Two weeks ago, the European Court of Human Rights ordered Switzerland to do more to protect the climate. Since then, there has been heated debate about the consequences of the verdict.
The bourgeois-conservative camp has been fuming since the Strasbourg verdict became known. Politicians scold the judges and complain about nothing less than an attack on national sovereignty. The right-wing nationalist SVP exploited the verdict – for its course of isolation from Europe. She demands that Switzerland withdraw from the Council of Europe in response to the ruling.
SVP MP speaks of “decadent judges”
“That is certainly something to think about,” says Christian Imark, member of parliament for the SVP. “How decadent these Strasbourg judges have already become today so that they have to talk us into it and want to correct our direct democratic decisions. That gives me something to think about and it’s highly dramatic.”
FDP MP Susanne Vincenz-Stauffacher also criticizes the ruling for more climate protection. “I cannot understand this conclusion and would also object to an international court now wanting to directly influence national climate policy – in our case, Switzerland’s climate policy.” The SVP and the FDP also think that Switzerland is not doing so badly when it comes to climate protection.
Greens and Social Democrats demand more effort
The Greens and Social Democrats, on the other hand, see an urgent need for action. “We have to do more when it comes to climate protection. And we have it in our hands in parliament,” calls the Social Democrat Céline Widmer to the conservatives in a heated television debate. The canton of Zurich is showing the way with its law for more climate-neutral heating, said the Social Democrat.
A look at the newspaper comments shows how much the debate is dividing Switzerland. The left-wing weekly newspaper WOZ celebrated the verdict: “For climate activists, the success of the climate seniors brings new impetus. Because it makes it clear: their resistance is legitimate. The pressure will continue to be necessary, as the civil reactions to the verdict show: there is every insight there to be missing.”
The conservative Neue Zürcher Zeitung, however, commented: “It cannot be the case that climate activists, together with the judiciary, want to eliminate the democratic debate. In Switzerland, parliament and the people make climate policy – and not a group of judges.”
Swiss judge wants to mediate
In recent years, the Swiss had adopted a climate law in referendums, but at another time they rejected stricter CO2 requirements. The European Court of Human Rights also includes a Swiss judge. Andreas Zünd worked on the climate judgment against his country.
Zünd rejects the accusation that the verdict is directed against direct democracy. The opposite is the case, the Social Democrat said on Swiss television in order to smooth things over. The verdict is not patronizing. Climate protection is an important political issue and there will always be democratic debates about it. “The court simply said here: As far as Switzerland has come so far, it does not meet the requirements,” said Zünd. “There will be democratic arguments about how to solve this problem.”
referendum about renewable energies
The Swiss government first wants to analyze the verdict in detail. People there know that it will be difficult to quickly implement more climate protection. This requires not only a majority in parliament, but also among the people. The first mood test is due in June – then the Swiss will decide on increased expansion of renewable energies in a referendum that has been planned for some time.
Mathias Zahn, ARD Geneva, tagesschau, April 23, 2024 11:38 a.m