Road traffic and vehicle issues

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now we shall debate Road Traffic and Vehicle Issues. The report deals with almost 120 different motion proposals, and there are 35 reservations.

Sweden will manage to meet both the new technology as well as digitalization and self-driving cars. We will also manage to reach the climate goals. The Government has developed a new climate policy action plan that is more realistic and adapted to Sweden's conditions and which will ensure that we reach the climate goals by 2045.

If Sweden is to maintain growth, jobs and companies, we cannot have an environmental policy that is harsher than other EU countries' and that punishes our companies and threatens the countryside. Sweden will, of course, take responsibility for our part of the problem, but other countries must also take responsibility for their parts for it to succeed. Having fuel prices that wipe out companies, jobs and the entire countryside is not acceptable. Therefore, we have lowered the reduction obligation to a more reasonable level.

We are now working on securing a substantial expansion of new electricity production. Here, new nuclear power is an important building block. It is necessary for Sweden to produce more electricity to meet the electricity demand and the transition. It is not enough to just set up new charging stations. There must also be electricity and capacity in the charging stations. The government is actively working on this. The previous government's shutdown of nuclear power has put Sweden in a difficult situation that we are now trying to rectify.

The work of utilizing and developing biofuels must also continue as a complement in the transition, not least because we need to increase Swedish livestock production and food production. The self-sufficiency rate is low, only about 50 percent on certain necessary foods. Increased livestock production also increases the possibilities for increased biofuel production.

If Sweden is to be able to increase food and animal production, other measures are also needed, for example reducing the wolf population so that we get a more bearable existence in the countryside.

Mr. Speaker! In order for us to manage the electrification and the transition, a number of different measures are required. The Government has therefore appointed a special investigator to increase the work on electrification. These measures will soon be reported in the investigation, which is to be completed by 31 December 2024.

Trials of self-driving cars are ongoing both in Sweden and in other countries. It is the Transport Agency that grants permission for the various trials. It is important that digitalization keeps up and that our roads and road markings really work. More and better maintenance is required here. It is important that Sweden keeps up. We would like to see more trials and trial areas. Sweden is a vehicle country. Of course, we should be part of the new technology.

The questions are being investigated at the Government Offices, and we hope for both fast and good results. As early as July 1, 2024, these vehicles will be able to be used on certain lines and within certain areas. It is important that we politicians push our agencies so that they do not lose momentum.

Mr. Speaker! The deregulation of vehicle inspections on July 1, 2010, has led to positive results: more stations and more times to choose from. This makes it easier for customers, not least now in the spring when many caravans and motorcycles are to be inspected. On the other hand, we must keep an extra eye on ensuring that more flexible and mobile inspection stations can be developed, especially in rural areas.

To re-regulate the market, as the Social Democrats have proposed, is absolutely not the solution to these problems. Who wants to return to the long queues and the lack of inspection times that Sweden had before deregulation? Or is it the Social Democrats' dream to try to make things even more difficult for the country's vehicle owners? We clearly say no to the re-regulation of the inspection market.

Mr. Speaker! Even this year it has snowed and been cold in Sweden, and the snow removal has been put to the test this winter. Sweden is a country in the Nordics where we have winters. Even though some of the Miljöpartiet's representatives have long claimed that the snow should cease to fall, they have constantly been wrong in these prophecies. Snow has come, and it will continue to come here in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to snow removal and the maintenance of our roads, the criticism is actually justified. Sweden's roads must function both in summer and winter, and Trafikverket is responsible for managing this. But that has obviously not been achieved. In addition to this, the vehicle owner also naturally has a responsibility to have tires and equipment in order so that one can manage to travel on winter road conditions.

Mr. Speaker! Trafikverket's snow removal policy has clearly shown itself not to work. The chaos on the E22 is one proof. The snowfall in Götaland at the beginning of April is another. It is about a lack of capacity, a lack of competence and knowledge, over-reliance on digital cameras, and a procurement system that limits the supply and the willingness to clear snow. The local knowledge and anchoring have been removed, and the coordination does not work. It is not possible to manage snow removal in the country from a desk in Stockholm.

Mr. Speaker! Poor maintenance of roads is a threat to growth, to companies and to jobs and risks leading to serious traffic accidents. Salting must also be reviewed, so that it truly prevents ice and slipperiness and does not instead create ice and snow roads. Today's snow removal strategy must be reviewed and adapted to reality. Sweden is a country with snow and ice. Snow removal capacity must, of course, be adapted accordingly. Otherwise, we risk traffic accidents and human lives all around our country.

Mr. Speaker! Snow clearing too late leads to remaining snow and ice on the road, and driving with the blade raised from the road surface has very little effect. When it comes to snow clearing, the Minister and the Government have now given Trafikverket a mandate to review this. I can promise that I will monitor this very closely. We can no longer have it this way during the winters in Sweden. We will have winter and snow in Sweden for the foreseeable future. It is therefore a matter of adapting to that and ensuring that we have the capacity, resources, and knowledge to manage clearing the country's roads.

Mr. Speaker! The previous government's eagerness to try to build an unprofitable high-speed train came at the expense of the maintenance and management of the country's roads and railways. Thus, the previous government has also worsened the country's infrastructure. We are now working to try to rectify the large maintenance debt regarding the country's roads that the S-government left behind. Sweden's vehicle owners should not have to ski slalom between potholes and pits on the country's major road network. Now, the country's roads must be managed, and the damages must be rectified.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to municipal environmental zones, there is a great risk that they will hinder necessary transport and freedom of movement. The municipalities must conduct an even better total analysis of what the closure of streets and areas entails before closing streets and areas in their municipality. One must, at the very least, look at it from a business policy perspective. One cannot simply shut down areas; larger analyses must be prepared before it happens. We will keep a watchful eye on how the municipalities actually manage these trade-offs.

Mr. Speaker! The work to be able to drive longer and heavier vehicles must be prioritized by the responsible authorities. Finland has managed this both faster and more simply, while Sweden lags in the work. Here we are pushing forward and want to see a faster development and adaptation to longer and heavier vehicles, not least to strengthen competitiveness and to reduce emissions by having longer and heavier trucks.

Mr. Speaker! That cars are stolen or driven onto others' land and abandoned is not acceptable. Abandoned vehicles must become easier for landowners to move. Today, the landowner takes the hit when one cannot find out who owns or has had the vehicle. Today, vehicles can stand for months, deteriorate, and pose a danger to people and nature. This work must clarify the issue of responsibility even further, and society must be able to quickly move these abandoned vehicles to a more suitable location for further investigation and potential scrapping.

Today, the responsibility lies with the municipality, the police, or Trafikverket depending on where the vehicle is located. But regardless of who has the responsibility, the handling is far too slow. The goal is that an abandoned vehicle should be able to be moved as soon as possible or at the latest within a week. A vehicle that has been abandoned and is in a more acute state of malfunction must, of course, be moved immediately. Here, the responsible authorities must act significantly faster.

Mr. Speaker! We also safeguard the historical vehicles. The previous government and its agencies tried to classify these vehicles as waste. Fortunately, they were forced to back down from this, and the import of vintage cars can continue. Those who work with historical vehicles do a great job and help to preserve them. This should be encouraged and rewarded, not opposed. We and the government are actively working to facilitate matters for the owners of the country's historical vehicles. We must take responsibility for and care for our rolling cultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker! The regulatory framework for signage along our roads should be reviewed, as many motorists naturally want to be informed about what activities and sights there are in the area. Signage can be both digital and physical. The restrictions imposed by the Transport Administration and the County Administrative Boards on signage along our roads may therefore need to be reviewed.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against the reservations.

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin by giving Sten Bergheden a great accolade. I looked back a bit at what we discussed and debated in this area last year. Today, Sten Bergheden speaks about climate and environment and about the transition, which is completely necessary. Then, however, I do not agree with Sten Bergheden regarding what he says. I think that Sten Bergheden should explain.

The government, together with the Sweden Democrats, produced a climate action plan that the Sweden Democrats supported. Then, it did not take very long before the Sweden Democrats felt that Fit for 55 and the decisions made at the EU level should be torn up.

The Climate Policy Council, which is the government's expert body in this area, slams the government's climate action plan - to put it mildly. Sten Bergheden says that climate policy must be brought to a more realistic level. But how then does one intend to actually fulfill the goals that Sweden has committed to?

The production of biofuels must continue, says Sten Bergheden. I read as recently as today that it is seen that the consumption of HVO is decreasing due to the government's subsidies of fossil fuels. Even though I am satisfied that Sten Bergheden raises the issue, I therefore think that there is a great deal for the member to explain.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Carina Ödebrink, for the questions and for the contribution! I will begin with the part concerning the environment. We politicians are elected to take care of the whole of society. Climate policy is obviously a priority issue, but we must also ensure that companies and the countryside function and that companies and other entities here in this country that have good production, environmental focus, and other such qualities can continue to develop.

Setting excessively strict requirements on our own production and then importing from other countries is not good climate policy for the planet as a whole. It is about us taking responsibility for our part, as I said in my speech, and that the other countries must take responsibility for their part. I think it is important that we continue to push, but we cannot go so far ahead that we risk our jobs and companies, because then we drive out a production that is more environmentally friendly than in many other places. We must move in step with the others.

We must also take into account that the voters in this country want a certain direction for the politics. That is why they have chosen a different government than the previous one. It is important to listen to the democracy here in the country and do what the voters have tasked us to do.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have several questions for Sten Bergheden, but I will begin with what was said last regarding that one must take responsibility for the whole and ensure that the country functions. Yes! But it is still the case that we have a number of goals and commitments as a country that we must fulfill and which we have been involved in developing.

It is not a matter of either or; it is a matter of both. For us Social Democrats, it is obvious that Sweden must have the lead. We shall ensure that we develop and strengthen jobs while we carry out the green transition. It is regrettable that the SD government does not take that lead.

Sten Bergheden mentioned the situation on the inspection market. I will address it in my contribution later. It was a question that Sten Bergheden also highlighted in his contribution last year and said it was something they would closely monitor and return to. But the fact remains that there are places in the country where it is far too long to a testing station. It has been a year since we had that discussion last. I think it would be interesting to hear what the member has done and what the government intends to do to improve this.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! We stand firm on meeting the climate goals by 2045. That is the goal we are working towards and that other parts of Europe are also working towards. To shut down nuclear power in this situation and remove production that was carbon-free put the country in an even more difficult situation when we were finally going to try to rectify the emissions. I think that the member and the member's party need to reflect a bit on why they shut down environmentally friendly electricity production when it actually needs to increase. They put the country in a more difficult situation than was necessary.

When it comes to the Swedish Vehicle Testing (bilprovningen), I am aware that there have been closures in rural areas. I also know of a company that has pulled out – I believe it was nine – mobile vehicle testing stations, which will now be deployed and will be able to cover a considerable part of the need.

It is important that we keep an eye on rural vehicle testing specifically. I also said in my speech that we will ensure that people have a reasonable distance to their vehicle testing station. In that situation, one cannot say that all vehicle testing needs to be regulated again and that one should go back to the long queues that existed. When I was going to have my motorcycle inspected in the spring, it was not possible to get an appointment until August. That is not reasonable.

This works well otherwise, and I believe that the customers are very satisfied. But there are, however, some concerns in rural areas, which we of course must continue to monitor.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sten Bergheden claimed that the previous government abolished nuclear power. I shall now read out what Vattenfall's then chairman of the board, Lars G Nordström, said to Svenska Dagbladet some time ago.

"There was no pressure from the political side. It was a purely commercial decision. We opted to invest in the five reactors that had the longest technical lifespan and where the least investment was required to upgrade them," Vattenfall's then chairman of the board told SvD. "We had seven reactors running. One in Ringhals that performed very poorly and ran on a waiver; it had, among other things, rust damage in the base plate. And that is connected to another reactor in Ringhals production-wise," Lars G Nordström further said. SvD also writes: "The owners of the Oskarshamn nuclear power plant were in the same situation. They had already in January 2014 signaled that they were preparing to shut down reactor 1, Sweden's oldest reactor, which was put into operation in 1972."

My question to Sten Bergheden then is: Is Vattenfall's former chairman of the board lying straight out in the Swedish media? How else is the claim to be interpreted?

Some other claims were also questionable to say the least. The member claimed that the government has a plan to reduce emissions. My speaking time is running out, so I must return to this.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I received a question about nuclear power. There are probably a number of conflicting statements about why it was shut down. I know that I sat here in the chamber when we submitted that we did not want to agree to the shutdown. That vote was lost by the then opposition against the S-government plus the Center Party. I am fully aware that it was a clear signal from us in the opposition that we were prepared to retain the nuclear power that existed, but the S-government and the Center shut down the last nuclear power.

We can discuss the historical description, but this decision was not good for Sweden. One had to go in and burn oil in the Karlshamn plant and buy electricity from coal from Germany. Sweden could, of course, have continued with nuclear power for a while longer.

I am completely convinced that this was a misprioritization by the previous S-government that has put us in a more difficult situation than we would have been in if we had avoided this shutdown.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Everything tends to become an energy debate in the Riksdag right now. The listeners must themselves decide whether they buy Sten Bergheden's explanation or the explanation from the former chairman of the board at Vattenfall, who was the owner of the nuclear power plants.

Sten Bergheden claimed that the government has a plan to reach the climate goals. The Climate Policy Council states in a report that the council's conclusion is that the government's plan is neither a plan to reach Sweden's goals nor a plan to fulfill the EU commitments. The responsibility for reaching the goals is pushed over to the next mandate period, says the council's chairwoman Åsa Persson.

In the heading of the government's climate action plan, it states that Sweden shall reach all the way to net zero. What measures are there for Sweden to reach there? Professor Björn Sandén says that when this was looked at, it unfortunately turned out that such measures do not exist in the plan. He further says that one therefore considers the government's action plan to be misleading and lacking in objectivity. This is the Climate Policy Council's view on the government's climate action plan.

Sten Bergheden took up electrification as an important means. Even here, the government fails capitally. The expansion rate regarding electricity production is expected to decrease with the government's policy. The proportion of electric cars sold decreases, and emissions increase.

I do not quite understand where these statements come from or what they are anchored in.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Linus Lakso for the question.

The climate goal for 2045 is fixed; we have been clear about that. It means that we are now investing fully to produce more electricity. We have even made more decisions regarding offshore wind power than the previous government did.

As I said in my speech, it is important that we have something in the charging stations. We must ensure that we solve that part.

We also, just as I said in a previous exchange, have a responsibility to take care of all of Sweden and the companies and people who exist all around the country. We must not only unilaterally look at what the Climate Policy Council says but also weigh in other parts. It is our duty to take this into account when we are elected by the people to govern the country.

When it comes to electrification, our goal is to produce more electricity. The member raised the issue of cars. The premium for electric cars was removed, and of course, many people had bought an electric car before that happened. This resulted in a gap afterwards. It was part of the whole.

We have also had electricity shortages. Electricity prices have risen after nuclear power plants and other things have been shut down.

We have also had high inflation and high interest rates, which of course has contributed to people not daring to invest fully in often somewhat more expensive electric cars.

There are many different explanations underlying why the sales have not gone so well. There are also many other parts where the sales have not gone well during these years.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Member Sten Bergheden raised questions about nuclear power, which I heard Mr. Speaker does not want us to discuss. However, I agree with Member Linus Laksos's description of the situation there. It was the market that chose to phase out nuclear power; I still want that to be said.

It is important that the rules of the game regarding biogas are long-term and clear. They are not today. This means that today, the biogas does not become gas or vehicle gas, but instead we get more electricity. That is not wrong in itself, but we would need it to be turned into gas.

So, better rules of the game are needed, and therefore long-term thinking is important. This also applies to the ethanol in the change of the reduction obligation, which changes the rules of the game quickly.

I move to the subject we are to discuss. I want to say something about winter road maintenance. There are two motions - one from Centerpartiet and one from Sverigedemokraterna - which clearly address these issues. In the committee, however, one chooses not to take any action. I hear that member Sten Bergheden sees the problems with winter road maintenance. There are, as said, clear motions, and I wonder why one is not positive towards these two motions instead of saying no to them. Sten Bergheden sounds a bit more like an opposition politician when he stands here.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with biogas. I agree that we need to have long-term and good rules for biofuels and gas for it to work. I also believe, however, that we need to increase the volumes. We are losing a significant amount because we have an animal production in this country that should be higher. Then we would have completely different volumes to work with.

I myself am passionate about the countryside, agriculture and other things functioning, and I think it is important to include this part with biofuels as a complement in the transition we face.

The reason I have said what I have said regarding winter road maintenance is quite simply that I think so. If one has a responsibility to manage something in society—be it an authority, a company, or something else—one must manage it. I believe that Trafikverket has failed on several points, which has also emerged in investigations and elsewhere. This has, not least, caused immense damage for those affected, but it has also caused great risks that truly serious accidents would occur.

Mr. Speaker! It is a bit strange when C attacks this. The reason we are not moving forward with C's proposals in motions and other matters is that we have already addressed the problem. The Minister has already tasked Trafikverket with reviewing this, and thus the work is already underway. We therefore do not need any further position from the Riksdag in order to proceed in this.

The leadership should perhaps consider that C was a supporting party to the government that introduced the strategy that Trafikverket is now working from regarding snow removal, so a bit of self-reflection would be appropriate.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I can absolutely take my share of the responsibility. We both have a way forward and want things to get better. But right now, the Moderaterna are in government, and therefore the responsibility rests a bit more heavily on them.

I do not fully share the view on biogas. Today, there are few agricultural facilities that have biogas on the farm. There is absolutely an opportunity to increase the volume with the existing number of animals. In that case, we would also get significantly better environmental benefits, fewer emissions, and better circular thinking overall. It is also no disadvantage that we get more animals with increased self-sufficiency.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is possible to pull out a fair amount of biofuels on the margin, but everything must be managed in a rational way so that it is economically viable. I see it as a major concern that agriculture and the countryside have not dared to invest in this. Not even under the Social Democratic government supported by the Center Party were any major efforts made to move forward.

We are now working to try to get both food production and animal production started in the country, something that I believe can contribute to us increasing profitability and producing more biofuels based on animal production and other things that can be used for biofuels. We are aware that this work must be done, and now we are doing it.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! The report on Road Traffic and Vehicle Issues treats motion reports from the general motion period. These concern areas such as road signage, maintenance of winter roads, self-driving vehicles, inspection issues, and so on. We Social Democrats have three reservations. I stand behind these but move for reservation 10 under point 5 regarding the inspection market for vehicles and reservation 16 under point 8 regarding car-sharing.

Socially important services must be available throughout the country. The deregulation of the inspection industry led to higher prices and unchanged or worse accessibility, especially in sparsely populated regions. It is therefore important that the state takes a clearer control over the inspection market where the market has failed so that we can achieve increased and equal service throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker! During the winter of 2024, a number of serious incidents have occurred where people and vehicles have become stuck in long queues due to lack of maintenance and the authorities' inability to coordinate and rescue those affected. In an interpellation debate at the end of January, the Minister for Civil Defence called the snow chaos on the E22 a capital failure. Just over a week ago - one can hardly believe it - further serious incidents occurred around Jönköping and Falköping. The question many are asking is how our preparedness is to function in times of serious crisis when it functions as it has during the winter this year.

At the end of March, the County Administrative Board of Skåne presented its report on the snow chaos on the E22. Serious criticism is primarily directed at Trafikverket, which did not realize the seriousness of the situation in time and was unable to take command and lead and coordinate the work - or to catch a quote in context: "All actors thought that Trafikverket had the lead, except for Trafikverket itself."

To be clear, the individual obviously has a responsibility when it comes to heading out on the roads when warnings are simultaneously issued for severe weather, but that does not relieve society of the responsibility to ensure good preparedness and functioning cooperation between the relevant actors. Accessibility must be ensured for society-critical transports and for the goods traveling on the roads that need to arrive. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that the preparedness works better for upcoming winters and unexpected events.

Of all that this report deals with, there is nevertheless something that stands out quite particularly and which is a matter of destiny for our country and our world. It is about the climate and the environment. Domestic transport accounts for almost one-third of Sweden's total greenhouse gas emissions, and here road traffic accounts for the largest share, a full 90 percent. The Climate Act has as a long-term goal that Sweden shall have no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2045. Greenhouse gases from domestic transport shall be reduced by 70 percent by 2030 compared to 2010.

The Social Democrats' goal is for Sweden to be the world's first fossil-free welfare country and to lead the green transition. Therefore, the pace of reducing emissions in the transport sector needs to increase. Here, increased electricity production and increased production of biofuels are important parts.

Investing in car-sharing services, leasing of electric cars to households with lower incomes, development of public transport, and moving freight and passenger transport from road to rail are other important parts. An average Swedish passenger car stands still approximately 95 percent of the time today, and one shared car can, according to calculations, replace 15 cars. The government's policy with the abolished climate bonus and prioritization of fossil fuels has caused the sale of electric cars to plummet. An investment in subsidizing the leasing of electric cars for low and middle-income households is a way to enable the transition for more.

It is very serious that the SD government does not take climate issues seriously. Two weeks ago, the last diesel-powered Volvo rolled out of the factory in Torslanda. From 2030, the company will only sell electric cars. But what is the government doing? It presents a climate action plan with a climate policy that goes against the decisions, goals, and ambitions that Sweden has committed to in the EU and the UN.

The government's own expert body, the Climate Policy Council, submitted its annual report two weeks ago, and there is an urgency to transition. 2023 was the warmest year ever recorded, and March became the warmest March ever recorded on Earth, according to the EU's climate service Copernicus. It is the tenth consecutive month to break heat records.

The Climate Policy Council criticizes the government's policy, which increases emissions. The commitment to reduce emissions by 2030 will not be met with the policy pursued so far. Instead of acting, climate goals are sent into new investigations, but, says the Climate Policy Council, upcoming investigations do not relieve the government of the responsibility to present a plan to reach the climate goals the Riksdag has established.

The risks with the government's climate action plan are, according to the council, that Sweden becomes more dependent on the outside world through increased dependence on fossil fuels. Necessary investments in the climate transition are delayed or omitted. The need for fossil-free electricity production in the short term is obscured by a large focus on new nuclear reactors. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, for highlighting that! At the same time, the government's policy is thin when it comes to more efficient energy and resource use and how we can increase the production of biofuels.

Last but not least, the government's greatest responsibility is not only about leading with a realistic policy aimed at the goals but also about creating acceptance and commitment. Today, many companies in Sweden are moving forward while the government is backing away into the future. This is both dangerous and serious. It creates uncertainty and weakens Sweden's opportunities to be a role model with the possibility of influencing other countries. It is about leading, not being led, Mr. Speaker.

It is serious that the SD-government is keeping the Swedish people in the dark with its policy. To be both a climate denier and bury one's head in the sand - it is not enough!

(Applause)

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have some questions. I will begin with the maintenance of winter road conditions.

Member of the Board Carina Ödebrink was quite critical of the government and Trafikverket regarding the maintenance of winter road conditions and what recently happened on the E22, where over a thousand cars had become stuck. Last week, we had a new chaos on the E4, national road 26, and the E20.

I agree with the member that Trafikverket has major problems. But what solutions do the Social Democrats have? I read our report. There is nothing about your policy there. What should we do so that Trafikverket functions better?

It is absolutely easy to stand in the speaker's chair and criticize, but a little self-criticism is also good. The Social Democrats held power for eight years. The problem we see today recurred every year on several occasions during the Social Democrats' rule. What happened to that self-criticism? What responsibility do the Social Democrats bear here?

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Our task now, as the opposition, is to criticize and point out the shortcomings we see in the policy conducted by the government. It is Rashid Farivar and his friends who are responsible for explaining how it could be that when what happened on the E22 happened and we requested to have the responsible minister to the committee, we received no support for that. We were eager to hear what conclusions the government drew from this, because it was in January and more winter could come, which it did. The same thing was repeated again. I therefore put that question back to the member.

We adopted a national plan in 2022 with a historically high share of resources for transport and infrastructure. There may be reasons to reflect on ourselves in some parts, but do not place the responsibility that the current SD government has on us, for that is something that Rashid Farivar must explain.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There is a simple answer: We have a policy regarding it. We want to divide Trafikverket into a rail authority and a road authority. The problem is Trafikverket's governance.

Our policy is very clear, and it is on paper, in black and white. I ask again where one can read about the Social Democrats' policy for solving the problems that we have on our roads and which have been created by the Social Democrats' governments.

Member of the Board Carina Ödebrink also mentioned that Volvo Cars has ceased the production of diesel cars and that they intend to stop the production of cars with internal combustion engines by 2030. Is it really what the government should base its plans on – that a company has a specific cycle plan for its products, for its product portfolio? Should the government really build its future plans on Volvo's cycle plan? How realistic is this? And what happens if Volvo, for example, in a few months or years changes its mind and does the same thing as Mercedes, BMW and many other car manufacturers have done? They postpone it from 2030 to 2035. Maybe it is not realistic then, and so they postpone it from 2035 to 2040.

How realistic is it that the government builds its future plans on a company's, a Chinese company's, cycle plan?

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to give two answers or reflections on what the member says.

The Sweden Democrats want to share the Transport Administration. Now, the Sweden Democrats are the prerequisite for us having a government consisting of M, KD and L, and I don't quite perceive that there is a consensus within this government base on that issue, even though the Sweden Democrats are clear about it. But Rashid Farivar and the Sweden Democrats can sort that out, I think.

No - or yes, perhaps - the government should not build its policy on a single company, but I still expect the government to build its policy on the goals, decisions, and ambitions that Sweden as a country has committed to here in our country, in the EU, and in the UN. That is what I expect the government to do.

But it is very unclear when we have an expert body that saws at the government's policy and when it is very unclear what the Sweden Democrats actually want. They stood behind the climate action plan in December. Then it only took a month before the Sweden Democrats were out and saying: No, we want to tear up Fit for 55; we do not think it is good.

Where is the credibility? It creates a great deal of uncertainty, and it causes Sweden to lose the ability to lead and be the one who actually leads the way in the very important climate transition. It is about leading, not about being led.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to express my approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

Sweden is a very large and elongated country. Many transports go via the railway, but an enormous amount of transport goes via our roads.

In Sweden, we have 10,000 transport companies, and they generate over 200 billion Swedish kronor in turnover, which corresponds to 3.5 percent of Sweden's GDP. The industry employs over 225,000 people, including 125,000 truck drivers. It is an enormously important part for all of Sweden to be able to function, both for our companies and private individuals, regardless of where we live and operate, in northern or southern Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! When one speaks with representatives of the farming industry, they highlight some specific issues. Perhaps the most important issue right now, or at least during this past winter, is the winter maintenance of the roads. We have probably all heard about and seen pictures from the E22 in Skåne or, most recently, just a few weeks ago, the E4 past Jönköping. We know that many got stuck in snowdrifts and that thousands had to remain in their vehicles for hours. Thank goodness no serious accident occurred.

Many drivers experience that the roads around the country have received deteriorated winter maintenance. Here, a different prioritization is required before the next winter season. I know that the government has the matter under preparation, and when Trafikverket met us in the committee, they said that regardless of whether one is a truck driver, a bus driver, or a regular road user, one must be able to rely on the roads being maintained in the best possible way, whether it is summer or winter.

Another important issue, Mr. Speaker, that the trucking industry raises is that one must be able to rely on the charging infrastructure, which is to be well-developed throughout Sweden. Many trucking companies are investing heavily in fossil-free transport. If they are to dare to invest in purchasing electric trucks, there must, of course, be electricity available.

I can understand their concern. We have had a government that put all its eggs in one basket and which shut down reactor after reactor. The new government has a different policy where nuclear power and hydropower are seen as predictable base power that can be supplemented with wind and solar power.

Mr. Speaker! Several measures have been taken in recent years to strengthen climate work, but more must be done to ensure electricity production in Sweden – this is important – and to achieve a full effect of the ongoing electrification of the vehicle fleet. This is a priority issue for the government, and therefore the government is now allocating 100 million kronor to new climate investments in the spring budget. These are funds that shall be used, among other things, for new charging stations around the country.

Mr. Speaker! Unfortunately, the previous government failed to reduce the large maintenance debt that has accumulated for the country's roads. According to Transportföretagens annual analysis, the maintenance debt for the Swedish road network is over 19 billion kronor, and it states that 11 percent of the state roads are in very poor condition. Therefore, it is a very important issue for us Christian Democrats in government that more money is allocated so that road maintenance is strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! Now Sweden has finally lowered the reduction obligation. It has been and is an important issue for us in the Tidösamarbetet. We believe that with the high reduction obligation we had, companies and people who live and work in the countryside were punished.

Mr. Speaker! We safeguard our historical vehicles. I was at a car show in Jönköping during Easter. There were many people there and an enormous interest. Sitting in a T-Ford that is exactly 100 years old is actually an experience. I know that the government is acting towards the EU so that we can continue to preserve our important cultural heritage.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to ask the same question as I have asked those else who have been up in the speaker's chair. The EU's climate plan was presented while Sweden held the EU presidency. During the Swedish presidency of the EU, one of the world's most ambitious climate packages was brought to fruition, Ulf Kristersson said afterwards.

SD supported the final proposal that was negotiated. They also supported the climate policy action plan that the government presented at the end of 2023, but the plan had barely been presented before the Sweden Democrats came out and said that they wanted to tear up Fit for 55, which is the EU's plan for the green transition.

It was, to put it mildly, a considerable uproar. Magnus Oscarsson, the party leader and also the responsible minister, lost his temper, and the Minister for the Environment reacted strongly to the Sweden Democrats' actions. I would like to hear a bit about what Magnus Oscarsson thinks about the Sweden Democrats' move and ambitions, or rather lack of ambitions, when it comes to climate issues.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Carina Ödebrink, for the question!

For the Christian Democrats and the government, it is incredibly important that we have energy available in the future. In this debate, we are talking about how we can achieve a better charging infrastructure and how our cars, trucks, and vehicles shall get better opportunities in terms of access to electricity.

In the discussions that have been held within the government cooperation, I think the government and the Tidö parties have a clear line on how they intend to approach climate work and the work to achieve a more electrified vehicle fleet. These are very important issues for us, and I do not think anyone could have missed that the government is working towards this.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Oscarsson, for the answer!

We are in complete agreement that we need more energy and more electricity of all kinds to manage the green transition, but I cannot really see that clear line, if I'm to be honest. One doesn't need to be particularly knowledgeable about the issues to see that there is an obvious rift in the government base between the Sweden Democrats and the three governing parties. There, the opinions are completely divided.

Magnus Oscarsson is held responsible. What is it that applies? The Sweden Democrats are, after all, the prerequisite for us having a bourgeois government. The Sweden Democrats think something completely different than what government representatives have expressed, and I think that is serious and creates great uncertainty.

Then I would like to comment on something. Magnus Oscarsson mentioned the reduction obligation and said that it has finally been lowered. I have great respect for the fact that fuel prices are important for people's everyday economy, but the government's proposal means that the fossil dependency increases. We risk our lead, we risk other countries overtaking us, and we also risk jobs in Sweden because the government does not think it is important to be part of the transition.

The question is: How will the government achieve the climate goals?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Carina Ödebrink, for the questions! I shall try to answer them.

The Chairman says that I am liable for the answer, but I think I was clear in my statement. Our parties are clear about how we envision our environmental goals. It is 2045 that applies; this is very clear from the government's side. We know that this is important for us to meet our climate goal. It is also important that we, as I said before, have a vehicle fleet that can be shifted so that there is more electricity and more charging stations. Because that is what we believe is important for the future, and that is what we are talking about here today – how we work for cars and other vehicles. I therefore think that is important.

Then I know that the member previously spoke about backing into the future. I don't think we do that; I think we really look forward toward the future. With the proposals we have, we will really be able to see a difference and reach the goals we have set for 2045.

The last question that Member Carina Ödebrink mentioned was the reduction obligation. It is still a bit exciting that the Member brings it up, because if I remember correctly – now the Member certainly cannot answer that – was it the case that even the Social Democrats wanted to lower the reduction obligation. That is what I am quite sure of. Maybe it wasn't so, but I have it in my mind anyway. Then I think like this: Now the Member blames us a lot for not reaching the goals and so on, but how did the Social Democrats themselves think? One had intended to lower the reduction obligation, but now they put it in our lap and say that we are not doing our part.

I mean that it was right to do this because we are working for our countryside and for people's well-being. This was a very important issue for many people.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I regret that this may once again become an energy debate, but the member raised the question again, and I must therefore ask Magnus Oscarsson something. I do not need to read out all the quotes, but Vattenfall's former chairman of the board claimed, therefore, that it was a commercial decision. Ringhals 2 had rust damage. The question therefore is: Is what he claims not correct?

Regarding the electricity supply, Sweden was dependent on imports of electricity from German and Polish coal power when the Christian Democrats last sat in government and ruled. After seven years of red-green politics, however, Sweden had the largest electricity surplus in the entire EU in 2022. It is therefore hardly a lack of electricity that causes the government's electrification policy to fail.

Of course, people should be able to transport themselves cheaply throughout the entire country, and for that, it is necessary to have a smart policy for it. My second question, therefore, is how it is that Norway, which is often considered to have a much better rural policy, has an electric car sales figure that stands at 80-90 percent while electric car sales in Sweden are much lower - and that the share is also falling due to the government's policy. How can one fail so capitally with electrification when one claims that it is the main point for reaching the climate goals?

Those were my questions.

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Linus Lakso for the questions.

I also think that this is not a debate about energy in that way, but that it is a debate where we are going to talk about different things within vehicles and so on, but we can absolutely continue that journey if the member thinks so.

The member takes Norway as an example, and I think it was very good that the member took up exactly Norway. Norway has and has had a completely different situation. The member says that the government has not succeeded in these years, but we have only been in for two years. We naturally want to stay much longer to truly show that the policy that the government is now working with will make a difference.

Norway has very many electric cars, and the charging infrastructure is very important for them in Norway. I mentioned in my speech that more money is now being allocated so that the charging infrastructure can be seen even more throughout the country. I think we can take Norway as an example when it comes to how they have succeeded. We can look at how our neighbors Norway have done, and in that way, I believe we will succeed very well in this. We have, as mentioned, 2045 as our goal, and I am convinced that we will succeed.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One does not become as convinced when reading the Climate Policy Council's statement: "The plan does not show how we reach the goals, neither in the short nor in the long term." The Council's conclusion is, as stated, that the government's plan is not a plan to reach either Sweden's goals or our EU commitments.

Therefore, I think the question becomes what new measures, not least the Christian Democrats, intend to propose to actually reach the climate goals. And what do you intend to do to speed up the electrification? As I mentioned, the forecast is now that the pace of the expansion of electricity production will decrease. After the expansion rate increased for seven or eight years with red-green politics, it will now decrease with this government's policy, as the forecast looks now. Therefore, one wonders, because moving forward it will still be a question of electricity when it comes to the work of electrifying, not least the vehicle sector.

Last but not least, I wonder what one wants to do to change the trend as it looks right now, that is, that the proportion of electric vehicles is decreasing sharply? It is very good with charging infrastructure – that it is a very important part we completely agree on – but it becomes a bit toothless if electric cars are not sold and people instead switch to buying petrol and diesel. A car currently has an average lifespan of 19 years, so it will be very difficult to succeed if one does not quickly reverse this trend. What proposals do the government parties and the Christian Democrats have to change this?

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

Magnus Oscarsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that we are in agreement on at least something, and that the member praises us a little for this regarding the charging infrastructure.

That is exactly what I tried to speak about in my speech and also in my previous reply, namely that we want to invest in ensuring there is more electricity and more controllable electricity. In that way, it becomes a strength – one knows that it is there and can invest in purchasing, for example, trucks that run on electricity, or cars. I mean, therefore, that this is an important part of meeting the climate goals we have set.

The opposition speaks about the council that has said the government will not achieve the goal that has been set. I am thinking of the Minister for the Environment who, in a live broadcast on Aktuellt, nevertheless showed that we will solve this. The Minister for Enterprise, that is, my party's party leader, says the same: We will manage this. It is clear that it may look a bit in a way right now that makes one wonder how it will work, but it will resolve itself. We know, in fact, that it will become much better with the plans that exist and what we are actively working on.

What I find concerning is that Member Linus Lakso, for example, does not mention anything about what our roads look like. Our roads are in incredibly poor condition. According to the analysis I read earlier, 11 percent are in very poor condition. This is also important, because regardless of whether one has an electric car or another car, one must have a good road to drive on. If I am to be honest, the previous government did not take care of that point, instead, they let it slide. We are taking care of that now.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report on road traffic and vehicle issues. It is gratifying to see so many parties in the Swedish Riksdag engaged in these important issues, which strongly affect the everyday lives of people and companies.

In the consideration, 35 reservations within various areas are addressed, and 14 of them are the Sweden Democrats'. We in the Sweden Democrats stand behind all our 14 reservations, but to save time, I choose to move for approval only to reservation 23.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is an industrial nation with world-leading technology and with world-class cars, trucks, industrial machines and digital systems. We have healthcare and elderly care that surpasses many modern countries in quality. But what happens when it snows? Well, "the snow falls and we fall with it," as Ulf Lundell sings.

Mr. Speaker! Trafikverket is the authority responsible for ensuring that the transport system in Sweden functions, including the operation and maintenance of state roads, regardless of whether it is summer or winter. But the criticism of Trafikverket's actions, or rather the lack thereof, has long been massive. For the Sverigedemokraterna, it is clear that Trafikverket is not fulfilling its mission and that it constitutes a threat to both life and property.

The recent snow chaos on the E22, where over 1,000 cars were trapped in heavy snowfall in Skåne for more than a day, is a clear sign. Last week's snow fiasco on the E20, road 26, and E4 is the rest of the catastrophe. That no one was injured or died as a result of the events is a miracle. The Sweden Democrats have long been right when we highlighted the lack of maintenance of winter roads in debates with the former Social Democratic infrastructure minister, and this is a problem that unfortunately persists to this day. The need for improvements in the maintenance of the road network is enormous, something that is crucial for a modern industrial nation like Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish Transport Administration tends to blame the shortcomings on others, primarily on heavy traffic and ordinary motorists trying to reach their destinations, and in some cases refers to the extreme weather and climate change. It is difficult to understand why it is so challenging for such a huge organization to handle the winter in a country like Sweden, where snow is commonly occurring every winter.

Many within the trucking and bus industry agree that Trafikverket's efforts come too late and are insufficient. It is crucial that Trafikverket improves its responsiveness and listens to those who sound the alarm, including the general public, the police, and the rescue services. But unfortunately, Trafikverket fails every time it is time to act. It must be possible to travel and conduct business across the entire country, even under winter conditions.

It is a fact that the trust for Trafikverket, an agency with over 11,000 employees, and primarily its director-general, is seriously damaged. In many respects, it has gone too far. Recently, Miljöpartiet came forward with the proposal to abolish Trafikverket and return to the previous order with Vägverket and Banverket, a proposal that Sverigedemokraterna have pushed for a long time in the form of recurring committee motions. We believe that this is the right way to go, and we stand by our proposal.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has long had a tradition of openness and transparency towards the rest of the world, which has been to our advantage in areas such as trade, research, and technological development. But when this boundless openness is combined with naivety, it can have serious consequences. A clear example of this is the Transport Agency's handling of the road traffic register.

According to If's car crime barometer, Sweden is an open target for international car crime. Car crime is a growing problem in the country, with annual damage amounts increasing and crime becoming increasingly complex. Sweden has become a magnet for various types of criminals, and many of the car thefts are commissioned jobs within organized crime. The costs for car thefts are skyrocketing and breaking records year after year. It is estimated that the annual cost to society amounts to over 1 billion kronor, and international gangs play a significant role.

Previously, when digital services were not as accessible, criminals were forced to search for specific vehicles physically. Now they can do it in the comfort of their homes. Statistics from Eurostat for 2021 show that Sweden ranks in second place regarding thefts of motor vehicles and spare parts per capita in relation to other European countries. Unfortunately, Sweden was in first place in 2020.

Mr. Speaker! To effectively combat extensive and international crime, rapid measures are required. Swedes must stop being naive. The Transport Agency's powers to sell information to unscrupulous actors must be limited. The handling of the information must also be changed so that it does not facilitate thefts. The control of the export of stolen goods from the country must be strengthened, and the police and the Swedish Customs must be given an expanded mandate to prioritize car crime.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden, Europe, and the civilized Western world have committed a societal and cultural suicide by allowing mass immigration from dysfunctional societies and cultures in the name of openness, multiculturalism, and human rights. Now we face a technological suicide in the name of the climate transition and saving the planet.

Fit for 55 is the EU's climate package in the form of climate legislation aimed at achieving a 55 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 and net-zero emissions by 2050. The regulation amending Regulation 2019/631 regarding the tightening of standards for carbon emissions from new passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles, which was approved by the EU's energy ministers last year, effectively introduced a ban on the sale of petrol- and diesel-powered cars and light trucks after 2035. This decision is purely counterproductive regarding technological development and directly hits consumers with low purchasing power. The Sverigedemokraterna in the European Parliament was the only party from Sweden that voted against the proposal and is the only party from Sweden that wants to scrap the legislation.

The latest victim of this regulation and the pervasive climate hysteria we witness in the Western world was the prominent diesel engine found in many Volvo cars around Sweden and the world. A 45-year era went into the grave when the last diesel car rolled off the line at the Torslanda factory at the end of March this year. But why has diesel technology been condemned despite its significantly better performance and efficiency compared to the corresponding gasoline variant?

Even though diesel-powered cars have been in decline since the "dieselgate" scandal, diesel engines are still a cornerstone of our world. The diesel engine has been the subject of significant demonization over the recent years. Some of the criticism is justified, but most has been exaggerated. Often, it has been spread by climate sector activists, sometimes dressed as researchers.

Mr. Speaker! If we were to remove all diesel engines from the world overnight, what would happen? A great deal! And almost none of it would be good. With the last delivery you received, a diesel engine in a truck, a train, or a ship probably helped to bring it to you.

Do you like fresh fruit and fresh vegetables on your kitchen table? Agricultural machines are powered almost exclusively by diesel engines. Excavators, bulldozers, asphalt pavers and other heavy construction equipment are powered by diesel due to their torque and power requirements.

Military vehicles also benefit from diesel's lower fire risk and explosivity compared to other fuels. Many facilities, such as hospitals or even the Riksdag, use diesel generators for backup and emergency power supply. In Sweden, which is an elongated country with a cold climate, diesel-powered vehicles are today superior to their counterparts powered by gasoline or electricity.

We simply must become aware of how much we have to thank the diesel engine for the society and the prosperity we have today, not just historically but also today.

Mr. Speaker! I am an advocate for technology neutrality in politics. It should not be up to politics to decide which technology should win over another technology. It is actually the case that politicians are not engineers, and they cannot and should not perform the engineers' work. It is, however, a coincidence that I am both an engineer and a politician, but it is unfortunately very rare in politics that one comes from a real job and professional life.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Transport's report Road traffic and vehicle issues.

Mr. Speaker! There is a question that dominates the road and vehicle sector today, namely the transition of our vehicle fleet and the expansion of the number of charging points. Road transport accounts for over 90 percent of emissions within the transport sector, so that is where the Liberals' focus lies.

In a short time, the entire vehicle fleet is to be replaced. The replacement of the fleet should take place over approximately 15 years. The challenge for society consists of establishing a charging infrastructure that stays ahead of the increase in the number of chargeable cars. For the vehicle manufacturers, the challenge is to produce cars that can be sold at reasonable prices so that more people can afford a chargeable car. Both challenges are complex, and they require cooperation. We are, however, on the right track.

We have approximately 5 million passenger cars in Sweden. In 2023, 564,000 of them were rechargeable cars, i.e., over 11 percent. It will go all the faster in the future to increase the proportion of rechargeable cars. It is truly important that the charging infrastructure keeps up with the sales development and does not become a bottleneck.

The competition between the car manufacturers will press vehicle prices step by step. We see in the newspaper how the Chinese manufacturers are making inroads in both the American and the European markets with significantly lower prices on electric cars. It is important that the car manufacturers in the European market keep up.

It is complex, as for example raw materials for batteries and semiconductors are and probably will be in short supply during this period. To focus on the climate issue, it now states in the climate action plan that easy-to-understand purchasing information shall be developed where the customer can easily compare different cars based on climate emissions from a life cycle perspective as well as during operation. This also takes into account how, above all, the battery but also for example the steel for the car's body has been produced. This is an issue that the Liberalerna have pushed for several years here in the Riksdag, and now it is finally going to become a reality.

The starting point has been the system with stars used to mark a car's road safety. The system has made it easier for car customers to choose a road-safe car and has at the same time contributed to a strongly increased supply of road-safe cars. Our hope is that the corresponding system for climate impact will have a similar effect, that the car customer in the future chooses cars without emissions through a clear climate guide.

The share of sold rechargeable vehicles needs to steadily increase, and the current economic crisis is breaking the positive trend. Forecasts say, however, that an electric car will cost as much as a fossil-fueled car around 2026. In Norway, it can be clearly seen that at the same price, sales will accelerate. This is especially true because the second-hand value for fossil-fueled cars will simultaneously fall as an electric car becomes cheaper to drive, which further improves the economics for purchasing an electric car. It is a positive spiral for the climate. But we are not there yet, so it is important to follow the market very closely.

Regarding heavy vehicles, electric vehicles are increasing steadily, but it is going too slowly. Therefore, the truck premium remains because the proportion of new electric trucks on the market is too low. We have also introduced a premium for light trucks, and the sales of light trucks for distribution, for example in our cities, have fortunately increased significantly in recent years.

Charging infrastructure for road transport is, however, the single most important and most difficult measure for the transport sector to be able to transition and eliminate its climate emissions. Today, there are a number of supports and subsidies for the installation of charging boxes at the villa and charging infrastructure along our roads, and not least there is Klimatklivet, through which one can receive support of 50 percent for charging points at multi-family dwellings. Precisely multi-family dwellings are in focus for us liberals in order to enable everyone to be able to buy an electric car, a new or a used one. That requires that there are more charging points at multi-family dwellings.

The question of charging infrastructure is also complex as it presupposes that sufficient amounts of electricity can be delivered in a short time for charging where we live, work, and travel. Building power plants and power grids for the distribution of electricity to charging stations takes a long time and has long lead times. With the 15 years we have for the transition of the vehicle fleet, it will become a bottleneck.

Here, the government is working focusedly to catch up after the previous government's wrong decision regarding the decommissioning of nuclear power in southern Sweden. This affects, not least, the transition in my home regions in Western Sweden, where it is difficult to obtain electricity for the new production of batteries.

The Liberals believe in the idea that the polluter should pay. Since the lifespan of a passenger car is 19 years on average, fossil-free fuels are needed to reduce emissions from today's gasoline and diesel-powered cars. The production of fossil-free fuels must simultaneously keep pace with the blending to avoid significantly increasing the fuel price and making it difficult for people's work commuting.

Mr. Speaker! The war in Ukraine has simultaneously highlighted the issue of emergency stockpiles so that the need for transport can be ensured in the event of a major power outage. In parallel, there is also the issue of our cultural-historical heritage of older cars and ensuring that there continues to be fuel for these vehicles on the market. For the cultural-historical car heritage, it is also important that they are exempted from the EU's upcoming legislation on the scrapping of end-of-life cars in Europe, instead of the end-of-life cars being exported outside of Europe to bypass the legislation.

Large parts of our road network were built over 60 years ago. Neglected maintenance means that large parts of the road network need to be refurbished. This applies in particular to the possibility of allowing heavier trucks on a larger part of our road network. In addition to greater distribution capacity, this is about reducing climate emissions.

The transports must function all the way from start to destination. The load-bearing capacity of the roads is of great importance for the mobile load cranes, an important function not least within construction. Here, Trafikverket needs to be able to offer support to the municipalities with the permit processes.

Mr. Speaker! It is important that the state continues to provide significant support to owners of private roads so that the road standard can be maintained. If a public road is converted into a private road, it must not mean that the state's costs are shifted onto the new owners of the roads.

Another area is snow removal. Trafikverket should design procurement of contractors so that it is possible to perform snow removal both for the state and for the individual road associations. Winter road maintenance generally needs to be reviewed. Coordination of authorities and preparedness during severe weather needs to be strengthened, not least against the background of the impact we have seen during the winter snowstorms and also a few weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker! Everyone should be able to move in public places, regardless of functional variation. It is an issue that is very close to the hearts of us Liberals. Measures need to be taken to ensure accessibility for, among others, people with visual impairments during transport, not least at various stops.

Mr. Speaker! The day is coming soon when we will have self-driving vehicles on our roads. The technology has been introduced and is being built out progressively. Therefore, it is urgent to review and adapt all relevant legislation so that self-driving cars can be introduced on our roads in a traffic-safe manner.

Based on the 2015 report on the introduction of self-driving cars in Sweden, a strategy and an action plan were needed for how self-driving cars should be introduced into society.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that the Liberals believe that investments in research, for example Vehicle Strategic Research and Innovation, FFI, and cooperation between universities and the business sector are important pieces of the puzzle for the Swedish automotive cluster to continue to be at the forefront. The Swedish automotive industry includes the largest companies we have here in Sweden. They are, in addition to being large employers, a strong driver for innovation and development, and they create growth in Sweden. Their new technology is, for example, also utilized in many other companies, within other industries.

Mr. Speaker! With this, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Helena Gellerman for an interesting contribution. She has a significantly longer background than I do in the Committee on Transport, and she has worked with transport issues much longer than I have in the Riksdag. But I have worked with transport and infrastructure at the regional level for many years.

It was, as said, interesting to listen to Helena Gellerman, and I can honestly say that I can sign off on very much, almost most of what she said. We need to manage the climate transition. We need to invest in more electricity production, increased production of biofuels, and so on.

However, it chafes a bit with me when what Helena Gellerman says is to be seen against the background of the climate action plan that the government drew up at the end of last year and the Climate Policy Council's report, which says that the goals will not be reached with the policy as it currently stands.

It is road transport that accounts for the largest share of emissions. The transition will certainly happen quickly, as Helena Gellerman says. But regardless of that, the government's own expert bodies see it as difficult to reach the goals. I would like to hear Helena Gellerman elaborate on this.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! We Liberals believe that the transition to electrification of the entire vehicle fleet is the answer. When we have made that transition, we will be rid of all emissions. As I said in my speech, however, during a transition period we will need to have fuels that can be used by the existing vehicle fleet.

We are on a very good path. Today, 11 percent of the vehicle fleet consists of rechargeable cars. I heard Member Carina Ödebrink mention that the sale of rechargeable cars is plummeting. I probably would not have used that term, as sales increased from 2022 to 2023 by 20 percent. If one compares the first quarter of 2023 with the first quarter of 2024, one sees that we have gone from 37,000 cars to 35,000 cars.

This should be seen against the background of the economic crisis that we have. Sales have therefore decreased by 2,000 cars, approximately 5 percent, and this should therefore be seen against the background that people do not know if they can stay in their house. The interest costs are enormous, rents are increasing and food prices are increasing. It is not strange that one then reviews one's situation and perhaps waits with the decision to buy a car. If approximately the same number of cars are sold and the proportion of electric cars is at approximately the same level, I therefore think that it is quite okay.

But now we want to move forward. We see that the interest rate will be lowered, and then we want to see that electric car sales increase again.

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

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Mr. Speaker! I noticed that Helena Gellerman said that the transition is about more and more people switching to electric cars. But it is clear that alternative fuels will also be needed in the future, because it is about not putting all your eggs in one basket.

We see that the production of biofuels has decreased, and that is due to the government's focus on subsidizing fossil fuels. It is serious, because it impairs our ability to reach the goals.

The EU has reached a decision on a climate plan, which was made during Sweden's presidency. The Sweden Democrats have stood behind the package, but they have now come out and said that they want to tear up Fit for 55. We don't believe that, they say.

Then the question to Helena Gellerman and the Liberals as one of the parties in the government base is: What does Helena Gellerman think of the Sweden Democrats' move and ambitions, or rather lack of ambitions, when it comes to reducing the transport sector's emissions? Here there is a big difference in perceptions on how to handle the issues.

When the Sweden Democrats came out as they did, Helena Gellerman's minister hit the ceiling and said that Sweden benefits from being a leader in the climate transition. I perceive that Helena Gellerman also thinks so. But when one says one thing here without showing a way forward, it becomes a serious problem.

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

Helena Gellerman (L)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my speech, we believe that the sale of electric cars will increase dramatically in the future. We see a decrease in the price of electric cars.

The example of Norway has been raised earlier in the debate. In Norway, they have had a very large penalty tax on fossil fuel cars. They have cost approximately double as much as here in Sweden for a long time – I have been in the industry since 1984. That tax has been removed on electric cars, and therefore they now cost the same. Then it has been seen that the sales of electric cars have increased dramatically.

It is the sales increase we are seeing. But it will not happen if we do not allocate a huge amount of money to building charging infrastructure.

Here we have invested a lot of money, approximately 5 billion, so that one can build charging infrastructure along our roads. You will also be able to buy a charging box to have at your villa. We have also wanted to strengthen at the apartment buildings, so now one receives a grant corresponding to 50 percent of the cost if one builds charging infrastructure at apartment buildings.

It is this that we believe in very much. It will have a very large effect on the emissions.

Then I agree that a change in the amount of biofuels is needed. One reason is that there is now a reduction obligation in Europe as well, so there is an infinite market for biofuels.

When it comes to the Sweden Democrats' decisions, they are on board with our climate action plan. We are looking at which decisions they are on board with. If they have other discussions, that is another matter, but as it stands now, they stand behind the climate action plan we have developed. It has also been shown that that plan is the plan that is closest to reaching the 2045 goals.

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! There were electric cars over 100 years ago. Now we are inventing the same technology again. 120 years ago you could rent an electric car, you could pay per mile to ride in an electric car, and taxi drivers drove electric cars. There was technology for different forms of fast charging of car batteries, and you could replace the car's battery with a fully charged one. However, it was a bit too difficult to build out the infrastructure in a commercially sustainable way, and the possibilities for large-scale charging disappeared because entrepreneurs failed with their business.

Do we not recognize this situation?

Mr. Speaker! Imagine if the development had looked a bit different, if the possibility for charging had been built out just as the petrol stations did! Then we could have had a society and an infrastructure built for electricity and not for petrol. Instead, it was the petrol car that continued to develop and which now, 100 years later, is our major climate problem.

In order for us to manage the climate transition, much must be done, but above all, we must reduce fossil emissions. This means there need to be more charging points across all of Sweden, unnecessary hurdles such as land permits and complications are removed, electricity capacity is expanded, electric cars become cheaper, and car sharing becomes a matter of course.

By the year 2030, the transport sector's climate impact in Sweden shall have decreased by 70 percent compared to 2010. More and more countries are introducing similar goals, and from 2035, the EU will only allow zero-emission cars.

However, the government is not doing particularly well in reducing emissions. The Climate Policy Council believes that the 2030 goal is in acute danger. There is no plan to reach it. Even the Climate and Environment Minister's own hand-picked investigators think that it is going too slowly to introduce the poorer measures that he proposes and which lower Sweden's ambitions. Even ensuring that Sweden becomes moderately worse is, therefore, going too slowly for the government. It goes very quickly, however, to become significantly worse. I am not envious of the government's situation.

Our way of traveling and transporting ourselves must change fundamentally. That is why Vänsterpartiet repeatedly submits proposals for major investments in the transition of the transport sector, primarily on the already electrified railway and public transport but also on electric cars.

Vänsterpartiet wants a uniform, national system for public charging stations. The Riksdag has also stood behind Vänsterpartiet's proposal for an investment in the electrification of the transport sector with a functioning charging infrastructure throughout Sweden, with clear goals for 2030 for the expansion of charging infrastructure in connection with roads, rest areas, gas stations, and commuter parking. What has happened with that proposal, the government? It came from a unanimous Riksdag during the previous mandate period.

A first step could be that all petrol stations must be able to offer charging points. The rural areas in particular need charging points to dare and have the strength to switch to electric cars. Since the government at the beginning of the mandate period put all its effort into that electricity and electrification should solve the climate transition within the transport sector, it is remarkable that the political proposals are completely missing. Where is the major investment in charging points across all of Sweden?

Vänsterpartiet proposes a national strategy for an accessible and comprehensive system for charging electric vehicles and that unnecessary obstacles are removed, such as land permits, fire safety regulations, and difficulties regarding installation. We also want car sharing to become simple and smooth so that our cars do not stand unused 96 percent of the time. We must share more and use what we have in a smoother and smarter way.

Electric cars must also become cheaper to buy. Therefore, Vänsterpartiet proposes financial support for the purchase of electric cars, just as France has. The purpose is to be able to offer the population an electric car. Electric car sales have decreased far too much since the government removed bonus malus.

With that, I move for approval of reservation 16.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is very pleasing to, after one and a half years in the Swedish Riksdag, finally be able to debate a question with Member Linda W Snecker.

Before I ask my questions, I turn to our Social Democratic colleagues. I think it is cowardly and shameless not to ask us the questions that you asked the other parties. I gave a speech where you could have requested a reply, and I could have answered you then.

My question to Vänsterpartiet and member Linda W Snecker concerns your reservation 1, where you propose a ban on the sale of cars with fossil fuels from 2025. Today, Sweden's car fleet consists of 12 percent rechargeable cars. Of these 12 percent, 6 percent are pure electric cars and 6 percent are plug-in hybrids. This means 300,000 rechargeable hybrids and 300,000 electric cars. Of a total of 5 million cars in Sweden, only 12 percent are rechargeable.

Let us say that the government comes forward tomorrow with a proposal to ban cars with internal combustion engines from 2025. How are we going to fuel those cars? How are we going to be able to sell 4.4 million cars until 2025? Is there a risk that we will break society? What is the Left Party's solution to that?

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! We like order and tidiness in the Riksdag. I have sat significantly longer in my position as a parliamentarian than Member Rashid Farivar has. It is such that if Rashid Farivar participates in debates, it goes perfectly well for him to make replies to me. But it is also such that one chooses for oneself which replies one accepts.

The Social Democrats also choose who they take a reply to, and they have not chosen to take a reply to you. In fact, no one chose to take a reply after your speech, perhaps depending on the content of your speech.

How are we going to transition the transport sector? It is definitely there that the government, which your party supports, is working to sabotage absolutely the most. You are removing the support for bonus-malus. You also have no plan to build out a charging infrastructure in all of Sweden. You are working intensively to ensure that all of Sweden absolutely does not live.

The transport industry was part of the transition to 2030. All transport companies that I speak with have made enormous investments, because they realize that in order to remain competitive within Europe, one must be able to transport goods in a climate-smart way. One can no longer drive with heavy, long fossil-fuel trucks. One must transition. That is what the entire vehicle industry and production have begun to do.

Then the government introduces the most anti-business policy Sweden has seen in a very long time. You are pulling the rug out from under the entire Swedish business community. All our companies, large as small, want to transition and realize the necessity of it. Then the Sverigedemokraterna stand there and stop the entrepreneurs in Sweden.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I did not receive an answer to my question. It is clear that the member either does not understand the question or is simply evading it.

I understand the member Linda W Snecker from Vänsterpartiet, because Vänsterpartiet has its roots in communism. Before 1967, Vänsterpartiet was called Vänsterpartiet Kommunisterna. With the proposal that Vänsterpartiet puts forward, we would also get a state solution similar to the one Mao Zedong had for his Great Leap. The result was famine and economic collapse in society.

I ask my question once more. Today, 12 percent of the 5 million cars in Sweden are chargeable. Half are plug-in hybrids, and half are pure electric cars. But how are we, with the Left Party's proposal, to ensure that the rest, the 88 percent of the fleet, become electrified? If they do not become electrified, how are we then to handle the fuels?

I am asking for a practical solution. Let's say there is a ban next year, 2025. What is Vänsterpartiet's solution other than famine and economic collapse in Sweden?

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

Linda W Snecker (V)

Mr. Speaker! Much can be said about my party's historical legacy. It has not always been particularly good, and we have taken a long step away from the politics that were pursued – for the most part before I was born.

But unlike Rashid Farivar, I do not stand in the Riksdag's speaker's chair when we are to debate road and transport issues and talk about mass immigration. For that, Mr. Speaker, shows exactly which ugly and hideous roots that Rashid Farivar's party has not moved a millimeter away from.

If we were to ban fossil fuel cars in a year, I truly welcome that proposal. There is, however, a plan. We must expand the charging infrastructure across all of Sweden. It is then your responsibility as a supporting party to the government to ensure that a national coordinator is appointed already now. We must ensure that more people can afford to buy an electric car. Today, it is an extreme luxury item. We must ensure that business owners continue to transition so that our freight transports, especially the short ones, are electrified; the trucks should preferably not drive more than a radius of 30 miles.

The Liberals have a dream of electricity paths. Make sure it becomes a reality! Make sure we get electricity capacity, and build everything that is needed from wind to hydropower! There is so much we can do. Sweden is a terribly beautiful and rich country that needs and can transition. But the only way to transition is to make those investments together. And as a society, we can afford it.

The alternative, of not transforming the transport sector and letting the transport sector have as large emissions as it does today, is namely not the Sweden we are to build.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! We want to create a fossil-free vehicle fleet in Sweden. Therefore, I welcome the government's implementation plan for the infrastructure regarding electrification with charging stations. It is very good and necessary.

But the same government was very quick to remove the support for electric cars at, in my view, too early a stage, before the volume of electric cars had reached the correct and reasonable levels.

I personally think that one should be technology-neutral. But electric cars have many advantages, not just as cars. They could also be part of an infrastructure for an electricity grid. We have talked tonight about how the car stands still 96 percent of the time. During that time it stands still, it could be an excellent complement to stabilize the electricity grid, and removing the obstacles to also using the electric car for this would have been more appropriate than removing the support.

The effect of this was also a slowdown in sales. What saved the sales were actually company cars. The corporate leasing on the market meant that the figures, as said, did not become as catastrophic as they could have been.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party wants to go even further and broader when it comes to the stimulus to achieve a fossil-free vehicle fleet. We want a conversion stimulus to convert the fossil-fueled cars to be powered by both electricity as well as hydrogen and biogas. Therefore, I want to move for approval of our reservation number 2 under point 1.

It is important that we achieve this change, for the sake of the environment. Electricity is a superior solution for cars because it means high efficiency, small size, and good applications. We shall be technology-neutral but also look at what the emissions will be from the different systems. There are extremely large advantages with the use of electric cars specifically.

We have seen many times that political decisions affect which path one takes. Biogas, I think, is a typical example. There, one has had constructions for commercial sale – but no biogas. We have also seen it within the area of work vehicles, where one has practically ceased production of biogas engines because it has not been possible to obtain biogas in sufficient quantities. Ten years ago, I sat on the board of a company that was going to sell such work vehicles, and it resulted in closure. Now it has nevertheless returned because there is more biogas. It is therefore important to synchronize production and access to electricity, charging stations, and biogas, and that we think about the whole regarding the fuels.

The changes to the reduction obligation that the government has decided on are in themselves devastating for the environment. They have admittedly given a somewhat lower price on gasoline and diesel, but not at all at the level that was promised in the election. It is not down to any 10 kronor at the pump, but the prices on diesel are approximately twice as high at present. Losers in this are business owners and private individuals - and not least the environment. One can feel a bit cheated by the statements and their promised effects.

Mr. Speaker! There is also a technical development when it comes to self-driving vehicles. Here, it is important to make the right decision. Right now, we see a bit too much of a wait-and-see attitude from the government's side. I want to see a more offensive stance so that we can move forward and no longer sit in the stands but instead push forward, because there is good technical expertise in Sweden. Time is moving so very fast now that if we do not make the right decision, we will be overtaken by other actors in the market.

I think we have finished discussing winter road maintenance here. We touched briefly on the fact that it also applies to individual roads. It is important to maintain the support for such roads and ensure that there is sufficient funding for them so that they can function even during the winter. All of Sweden should function year-round.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has some good proposals in the committee report. My first question concerns reservation 7, which concerns a technology-neutral definition of an electric vehicle that focuses on the vehicle's emissions from a life-cycle perspective, well-to-wheel. It is a very interesting proposal. No other party has such a proposal. It focuses on all emissions that the car has during its life cycle, from production to recycling and during use.

I have a calculation here which shows that an electric car manufactured today causes much more carbon dioxide emissions than a conventional car that runs on biofuels or e-fuels. When it comes to that definition, I agree very strongly with the Center Party and the member.

What is the Center Party's position regarding CO2 taxation of cars if we know what the carbon emissions are and what environmental impact they have throughout the entire life cycle? The entire CO2 taxation is based on the vehicle's emissions, but only via the exhaust pipe. In a global perspective, the carbon dioxide that comes from the exhaust pipe is not important. It is the entire life cycle emissions that are important.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is a wise question. I am pleased that the member shares our idea in the motion. At the same time, a life cycle analysis of a product at such an early stage as electric cars is somewhat complex. The battery technology used today will not be the same as that used in two or four years. There is a very rapid technological development. That is one thing that complicates this model.

I also pointed out in my speech that one could use an electric car as support in an electrification system, and that does add a dimension to an electric car construction. One must therefore take the whole into account here, but I completely agree with the member that one should include the whole when thinking about environmental emissions.

Regarding taxation, one should have one that corresponds to the emissions the product causes. I think that is a self-evident solution. Incentives for new products should exist precisely when they are being developed, and otherwise, the market should be able to handle this.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In the IPCC's latest report, one can read that they point very clearly to the accumulated CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. If there is something that affects the climate, it is the accumulated CO2 emissions, regardless of where they come from, whether they come from the production of batteries, cars, or fossil fuels, or perhaps from the production of cement or steel. It is the accumulated CO2 emissions that are important.

I understand the member's answer. It was no answer. The Centre Party has no answer to the question regarding taxation, but it is good that the member agrees that one should tax the total emissions.

The Chairman mentioned in his speech that it was an incorrect decision to reduce the reduction obligation so significantly - to 6 percent. In the Swedish National Audit Office's report on the reduction obligation - on page 24 to be exact - there is a figure showing where the HVO that was imported to Sweden came from and what it contained. According to this figure, nearly 60 percent of the content came from animal slaughter waste. HVO stands for hydrogenated vegetable oil. When 60 percent of the product is animal-based, it is wrong to call it HVO. It should instead be called HAO, hydrogenated animal oil.

Has the member read this report? Why does the member think it was an incorrect decision? The reduction obligation that the previous government introduced is purely counterproductive.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The reason I believe it was a wrong decision to lower the reduction obligation is that it worsened the environment. We can, for example, look at the ethanol blend in gasoline, which is significantly lower today. Of the ethanol that is currently produced in Sweden, at the Norrköping plant, it is 5 percent that is currently used in Sweden. The rest goes out to the rest of the European market. The profitability is, in itself, good, but it could have been used in Sweden.

At the same time, through the upscaled production of ethanol in Sweden, we have a good opportunity in a time of crisis. We could, in principle, be self-sufficient in ethanol.

When it comes to HVO, I actually see no problem with the slaughter remains as such. It is, however, important that the correct terms are used. I share the member's view that the correct terms should be used for the correct product.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In a time when we should be doing everything to reduce emissions, we have a government that is doing the opposite. For the first time in 20 years or more, we have a government that deliberately and actively makes decisions that lead to significantly increased emissions of climate-damaging gases. The transport sector, which accounts for approximately 30 percent of emissions, accounts for a very large part of the increase we will see.

The government has said that they want to work with electrification to reduce emissions, but what is happening in reality? Electrification is slowing down. The expansion rate regarding new electricity production is decreasing, according to the forecasts that exist. The share of electric cars in new car sales has decreased since the government removed the bonus, and greenhouse gas emissions are increasing.

We will not meet Sweden's or the EU's climate goals by 2030. The Climate Policy Council has recently reviewed the government's policy. The Council, which consists of some of Sweden's leading experts, judges the government's climate policy after notes. It is argued that the government lacks a plan for the climate. Professor Björn Sandén, the Council's vice chairman, tells DN that the plan does not show how we reach the goals either in the short term or in the long term. Åsa Persson, who is the Council's chair, says that the Council's conclusion is that the government's plan is not a plan to reach either Sweden's or the EU's commitments and that the responsibility for reaching the goals is pushed over to the next mandate period.

In the heading of the government's climate action plan, it states that Sweden shall reach all the way to net zero. What measures are there then that make us reach there? Professor Björn Sandén says that when this was looked at, it unfortunately turned out that those measures are not in the plan and that one therefore considers the government's action plan to be misleading and lacking in objectivity. I do not know if I have heard such a total tearing down of the government's policy in any area before.

The Climate Policy Council gives twelve recommendations to the government, two of which are very strongly linked to what we are debating today. They concern deciding on a package of measures for the transport sector's and work machinery's emissions and on designing a broader and less vulnerable electrification strategy. Here they are quite mild – a good first step would have been to have an electrification strategy that works overall and actually leads to electrification.

Mr. Speaker! Irresponsibility is a word I will think of when I think about what the government is doing right now on the climate issue. It is about total irresponsibility towards everyone who is affected by the consequences of climate change here and now, but obviously also towards the even worse consequences we will see if we do not succeed in reversing the development.

In the report we are debating today, there are several proposals that would make a difference for the climate, but the Tidö parties choose to say no. The sale of new fossil fuel cars needs to be phased out. We could have decided that today, but instead, this share is increasing. Given that a car is driven for an average of 19 years, it is truly bad, and it has consequences far into the future.

If we look at our neighboring country Norway, we see that it is going perfectly well. Norway is also known for having a very good rural policy - better than Sweden's. There, electric car sales reach rather 80-90 percent. It would be possible to have a policy that both protects household finances and ensures that Sweden meets the climate goals, but one chooses not to implement this.

There are several other good proposals, for example, proposals to facilitate car-sharing. Simple regulatory changes could make it easier for people who do not want or can not own a car to still have access to a car.

Improving the parking standard is another proposal that would facilitate the transition. Today, many pay an unnecessarily high rent for a parking space that they perhaps do not use. Instead, one could have smart mobility solutions with car pools, as I mentioned, bike pools, good public transport, and so on.

There were some important examples of things in this report that I would have been glad if the Swedish Riksdag had stood behind.

There are very many areas in this report. The road pothole has been mentioned; it has not functioned. Trafikverket has not managed its assignment in a good way. We have been critical of how the railway has been handled. We also see deficiencies on the roadside, not least when it comes to conversion to biogas and other biofuels. I can only regret it. This was actually included in the budget bill for 2022, but the right-wing parties - including Centerpartiet - unfortunately saw to it that it did not go through. It would have been a very good complement.

Mr. Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet naturally consider that all our proposals in this report should be implemented, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 3.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I have a direct question. In reservation 3, Miljöpartiet proposes that the sale of fossil-fueled cars should be banned after 2030. In last year's report, your proposal was to phase out the sale of new fossil-fueled cars by a final date for sales no later than 2025. Why has Miljöpartiet changed its mind, and how will that contribute to the climate crisis?

During the exchange of remarks with my colleague Sten Bergheden, the member engaged in historical falsification regarding the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. Let an Iranian who was not born and raised in Sweden provide a history lesson: In 1986, the Social Democratic government introduced a ban on all research into nuclear power. In 1990, the same government introduced a point tax on nuclear power, which led to extra costs. In 2017, the Social Democratic government raised this point tax by 17 percent, raised the fee for final disposal, and raised the safety requirement, which led to extra costs. They have step by step hampered the profitability of nuclear power to then blame a lack of profitability. Yes, if you change the legislation so that it hampers a technology, it becomes unprofitable.

I hope that the member is not engaging in historical falsification. I do not want to call it green lies, but I call it historical falsification.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I call the member's historical description pure historical falsification. I previously read out in the debate a quote from Vattenfall's former chairman of the board where he said that there was no political influence but that it was a purely commercial decision. There were, for example, large rust damages in Ringhals 2 and so on. Furthermore, the National Audit Office has looked into this and says that it is difficult to say how the power tax influenced the decision, and if you go to those who actually made the decision, they say that it was made on commercial grounds. When the decision was made, it was also known from the energy agreement that the power tax would be removed, but that did not influence the decision. It is therefore quite easy to prove that what the member claims is not true.

Nuclear power had heavy subsidies during the construction phase, and that can be good when it comes to new technology. But then one has had continued heavy subsidies in that one has not paid its insurance costs, which far exceed what has been paid in power tax.

When the fee for nuclear waste was increased, it was based on an assessment of what it actually costs to store the waste, and the fee was judged to have been too low, which was also an indirect subsidy of nuclear power.

If you add this up, the truth is exactly the opposite, namely that nuclear power has been subsidized in total. Still, the old reactors were not profitable, and that is not so strange. An old car is spent when the cost of repairs is higher than the value, and then you scrap it. I do not understand why one makes such an incredibly big deal out of this.

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind both debaters that the subject of the debate is road traffic and vehicle issues.

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

Rashid Farivar (SD)

Mr. Speaker! My question was about just road traffic and vehicle issues. Why has the Green Party changed its mind? I understand that the member wants to avoid answering and return to engaging in historical falsification.

Do not misunderstand me. It is not Miljöpartiet that bears the responsibility for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. It is the Socialdemokraterna who bear the responsibility, for it is the Socialdemokraterna who year after year and mandate period after mandate period have chosen power over Sweden's best interests.

The Green Party has its roots in a resistance to nuclear power and does not want new nuclear power in Sweden, and the Green Party took the opportunity to shut down four fully functioning nuclear reactors.

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must once again remind of the subject of the debate.)

I ask my question again. Last year, it concerned the ban from 2025. This year, you have moved it forward by five years. Why? I ask Member Linus Lakso to focus on my question, which concerns road traffic and vehicle issues.

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

Linus Lakso (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by addressing an incorrect statement. It was not political decisions that led to the shutdown of nuclear power, but unprofitability.

Let me return to the subject. If I am not mistaken, we do not set an end date for the sale of new fossil-fueled cars but an end date for the sale of fossil fuels by 2030. That is because the government's current policy here and now makes it difficult to reach this by 2025 when we are writing 2024 today and the share of electric cars is decreasing. Norway was up to 80-90 percent last year, so Sweden could have reached the goal if it had had a consistent policy striving towards this. It would obviously have been possible to also phase out fossil fuels by 2030 if it had started in time.

If one is to be wise in hindsight, we should never have started using fossil fuels but, as previously mentioned in the debate, used electricity and electrification right from the beginning. But unfortunately, we must start from where we are today, and we are not in a good place. We have a government that, together with Sverigedemokraterna, is doing exactly the opposite of what we would need to do for the climate transition, which will hit many people hard both here and now and in the future, and I think one needs to feel that one has the responsibility for the decisions one makes here.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 11 April.)

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