Speeches

Mr President, thank you very much. Without healthy rivers, healthy lakes and seas and good water purification, life as we know it cannot continue. Water is crucial, not least for the Baltic Sea. Sometimes in this house we complain about the lack of national alignment in legislation. That is why I think it is particularly important to recognise when we have been well adapted to the national circumstances. This directive, which deals with water treatment, has taken into account Sweden's cold climate, many lakes and our efficient wastewater treatment plants. I am therefore very pleased that this directive ensures that we have effective water treatment both in Åre and in Uppsala. Water systems may not be quite as sexy as nuclear power, but I pay attention to climate and environmental politicians who do not realize that we have to do both. We need to talk about nuclear power and water systems. Not least because we in Sweden have major challenges and major investment needs ahead of us. I have repeatedly pointed out that we need a ‘blue deal’, a green deal but for water, and I hope this is the first step in that direction.

Madam President, thank you very much. Wolf, seal and cormorant. These are three predators that have something in common. They have been threatened, but stocks have now recovered to such an extent that it creates problems across Europe. So what's the problem? Well, even though these species have recovered, they are still protected by EU legislation, which acts as a brake on the sustainable management of these animal strains. The law is static, but nature is not static, nature is dynamic. What was once true is not always true. The wolf tears hundreds of sheep to pieces at the Swedish farmers. The seals and cormorants clear the seas of fish, and the wild boar spreads so much in the Swedish forests that they are currently spreading African swine fever. This is a serious problem and policy at EU level stands in the way of many solutions. We need sustainable management. The Centre Party is pleased that the Commission seems finally to want to tackle the problem. We have been asking for this for a long time, and we hope that we can now put in place the solutions that the Swedish countryside needs.

Mr President, thank you very much. Dear colleagues and Commissioner Vestager, I would have loved to have avoided this debate – the debate on climate refugees. I would have liked us to avoid climate change, to tackle the problems now that we can do something about them. But we see that the worse climate change gets, the more people are displaced. And the more people flee, the greater the human suffering – and the situation in refugee camps around the world is getting worse. The best and most effective – and the most humane – we can do is to help people on the move, but at the same time stop putting their heads in the sand and tackling the problems: to make our share of the important Paris Agreement to raise the bar on climate action. To do this, we need to look ahead. We cannot sit back and be satisfied with what we have done. We need to raise the bar further in climate action. We must have a new climate target by 2040 that reduces Europe's emissions by 85%. That's what we need in climate action. And we need a total ban on fossil fuels in energy production by 2040. If we did, we would dare to aim and take the lead on climate change – then we can make sure that people do not have to flee, so that we can minimise climate change and really build a greener Europe.

When they go high, we go low. Herr talman! Det svenska klimatarbetet har varit ifrågasatt det senaste halvåret. Men när regeringen viker ner sig och vill öka utsläppen, då ser vi till att de minskar i EU. När Moderaterna ville sänka Sveriges klimatmål och betala för att utsläppsminskningar skulle ske någon annanstans så förhandlade Centerpartiet fram 100 miljarder till gröna innovationer. När Kristdemokraterna kastade reduktionsplikten framför bussen så förhandlade Centerpartiet fram utsläppsminskningar på 43 procent i Europas transportsektor. När Liberalerna ursäktade sig för att deras politik leder till högre utsläpp så förhandlade Centerpartiet fram att sjöfarten skulle in i utsläppshandeln. Och när Sverigedemokraterna öppet ville överge klimatmålen och betala EU-böter så förhandlade Centerpartiet fram utsläppsminskningar på 62 procent. När regeringen mer än halverar Sveriges klimatbudget så ser vi till att vi gör skillnad för utsläppen i Europa på riktigt. Vi i Centerpartiet växlar upp. Jag gick in i politiken som 13-åring för att göra skillnad för klimatet och det får jag nu leverera för er här i dag, och det är jag så otroligt stolt över. När det kommer till utsläppen: When they go high, we go low.

Mr President, thank you very much. Did you know that last year twice as many heating systems were sold using fossil gas compared to heat pumps in Germany? This shows us that we need every heat pump if we are to be able to phase out Russian gas. But F-gases are used in heat pumps – F-gases that have an incredibly high impact on the climate and the greenhouse effect and need to be phased out. Here, ladies and gentlemen, as so many times before, we are in a dilemma. F-gases need to be phased out, but if we do it too fast, we'll shoot ourselves in the foot. We are preventing electrification and we are finding it more difficult to phase out Russian gas. If you do what they want in the right corner, then you ignore climate policy and do nothing, but if you do as in the Green Party's dream world, then you phase out everything of evil overnight and have no options to replace the gas with. That is why we need a realistic environmental policy, so that you do things, but have two thoughts in your head at the same time. We need to phase out F-gas, but we need to do it with realistic alternatives, and we need to be able to solve the climate issue in both the short and the long term.

Madam President, it’s been very interesting. I’ve been listening to the discussion and I have several questions. I would have wanted to ask the EPP about the new trade agreement with the US. I would have wanted to ask the Council about the potential ICE ban. I want to talk about the Greens with their naive view on mining activities and to The Left on the electricity market reform. But we had no blue card, so there is no possibility to have a debate. And the result is we have more visitors here than MEPs and we have become completely irrelevant. We’re going and moving towards elections. We need to have more lively debate and discussions. Come on, we can do better in this House. So, in the future, I hope we can have more lively debates and make us more relevant because we earn that, the citizens earn that and we can do better than this, colleagues.

Madam President, It doesn't happen often, but today I would like to address you in German as a Swede and a liberal. I really never thought that I would have to explain the value of climate protection measures to Germany. Germany! But if the whole future of the Fit for 55 package is at stake, it requires extreme measures. I look at you and turn to you, the German government. Fit for 55 is our roadmap for the future. But it is a fragile house that is in a delicate balance. If you take out a decidedly important part, it collapses. And when I say house, I mean our climate action, our future. It is absolutely irresponsible to block critical elements of the already agreed laws. I speak to you as a Swede, as a parliamentarian, as a young European, as a liberal. Please stand up for the Fit for 55 package and stop blocking the central element of our climate package, the end of the combustion engine.

Madam President, lithium, copper, aluminium, iron, cobalt, nickel; the list could go on. We in Europe need metals and minerals if we are serious about the green transition and tackling climate change. And it’s become painfully clear during the pandemic and the war in Ukraine how reliant we are on Russia and China and how dangerous though those dependencies are. If we are to be serious, we need mines and we need mines in Europe. I really wish we could make batteries and turbines and windmills out of cotton candies and rainbows. But, colleagues, maybe it comes as a surprise to you, but you can’t. And that’s why we must stop shooting ourselves in the foot. We can’t, on one hand, say we want more raw materials and minerals and then, on the other hand, go regulate so it’s impossible to open a new mine in Europe. We see this over and over again: in the Nature Restoration Regulation; in the deforestation file; in the Industrial Emissions Directive. Over and over again, we’re making it impossible for industries to establish themselves in Europe. We do this over and over again. If we continue to do that, we will be continuing to rely on Russia and China, and that’s dangerous.

Madam President, thank you very much. 250 million tonnes of CO2. Dear colleagues, as we vote on the energy crisis package and the funding for phasing out Russian gas, we can be really proud. We stood up to the Commission's anti-climate proposal, a proposal that would have increased emissions in Europe by 250 million tonnes. In this situation – when we are in the midst of both a climate crisis and an energy crisis – increasing emissions to finance the solutions to the energy crisis would have been nothing more than peeing in your pants. Warm and comfortable short-term, but long-term a big mistake. It was an absurd proposal that we in the Centre Party refused to accept in the negotiations and now we have managed to do it again. And in the final product that we are going to vote on, we have now financed the energy crisis package without massively increasing emissions and we should be proud of that. We in the Centre Party and the Liberal Group will vote in favour of this proposal, which finally gives us the opportunity to phase out Russian gas without sacrificing the important climate work.

Mr President, thank you very much. 250 million tons. That was as much as the Commission wanted to increase emissions to bring in €20 billion. That is totally unacceptable. Do you hear how sick that sounds? 250 million tons more emissions! This was unacceptable to me as a negotiator. We are in the midst of an energy crisis as a result of our gas dependency – a gas dependency that is also exacerbating the climate crisis. Allowing the climate to pay 250 million tonnes is completely irresponsible. I am therefore very proud that, as a negotiator, I have been involved in developing a solution that not only stops the increased emissions, but also ensures that we stop financing fossil fuel projects and tightens the possibilities to continue financing gas and oil. I will be proud to vote in favour of this proposal, and I hope that you colleagues will do the same.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. One and a half degrees. That's the target. This is the dream scenario of the Paris Agreement. But a planet that has warmed up by one and a half degrees – it is not a dream planet. Extreme weather conditions are currently affecting not only Europe but the whole world. Southern Europe's forests are burning. Twenty of the world's 37 groundwater reserves are running out. Water that has accumulated since ancient times dries out, dries out and disappears for good, while Pakistan and other parts of the world overflow. And this is just the beginning. The major food producers bear witness to the crisis, but little effort is being made to mitigate its consequences. Since politics has been sticking our heads in the sand for too long, we must now prepare for a degree and a half of warming. The most important thing is a strong climate policy, but we also have to deal with climate change. We need to rehabilitate society, because water dries out faster, fires burn further and storms blow harder if we do nothing. That is what I am voting for today: to act quickly and to act now.

– I do not understand the Green Group. Now we are talking about climate change and its consequences, but we also need to solve the climate issue. This week we are going to vote on the Renewable Energy Directive. However, the Green Group is consistently voting in favour of reducing the availability of bioenergy and forestry residues, making it more difficult for hydropower, making it almost impossible to open mines and much more difficult to obtain environmental permits. What energy sources will you have left? How do we solve the original problem?

Mr President, if we are to solve the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis, we need healthy and resilient oceans and we need global solutions – and the Union memberships in international regional fisheries—management organisations are key tools. Today, we are debating two such organisations and the memberships that we have there, and we, together with the colleagues and the rapporteur, are now implementing better measures for both EU vessels and other vessels in the western and central Pacific area. For me and Renew, it was very important to the final outcome, besides ensuring correct implementation of the international obligations, that we also included everything being done in a timely manner, that we work to strive for strengthened ocean governance and promoting sustainable fishing management. We managed to secure just those three and also more. We also managed to strengthen control measures in relation to ocean governance and marine litter. I am very proud of the outcome and want to express full support from the Renew team. Thank you so much for the cooperation on this important file.

But Tobe and the Moderates, now confuse the cards. This vote is not just about nuclear energy, it is about the greenwashing of fossil natural gas. And no, I don't think it's worth it. Then you have to redo and you have to do the right thing and put the nuclear power in a separate file. But to mix it in and green-classify fossil energy and call it sustainable, and label your and my pension money with fossil gas as sustainable investments – I think that's all up the walls! Then you have to see clearly and be able to keep apart apples and pears. There is nothing sustainable about fossil gas.

Mr President, thank you very much. Let me be clear. There is nothing sustainable about fossil fuels. There is nothing sustainable about fossils. It is only hypocrisy to pretend like it, and it is hypocrisy that the Liberals, Christian Democrats and Moderates are now engaging in by greening and greenwashing fossil natural gas in the EU taxonomy framework. In its enthusiasm for nuclear power, it has been blinded to such an extent that it chooses to consider fossil energy to be sustainable. But let me be clear. It is the decline and the naive attitude towards fossil energy that has put us in the climate-political and geopolitical risk and crisis that we are in today. Europe's gas policy has failed. Now we have the chance to finally deal with gas dependence. Then I hope that the Liberals, the Christian Democrats, the Moderates – yes, all the Swedish parties and all the parliamentarians in here – choose the right side of history. I chose my side a long time ago. I want to see less fossil energy in Europe. I don't want to classify gas as sustainable because we need new energy. (The speaker agreed to reply to a post (“blue card”).)

Although this may not be the last time you and I are debating, Jytte, it may be the last time in a very, very long time. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Jytte, for your incredibly strong climate commitment, which will be missing in this house when you go home to Sweden. I just want to say thank you for your deed and your strong climate drive! Bring it home and continue to fight for a taxonomy without gas at home in the Swedish parliament.

The Sweden Democrats, you are not proposing that the emissions trading system should apply to the transport sector. This means that the cost is only charged to the Swedish motorists. We have the record high CO2 charges on petrol and diesel in Europe. We pay high prices, but we do not do it together in the rest of Europe. That is why the transport sector must enter the emissions trading system, so that all motorists do their homework and so that we jointly reduce emissions from the transport sector. That is why, Jessica Stegrud, the transport sector must enter the emissions trading system, but the Sweden Democrats will say no to that.

Madam President, I’m so tired of people telling me that we need to act on climate change in order to care for future generations, that we need to replace our fossil energy by 2050 in order to promise a better future for our children. Well, I will not likely retire until 2060. That means that the 2050 targets are to be met when I will still be around, and this is within my generation. We need to act here and now on climate change, and we need to do it within my generation. We need to do it now. And the EU Emission Trading Scheme is the world’s most powerful climate tool that we have to combat fossil energy, and we really need to cherish that. But we also need to step up our game and we need to take it to the next level. And as negotiator for Renew, I’m therefore extremely proud of what we present to you today, because we need our emissions trading scheme to be the global example and to step up, and when both the left and the right have been in doubt, wanting to lower the ambitions, we in Renew have stepped up. We need to step up on the ambition level and that’s why we propose to raise the speed of emission reductions. We need to step up on the emissions covered, and that’s why we propose to include more sectors. We need to step up the investments in green technology, and that’s why we proposed a climate investment fund. We need new energy in Europe and we need to step up on all levels. Vi behöver ny energi till Europa och vi behöver skärpning på alla plan. (Talaren godtog att svara på ett inlägg ("blått kort"))

Dear Michael, you and the Green Group always take credit sometimes in being the greenest. But as a matter of fact, it was your Group and the S&D Group that did not want to expand the ETS to road transport and buildings at all – sectors where emissions are still growing. How do you justify that to the environmental NGOs and the young generation that want us to do more and expand the ETS to those sectors?

Madam President, thank you very much. Now it's up to the evidence! It is now time to vote on increased ambitions in climate action, and then the right-wing conservatives have a kind of spine reflex to shout "Stop! It's a crisis!" The first thing right-wing populists want to cut back on in a crisis is climate ambition. The gas crisis has been here for six months. The coronavirus crisis has been here for two years. The climate crisis has been here much longer. We must be able to deal with other crises in parallel with dealing with the climate crisis. The climate transition must not be the first to be sacrificed in a crisis. But if, like many of you on the right-wing, you refuse to acknowledge the climate crisis, then it may also be easy to sacrifice it, the first thing you do. I believe in the climate crisis. I want to do something about it. And that is why I am voting for increased climate ambition.

Mr President, thank you very much. "Don't you think that Russian oil smells like blood?" asked the Ukrainian Foreign Minister. I ask you today: Don't you think the Russian gas smells like blood? The Russian gas has traces of Ukrainian blood, whether you, colleagues, want to admit it or not. To wave flags and placards echoes empty today, tomorrow and in history, if we do not stop the Russian gas. We are still funding Putin's war. There is only one way forward, and there is an urgent import ban on Russian gas. It will bring major changes and new paths. It will require us to do everything we can to transform and reduce the impact on the energy market and bring down the soaring energy prices. It requires us to start producing more biogas and bioenergy, to start energy efficiency, to start procuring energy solutions together, to start saying no to gas for heating, to start fully establishing the Energy Union. In addition, it demands that we stop putting a stick in the wheel of renewable energy, stop talking about cutting cables between countries, stop being protectionists and energy nationalists, and stop being useful idiots in Putin's war.

Madam President, thank you very much. Securing the energy supply of renewable alternatives within the Union will be key to achieving the 2030 climate targets. Now we are voting on the strategy for offshore energy production and we unfortunately see that too many investments in new energy are being stopped, not least in Sweden. We see daily how projects to build offshore wind power are given stop signs, while at the same time we in this house want to give the green light to fossil gas. It's all wrong. We need more renewable energy and we need it now. More policies like this are needed to expand renewables and strengthen Europe's electricity grid. If we are to solve the climate crisis together, we cannot be climate nationalists. We need to work together in Europe to connect our electricity grid. A larger energy system with many interconnectors increases security of supply, but it also enables higher use of renewable energy and makes renewable energy more competitive and profitable. So now there are voices in the Swedish debate that speak instead of dismantling the common energy market and the electricity grid, that each country should manage on its own. This is detrimental not only to European cooperation, but also to climate action. I'm looking at you, Left Party. The recent events are nothing more than climate nationalism and it is damaging our valuable transformation work for more new energy in Europe.

Madam President, thank you very much. Dear colleagues, Today is a historic day: The journey that we in the Centre Party have been fighting for too long is now coming to an end after two years of work. Finally, the European Parliament is speaking out about the unsustainable transport of animals taking place across Europe and the hellish journeys that we are exposing our animals to. We are deciding today on several sharp recommendations to mark and put our foot down on how the transport of the future needs to be improved. I have a few examples: We want to see tougher penalties for those Member States that ignore EU legislation on sustainable animal transport. It should be punished for violating these rules. We want stricter rules, time limits and stricter requirements for maritime transport, land transport within the EU and exports, i.e. the transport of animals to third countries. We need more science and less gut feeling about animal transport. We need stricter scientific advice and research in this area, and we need stricter protection for the most vulnerable animals and the smallest animals. But we in the Centre Party and Renew Europe are not satisfied with this alone. We will not be content to make recommendations, but we will be a nail in the eye of the Commission and the European institutions until we see real action. It should not be possible for countries to get away and for us to treat animals badly. We will not be satisfied until the threat of antibiotic resistance is removed, until animal welfare is improved across the EU and until all animals are transported safely.

Mr President, thank you very much. Energy policy is climate policy, and I am therefore very pleased that we are talking today about the Energy Union, which is often forgotten in climate policy. But we need to get better at working together in the energy field, internationally and in the energy industry, because here we are lagging behind: In 2019, 73 percent of Europe's energy was still fossil and we see how energy prices are rushing. It is a serious situation, and the most remarkable thing about this report that we are discussing here today, on the state of the Energy Union, is that the EU is still subsidising fossil energy. It is not small sums, money that could go from the fossil to the renewable. There, we subsidize with SEK 520 billion, equivalent to 17,000 wind turbines that could instead have been built for that money. That is totally unacceptable. Fossil subsidies do not belong in our energy system and therefore we must not forget the Energy Union. We need to make the Energy Union sexy again.

Mr. Speaker! Colleagues! Next week I'm going to the climate summit in Glasgow, but my biggest concern is that this meeting will once again be a meeting with a lot of talk and a little workshop. The EU and the rest of the world need to agree to significantly increase their climate ambition to meet the 1.5°C target. We have to work together. More countries need to adopt binding climate-neutrality targets by 2050. We need to take China and India with us. In addition, we should be a leader in working towards a global price for carbon dioxide. But it is also extremely important that we recognise that not enough has been done at international level, but also not at European level. We need to do our own homework and speed up the ambitions in our climate package and the work we are working on right now. We need to move from words to action. We have to walk the talk.