation debate, Mr. Speaker.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have an important debate in the chamber today, and I believe that everyone participating in it, the people listening to it, and those who are here in the chamber think so. Climate and environmental issues are important and evoke great engagement, especially among young people.

We interpellators have in this debate largely proceeded from the experiences of young people regarding the climate crisis and the challenges that lie ahead of us. Furthermore, all who are participating in the debate are approximately the same age, even though Aida Birinxhiku now points out that she is somewhat younger.

I want to point out a few things.

The government is very happy to talk about the transport sector. It is very important to transition it if we are to reduce emissions in Sweden. The problem is that representatives for the largest party in the government coalition spend a lot of time casting doubt on, for example, electrified vehicles and how the transition to such vehicles should take place. And it is not particularly little time it concerns, but quite a lot and in many different forums. If we do not transition the transport sector and electrify it, we will probably face serious problems in the climate transition, and then you can talk about electricity as much as you want.

There is also a lot of talk about industry and the business sector. There we have exactly the same situation. Leading representatives for the largest party in the government base scoff when companies within the green transition face economic problems or other concerns. I think it is problematic if one stands here and says that it is important for the market and the business sector to transition while certain representatives in the government base simultaneously scoff when the companies encounter problems.

As I said in my previous speech, it makes the words, the chest-thumping, and the strong statements lose credibility, to say the least. I suspect that the Minister for Climate and Environment will say that it is about another party. That is very possible, but in some way, a dissonance arises when one has such representatives who carry one's policy. That is something one has to take into account.

Another thing government representatives often cite concerns the popular support for climate policy. I believe that quite a few want to save the climate and the planet. As MP Vencu Velasquez Castro touched upon, there are many who are worried about humanity's survival. It is not just about whether one should have 30 degrees warm in parts of Sweden during the summers, but one worries about the planet's survival.

I believe that people want a real climate transition. What people do not want are statements that change over time when one suddenly flips the meaning and says "it was not at all what I said, but it was something completely different." I do not believe that people want to hear things that are misleading or that we say "what, I mean this actually."

There is an English term for this way of acting, but since I am not allowed to speak English in the chamber, I do not say it. I believe the Minister understands what I mean.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! Politics is undeniably engaging, but I still hope that we can have a substantive debate on important issues for the future of Sweden and the world.

I note that the Minister does not want to admit that the image of Sweden as a successful and leading climate nation has deteriorated, but it is probably obvious to everyone that the image of Sweden as a climate nation has unfortunately become worse.

COP 29 recently took place, which Pourmokhtari herself referred to in her response. One can summarize, Mr. Speaker, quite calmly, that COP 29 was a rather tragic gathering. We did not get where we wanted to. We see how more and more countries are withdrawing from climate work. COP 29 can probably be seen by many, perhaps even by Romina Pourmokhtari, as something of a failure.

Mr. Speaker! I am completely convinced that the government has high climate ambitions in comparison with other countries. The problem is that this government still has too low ambitions. If one compares with countries that have extremely poor climate policy, it is clear that it is easy to be the best in the class. But even then, Sweden is not the best in the class, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is actually quite appalling that a liberal minister paints different organizations and figures in this way. I think that we have organizations that independently review and measure how different governments act in their political decisions is a cornerstone of our democracy, Mr. Speaker. But several times, Pourmokhtari and other ministers have ridiculed their work. I do not think that is serious.

Mr. Speaker! On the topic of being the best in class: Ulf Kristersson and Romina Pourmokhtari wrote an article about how Sweden's emissions have decreased by 38 percent since 1990. We can count how many times there has been a Social Democratic government since then. I believe the Speaker has been present and knows that in a majority of the governments, it has been Social Democratic prime ministers who have pursued offensive environmental and climate policies. The green folkhemmet is a concept coined by Göran Persson. To stand and say that it was not the previous governments that made Sweden one of the world's leading environmental and climate nations is to lie, Mr. Speaker.

I would never underestimate the efforts that have actually made Sweden a better country, an equal country, and a gender-equal country. The Reinfeldt government took incredible measures for gender equality and for LGBTQI people. I would never deny the importance of that work. But this is what Romina Pourmokhtari does. In the previous interpellation debate, she said that it is not thanks to the previous government's decisions that Sweden ranks best, Mr. Speaker. But it is because of the previous government's decisions that Sweden ranks among the best in the world. I am proud of the climate policy that we pursued.

To be the best is something one must work for. Right now, the government is not doing that. They are not investing in environmental and climate policy in a credible way. They are losing rank after rank. It is actually the case that several nations do not see Sweden as a leading climate nation.

Mr. Speaker! Of course, it is so that we shall work within the EU. Our bilateral relations are also incredibly important in the climate work. But we shall be the best, because we know that it can have effects, such as investments in Sweden and a strengthened image of Sweden. Therefore, I want to know: Why does Romina Pourmokhtari only want to be average and not the best? Forgive me for speaking English, Mr. Speaker!

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Let me then begin again by commenting that one is referring to an organization's ranking. This organization considers that Sweden is worse than India at reducing emissions and being good for the climate. India's emissions have nearly doubled over the last 20 years, while Sweden's have decreased by over a third. It is remarkable, I think, that it is that measurement one considers to be good – the measurement that suggests it is good to import fossil fuels from Russia. But that can be left to the Social Democrats. It can be recorded in the minutes of this interpellation debate that one considers that type of measurement and that type of organization to be suitable to lead the debate we have today in the chamber, Mr. Speaker.

It is argued that Sweden's international credibility has decreased significantly. That is, in that case, not least due to the mudslinging that is currently taking place. Member Vencu Velasquez Castro says that Sweden's government has reduced Sweden's climate aid. That we have reduced climate aid was the last thing the member said in his first speech in the debate before he left and sat down. In fact, the government increased Sweden's climate aid by over 800 million just last year.

When we took office, we wrote in the Tidö Agreement that climate aid would increase, and we have increased it. We have done so because we have made prioritizations in the aid work that Sweden carries out. The previous government claimed that it would increase its climate aid. Then it could not live up to that. A lot of things happened in the world that caused it then not to increase its climate aid.

I mean that Aida Birinxhiku is completely right when she says that we should have substantive debates in the chamber. However, it is difficult to have substantive debates when claims that are not true are thrown out, such as that this government would have reduced Sweden's climate aid. That is not true. Sweden has increased its climate aid.

A question was asked about state budgets, even though I have not mentioned it and even though it has not been discussed here in the debate earlier. The only budget that has been larger than the climate and environment budgets that I have presented as Minister for Climate and Environment in this government is the budget for 2022. The budget for 2022 was the M-KD-SD budget that received approval in this chamber. This means that all the budgets we have presented have been larger than all the own budgets that the S-MP government got through. If one means that that statement is not correct, one simply has to read the figures in the state budgets.

When I say at one moment that Sweden's emissions have not increased, only to say at another moment that we estimate they will increase this year and that SCB's measurements are in line with our assessment, it is argued that I am speaking falsely or lying. There was also talk of an English term that I am not to use in the chamber.

I have heard that Member Birinxhiku is a lawyer. Therefore, she should understand what I am now describing to her. There is a difference in meaning between the words "forecast" and "result". The forecast is based on an assessment of how large the emissions will be. The result is the actual outcome of emissions according to what we have been able to measure. When I say that Sweden's emissions have not increased since I took office, I am referring to Sweden's official statistics, which the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency retrieves. In addition, there are calculations and assessments that we ourselves make, where we mean that emissions are expected to increase slightly in 2024.

Another question that is apparently considered relevant for this debate is whether I intend to resign or not. What I have explained in an interview during a COP meeting is that if we move further away from Sweden's climate goals and Sweden's emissions increase, I will resign. The assessment right now is that Sweden's emissions will be lower in 2026 than when I took office. Thus, this government has reduced emissions, not increased them.

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

TALMANNEN

Regarding the question of what language one may use in the chamber, it states the following in the rules of procedure: "Speeches shall be delivered in Swedish. Short quotes or phrases may, however, be uttered in other languages."

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! I previously gave the former Minister for Climate Romina Pourmokhtari a new chance to answer my questions in a factual, constructive and truthful manner, that is, by sticking to the facts, which also applies to the state budget, being transparent about the consequences of its own policy and specifying what the government can do better to reduce emissions and reach the climate goals.

But it is the same talking points, and they are equally misleading and deceptive. I regret it, but I choose to see it for what it really is: proof that no one seems to believe in this government's climate policy, not even the climate minister herself. I assume that is why she seems to be more upset over justified criticism from the opposition in an interpellation debate than over the fact that the climate transition is heading in completely the wrong direction.

Mr. Speaker! Even though I do not believe in the government's climate policy, I do believe in Minister Romina Pourmokhtari's commitment to these issues. I want to do so in any case, because I know that the Minister herself has conceded that she shares the view that it is going far too slowly. It is from that reality that the climate issue deserves to be discussed – that is when we will get somewhere – not from the talking points that the Minister repeats in this and so many other debates.

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

Adrian Magnusson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite obvious that what worries the Minister for Climate and Environment is not SCB's report. It is justified criticism from the opposition, as Member Birinxhiku said. What we are currently carrying out here is part of the parliamentary oversight power.

It is also quite remarkable that one pulls out some calculations and figures that suit oneself. When the conclusions from an organization do not suit one, one denigrates it in various ways. I am surprised that no actions against SCB have been taken yet by the government. But perhaps it will come in another context, who knows. It is what it is.

As I said in my previous speech, this is an important issue for very many people, and not least for many of Sweden's young people. It is an issue that engages. It clearly engages here in this chamber, and it also engages far outside this chamber. We are fully aware of that.

I return to the question of resignation. I think it is problematic when one makes those types of promises and then changes the conditions over time. I personally do not think the government should resign. I think the government should be held accountable for its policy in the 2026 election campaign.

As the Liberal Minister for Climate and Environment, she must face the voters and explain what she has administered over four years. It is the strongly Sweden Democrat-influenced climate policy that she has pursued for four years. I do not think the Minister for Climate and Environment should resign. She must face the voters and Sweden's youth and defend what she has done during the four years that have passed.

This has been an enlightening debate in many ways. We can only hope that we avoid gaslighting in the future.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Romina Pourmokhtari, for a lively debate, one might still say.

I would like to clarify a bit regarding climate aid. Inaccuracies were stated regarding the Social Democrats' policy, and I do not like that.

The previous government gave the climate fund 8 billion kronor in 2020-2023. This government gives 8 billion kronor to the climate fund. What Romina Pourmokhtari refers to, 800 million in investments, is other money for a new fund, Mr. Speaker, which will be distributed annually. During that time, 800 million kronor will have been given. The Social Democratic government also added extra money, 520 million kronor each to two other funds.

If it is the case that inflation has hit hard, is that not a real reduction of the support to the climate fund, Romina Pourmokhtari? The previous government gave 8 billion, and the current government gives 8 billion. Since then, according to the Minister himself, there have been historical inflation increases. Is it a real reduction, yes or no? It is yes.

I also note that the Minister seems to be incredibly angry with me, Mr. Speaker. But when I speak with civil society, organizations, the Swedish people, and above all Swedish young people, it is Romina Pourmokhtari they are angry at. They are not angry at me.

Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is not I who is the Minister for Environment and Climate. It is Romina Pourmokhtari. It is not I who is responsible for the policy being pursued. It is Romina Pourmokhtari. She is the one today's youth are disappointed in, and today's Social Democrats. But it is perhaps not shocking.

Mr. Speaker! It is important for Sweden to be a leading climate nation. I would like to conclude with the words of the former Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson: "In no area are we more clearly united with one another than in environmental policy. In no other area is it so clearly demonstrated how dependent we are on one another. But also, in no other area is the need greater for someone to go ahead, for someone to dare to be first."

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

Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Member Vencu Velasquez Castro chose to sit down with the concluding sentence of his first speech: that Sweden has reduced its aid to the climate, not to the global climate fund. If it is about different specific funds, the member's various claims about real increases and other things may certainly be correct. But the member said that the government has reduced Sweden's climate aid, and that is not true. The government has increased Sweden's climate aid.

That is why I get angry at the members. That is why I become genuinely furious that the members stand in the chamber of the Riksdag and make claims that are not true. It is argued that the government is reducing climate aid and that the climate transition is heading in completely the wrong direction.

Sweden's emissions decreased in 2022 and 2023. They are estimated to increase slightly in 2024, to then decrease again in 2025, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030 thanks to the climate policy pursued by the government.

It is simply a matter of the government implementing the EU's emissions trading system as broadly and as early as possible. We complement it with various initiatives to transition the heavy vehicle fleet. We begin a transition of agriculture, which previous governments have done nothing about. We take responsibility for the industry's electricity supply. When that happens, we live with a certain margin up to the toughest climate targets that exist for Sweden, which is our ESR commitment towards the EU. It is an annual emissions path until 2030.

Mr. Speaker! I am outraged. I am angry. It is a completely true statement. The reason I am becoming so is that Sweden is one of the world's best countries when it comes to climate transition.

The reason why we are so far ahead is, among other things, that we built nuclear power in the 70s. They listened to Bengt Westerberg instead of the Socialdemokraternas plans to build coal power plants along the entire coast. It was a debate that we had to conduct vigorously.

Now we must have the same debate. Without electricity, Sweden's emissions will unfortunately cease to be the lowest in the EU, as they are now per capita, together with Portugal's.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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