ECHR ruling: research group highlights Swiss climate shortcomings

Switzerland has committed to halve CO2 emissions by 2030 and ultimately eliminate emissions by 2050.  Keystone / Urs Flueeler

The Swiss government’s recent dismissal of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) landmark climate ruling has raised eyebrows. In its defence, the government argues that national climate policy is adequate, but an independent climate research group questions whether Switzerland is actually on track.

On August 28, the Swiss government published its long-awaited positionExternal link on the verdict against Switzerland issued in April by Europe’s top rights court in the KlimaSeniorinnen caseExternal link. The court had concluded that Switzerland was not doing enough to tackle climate change.

In a statement last week, the government criticisedExternal link the judges’ broad interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights regarding climate protection.

“It is also of the opinion that Switzerland meets the climate policy requirements of the ruling,” it declared.

The government argued that the Strasbourg court ruling had failed to take into account recent climate-related legislation and efforts, notably the revised CO2 Act of March 15, 2024,External link which has “measures to achieve its 2030 climate targets” or the Federal Act of September 23, 2023, on a Secure Energy Supply from Renewable Energy SourcesExternal link. Switzerland has committed to halve CO2 emissions by 2030 External linkand ultimately eliminate emissions by 2050External link. 

The secure energy bill, which was approved by the Swiss public and comes into force in January 2025, lays the foundations for rapid expansion of Switzerland’s energy production from renewable sources such as hydropower, solar, wind and biomass, says the government.

Last week’s government statement sparked sharp criticism from Swiss environmental groups, which denounced the “worrying rejection” of the court ruling and bemoaned the authorities’ lack of scientific evidenceExternal link to justify their position.

“The most serious shortcoming is clearly formulated in the ECHR verdict,” said Greenpeace Switzerland. External link “The Federal Council is unable to demonstrate how the level of emissions anticipated by the Confederation are compatible with keeping global warming below 1.5°C. This limit, recognised by Switzerland and supported by the population, appears to be the relevant standard for respecting human rights. In order to ensure that the 1.5°C limit is not exceeded, it is crucial to respect the remaining global carbon budget. This must be shared among all countries.”

Independent analysis of Swiss climate policy is rare. Last year the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), External linka science-based assessment of countries’ climate policies coordinated by the Germany-based NewClimate Institute and Climate Analytics NGO, rated Swiss climate action and targets as “insufficient”External link overall. What is their latest position? Are things improving, as the government suggests?

‘Getting better’

“Swiss climate policies are getting better. But because the target remains insufficient, we will not be able to rate Switzerland any better in our upcoming analysis,” Judit Hecke, who coordinates the Switzerland analysis at CAT, told SWI swissinfo.ch.

“It is indeed true that Switzerland’s new policies – if fully implemented – will make a substantial difference in reducing Switzerland’s emissions,” she said.

Hecke said that the Act on a Secure Energy Supply from Renewable Energy Sources in particular should lead to substantial emissions reductions, that would indeed mean that Switzerland will likely meet its 2030 climate target.

“But I’d be a bit more cautious with the CO2 Act, as it’s still in consultation process, meaning it’s not set in stone in its current form. And the bill has continuously become less ambitious since it was rejected in a national vote in 2021,” she said.

“But even taking both laws into account, Switzerland doesn’t meet the climate policy requirements of the Strasbourg judgment.”

Switzerland’s 2030 target is inconsistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C, meaning that even if the policies were to reach the 2030 target, they would also fall short of limiting warming to 1.5°C, Hecke said. And by failing to set a share for domestic reductions, Switzerland creates additional room for ambiguity, she warned.

For the 2030 target, Swiss parliamentarians agreed in March not to write strict CO2 reduction targets into the law (i.e. 75% of reduction to be carried out in Switzerland and a maximum of 25% abroad). The Federal Council now remains free to decide.

CO2 reductions: at home or abroad?

To meet its climate goals, Switzerland is focused on offsetting part of its emissions abroad. The Alpine nation is one of the most active states in pursuing bilateral agreements under Article 6.2 of the Paris climate agreement. It has concluded climate deals with over a dozen countries, including Thailand, Peru and Senegal.

Every country is allowed to use this mechanism, but Hecke wonders whether it will actually lead to the CO2 reductions that Switzerland claims.

“Switzerland is partly doing that because it’s cheaper to reduce emissions abroad than within its borders. As a rich country, Switzerland has the responsibility but also the means to be at the forefront of the fight against climate change and must take a leadership role,” she said.

“To meet the climate policy requirements of the Strasbourg ruling, Switzerland must set more ambitious climate targets that are 1.5°C-compatible and must state clearly how much emissions are to be reduced domestically,” Hecke added.

“It also needs to set more ambitious policies for deep reductions domestically to match those more ambitious targets as even the new policies fall short.”

Meanwhile, for the KlimaSeniorinnen case the Swiss government must now submit a detailed plan of action and position before October 9 to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, outlining its measures and timetable to implement the verdict. Civil society organisations may also submit their observations. The case, and the spotlight on Swiss climate policy, look set to rumble on for some time.

Edited by Reto Gysi von Wartburg/ts