Why isn’t wealthy Switzerland doing more to tackle climate change?

Dear Lisa

Thank you for this important question. It is clear that the tangible and intangible costs of climate change will, in all likelihood, be borne by future generations.

Let me answer your question with a few thoughts:

Targeted disinformation

For decades, climate change has been systematically cast into doubt. Naomi Oreskes has essentially noted that the denial, trivialisation and defamation of scientific findings have played a decisive role in delaying global climate action. Although climate change is now rarely openly disputed, subtle forms of scepticism and denial continue to influence our individual and political actions (see the highly readable book by Oreskes and Conway, *Merchants of Doubt*, 2010).

Economic interests

Furthermore, economic interests dominate – both at the level of the private sector and at the individual level. Switzerland benefits enormously from sectors such as finance, mechanical engineering, the pharmaceutical industry and international trade, which rely on energy-intensive processes. Concerns that stricter climate protection could lead to short-term economic disadvantages are holding back decisive action. Thinking long-term is difficult not only for the business sector but also for the political sphere (see, for example, the interview with climate scientist Reto Knutti: https://greencircle.ch/de/natur/climate-expert-reto-knutti-we-are-a-nation-of-naysayers).

Promises of technological salvation

Another important point is the widespread belief in technical solutions. Many trust that innovations could replace the necessary transformation and would rather avoid far-reaching changes. This hope in technological promises of salvation delays effective political decisions.

Fear of change

It is also often argued that Switzerland accounts for only 0.1 per cent of global CO₂ emissions and that its influence is therefore limited. This argument significantly weakens the political pressure for ambitious climate targets.

Such attitudes are also reflected in the general public: the 2021 referendum on the CO₂ Act showed that many people are not prepared to accept personal restrictions. Particularly in a country with a high standard of living, far-reaching changes seem threatening, even though they could also open up new opportunities – an aspect that is, unfortunately, not discussed enough.

New models for the energy future

My central concern would therefore be this: moving away from a fossil-fuel-based culture of affluence requires a fundamental rethinking of modernity. Instead of merely debating technical alternatives such as e-bikes, incentive-based levies or biofuels, we should be designing new models for the future of energy – with changed material conditions, social structures and intangible foundations. This transformation need not be seen as a loss, but can be understood as an expansion of our scope for thought and action (on this subject, I recommend: ‘After Oil: A Pocket Book’ by the Petrocultures Research Group, published in 2016).

.

In this sense, I hope your question will serve as an impetus to think beyond purely financial solutions.

I wish you many fruitful discussions.

Monika Gisler

References:

Oreskes, Naomi and Conaway, Erik M. 2010. *Merchants of Doubt*. How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

Knutti, Reto 2025. “We are a nation of naysayers”. Greencircle. online

Imre Szeman, Petrocultures Research Group. 2016. After Oil.