Contents
The Human Rights Court has ruled that Switzerland must do more to protect the climate. What leeway does politics have?
This week’s ruling by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against Switzerland has sparked harsh reactions. According to the verdict, Switzerland is not doing enough to achieve the climate goals it has set itself. However, the Swiss electorate rejected an effective CO₂ law at the ballot box in 2021. Among other things, this would have included higher gasoline prices and a flight ticket tax. So what scope does Swiss politics have to implement the ruling?
Legend:
What happens next with Swiss climate policy after the ECHR ruling?
Keystone/Archive/CHRISTIAN BEUTLER
New CO₂ law: Parliament recently revised the CO₂ law again. It provides incentives for more climate protection, but critics describe the law as unambitious. The European Court of Human Rights states that the measures taken by Switzerland so far are not sufficient to meet its own goals. Bourgeois politicians in parliament also recognize this. The reasoning was that they concentrated on what could win a majority at the ballot box.
Higher gasoline prices and airline ticket taxes: In principle, far-reaching interventions for more climate protection, such as a new introduction of incentive taxes, are conceivable. This could, for example, be additional taxes on fuel or airline tickets. The income would be distributed back to the population so that climate-friendly behavior is rewarded. Incentive taxes are considered to be economically efficient. Critics, for example from the SVP, therefore explain that the electorate had already rejected it once in 2021. Climate protection activists hope that the measures will now gain majority support. Because some citizens also want to at least examine incentive taxes again, the debate is likely to come up again sooner or later.
Carbon budget and climate impact assessment: After the verdict from Strasbourg, the Greens rushed forward. They demand that Switzerland maintain a carbon budget in the future that shows how much greenhouse gases it is allowed to emit in order to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement. In addition, all federal laws and projects should be checked for their climate compatibility. These proposals are likely to have a difficult time in the bourgeois parliament, also because the parliament would restrict itself in future decisions.
Rules for the financial center: The financial center is potentially one of Switzerland’s greatest levers in the fight against climate change. According to a study by the management consultant McKinsey, Switzerland could regulate up to 10 times domestic emissions through the companies based here and imports. Parliament has so far relied on self-regulation of the industry. However, on the basis of the climate protection law approved by the people, the Federal Council would have the opportunity to make specifications at the ordinance level. However, due to the majority in the Federal Council, this currently seems unlikely.
Requirements for the construction industry: Parliament has passed a law for the so-called circular economy. On this basis, the Federal Council could, for example, give the construction industry guidelines regarding climate protection, also without further votes in parliament. The industry is currently responsible for around a fifth of Switzerland’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Council also has a certain amount of leeway in making adjustments to regulations in other areas.