Several petrol companies have criticized the Swedish government’s decision to lower the reduction obligation, stating that it may not have a significant impact. However, Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson has pushed back against this criticism, stating that such companies should adopt a more humble tone when it comes to change. She believes that the decision to lower the reduction obligation was made with a focus on Swedish households and that it is up to the petrol and oil companies to adapt to these changes. The Minister also believes that the demand for biofuels will continue to increase throughout the EU, and that the companies’ criticism is simply them speaking in their own interest. The government has defended its calculations, stating that it has considered the increase in the reduction obligation that was expected to come into force in 2024, and not the current diesel price. The reduction obligation is a Swedish law that requires petrol and diesel companies to blend their products with renewable fuels to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Although the reduction obligation has received criticism from some, others see it as an important tool in achieving Sweden’s climate goals.
Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson’s harsh words after the petrol companies’ criticism
Published 2023-05-09 22:32
Lowered reduction obligations may have little or no effect, say several petrol giants – who have criticized the government’s calculations.
Now Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson is pushing back.
– I think it is really remarkable. They have also made large profits from a high reduction obligation. They should have a more humble tone to change, she says.
The government’s move to lower the reduction obligation did not only lead to ringing and cheers.
Several oil and petrol giants expressed dissatisfaction, and cast doubt on whether the new policy would really lead to a reduction of SEK 5.50 per liter of diesel.
A criticism that reached Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson.
– Above all, it is the petrol companies and the oil giants who say it. I think it’s a strange approach to the issue and quite worrying. We told them in October what we were going to do, and they have had a long time to adjust, so of course I also expect them to adapt to the decision we make, says Svantesson.
“Speaking in one’s own interest”
The Minister of Finance believes that the decision has been made with a focus on Swedish households, and that it is up to the petrol and oil companies to cope.
– The fact is that the demand for biofuels is increasing throughout the EU. Preem exports to many countries, it’s not just about Sweden. But Sweden has had an extreme fuel policy that has meant that ordinary people who have to take the car have had it incredibly tough, and even tougher with inflation. I see that the demand for biofuels would generally decrease as very small. It is about the companies speaking in their own interest.
But what you call extreme politics fuel is politics that you voted for. Why did you do it?
– We must be very clear and clear that we have been skeptical. But when we also saw the consequences of this, I and the Moderates were all for lowering the fuel tax. But also long before October, long before the election, we were very clear that the reduction obligation makes it far too expensive for households. That concern has come true, to say the least, and that’s why we’re lowering.
What do you do on January 1st if you don’t see that the effect is what you wanted? Will you lower taxes?
– Now the companies have had plenty of time to start adjusting, they still have many months to go. We naturally expect that people will also be responsive to this and that the prices will be reduced, as we see according to our calculations.
Two political sides
In its calculations, the government has started from the increase in the reduction obligation which, according to the previous plan, would come into force on 1 January 2024. The estimated reduction of SEK 5.50 per liter of diesel should therefore not be compared with today’s diesel price.
Isn’t it misleading that you calculate at a level we never had, and which was actually relevant during the government?
– It is a level that is according to plan now. That plan exists, it’s the one we stop and lower and it’s relevant. The fact is that we have many parties in the Riksdag who want to increase the reduction obligation from 1 January. We want to both stop the increase and lower the reduction obligation. There are two political sides where some want to raise and some want to lower, and the difference is SEK 5.50.
Don’t you think it will be misleading communication for ordinary consumers?
– No, I’m talking to you now and telling it like it is. I don’t think it’s misleading, but just say it like it is.
Could you have been clearer from the start?
– I have probably been clear all along in discussions and debates, we have talked about this issue for a long time and made it clear that there are two sides. There are parties that want to continue with the extreme increases and parties that want to lower to the EU’s mini level. That’s where the difference lies in politics.
