Response to interpellations 2025/26:69 and 81 on measures to achieve climate goals

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! Åsa Westlund has asked me what measures I and the government intend to take so that the climate goal for the ESR sector shall be reached.

Aida Birinxhiku has asked me what concrete measures I and the government intend to take during the mandate period to ensure that Sweden fulfills its commitment within the ESR sector by 2030, in light of the fact that the government's own forecasts in the budget bill for 2026 now show that further measures are required.

Let me begin by saying that Sweden, like all member states in the EU, is bound by the EU's ESR Regulation, and the government is working to ensure that Sweden lives up to its ESR commitment.

Sweden has some of the toughest ESR commitments until 2030. This includes emissions primarily from road transport, construction machinery, and agriculture. To be able to reach the commitment, the electrification of the transport sector is completely central. The Government therefore included in the budget bill for 2026 (prop. 2025/26:1) several proposals that accelerate the transition of the vehicle fleet: The climate premiums for light electric trucks are extended. Klimatklivet – which, among other things, finances the expansion of charging infrastructure throughout our country – receives a billion-kronor supplement. And the introduction of an electric car premium aimed at households living in rural areas is made possible. Furthermore, fossil-free work trips are favored by making the temporary tax exemption for a charging station at the workplace permanent.

Preliminary calculations show that the government's proposed and announced reforms in the budget bill can collectively reduce emissions within the ESR sector by approximately 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents during the period 2026–2030. The gap to the ESR commitment is therefore expected to decrease to approximately 4.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, regardless of the developments in the LULUCF sector.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's scenarios show that emissions are expected to decrease in the future, and the measures in this year's budget bill are expected to lead to further emission reductions. It is positive that this year's budget contributes to reduced emissions. The Government assesses, however, that further measures are required for us to succeed in reaching our ESR commitment by 2030.

As part of this, the government has appointed the so-called Steering Means Inquiry, which in May 2026 shall present an analysis of which steering means can be designed to phase out fossil fuels from the ESR sector at the pace required to reach the long-term climate goal for 2045 in a cost-effective and socio-economically efficient manner, as well as the EU commitments that Sweden also has in the climate area.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for so clearly making it clear that the government has no plans to return with more proposals to reduce climate emissions. That means, Mr. Speaker, that the government is leaving a substantial outstanding bill behind in the climate work.

Swedish emissions have increased sharply. Sweden has missed valuable time in the transition. Swedish taxpayers risk having to pay billions in EU fines due to the government's failure. Vehicle owners risk a price shock at the pump when the EU legislation comes into force in a few years. No major investments have been made during the mandate period to increase Swedish production of biofuels, and the pace of electrification has been slowed down.

The Minister for Climate and Environment often points out himself that the climate transition contains many opportunities. I truly agree. This is incredibly important for the competitiveness of Swedish industry. If handled correctly, the climate transition can create jobs and growth in Sweden, but still, for the government, a policy that increases emissions and simultaneously weakens growth.

The latest available statistics on an annual basis show the largest increase in emissions since 2010. There was a sharp increase in emissions, 7 percentage points, in 2024 as a direct consequence of SD's and the government's policy. Within the EU, it was only Malta that increased emissions more than Sweden.

The Climate Policy Council, the Fiscal Policy Council, the OECD, and the National Audit Office have all criticized the government's climate policy to the core. At the same time, more and more reports are arriving on how acute the situation is for our climate.

The Minister for Climate has herself promised that she would resign if "we move further away from Sweden's climate goals." Sweden has, therefore, done exactly that with all clarity. Emissions are now at a higher level than they would have been without the SD government's policy. Still, the Minister for Climate remains in office. Why, Mr. Speaker? Did her words mean nothing even to herself? I understand that this was a way of saying to herself: There is a moral limit to what I am prepared to participate in.

It is all the more important, then, to stand up for what one promises oneself and others and to keep one's word. The Minister for Climate and Environment is welcome to explain why we should trust what she says in the future, when she does not stand by this.

The government has, therefore, despite promises to the voters that they stand behind the climate goals, simply ignored presenting proposals that lead there. It is also what the Minister for Climate and Environment notes in his response to me. The government has no proposals on how the goals are to be reached. It is, of course, a great betrayal of the voters, to whom this was promised. It is a great betrayal of all those people who will be affected by floods, heavy rainfall, or extreme drought. Swedish industry, which could have contributed to reducing emissions and creating new jobs, has also been betrayed by this government in this and many other ways.

At the same time, there are many months left of the mandate period. My question is, of course: Has the Minister for Climate and Environment completely given up the idea of passing a climate policy during her time in power that actually leads to the climate policy goals, as she and other representatives from the government parties promised the voters in 2022?

(Applause)

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for Climate and Environment for the answer to my interpellation!

In our latest interpellation debate that we had in the chamber, the Minister for Climate and Environment answered that Sweden is judged to reach its ESR commitment by 2030 with some margin. But in the government's budget bill for 2026, it is clearly and explicitly stated that this is not the case and that the gap is furthermore larger than what the Climate Minister has previously expressed. It is therefore why I have submitted this interpellation, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister began his response to the interpellation by pointing out certain initiatives in the budget bill for 2026 that are expected to lead to reduced emissions. This is, of course, positive and something that we Social Democrats also agree to in our budget proposal. But the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that these initiatives are not sufficient. The government itself states this in its own budget bill.

What then is the minister's answer for how Sweden can reach its ESR commitment by 2030? Well, after hearing the answer, I think it seems to be that one should await an investigation, the so-called Styrmedelsutredningen. It is supposed to be finished in May 2026, that is to say, shortly before the election. It cannot be interpreted in any other way than that the government has no plan to present further measures during the mandate period. The plan seems to be that one should hand over this work to the next government.

Mr. Speaker! Since there is no plan, I can understand that it may be more convenient to stick to talking points that shift the focus away from the issue at hand.

A clear example is precisely the minister's resignation promise, which my colleague Åsa Westlund mentioned. It is true that Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari has said: I will resign if Sweden's emissions increase and we move further away from the climate goals.

Increased was exactly what the emissions did in 2024. It was the largest increase in emissions in 15 years, just as Åsa Westlund accounted for. Then the minister has backed away from this statement and said: I will not resign, because when the government leaves, in 2026, emissions are expected to be lower than when the government took office, in 2022.

Mr. Speaker! No matter how you turn and twist it, it simply does not add up. What would be the point of making a commitment that cannot be evaluated before the mandate period is over?

Mr. Speaker! We who have read the material also see that there are actually no updated official calculations in the budget bill showing that emissions would be lower in 2026 than when the government took office in 2022. What we do know for certain, however, is that emissions have increased more so far than the government has calculated. What we also know following the National Audit Office's report is that the government has not clearly reported these uncertainties and that one also risks overestimating the effect of measures already taken.

I want to ask the Minister for Climate what the point is with making those types of promises, which still do not contribute to a serious or objective debate. And if we can get that question clarified, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat what is actually the subject of my interpellation but which I have not received any answer to: If the Minister himself notes that existing policy is not sufficient to reach the goals, why does the Minister not then present new policy that ensures we reach the goal?

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is not often that I am ashamed to be Swedish, but when I see how the government dismantles the climate work and increases emissions, I actually am.

A major reason why emissions are increasing is that the government has made it cheaper with fossil fuels. I want to clarify that I am the first to sign on to the fact that people who are dependent on the car to get to work, preschool, and football practice should be able to do so without being ruined. On the other hand, I think the government made a complete mistake when they chose to lower the price at the pump for the entire vehicle fleet instead of directing support to those who need it the most, that is, those who live far out in rural areas where there are no other alternatives. As it stands today, Mr. Speaker, it actually doesn't matter whether it is the Minister for Environment and Climate who drives a car in central Stockholm or if it is I who drive a car at home in the forest in western Värmland – it has become cheaper regardless.

The consequences of this are clear. Emissions are increasing, and we risk not reaching our set climate goals. My question to the minister therefore is: Why did the government choose to lower the prices of fuels for everyone instead of moving forward with targeted investments for those who are dependent on the car to manage everyday life?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I also wish to participate in the debate and ask the relevant questions that the interpellants have raised regarding how the Minister and the Government intend to reach the climate goals by 2030.

Swedish emissions have increased significantly during the climate minister's and the government's time in power. We have seen that the increase when it comes to the full year was 7 percent for 2024, which is the largest increase in emissions in 15 years. My colleagues have also pointed out that the climate minister has had a high tail-end in the debate and claimed that she will resign if the emissions curve does not go down during her time in power, which is far from what we see right now.

At the beginning of the autumn, the Minister for Climate stated that new figures from Naturvårdsverket indicate that we will see a deficit of 5.8 million tons of carbon dioxide by 2030 in relation to the EU's requirements for Sweden. In Svenska Dagbladet Näringsliv, we could read similar horror headlines about how Sweden, according to the government's new figures, could miss the EU's climate goals by as much as 70 million tons. The Minister for Climate's colleague, the Minister for EU Affairs, was not particularly concerned about this but thought she would rather take billion-euro fines from the EU than take drastic measures that would close this gap. One might think that is a rather irresponsible policy, because I do not believe the Swedish people are on board with us paying billion-euro fines because we do not strengthen and improve Swedish competitiveness through a green transition.

But if the Minister for Climate and Environment does not think that the opposition's concern over climate policy is important to take to heart, perhaps the Minister for Climate and Environment will become more concerned when Svenskt Näringsliv expresses concern. They do, in fact. They are concerned about passivity and lack of clarity, and Swedish companies have shown this in several ways. The technology companies, for example, wrote in a sharp debate article this week that Europe now more than ever needs a clear and predictable climate policy. They also urge Sweden to provide clarity regarding the EU's ambitions in the climate area. There, the Swedish government has actually, at the EU level, undermined the target needed for 2040 through various concessions that mean other countries should do the work instead of Sweden and the EU.

My question is exactly the one the interpellants are asking: Will we see new climate reforms during the short time the Minister for Climate and Environment has left in power, or was this a major exit ramp for the Minister for Climate and Environment, for the government, and above all for Swedish climate policy?

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

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! I will do my best to answer these four contributions within the time I have at my disposal.

We can start with the statements from members Westlund and Guteland regarding the fact that Swedish industry has been betrayed and that the business community's demand that the government should work for high ambition in the EU, stability, and long-termism in the EU is being totally opposed. Is there any evidence for these statements? Is there anything concrete that one can point to that would show that we are betraying Swedish industry and Swedish business in their will, seen in relation to climate goals and ambitions within the green transition?

The facts we have to show regarding that work are extremely clear: What Swedish industry is crying out for is clean and reliable energy – the kind of energy that your government devoted itself to dismantling during its years in power. One of the biggest concerns that Swedish industrial leaders have right now is where they are to get all the clean electricity required for the transition. How can one dare to produce clean steel when one cannot get answers on whether there is enough electricity to produce clean steel? How is one to transition their production of cars from internal combustion engines to batteries when the opposition discusses closing down mines, while a bourgeois government talks about how we are to get a stronger mining industry in Sweden? How is one as a Swedish forest owner to trust that the Swedish forest industry has a future when one hears statements that Sweden should live up to 70 million tons in terms of LULUCF uptake and carbon uptake in the forest? To succeed in reaching the 70 million tons that the Social Democrats refer to and criticize the government for not delivering on, one would therefore, in principle, have to have a ban on logging in Swedish forests for a very, very long time.

It is a very strange logic, because if one looks at what the business sector is requesting, namely long-term perspective as Member Guteland clearly stated, that is precisely what the government is working for. We have negotiated very hard to achieve a 90-percent goal by 2040. It is a long-term perspective that the business sector has requested. The discussions we have had with the commission have been about Sweden not having to shut down its nuclear power and relying on other energy sources to meet the EU's energy and climate goals. These are requirements that we have set and requirements that the business sector is requesting.

What the business community demands – stability and long-term perspective – is exactly what the government is trying to provide them. We do not do this only by talking about what high goals we should have in the form of, for example, 90 percent, but by ensuring that there are good conditions to live up to the climate goals, that is to say, clean electricity – something that the industry is crying out for after your years of betrayal and decommissioned nuclear power.

High ambition and long-term perspective are what the business community demands, and that is precisely what the government is working for.

It would be good if we talked more about how Sweden is going to succeed with our climate goals. As far as I know, the Social Democrats have no proposals to deliver on 70 million tons. It is a bit strange. Member Guteland perhaps does not remember the discussion she had in the EU Committee where the Prime Minister quite clearly pointed out what all Social Democrats can now get the chance to hear here in the chamber: You are posers in climate policy when you claim that you can bridge this gap of 70 million tons. You do not live up to any 70 million tons in your budget proposals. We are talking about ESR goals today, which are 4.3 million. That gap of 70 million tons to LULUCF that Sweden has right now, none of your political proposals can live up to. None of your budgets deliver on these 70 million tons, because it is a very high goal that is very difficult to reach due to many different things that cannot be influenced politically.

Let us have a slightly more objective debate on climate policy – I look forward to continuing it today!

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! We have a Minister for Climate who represents a government consisting of parties that promised the voters to meet the climate goals. Then, emissions are increased. One receives criticism and begins to refer to a climate action plan that is to come. When it finally arrives, it contains no concrete measures. The Minister even puts her good name on the line and says that if climate emissions increase and we move further away from the goals, she will leave the government. Then she would resign.

After that, another budget is presented without measures that live up to the climate goals and reference is made to a steering mechanism investigation. Then one has the nerve to say that others are posing in climate policy.

Didn't this government go to the election on a platform of pursuing an effective climate policy? What is an effective climate policy if not reduced emissions? If you increase emissions like this, it obviously doesn't make a huge difference if they decrease slightly during the current year. The problem is that the government has abolished important policy instruments. There were surely reasons for that. Even we in the Social Democrats, I would like to remind you, lowered the tax on fuels and paused the reduction obligation during our time in power.

However, this is being done without having a plan forward for what to do instead. One does not want to invest in biofuels. One does not want to ensure that we get the electrification moving. This is nothing other than irresponsible.

The Minister for Climate asks what concrete evidence there is that this government is failing the industry in terms of climate and competitiveness. I do not know which industries the Minister for Climate meets. Perhaps it will only be pleasant conversations. But to us, they express that they are very worried.

In Sweden, we have two enormously large automotive industries. They have, of course, suffered greatly from the fact that the government abolished steering measures and did not replace them with new ones. Their domestic market is, of course, very tough. If we compare with, for example, China, we see that in Sweden, just over 1 percent of all heavy vehicles sold are electric, while the corresponding figure in China is 35 percent. It is not strange that they are worried about what is happening. What is the government's plan to support this incredibly important industry for jobs, growth, and the climate in Sweden? There are no proposals.

What we have heard here today is not enough. The industrial companies argue that the proposals currently in the budget bill are not sufficient. They are having a very tough time right now.

It was a concrete answer to the question, and I expect to receive an equally concrete answer in return: What further measures is the government prepared to take to meet the climate goals but also to strengthen jobs and growth in our country?

There are obviously more examples. In this budget, the government is reducing the support for Industriklivet by more than half compared to previous years. The green credits have been paused. The talks about an energy agreement, which the industry is requesting, have been abandoned. The industry wants an energy agreement that is not just about nuclear power, but one that delivers more electricity here and now and in the future.

It was the Liberals and some other party that told the Minister for Energy: "Now you cannot continue with this anymore. We cannot imagine this. We would rather have nuclear power as the punching bag in the political debate." If that is anything, it is posing. It is a great betrayal of the voters and the trust that has been received from the Swedish people.

(Applause)

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will start by saying that I am happy to debate energy policy with Romina Pourmokhtari, even though I have primarily devoted myself to doing so with her department head Ebba Busch. But the Minister for Climate and Environment understands very well that new nuclear power in 10–15 years cannot be the answer to how Sweden will reach its ESR commitment by 2030, which is what is the subject of the interpellation right now.

Since I myself did not receive a clear answer to my question, I shall, unlike Romina Pourmokhtari, give a clear answer on what we Social Democrats want in energy policy. We want to expand all necessary fossil-free electricity production, including new nuclear power. The question is whether Climate Minister Romina Pourmokhtari and the Liberals want that.

The Minister for Climate asked what the business community is demanding. Well, the business community is demanding broad, long-term, and stable rules of the game. They want to see a broad energy agreement to achieve an expansion of electricity production on-site. That is what the minister says, and the Liberals say no to. It is exactly this desire to have some kind of energy policy culture war in the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, that puts spokes in the wheels of new nuclear power and for an increased expansion of fossil-free electricity production.

Mr. Speaker! The Minister for Climate also asked what we Social Democrats want to do. Åsa Westlund answered that. I can also answer the question. We would have wanted to use these years to accelerate electrification and increase Swedish biofuel production, not to postpone emission reductions that still need to be made and which will only make it more expensive in the long run. With this government, there will be a price shock at the pump in 2027 when new EU rules begin to apply.

I also think it would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister for Climate and Environment could openly report what consequences this will have for households and companies. By that, I mean billion-dollar fines for missed climate targets. I mean the price shock at the pump in 2027, when new rules begin to apply. I mean the climate changes that will affect us. They are already affecting us today in the form of floods and landslides, while the minister is now cutting the appropriations for the county administrative boards' work with climate adaptation measures.

I am also thinking about the costs of missed investments and lost job opportunities when the industry's green transition is now being slowed down, when the broad energy agreement cannot be put in place, which many of us in other parties, including Romina Pourmokhtari's department head, would like to have. What will the costs be for that? It will be very expensive for Swedish households and companies.

Mr. Speaker! Let us return to the interpellation question itself. I received no answer to my question. I just want to repeat that the emission increase that occurred in 2024 obviously contributes to a large part of the buffer that Sweden has built up within the ESR sectors now risking being eaten up and that it will become even harder to reach our ESR commitment by 2030.

What is the answer then? What concrete measures will the Minister present? To answer that question by saying that one is waiting for an investigation that is to be finished in May before the election is, especially considering that the proposals need to be referred and prepared in the Government Offices, the same as saying that one plans to leave a promissory note for the next government. That, Mr. Speaker, will cost Swedish households and companies very dearly.

(Applause)

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

Sofia Skönnbrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can state that I did not receive any answer from the Minister regarding my question. Just as the Minister said, time is short, but I am making a new attempt.

The problem is, just as my colleague Åsa Westlund said, that the government chose to lower the reduction obligation to the EU's minimum level and the tax on gasoline and diesel. But the government has not been able to answer how to compensate for the increased emissions that it has entailed and will entail. The question is who will take the hit. Is it agriculture or forestry?

I therefore want to ask the minister again whether she thinks it was the right decision to lower the price at the pump for the entire vehicle fleet, even if it leads to increased emissions. Would it not have been better to move forward with a targeted initiative for residents in rural areas who are directly dependent on the car to make their daily lives work?

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Just as my colleagues note, we are not receiving answers to our questions. We are not being told what measures the Minister intends to implement to accelerate the emission reductions.

There is a short time left in office for the Minister for Climate, but it is still time to govern, to ensure that new instruments are put into motion and not just claim that one will wait for an instrument investigation or some other preparation. The government needs to get moving. We see, in fact, that emission reductions slowed down with this government and that we instead got increased emissions. They have increased more than in 15 years, which is deeply alarming. There is also a great risk that we will receive billion-euro fines because we do not reach the EU targets by 2030.

The Minister for Climate and Environment gets angry, calls me a poser and is terribly irritated that she is getting questions about what the government wants to do with climate policy. I, however, am very happy to answer what we want.

We want to reach an energy agreement to provide the industry with stable conditions to transition. That is something the Tidögänget did not succeed with; instead, they quarreled with each other.

We want to achieve an electrification because we know how important it is, not least for Swedish companies. There are several car manufacturers that have really invested in this but who are deeply concerned.

We want to ensure that Swedish biofuels work and achieve predictability there.

What does the Minister for Climate want to do to save the Swedish people from billion-dollar fines – and above all, to stand up for his ministerial portfolio, that is, to be Climate Minister and ensure that global warming is stopped?

(Applause)

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

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! What does the government want to do in concrete terms to reduce emissions by 2030? Here are five examples that you in the Social Democrats can take with you and look at. You might be able to compare our budgets and think a bit about what you think, in contrast to what the government is driving.

Firstly, we want to restore wetlands. Sweden has never invested more money in the restoration of wetlands than during this government. You Social Democrats did not invest as much as we do on restoring wetlands; there have never been this many funds for it.

Secondly, we want to provide support for electric trucks. Member Westlund mentioned the heavy vehicle sector, and it has thus received support thanks to the government. That support is called market introduction support, and it means that companies that want to buy clean heavy vehicles receive support from the government to do so.

Thirdly, we want a climate step that is larger than ever before, and therefore we have ensured that it is. There has, therefore, never been such a large climate step as during this government. The climate step is larger than ever before – larger than during the red-green period – and is used to expand the charging infrastructure in our entire elongated country so that more can see electric cars or hybrids as an alternative.

For the fourth, we have the reduction obligation, which is absolutely not at the EU's minimum level. Last time I checked, Sweden's reduction obligation was 10 percent. It is also interesting that several of you Social Democrats are participating in this debate and that you obviously have slightly different views on fuel policy. It is very interesting that one member says that you also want to lower prices at the pump and that the other member asks why we lowered prices at the pump.

For the fifth, we have a support measure that I would like to bring up and which came about at this government's initiative. We call it Kväveklivet, and it is a new support to begin a transition of the agricultural sector. It is a support that ensures that those farmers and producers who want to reduce their emissions of ammonia and nitrogen can receive support from the government.

We received some inspiration from, for example, Klimatklivet, which we believe is a good support for the climate transition in Sweden. It works. Therefore, we ensured that Klimatklivet became larger than ever before – larger than during your time – and additionally started a nitrogen step (kvävekliv). The nitrogen step is, as you know, something that opens up for transition within the agricultural sector, which is a sector where transition has practically not existed. The emission level has remained completely still, and nothing has been done regarding this. Therefore, the government is doing it.

So! There you have five examples that you can go home and look at! You thought that there are no examples, which is not true.

There is, however, something else that you need to look at and which I think is quite relevant. You gave no answer on how a reduction of 70 million carbon dioxide equivalents is to be achieved, Jytte Guteland. You spoke of 70 million from the rostrum, and then you mentioned that in your budget you have climate policy for electrification and various supports. With those supports, however, one will not come anywhere near 70 million.

That is what I mean by posing. I mean that it is unreasonable to talk about our government not living up to 70 million. You are not doing that either, because 70 million is a very high figure. What we are discussing today is an ESR commitment to 2030 which concerns 4.3 million carbon dioxide equivalents. It would be good if we could have a debate about the same climate goal and the same figure, so to speak.

It is absolutely true that energy policy is very relevant to what is to be done, and the government has made very many different energy policy interventions. If you ask those who work with nuclear power in Sweden, I do not think they would agree with Member Birinxhiku that we are putting spokes in the wheels of new nuclear power. I think it is quite obvious: When this government was not in power, nuclear power was phased out, and when this government is in power, Vattenfall plans to build nuclear power. Let that speak for itself!

In addition to that, we are taking measures for wind power. We appointed an investigation early on that looks at how the processes for offshore wind power in Sweden can be simplified so that it actually becomes profitable and attractive to build offshore wind in Sweden, in contrast to during your mandate period. We are also taking measures for land-based wind power because it states in the Tidö Agreement that wind power has an important role in Sweden's energy mix. We are developing support for local communities so that they will want to build land-based wind power, and we notice that those initiatives are making a difference.

There is, therefore, much to debate further, and I look forward to doing so.

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

Åsa Westlund (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is somewhat fascinating to hear such a satisfied Minister for Climate and Environment. A few years ago, she promised to resign if the situation became as it is today, and today she is beating her breast over what she has achieved – despite the fact that emissions have increased more than in 15 years.

I hope that the Minister for Climate and Environment has at some point looked at what the opposition actually proposes and also seen that we have not said no to any of the proposals that the Minister for Climate and Environment is now lamenting. On the contrary, we have said yes. However, during this parliamentary term, and also in our latest budget motion, we have allocated much more money to transitioning Sweden. We have allocated more money to industry, more money to charging infrastructure, and overall more money to the environment and climate.

Looking at it overall, it is easy to see that the government has cut back on climate and environment. The budget for climate and environment was 21.8 billion when you took over, Romina Pourmokhtari, and now it stands at 19.6 billion. It is a significant reduction in ambition. If one also, as one must do, takes inflation into account, everyone understands that the budget has decreased much more than that.

We Social Democrats want a just climate policy. Sweden has been a pioneer. We have relatively low emissions per capita, thanks to previous governments. This government has unfortunately reversed the development, and we are constantly met with a shocked environment wondering what Sweden is doing.

I hope that we receive the confidence to lead Sweden again – and that the Minister for Climate and Environment can perhaps account for why she has not resigned and why she has thrown in the towel already before she resigns at the election.

(Applause)

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can only state that I still have not received an answer to my question.

The Minister for Climate listed five measures here that the government in its own budget bill states are not sufficient to fulfill the ESR commitment by 2030. To the question of what additional measures the minister is prepared to take, we simply get no answer. There is, in fact, no plan, Mr. Speaker. The government's plan seems to be to leave a loose end for the next government, by the time the Styrmedelsutredningen's proposals are ready.

Therefore, I understand that it may be more convenient to stick to these five points and try to shift the focus, Mr. Speaker, but I will now give Romina Pourmokhtari one last chance.

Firstly, she can give clear answers to the questions that we from the opposition have asked in this interpellation debate.

Secondly, she can be thorough and transparent about the consequences of her own policy and who will pay the price for reduced growth and increased emissions.

Last but not least, she can present concrete measures that contribute in a credible way to achieving the goals on time and contribute to Sweden reaching the climate goals that we have agreed upon here in the Riksdag.

I give Romina Pourmokhtari one last chance to spend less time on her points of order and more time taking responsibility for the policy that the government has pursued in recent years and what it means for the climate, jobs, and Swedish competitiveness.

(Applause)

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

Klimat- och miljöministern Romina Pourmokhtari (L)

Mr. Speaker! We therefore have a reality in Sweden where emissions decreased in 2022 and 2023 but increased in 2024 and are now projected to decrease again in 2025 and 2026. That is the reality. In 2024, emissions increased, absolutely. Why did they do that? Well, because the government handled a hangover from the Social Democrats' policy. You had a sky-high reduction obligation, which you paused as soon as Miljöpartiet disappeared from power. You give very fine promises that you as a party also have a policy so that it won't be extremely expensive at the pump. The problem is only that you were supposed to govern with other parties that do not have this policy. It would be elegant if you were honest about what your climate policy entails, and it would be relevant to know if it will be 28 kronor per liter for diesel again at a change of power.

I hope that there will not be a change of power. I do not expect that we will lose power and leave a deficit. I expect that the Swedish people want to continue with a Tidö government and continue on the path we have charted, where it does not cost 28 kronor per liter to refuel, which some members seemed to think was a good thing while others were more critical. We also look forward to continuing the climate work that needs to take place in Sweden and which requires an electrification, and then Sweden needs to have more clean electricity and more initiatives that enable the business sector to succeed with its transition, for example simplified permit processes, and other things, which perhaps do not sound as quick and efficient as higher taxes but which make a difference.

Sweden has had the lowest emissions per capita in the EU under this government. There are many examples of when the red-greens have governed and Sweden has not had the lowest emissions per capita. But I will not throw it in the opposition's face, because I think the climate debate should be better than that.

There is a reason why Member Westlund could only refer to the year 2022, for it was indeed the only year when the climate and environment budget was larger than our climate and environment budgets. It was also the year when the Social Democrats actually did not get their budget through in the chamber.

The interpellation debate was hereby concluded.

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