Response to interpellations 2024/25:542 and 543 on Sweden's climate adaptation and protection against extreme weather
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L argues that the responsibility for climate adaptation primarily lies at the local level where landowners and municipalities are responsible for planning 1. L claims that the government has historically large climate budgets 2 and that state funds are available, but that financing models need clearer laws 3 4. L emphasizes that the restoration of wetlands is a major investment 4. S argues that the government has reduced the budget by 7.3 billion 5 and that it has become financially tougher for the municipalities 6. S criticizes that tax cuts for the richest have been prioritized over the climate budget 7 and argues that Sweden exploits wetlands more than they are restored 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! Joakim Järrebring has asked me what concrete initiatives I intend to take to ensure that Sweden has the necessary resources for climate adaptation and protection against extreme weather.
Joakim Järrebring has also asked me how I intend to achieve Sweden's national and international climate goals when the budget for environment and climate is being cut, and whether it is reasonable for the municipalities to bear the primary responsibility for environmental and climate adaptation without having sufficient resources.
Let me begin by stating that the effects of climate change are already noticeable in Sweden and will become increasingly clearer ahead. Risks and vulnerabilities differ across Sweden and can vary, even at a local level. I want to emphasize that the responsibility for climate adaptation lies primarily at the local level, where land and property owners are responsible for the protection of their property and municipalities are responsible for physical planning.
A year ago, the government presented a revised national strategy and action plan for climate adaptation for the next five years. There, we describe the consequences and challenges in Sweden resulting from a changed climate and state the direction for the national work on climate adaptation.
In connection with the presentation of the strategy in March last year, the government also decided to appoint a new investigation to concretize a part of the proposals in the strategy and the action plan. The purpose of the investigation is to contribute to a society that is better equipped to handle the effects of climate change.
The investigator shall identify obstacles to implementing climate adaptation measures and look at possible financing models to distribute costs between different actors. If necessary, the investigator shall propose new or adapted legislation. I very much look forward to receiving the investigation's proposals at the end of April.
The National Expert Council for Climate Adaptation has been awarded funds to carry out a national climate and vulnerability analysis. That work will become an important basis for identifying which measures need to be taken so that Sweden will be resilient and adapted to a changed climate.
Funds from the climate adaptation grant have been allocated to SGI and SMHI for the current year. The agencies have an important task in supporting, not least municipalities, through preventive and knowledge-enhancing measures.
Through the grant for preventive measures against landslides and other natural disasters, municipalities can, for example, apply for state grants to prevent and reduce the risks of accidents caused by flooding, collapses, landslides or erosion.
Through the grant for avalanche protection in Göta älv, affected municipalities can apply for funds for investment measures that reduce risks and contribute to improving stability conditions along the Göta älv valley. The government's ambitious initiative to rewet wetlands also contributes to climate adaptation as wetlands reduce the risk of flooding and strengthen the landscape's protection against drought and fire.
In response to the question of how I intend to achieve Sweden's national and international climate goals when the budget for environment and climate is being cut, I would like to emphasize that the government stands for an effective and ambitious climate policy to reach our climate goals. Part of that work is carried out through large budget investments within the climate and environment area.
I am proud that the government's budget bill for 2025 reduces emissions and brings us closer to the climate goals. It is a budget that delivers a fair climate transition with broad acceptance in society and a budget that reduces emissions and lowers taxes – simultaneously. The government will return to the question of future appropriations in upcoming budget bills.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the answer!
It is always a challenge when one merges two interpellations and has to handle them simultaneously. I think they differ slightly in their starting points, and I would have liked to have handled them individually.
I must begin by saying that I am very concerned right now. We see the developments in the world, not least in light of the new administration in the USA. And we have chaos, one might still say, when it comes to the national economy.
Both I and the Minister are fully aware that for people who are not politically active and interested, it may not be so clear what the green transition, which we use as a term, actually is. It is about ensuring that we have a functioning environment and functioning ecosystems, that we have biodiversity that can provide us with everything we need from nature, and that we stop using fossil raw materials. That is what the green transition is.
This is very much about new technology, and I perceive that the Social Democrats and also the bourgeois parties have therefore had a great consensus on the importance of the green transition. It is not just about climate and environment but also about growth, prosperity, and welfare. But we have an incredibly worrying situation right now, because to advance new technology, investments are required. If investments are to be made, there must be money, investment-ready capital, and the situation we find ourselves in right now provides anything but stable conditions for investments. It makes me really worried about where we are headed with the green transition in the entire world.
Regarding that fund, one must nevertheless note that the government has reduced the budget in Sweden by 7.3 billion since it took office. That is quite a lot of money.
Then I know that the Minister for Climate and the Environment is careful to say: We are more efficient. We have an efficient climate and environmental policy. We achieve climate and environmental goals with fewer resources.
That may be so. I almost hope the minister is right. It remains to be seen. The government itself makes the assessment that the climate goals will be met with the policy pursued. We shall see in hindsight whether it actually becomes so.
I am, therefore, really worried.
Climate adaptation is about managing the effects of the climate transition, and it is a major challenge.
Many have surely read in various media about how municipalities are having difficulty even denying construction. They are responsible for the physical planning, but they cannot deny construction in flood-affected areas on private land. They have been taught a lesson.
There is a great need to make climate adaptations so that it is safe and secure for people to live and reside in their own municipality. But even here, the government has reduced the climate grant by 35 percent from when they took office to where we are now.
My view is that the economic conditions for both managing the climate transition and the green transition regarding the environment, and managing the climate adaptation, are worse today than they have been in a very long time.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! What is so interesting in this discussion about both climate adaptation and the budget and how it affects the work with climate adaptation is that even though we are talking about figures in relation to the budget, this government is historically high in the expenditures we have in the climate and environmental area. Our budgets are, therefore, very large.
The Speaker pointed out that I should answer that it doesn't matter that we have small budgets because we have a more efficient policy and reach the same results. That is not true, because my answer is that we in this government have historically large climate and environmental budgets. It is simply misleading, I believe, to claim that we are cutting the budget significantly and that this government's climate and environmental budgets are very small.
The fact is that in 2021, the appropriations were such that there were 16.2 billion kronor in the budget for the climate and environment expenditure area. In 2022, they reached the highest level ever, namely 21.9 billion. What is interesting here is that in that year, it was actually the Moderaternas and Kristdemokraternas budget that passed through this chamber, so one can even argue that the previous government at no time has had its own climate and environment budget that has been larger than any of those that we have presented from this government's side.
What is interesting in this discussion, Madam Speaker, is that this applies despite the fact that this government has removed the climate bonus for private individuals. The bonus system with electric car bonuses received a total of over 13 billion, even 13.7 billion, between 2021 and 2024. That is a very large sum of money and a very large proportion of the climate and environment budget. Despite the fact that this government has removed that part, we are very high in our appropriations to the expenditure area for climate and environment.
That is what I mean by that we absolutely do not have small climate and environmental budgets. On the contrary – this government is clearly investing in things that we believe lay a good foundation for the climate transition and the green transition, as the member calls it.
To move on to the questions about adaptation, it is the case that there are certain tasks that are best handled locally. It is neither appropriate nor correct for the state to intervene and carry out individual measures in local areas. I believe the member shares my view on this. However, there seems to be a dividing line here, Madam Speaker, between what we see is needed for Sweden's adaptation work to develop.
Regarding the work with climate adaptation, I have had discussions with municipalities that are subjected to great pressures in terms of climate adaptation. I have visited the municipalities along the Göta älv that are affected by the risk of landslides and rockslides given the environment there. When I speak with those who are most affected by the climate adaptation work, it is actually not money I hear is the primary need. The member may have a different experience. What I hear is that it is difficult to find and hire people who can carry out adaptation measures. There is, therefore, a shortage of people with the competence to carry out specific adaptation measures.
There is another problem that the climate adaptation strategy intends to address, namely a legislative issue that prevents the municipalities from financing measures in private properties or properties owned by anyone other than the municipality, as well as the fact that different municipalities cannot cooperate when a measure in one municipality leads to results in the other. The government is actively working to try to rectify this.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for that answer!
I share the picture of how difficult it is, especially when we talk about water bodies, to prevent floods. It is a major challenge regarding both what the regulatory framework looks like and how it should be solved financially when the effects of climate change manifest downstream and the measures need to be taken upstream in a completely different municipality.
With that said, I still think that those listening to this debate will likely agree with me when I say that the level of urgency in both the climate issue and the environmental issue has increased over time. Issues regarding climate and environment have not been at the top of the political agenda as far back as when I began engaging politically, not quite but soon 30 years ago. They have climbed [up the agenda] for various reasons, perhaps primarily because people are truly starting to notice the negative effects on biodiversity and, above all, the climate changes.
The need to politically prioritize and increase funding for climate and environment has also increased in recent years. It is nevertheless indisputable that this government is allocating 7.3 billion less in the climate and environment budget than when it took office, so the resources have indeed been reduced. The Minister cannot claim otherwise.
The big problem for the municipalities is that we have also had incredibly high inflation. It has affected everyone in society. The municipalities do not have their state grants adjusted for inflation – they are therefore not inflation-protected. Even though the government has injected significant resources, they are insufficient to cover the large cost increases we have had.
A municipality needs to self-finance a larger share of all the costs it has. The state takes a smaller responsibility. The state gives a lower sum to the municipalities for support, even when it concerns climate adaptations. It has therefore become financially tougher for the municipalities to fulfill the mission, but I do not doubt at all the reports the Minister of State has received that it is also a matter of problems finding the right competence. Several of the municipal council members I have spoken with still argue that it is a financial challenge. The financial challenge for the municipalities and the regions is great for all activities. Tough and hard prioritizations need to be made to ensure that a good welfare for the citizens is maintained.
I still maintain that I think this government has taken a step backward and placed a greater responsibility and a greater burden on the municipalities when it comes to the financing of climate adaptation.
Does the Minister really think it is reasonable that the state takes less financial responsibility for the measures that are necessary?
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! It is as the member says. We need to strengthen our resilience throughout Sweden to cope with pressures of many different kinds. Right now, this also applies to pressures such as being subjected to pressure from foreign powers. We need to re-equip in various ways. We also need to re-equip our resilience against pressures due to the weather conditions that prevail and the climate we live in.
Of course, it is the case that the urgency in these matters is increasing, and it is for good reasons. When I myself became politically engaged 12–13 years ago, it was a bit niche to talk about climate and environmental issues. It was nothing that was taken up in the major debates, as other issues dominated then. This was something that sounded a bit exciting, while now it is a very real strain on our society.
I mean that the reason the matter is increasing to such a high extent is not that Sweden lacks the capacity to act or that we are bad at keeping emissions low. I mean that Sweden is a fantastic example in the sense that we have had strong growth and a strong economy while our emissions have significantly decreased. That we are the country in the EU with the lowest emissions per capita is something to take great pride in.
What we, on the other hand, see as the main reason why the matter is increasing, I believe, is that so many other countries are moving in the exact opposite direction. They want to strengthen their economies year after year by increasing their use of fossil fuels and fossil electricity production and other things. It is this that we need to contribute to counteracting to a greater extent. This is done, among other things, by for example ramping up the work on the climate that takes place internationally. It is a focus for the government.
If we return to specifically looking at Sweden nationally, I want to point out that regarding the financing, a large part of what needs to be done concerns more complex issues than just money. I have highlighted this.
However, there are today several opportunities for the municipalities to receive state funding for adaptation measures, including via the landslide protection funding 1:19 in the budget. There, 115 million are available for the year 2025. In the appropriation 2:2 Preventive measures against landslides and other natural disasters, there are over 500 million for the year 2025. It is a sum that went from being much lower to suddenly becoming 500 million just before the last election year. It was a pressure that, not least Miljöpartiet, put forward and which this government is continuing to work on.
I think it becomes a bit gloomy when one points out cuts here and there, because this government continues to work with much of what we notice is a built-up demand from the municipalities. I would, however, like to once again highlight that the municipalities' primary demand concerns the issue that one – even though there are over 500 million available and over 100 million available in another pot specifically regarding Göta älv – cannot use these funds.
Why then can they not be used? Yes, it is among other things because there are no available financing models when different actors are affected: when different municipalities need to join forces or when private property owners who would benefit from an improvement of their properties request this. If one looks at, for example, the public debate, one sees that this is what is being requested from the state. They say: Clarify the laws and give us better conditions so that the funds that are actually available can also be allocated and result in real interventions.
Joakim Järrebring (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, also for this answer!
Of course, I agree that a good number of the measures the government is taking are good. That is not my task as opposition to point out. I am trying to look at the things that I think the government can do better.
I truly believe that I have practically all the municipal councilors – regardless of party affiliation – behind me when I say that it would have been good if this government had actually given the municipalities better economic conditions than what is being done now. And yes, one needs to prioritize when it is a tough situation. Even security policy needs to be prioritized, and there we also agree.
However, we do not agree on how we prioritize other expenditures. This government has prioritized tax cuts for the absolutely wealthiest. The costs of those tax cuts exceed the reduction made regarding the climate and environment budget. One could clearly have prioritized differently.
I think the issue of wetlands as a climate adaptation measure is receiving far too little attention. The Minister himself points out that this is an initiative, and it is a very good initiative. Even more needs to be done in that area.
The problem is that Sweden continues to exploit wetlands to a greater extent than we restore them. If we continue like that, and so to speak eat more than grows, we will never achieve any positive climate effects or climate adaptation effects. Then it won't be good. That is where I think the government would need to take measures – if we are to talk about something other than financing to achieve good climate adaptation.
Statsrådet Romina Pourmokhtari (L)
Madam Speaker! I would like to once again thank the member for a very good debate.
Let me finally just point out that it is very good that the government is now continuing the work that the previous government developed during its last years in government regarding having strong funding for adaptation measures. The municipalities cannot manage this entirely on their own, but the money is available from the state side.
The problem here is that if there are more than 620 million kronor available but the money does not reach actual climate adaptation measures, they serve no function. In that case, they are not even spent. We must ensure that municipalities and places such as Lomma and along Göta älv succeed in carrying out the interventions. For that, people with competence are needed. We hope that we can expand our competence development in Sweden for climate adaptation.
However, clear prerequisites and rules of the game are also needed from the state's side in the form of laws and in the trade-offs made regarding how to finance collective efforts that need to be carried out by several municipalities or several different parties. The Government is working very actively on this. I will receive this investigation at the end of April, and I look forward to continuing this discussion then.
Now that the member is raising one of my very biggest heart issues, I am forced to point out that the work of restoring wetlands is one of the largest initiatives that the government is undertaking in the climate and environmental field. There has never before been as much money for this work as there is today. It is very pleasing that, despite tough times, we can do this. This concerns 355 million in 2024, 435 million kronor in 2025, and 575 million kronor annually between 2026 and 2030. In total, it will be around 3.6 billion kronor for this purpose. It is very positive – but only if the money reaches actually restored wetlands. Let us work for this together.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.