Posted
Between the ecologists who would like to go quickly and the UDC who want to take their time, the debate on the initiative for the glaciers is still far from a consensus. Parliament hopes to find it in a new draft.
Simonetta Sommaruga displays her determination to reach “zero emissions” by 2050. But the path to achieving this is strewn with pitfalls.
DR
After the episode of the CO₂ law in the Federal Chambers, mentalities have changed little on the climate issue. Between the speech of the green climatologist Valentine Python (Vert.es/VD) and the peasant of the UDC Pierre-André Page (UDC/FR), there is a “gap” in the answers given. The first draws up an apocalyptic report of global warming due to greenhouse gases, on the verge of annihilating humanity. However, acting quickly could still ensure “the survival of most human societies”.
The second opposes a realistic vision: “You cannot simply decide to ban fossil fuels without thinking about their replacement, our self-sufficiency. Obliging our fellow citizens to use only electric vehicles would precipitate us towards a lack of energy. (…) And we see, around us, our companies, our peasant farms and our fellow citizens working to protect all of our nature, to fight against global warming…”
Absolute ban or realistic reduction
The initiative for glaciers, debated this Thursday at the National Council, demands the end of the use of fossil fuels in 2050 according to the Paris agreements adopted by Switzerland. It is an energy revolution, even if exceptions are provided for in the event of technical impossibility. The Federal Council considers that this text is too restrictive. His counter-proposal proposes a linear reduction until 2050, as well as exceptions in the event of a major economic or public safety problem. Federal Councilor Simonetta Sommaruga summed up the difference between the two texts: “The initiative aims for an absolute ban on fossil fuels. The counter-project proposes an obligation to reduce as much as possible according to the technical, economic and safety aspects for the population”.
Greens at least green…
On Wednesday and Thursday, the debate in the National Council showed a spectrum of positions on these two texts. The Greens and the Liberal Greens are for the initiative, the Socialists for both, the PLR and the PDC for the counter-project and the UDC against both. In view of the balance of power, it is the solution of the counter-project alone which was voted by the People’s Chamber by 104 votes (PS, PLR and C) against 67 against (UDC and Vert.es) and 21 abstentions of various origins.
The matter becomes more complicated for the average observer, because the Commission for the Environment, Regional Planning and National Energy (CEATE) has decided to propose another project (known as an indirect counter-project), which seeks to change the law, rather than the Constitution. This would make it possible to go faster. But according to the final content of the project which will be fixed in June, the initiative could be maintained, if the Greens are not satisfied, or a referendum launched by the SVP, if this project is deemed too “green”. The passage before the people seems difficult to avoid on these issues.
The indirect counter-project
Jacqueline de Quattro (PLR / VD) finally defended the solution that was adopted by the National Council, that is to say the rejection of the initiative and the support for the counter-project: “Its adoption by the two chambers allows an extension of the deadline for the development of an indirect counter-proposal capable of obtaining a majority. The text of the indirect counter-proposal, as it currently emerges from the discussions within our committee, broadly reproduces the Federal Council’s direct counter-proposal, namely to reduce the net greenhouse gas emissions of Switzerland by 2050″.
Three individual proposals
During this first round on the glacier initiative, three individual proposals were put on the table. Those of Marco Romano (C / TI), Jon Pult (PS / GR) and Roger Nordmann (PS / VD). The first wants to sectorise the linear reduction of fossil fuels according to the specificity of economic branches, the second calls for significant support for peripheral or rural regions (whose vote caused the CO₂ law to sink) and the third wants to launch a massive incentive program to change individual heaters. The first two were accepted, but the third was narrowly rejected, after a confusion during a first vote by 95 to 92.
“Slowness and indecision”
The case goes to the Council of States. The National Council has tacitly decided to extend the processing of this initiative until August 2023. As Baptiste Hurni warned on Wednesday: “The two pitfalls of this project are therefore slowness and indecision. Some are afraid of a constitutional principle that they consider too restrictive and of a path of reduction to be taken immediately. They would therefore like to temporize. Others believe that the counter-project could be improved and dream of a luminous text that would make us all agree while being more concrete. We warn both schools of thought: doing nothing and waiting is no longer an option”.