By 2050, Switzerland will be climate neutral. Today, the Confederates are voting on the corresponding Climate Protection Act. But the party with the most votes, the populist right-wing deputy prime minister, is campaigning vigorously for a „no” vote in the referendum.

In front of the Al Hadheerah supermarket in Geneva’s Servette district, I gather people: „Time is of the essence,” says this woman. You can vote yes three times for the Climate Protection Act. One of the men explains that he is from the Clima generation and clearly sees what is happening. Most parties support the new law. „I voted yes with complete conviction. Of course you can be afraid of change. But the Climate Protection Act doesn’t prohibit anything – there are only financial incentives. It would be a real shame to miss this opportunity.”

Opinion polls show a majority for the project

According to representative polls, more than 60 percent of Swiss want their government’s climate protection law to be approved in the referendum. The goal is for Switzerland to become climate-neutral by 2050 — after all, Switzerland also committed to this through the Paris Climate Agreement.

Fossil fuel consumption should be reduced as much as possible, but not banned. But if you replace the oil, gas or electric heating, you will feel relief financially. Companies that invest in climate-friendly technologies are also supported.

world Law promotion

„The climate protection law is a good Swiss compromise, as are almost all Swiss proposals,” says Reto Knuti, a climate researcher at ETH in Zurich. Along with more than 200 other scientists, he campaigned in an open letter for a yes to the referendum – although he believes climate protection law could be expanded.

„It will not be enough,” says the scientist, „because the basic elements are missing in the field of air travel, in the area of ​​\u200b\u200bthe financial center, in agriculture, there should be more.” „But this is kind of a course setting, a referendum: do we want this net-zero goal to be binding in law and do we want to implement it?”

The strongest party against climate law

Almost all of Switzerland’s political parties and business association support the climate protection law – but the party with the most votes, the vice-president of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, opposes it. The senior vice president pushed through the referendum and called the proposal the „Electricity Consumption Act.” Large bills fly out of the wallet onto voting stickers. „Pay more?” Next to it says the answer – of course – „No”.

Even the scientific facts about climate change are being questioned by opponents of climate protection law. „Irrational climate policy, which is not supported by any scientific data, leads to deindustrialization and poverty,” says Stefan Reteker, senior vice-president and president of the association „Pro Switzerland”.

The sound becomes rougher

Before the referendum, Swiss opponents of the climate protection law were fighting particularly hard against scientists like climate researcher Knutty, who meddle in the debate. Science and politics should take care of their jobs, according to Senior Vice President and Chair of the No Campaign, Michael Graber.

The climate is harsh in the Swiss referendum on climate protection law. In his office at ETH Zurich, climate researcher Knutti points to a pile of bad messages nearly a meter high. He’s also received a lot of hate mail digitally, saying: „Sometimes it’s frustrating when you get attacked like that and when you see how other people are posting fake news, fake pictures and ridiculous numbers. But of course we have to be aware: we live in a society that isn’t driven by Facts only.”

The failure of the first climate law

This isn’t the first time the senior vice president has taken a stand against climate protection law. In the summer of 2021, the party defeated the so-called „CO2 law” by referendum. According to opinion polls, this scenario should not be repeated – but in the end, as always in Switzerland, the electorate will decide on Sunday.

„I also think that’s enough,” says Coty. „If it’s rejected, then we have a big problem because we’ve had the second such law rejected in two years, and we can’t afford it.”