On May 15, the cantonal voters will decide whether the content of the Paris climate agreement will become a binding goal of Zurich politics. The mayors think little of it.
Smoking chimneys: The decision to move away from oil and gas heating has not yet been made in the constitution.
In November of last year, the Zurich electorate gave a resounding yes to the revised energy law. It primarily concerns heat treatment in existing buildings. In particular, the replacement of a heating system by a system for fossil fuels will in future only be permitted in exceptional cases. With around 120,000 oil or gas heating systems in the Canton of Zurich, this is a powerful lever for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Like the climate strategy recently presented by the government, the innovation is possible without an explicit basis in the canton’s constitution. Now the protection of the climate is to find a new place there. Does updating the Basic Law correspond to an important public task, or is it more of a symbolic policy? This is what the discussion about the cantonal vote on May 15 is all about.
Target net zero
Art. 102 of the canton’s constitution already enshrines the “protection of people and the environment from harmful or annoying influences”. It will now be expanded to include three sections. In addition to limiting climate change, greenhouse gas neutrality is expressly listed as a goal; so it should only be so much CO2 into the atmosphere, as compensated for by afforestation or technical measures (“net zero”).
This corresponds to the Paris Agreement on climate protection from 2015, to which Switzerland has also committed itself. In order to achieve its goal, the new article calls on the canton and communes to implement measures relating to settlement development, buildings, transport, industry and agriculture. To this end, they can also promote the development and application of technologies and processes.
The impetus for the climate protection article came from a parliamentary initiative by the Greens, which was provisionally supported by the cantonal council at the beginning of 2020. The wording was modified and weakened in the course of the deliberations. It originally stated that the average temperature should be limited to well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Financial flows should also be compatible with climate policy. These items have been removed.
The streamlined proposal was approved by the governing council. The FDP succeeded in anchoring the polluter pays principle in the bill. Last year the cantonal council approved it with 119 against 43 votes from SVP and EDU. All other parties now support the new provision. In September 2021, the canton of Bern approved a constitutional article on climate protection. While the cantonal template does not specify a year, the city of Zurich will vote on May 15 to achieve net zero by 2040.
Public task among others
But what does the supplement bring? The green building director Martin Neukom, who was one of the signatories of the initiative, said during the debate in the council that the climate could not be saved with a provision in the constitution, but with concrete measures. However, the canton can stipulate in the constitution what is an important public task. Climate protection is the global counterpart to local environmental protection, he recently wrote.
This is undoubtedly an important point for the proponents. The Zurich constitution already lists a good twenty tasks for the canton and municipalities. In addition to major issues such as public safety, education and health, this also includes promoting culture, private schools and sport. Now the provision on the environment is to be supplemented by climate protection. As a canton with high emissions of greenhouse gases and as a research location, Zurich has a special responsibility, according to the voting newspaper.
The opponents need neither a further declaration of intent nor a special sign to the Zurich authorities to comply with international climate agreements. The requirements of the federal government were sufficient, further statements would not have to be repeated in the constitution. They didn’t have to hold the referendum. A change in the constitution must come before the people.
Communities are skeptical
The Association of Municipal Councils (GPV) also expressed criticism in the hearing before the cantonal commission. Not about climate protection per se: However, the GPV considers a repetition of federal provisions in the canton’s constitution to be pointless. Moreover, the concrete effects are completely unclear.
Here the rejection of the SVP continues. She fears costly measures if the provision is implemented and job relocations abroad. That is why she rejects the article in her arguments as neither economical nor sustainable nor socially acceptable. Climate protection goals are to be defined in laws.
However, it was the SVP that discovered years ago that state roads are only mentioned in the canton’s constitution, while public transport should be expressly promoted. With a parliamentary initiative, she brought about an addition: Since then, the goal has been to at least compensate for a reduction in the performance of individual sections of the surrounding road network. This is as concrete as the intention to reduce greenhouse gases to curb global warming.