What about the Climate Protection Act?
by Dr iur. Marianne Wüthrich
On 18 June, we will vote on the “Federal Act of 30 September 2022 on Climate Protection Goals, Innovation and Strengthening Energy Security (KlG)ˮ (indirect counter-proposal to the Glacier Initiative). The aim of the bill: Switzerland is to become climate-neutral by 2050. The consumption of fossil fuels is not banned by the law, but should be reduced as much as possible. The law is intended to implement the Paris Agreement of 2015, according to which the rise in temperature is to be reduced. “It also aims to channel state and private financial flows into low-greenhouse-gas developmentˮ.1 The present draft envisages such a redirection of “public financial flowsˮ (tax money) into the “Green New Dealˮ with big ladles.
Switching to climate-friendly heating systems –
with two billion Swiss francs in federal funding
The law provides for enormous federal subsidies for the conversion of oil and gas heating systems as well as electric heating systems to climate-friendly and more efficient heating systems:
Pursuant to Article 50a para. 1 of the new Energy Act “The Confederation shall promote the replacement of fossil-fuelled heating systems and stationary electric resistance heating systems with heat generation from renewable energies and measures in the field of energy efficiency within the framework of an impulse programme with an amount of 200 million francs per year and limited to ten years.ˮ
Two billion francs for the changeover – who pays for it? According to the Federal Council, “The bill does not contain any new bans and does not introduce any new levies or taxes.ˮ (Voting booklet, p. 32) This claim is misleading: someone has to pay the billions, if not through new taxes, then simply by raising the existing ones and through electricity prices. These are already almost impossible for many households and businesses to afford.
There is also a need to warn against rash actionism. In recent years, for example, numerous homeowners have already replaced functioning (!) oil heating systems with gas heating systems because the federal government recommended and subsidised them as more climate-friendly. And now to switch again, with new subsidies? That is an enormous waste of money and energy.
Climate-friendly heating systems make sense,
but are not possible
for over nine million inhabitants
The Federal Council mentions wood heating and heat pumps as possible heating replacements. A lot can certainly be done here, especially by homeowners in rural areas. Or through the expansion of district heating networks. In the cities, entire neighbourhoods are already heated by district heating from waste incineration plants, and this can also be expanded. As far as increasing efficiency through better insulation is concerned, new buildings have had to be insulated for years and facades renovated accordingly, which is very efficient (much less gas consumption). Overall, however, these sensible steps will only bring about a small fraction of the energy required and are also anti-social: should tenants in the cities finance the woodchip heating and the fireplace for the homeowners through their electricity bills?
Where do the huge amounts of renewable energy come from?
“To replace oil and gas, Switzerland will need more electricity. To this end, renewable energies such as hydropower and photovoltaics (solar panels) in particular must be expanded.ˮ (Voting booklet, p. 29) As is well known, so far the expansion has only worked in dribs and drabs and is not even sufficient together with oil and gas. With billions in subsidies alone, the federal government will not be able to fix the situation, as long as objections to every small or large project are still possible, which prevent the projects or delay them for at least years. Former Federal Councillor Simonetta Sommaruga had promised to “streamline proceduresˮ, but left office without achieving anything. Perhaps her successor in DETEC (Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications), Federal Councillor Albert Rösti, will make it?
- Expansion of hydropower: This is Switzerlandʼs most important domestic energy source and is also very efficient, climate-friendly and environmentally friendly. It covers around 56 % of Switzerlandʼs electricity demand. The expansion of hydropower in Switzerland would indeed be possible on a larger scale (raising dams, new power plants).
But as mentioned, the expansion of this climate-friendly source of electricity is not getting off the ground due to objections. - Photovoltaics: Several large and very productive projects in high Alpine valleys are on the table. Grengiols in the Valais is a case in point: on an unutilized area of five square kilometres at 2000 metres above sea level, former SP National Councillor Peter Bodenmann wanted to realise the gigantic Grengiols Solar project. 2,000 gigawatt hours of electricity were planned - as much as the production of Grande Dixence, the largest Swiss hydroelectric power station. For a variety of reasons, including the inadequacy of the power grid, the 2,000 GWh have since shrunk to 600 and finally to 110 GWh. That is just enough to meet the electricity needs of 37,000 households.
The fact is: objections from climate activists also promptly follow against solar projects such as Grengiols Solar. A representative of “IG Saflischtal”, for example, declared in the “Walliser Bote” of 16 May 2023: “Every single panel is too much.” So where do we get the electricity for a climate-neutral Switzerland? All roofs would have to be equipped with panels, the opponents declare. But: firstly, not all roofs are suitable (especially in the cities) and secondly, large-scale systems in the unutilized high valleys of the Alps would be much more efficient – and would receive more sunlight.
Swiss energy demand is not just for heating
“Two studies commissioned by the Confederation conclude that it is technologically possible and affordable to supply Switzerland with climate-neutral energy by 2050”, says the Federal Council (voting booklet, p. 29). This claim, which has been repeated for years, is – at least so far – far from reality. Will this change if we consider a target year that is as far away as possible?
Incidentally, it is not only heating systems that need energy. However, the planned climate protection law does not mention the enormous energy demand for road and rail transport, for example. With the increasing switch from petrol to electric cars, the problem of the growing demand for electricity becomes even more urgent. Unabated immigration must also be included. Many unanswered questions!
Another 1.2 billion federal funds for the promotion
of technologies for the reduction of greenhouse gases
Art. 6 Para. 1 new Climate Protection Act: “The Confederation shall ensure financial assistance for companies up to the year 2030 for the application of innovative technologies and processes [...]”.
“At most 200 million francs are annually available for six years, for example for the use of climate-friendly production facilities.” (p. 27)
Presumption: There should be no shortage of companies wanting to collect these federal funds. Again, who pays?
Companies must “compensate for”
residual greenhouse gas emissions
Art. 5 para. 1 new: “Roadmaps for companies and sectors
1 All companies must have net zero emissions by 2050 at the latest. […]”
Federal Council: “Industrial enterprises such as cement plants and waste incineration plants as well as agriculture cannot completely avoid greenhouse gas emissions. For this reason, CO2 should be captured in industrial chimneys and from the atmosphere. This CO2 can then be stored permanently and safely, for example underground. Or the CO2 can be stored in concrete that is used in construction. This is done through so-called “negative emission technologies”, which are “biological and technical processes to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently bind it in forests, in soils, in wood products or in other carbon reservoirs” (Art. 2a Climate Protection Act).
Taking CO2 out of the air? As we learned in school, all plants need CO2 to convert it into the oxygen we breathe (photosynthesis). In order to preserve as many green spaces and trees as possible, we should not plaster our cities with excessive dense building. This means that we must not allow the number of inhabitants in our small country to grow indefinitely. Without being an expert, I would venture the assumption that the development and application of such negative emission technologies would also cost quite a bit. Another lucrative business for “Green New Deal” companies. Should the farmers and the cement plants foot the bill?
Conclusion
No one knows whether the net-zero target is achievable not only in theory but also in practice. What is certain is that with this law, some companies (not only Swiss!) would make a lot of money at the expense of taxpayers and electricity consumers. And although the title of the bill also says: “Strengthening energy security”, after reading the bill something else is also certain: How we are to meet our rising energy needs (last year's increase of over 4.3 %) once nuclear and fossil energies have been phased out is anyone's guess. •
(picture Wikipedia)