The counterproposal also wants to see exceptions for emergency services and national defence. These exceptions are unnecessary, as CO
2
-neutral synthetic fuels already exist and there is time to build up the necessary production capacities by 2050. The admixture quotas for kerosene discussed by Switzerland and the EU create such incentives. A long-announced ban is also a strong incentive to develop other solutions and provides planning security.
Our children will suffer from our failures
Thirdly, there remains the question of who will pay, and which incentives will be effective. According to the German Environment Agency, each tonne of CO
2
causes globally aggregated climate damage of about CHF 200 over time. The latest calculations are significantly higher.
1
In addition, every tonne that places an excessive burden on the CO
2
budget for a given temperature limit must be removed from the air again at some point (net negative emissions). These prices should drop from about CHF 600 today to CHF 200 for the next generation, but even then, we are costing them hundreds of francs per tonne. Currently, there is an incentive tax of about CHF 100 per tonne on fossil fuels in general, but not on power fuels or kerosene.
In short, we are paying only a fraction of the effective costs of fossil energy and leaving the bill to be paid by the younger generations. A model with an advance disposal fee, similar to the one that exists today on a small scale for electronic devices, would accelerate CO
2
avoidance, promote other options and make it easier for our children to clean up.
2
Investment programmes and limits are needed where price controls are not acceptable or insufficient due to a lack of other means.
3
Price of negative emissions
Fourthly, key questions about negative emissions remain unanswered: how much greenhouse gas will be impossible or extremely difficult to avoid in the future? What potential do natural sinks and technical processes have to remove CO
2
from the atmosphere? What are the costs? How should non-permanent sinks, such as forests and soil, be approached? And do negative emissions always have to be domestic, even when, as in Switzerland, suitable geological repositories are limited and sequestration is expensive?
Much is still unclear, but we need to develop and scale these technologies today if we want to use them effectively tomorrow. Similar to photovoltaics, it will take one to two decades for processes to be affordable and widely available. We must start now.
Risky political poker game
There’s a lot at stake: a pure net-zero target in the constitution would require further steps at the legislative level for implementation, which would be similarly controversial to the CO
2
law. When the Glacier Initiative and its counterproposal are put before the people, there is also a risk of a double “no” vote, which would be fatal for Switzerland and its reputation.
