According to SRG projections, 71% say no to the climate fund initiative

The No vote comes as no surprise. All polls before the vote had pointed to this. However, according to the projection, at 71%, the No vote is even clearer than expected. The last polls had assumed a No vote share of 65 to 68 percent.

Only the supporters of the left-wing parties supported the bill. The majority of Green Liberal supporters were also against it.

Financing not regulated

With the popular initiative "For a fair energy and climate policy: investing for prosperity, work and the environment (climate fund initiative)", the SP and Greens called for a state fund for climate protection measures. Money from the fund would have been used, for example, to support projects to decarbonize transport, buildings and the economy.

The federal government would have had to replenish the fund from the third year after a yes vote at the latest, annually and until 2050 with 0.5 to 1.0 percent of economic output (gross domestic product, GDP). According to the Federal Council, this would have been four to eight billion Swiss francs in 2024. The initiative was supported by the EPP and an alliance of environmental organizations and trade unions.

The text of the initiative called for no new taxes or levies, and contributions to the fund should not be subject to the debt brake. The opponents took issue with this point: According to them, the federal government would have had to take on additional debt for the fund or raise more taxes or cut benefits.

Fear of debt build-up

The initiative had no chance in the conservative-dominated parliament. Neither the councillors nor the Federal Council wanted a counter-proposal. The No committee included the SVP, FDP, the Center Party, the trade association and the business umbrella organization Economiesuisse.

The efforts of the federal government and cantons for the climate and biodiversity were sufficient, according to the opponents. Switzerland should be made more climate-friendly with incentive taxes and targeted subsidies.

The No campaign warned against further debt and tax increases due to the climate fund. Opponents also saw risks that the funds would be used inefficiently and could prevent private investment.