Response to interpellations 2025/26:362 and 391 on the transport goal and Sweden's climate direction
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the transport goal and Sweden's climate direction. L argues that the climate policy framework serves Sweden well 1 and that the goal of net-zero emissions by 2045 provides long-term conditions for the business sector 1. L argues that the government is investing in charging infrastructure, heavy transport, and electric car premiums 2, that the reduced reduction obligation contributed to pushing down inflation 3 and that it is in Sweden's interest that the climate goals are aligned with the EU's goals 3. L argues that the government is working to improve instruments to reduce emissions and strengthen competitiveness 4. S argues that the government has failed to create long-term political consensus 5 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! Aylin Nouri has asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Housing whether it is his opinion that the national transport goal of a 70 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 should remain and whether the Minister intends to take any actions based on that.
Aida Birinxhiku has asked me if I and the government intend to abolish the transport target in accordance with the statement from Minister for Climate and Environment Romina Pourmokhtari, despite the broad agreement in the Environmental Goals Commission and the climate minister's previous statements on the importance of standing firm on the climate goals.
The work within the government is distributed such that it is I who am to answer both interpellations, and I choose to answer the interpellations collectively.
The climate policy framework serves Sweden well, and the goal of reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 at the latest and negative emissions thereafter provides long-term conditions for the business sector and society to carry out the transition that is required. The national interim targets are important as checkpoints on the way towards net-zero emissions.
The interim target for domestic transport means that emissions from the sector shall be reduced by 70 percent by 2030 compared to 2010. This is a faster emission reduction than what is required for the long-term net-zero target to be reached. It is also overlapping and more strict than Sweden's interim target and EU commitment for the ESR sector 2030, where the transport sector is one of the largest parts. To reach the target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045, the focus should primarily lie on carrying out a comprehensive electrification of the transport sector.
In January 2025, the Environmental Goals Commission was tasked with evaluating and submitting proposals on how the national interim targets can be designed so that they better align with Sweden's commitments within the EU and effectively steer towards Sweden's climate goals: net-zero emissions by 2045 at the latest. The Environmental Goals Commission has submitted its report to the government, and this is being prepared in the Government Offices.
Aylin Nouri (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, even though it raises more questions than those I had initially.
I requested a debate with the Minister for Infrastructure because I want to know what the government minister responsible for transport policy thinks about the transport goal. It is fully legitimate that I, as a legislator, wonder what the Minister for Transport has to say about the transport goal, and I regret that he for some reason could not be here and that the uncertainty about what applies continues to be great.
What I asked was simple. Should the transport goal remain fixed or not? I have not received that answer from Minister Britz. Instead, we get an argument that the goal is more ambitious than what is required and that the focus should be on electrification. My question remains.
Mr. Speaker! For a long time, Sweden has been at the forefront when it comes to climate policy. We showed that it was possible to combine climate investments and reduced emissions with jobs, investments, and increased growth. It was a strength for Sweden, and it created confidence. Today, the development is different. Emissions are increasing, unemployment is high, and growth is weak. In a situation where other countries are increasing the pace of the climate transition, Sweden is backing down – this in a time when the clock is ticking. It is a serious situation.
Mr. Speaker! This is not a natural development but a result of political decisions. The government has managed the feat of both increasing emissions and worsening the conditions for jobs, investments, and competitiveness. It is difficult to see this as anything other than a major failure.
The transport goal has fulfilled an important function. It has created a clear direction. Companies that invest in new technology and regions that plan their infrastructure need to know what the rules are. The entire transport sector needs stable rules of the game. When the government now opens up for changing the goal, a great uncertainty is created.
This is about predictability. When politics changes course and goals are questioned, investments are directly affected. We see it in both the industry and the entire transport sector. Infrastructure policy follows the same pattern. It is proposed to scrap projects that are already planned and decisions that have already been made, which makes it harder to plan.
Instead of presenting policies that reach the goals, the government is starting to change the goals. It undermines the entire confidence in the transport policy and the possibilities to invest in a Sweden that is strong and competitive.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer to my interpellation as well.
Let me go back to October 30, 2025, that is, when the Environmental Goals Commission submitted its report, for then Climate and Environment Minister Romina Pourmokhtari stated that she hoped "that we are finished with nonsense about allegedly abolished climate goals or lowered ambitions, because it is not worthy of Sweden." Just a few weeks later, specifically on February 24 this year, the same minister announced that she wants to abolish the transport goal for 2030. This happened, therefore, barely four months later. As recently as last Saturday, we could also read that Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson considers that the Swedish transport goal serves no function.
Mr. Speaker! We thus have a situation where the parties in the Riksdag in a preparatory committee have worked hard to establish stable rules of the game for climate policy, but where the Minister shortly thereafter chooses to deviate from this and do the exact opposite of what the preparatory committee agreed upon.
This is a development within the Liberals and the Moderates that I can only regret, because we are used to being able to join forces with these parties on important issues for Sweden. Having broad agreements is something that has historically served Sweden well, but entering into such agreements has become much more difficult in recent years. In area after area, we see that the government fails to create long-term political consensus and instead chooses to polarize. This obviously creates a great deal of concern, not least within the business sector.
Mr. Speaker! I agree with the Minister that a comprehensive electrification of the transport sector needs to be carried out. But even on this point, the government is failing. Electric car sales have stood still for nearly three years, and the forecasts for the rate of electrification are being revised downwards. Unfortunately, we see the same worrying development also when it comes to the electrification of heavy transport. Here, the government has been extremely passive.
Mr. Speaker! I would like to return to the Environmental Goals Commission, because there was one party in the commission that pursued a completely different line and which wanted to scrap the transport goal for 2030 from the beginning. It was the Sweden Democrats. Say what one wants about the Sweden Democrats' climate policy, but in any case, they have been consistent. They said from the beginning that they wanted to scrap the transport goal for 2030, but the Minister for Climate and Environment said no and pretended to hold back. Now we see that the government parties have pivoted and that in practice it is the Sweden Democrats' line that is being prepared in the Government Offices, but it seems that Minister Johan Britz does not want to be held accountable.
The fact is that we are not getting any answer as to what has caused the shift. What is it that has actually changed? That was exactly the question that my colleagues asked in an interpellation debate recently and received no answer to. What was it that made the Minister for Climate and Environment go from underlining the importance of sticking to the transport goal for 2030 to then wanting to abandon it? What was it that changed in reality in barely four months?
Jytte Guteland (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for his presence here in the Riksdag and for the answer to my colleagues' questions, but much remains before it feels as though the written answers we have received to the questions are sufficient. I, too, have previously asked about the climate goals and specifically about the transport goal.
I myself joined the Environmental Goals Commission on behalf of the Social Democrats, and it was with pleasure that I noted at the end of October last year that we were in agreement on the broad strokes of the ambitions for 2030. To ensure nothing is unclear: This does not mean that we are in agreement on climate policy, for we have very different views on the tools. We have an ambitious climate policy with many tools to reduce emissions, while the government has remained passive when it comes to climate policy. But we were in agreement that we would reach the goals and that we would not abolish the transport goal.
It was a broad agreement in the Environmental Goals Preparation, but still, the government, in the form of the now parental-leave climate minister, said that the transport goal shall be abolished. To be clear towards everyone listening to the debate: The only party that thought this was reasonable was the Sverigedemokraterna, who were the party that reserved themselves.
The liberal climate minister, who is now on parental leave, therefore chose to sit in the lap of the Sverigedemokraterna instead of listening to all the democratic parties that exist in the Riksdag and who were in agreement on this issue that it was a very bad signal to decide at the last minute to abolish a goal just because one thinks it is tough to reach.
It is both weak leadership and very poor democratic leadership, when so many parties are in agreement and have worked together for several months. From the minister's side, it was a bit of neglecting and turning one's back on the Riksdag. Therefore, I, together with my colleagues, am very interested in finding out what the current acting Minister for Climate thinks about the same issue. It would have been nice if the acting minister could change the picture and realize that there is a consensus in the Riksdag and that one can turn to the democratic parties, who are not radical far-right, and listen to us instead. We want to keep the transport goal. We do not think it is nice to abolish it just because it is tough at the end to reach the same.
In conclusion, I want to say here in my contribution that it is also a weak leadership when it comes to the Swedish companies. Volvo's CEO Martin Lundstedt came out this week and said that jobs risk ending up in China instead of in Europe if we do not achieve electrification faster. It is also Swedish jobs that are at stake.
Volvo is one of the companies that we are historically proud of in Sweden, and I think that a liberal acting Minister for Climate who is also responsible for the labor market policy would want to take a serious opposition in hand that we want a leadership in Sweden that secures tomorrow's jobs. Is it not a reasonable question from us, that we should be able to take in hand to secure the jobs and the climate together?
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! Let me again begin by thanking you very much for the interpellations.
It is important that we increase the pace of electrification of the transport sector. During this mandate period, the government has taken several measures to reduce emissions and transition the transport sector. For example, there has never been such a large investment in the expansion of new charging infrastructure. The expansion rate per year has more than doubled compared to previous mandate periods, and furthermore, we are investing heavily so that heavy transport can transition at a faster pace, with among other things record-high support for electric trucks, buses, and work machines.
I can also state that electric car sales in Sweden are the second highest in the EU. This is a work that continues continuously, and as recently as March 18 this year, the new electric car premium, which specifically targets households in rural areas, began to apply. The interest so far has been very great, which is pleasing.
In the spring budget amendment that has just been presented, a new compensation to state agencies is proposed to reduce the use of fossil fuels, as well as a reinforcement of the recently introduced electric car premium. All these policy instruments are assessed to reduce emissions from the transport sector.
Aylin Nouri (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Minister has so far in this debate had two chances to answer my very simple question: Is the transport goal fixed or not? I have not received an answer, but I hope that it will be the third time for luck and that the Minister can answer the question from me and my colleagues.
The Minister for Finance and the Liberals point out that it is the content of the policy that is decisive, so let us then examine just the content a bit more closely.
First, we have the electrification. Electric car sales have slowed down. This occurred in 2022, the same year the Tidö parties came to power. Steering mechanisms have been removed, and it has become cheaper to drive fossil. This affects the pace of the transition. Sweden has lost momentum compared to other countries. Sweden stands at around 35 percent new electric cars. The corresponding figure in Denmark is closer to 70 percent and almost 100 percent in Norway, but in Sweden, we are therefore at around 35 percent.
Another area that we could examine more closely is the scrapping premium. It has been highlighted by the government as an important tool, where they have invested around half a billion, but the outcome has been an enormous failure. A large part of the allocated funds, specifically around 90 percent, has never been used. The number of scrapped cars during 2025 was historically low, the lowest level in the entire 2000s.
A third area that could be examined more closely is the railway. We have agreed here in the Swedish Riksdag that more transport needs to be shifted over to sea and rail to reduce emissions. This government began its mandate period by scrapping the plans for new capacity. Then, they increased the appropriations to handle the maintenance debt on our roads by over 50 percent. The equivalent on the railway side was 5 percent, which does not even cover inflation and cost increases, and thus it became, in practice, a cut on the railway.
Now there are proposals regarding a number of large, important projects that have already been decided, where the state has already stepped out and guaranteed, promised, our municipalities and regions and the business community that there will be railway investments. They are now going to be scrapped.
Mr. Speaker! These are, therefore, three examples of the content of the policy. Electrification is losing momentum, investments in the railway are being postponed, scrapped, or characterized by great uncertainty, and the business community's interest in investing in Sweden has become a big question mark. Right now, 25 percent of the investment companies in Sweden are considering leaving the country because the rules of the game are not clear – 25 percent!
I am asking my questions to the Minister for the third time: Will the transport target remain firm? If not, what is the plan to reduce emissions within the transport sector? And how can companies, municipalities, and regions be able to trust the state when the state shows that it cannot be trusted?
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, even though it was not much of an answer to my question.
I asked the Minister what it was that caused the Minister for Climate and Environment to, in barely four months, go from underlining the importance of sticking to the transport target for 2030 to, as stated, barely four months or 17 weeks later, wanting to abolish that target.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is that it would have been significantly more responsible of the Minister for Climate to say it as it is – that due to this government's policy, the conditions for reaching the climate goal have deteriorated significantly. The government has for nearly four years actively pursued a policy that has moved Sweden further away from the climate goal. It would be appropriate if the Minister could acknowledge that today.
Mr. Speaker! My colleague accounted for the developments when it comes to electrification. I would like to lay out the text regarding the electrification of heavy transport, because there we see that the development is proceeding very slowly in Sweden and in Europe.
In China, around 60 percent of new trucks are electric. In Sweden, that share is 6–7 percent. This is something that hits Swedish jobs and the Swedish economy directly, especially considering how significant the Swedish automotive industry is for Sweden.
Mr. Speaker, I will be constructive and list a few things that we Social Democrats would like to see. I would like to hear if the Minister can answer how the government views these measures.
We Social Democrats would like to have a long-term handshake with the business community to ensure stable rules of the game and strengthen the conditions for new investments. We also want a broad energy agreement. We would also like to see a national plan specifically for the transport industry.
This could be about stronger economic incentives. One could, for example, review the tax on electricity and achieve a functioning charging infrastructure for heavy transport because we know that existing charging stations run the risk of being closed due to power fees. Additionally, one can work more actively with stricter requirements in public procurement.
These are three concrete proposals that I would very much like to hear how the Minister stands on.
Mr. Speaker! How the government and the Minister for Climate have chosen to handle the Environmental Goals Commission is an example of the sharp turns and the inconsistency that has characterized this government's climate policy, which has reduced the industry's willingness to invest and made it both more expensive and more difficult to transition.
We have a Minister for Climate who promised to resign if Sweden were to move further away from the climate goals, but who now, when we do so, instead chooses to abolish the climate goal that one fails to reach.
We also have a climate minister who first promised to resign if the Sweden Democrats were given seats in the government, only to then threaten to resign if the Sweden Democrats are not given seats in the government. And now, in practice, their line is being prepared in the Government Offices.
Mr. Speaker! I want to ask my questions again. What is it that has changed so drastically in reality during these barely four months? And if no dramatic change has occurred, could it be that the government's failed climate policy is the explanation itself? Can the Minister acknowledge it and take responsibility for it in this debate?
Jytte Guteland (S)
Mr. Speaker! I also want to repeat the question as to whether the government intends to maintain the transport goal.
Which of the messages applies – the one that was launched some time ago or the one that was launched four months earlier about it being important with Miljömålsberedningens decision on the transport goal and other climate goals? It was changed, as said, in four months. I also want to ask that question again because we do not get an answer from the minister here today and clarity is important.
I also intended, in line with my colleagues, to go through the concerns we have right now with the Swedish government's policy in the area. It concerns the jobs, it concerns democracy, and it concerns the climate.
The first thing is the jobs. Here, several companies in Sweden, large ones, have joined together in various initiatives and urged the government to be clearer regarding climate policy.
We have the Hague Initiative, which criticizes the government for not being clear regarding the climate policy.
We have a number of companies that have joined together with WWF and criticize the government's lack of clarity regarding electrification.
We have financial companies that criticize the government for not being clear regarding climate policy, which also affects jobs in Sweden in the future enormously.
The second thing is democracy. The Environmental Goals Commission agreed that we need common rules of the game. Nevertheless, the government chooses to submit to the only party that reserved itself on the issue: the Sweden Democrats, the most extreme party. Why does a liberal minister choose to do so?
The third, last but not least, is the climate policy. The government's climate policy is currently being criticized by almost all instances for being insufficient. Why does the government not want to change it when the companies are screaming for an ambitious climate policy?
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! I think it is a very good discussion we are having here in the chamber of the Swedish Riksdag this fine afternoon.
I have a few reflections that I would like the members to take with them and, preferably, also answer.
One is about fuel prices. How do you view the development of fuel prices in this country? One reason why emissions increased last year was the reduced reduction obligation, which met a need among Swedish voters, Swedish residents, by contributing to pushing down inflation and strengthening their household finances.
The second one is about electrification. There is a lot of talk about this today, and it is very good. Electrification is the key to all climate transition. There will be no climate transition if we do not manage to electrify things and matters. Then the question becomes: Where will the fossil-free electricity come from? Will it come from nuclear power, or from where will it come? I would very much like to hear that.
We can look at the Swedish climate goals and particularly the interim goal for 2030. These goals were set when the climate policy framework was adopted in 2017. It has now been almost ten years, and the world has changed significantly. One of the most important changes is that the EU's climate goals have been updated and tightened.
In connection with the adoption of the climate policy framework by the Swedish Riksdag, it was also noted that if the EU updates its goals, there will also be reason to update Sweden's goals. These two things are the reasons why the Environmental Objectives Council was tasked with proposing updated interim targets for 2030.
It is entirely in Sweden's interest that our goals are aligned with our EU commitments and the EU's goals. The goal for domestic transport by 2030 is designed in such a way that other sectors would, in practice, not need to reduce their emissions by 2030. This would reduce the transition pressure for those sectors, which risks leading to sub-optimization, where transport buyers and travelers are affected by higher prices than would otherwise have been necessary.
As has been noted previously, the Environmental Goals Commission submitted its report on 30 October, and as I have noted earlier in this discussion, it is now being prepared in the Government Offices.
Aylin Nouri (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answers!
It is astonishing that after the Tidö parties have had four years to govern Sweden, there is still a lack of a plan for which direction our country should take. We cannot be informed about which goals apply to transport policy and for climate policy.
We Social Democrats do not demand any beautiful words on a piece of paper, but a direction that enables a stronger Sweden, ensures that Sweden's competitiveness is strengthened, and allows us to do something about the sky-high unemployment that prevails. What the government has actually managed to achieve during these nearly four years is, as I said, the feat of increasing emissions, reducing growth, and increasing unemployment, and it is the Swedish people who lose out on that.
Sweden needs a different direction. It needs to be a country where companies and the business sector dare to invest and where municipalities and regions trust the state's word. Yet, investments are conspicuous by their absence, and that is not sufficient. It is time to change direction, and it is time to combine a strong climate policy with public investments in the railway, in accelerating electrification, and in making the climate transition both possible and fair.
For this, we Social Democrats have a proposal and a plan that can hold our country together, but after four years in government, the Tidö parties lack that direction, and that is why it is time for a new government.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Mr. Speaker and Minister! I am not getting answers to my questions here, but I noted that the Minister asked two questions – one about fuel prices and one about energy policy – and I shall answer those now.
I think it is a bit strange to try to explain the abolition of the transport target for 2030 with the change of the reduction obligation almost four years ago. I want to remind that even we Social Democrats acted after the war of aggression in Ukraine started. We paused the reduction obligation, and we lowered the tax on fuels. The problem we have ended up in now, Mr. Speaker, is that this government has scrapped steering instruments without having a plan for what we are going to do moving forward.
We Social Democrats want to see more Swedish biofuels in the tank, and this government is failing at that. We Social Democrats want to increase the pace of electrification, and on that point as well, the government is failing. We Social Democrats also want more cheap fossil-free electricity in the near term, and there too, the government is failing. The fact is that we have a situation where the government has increased our dependence on fossil fuels and made households more vulnerable to the price changes at the pump that we see right now, and I think the government should take responsibility for that.
Mr. Speaker! The second question concerned energy policy. I will be clear also regarding this: We Social Democrats see that all fossil-free types of power are needed. We cannot afford to pit them against each other, but we need everything from wind power to nuclear power. It is also therefore why we, the business community, and those who are to make these types of extensive investments want to see a broad energy agreement.
Why does the Minister not want that? Why does the Minister want to put spokes in the wheels of all necessary expansion of fossil-free electricity production? To put it as Minister Ebba Busch did: Why does the Minister want to make new nuclear power more expensive?
Arbetsmarknadsminister och vikarierande klimat- och miljöministern Johan Britz (L)
Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a situation where it is a matter of electrifying for the sake of the climate, and this government has a policy for that. However, it is not only for the sake of the climate that we need to electrify and increase the production of fossil-free electricity. We also need to become more energy independent, which the developments in the Middle East over the last few weeks show, not least. We also need to electrify for the sake of competitiveness.
The Government is firmly determined that we shall reach the long-term climate goal 2045, and with our policy the conditions for this to be possible are improved because we have a policy for electrification.
The Swedish climate goals are ambitious and cannot be reached easily. Many of the low-hanging fruits have already been picked. We already have a largely fossil-free electricity system, something that many countries can only dream of, and we therefore need to expand this further to be able to take more steps. The government is also working continuously to analyze and improve the instruments that exist which can reduce emissions in a way that strengthens competitiveness and social acceptance.
Thank you very much for this discussion and for the interpellations!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.