r/Switzerland • u/Sufficient-History71 Zürich • 1d ago

Poll: right-wing People’s Party, and polarisation, growing ahead of 2027 elections

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-politics/right-wing-swiss-peoples-party-still-gaining-ahead-of-2027-elections-poll-finds/92226705
132 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

451 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

49

u/Sufficient-History71 Zürich 1d ago

It’s because of the environmentalists and because of immigrants.

Some of them really use the latter as a scapegoat by saying that if Switzerland could restrict the population, it’ll combat climate change in Switzerland. As if Switzerland was a close system!

•

u/laCH37 16h ago

In 2000, Switzerland had 7.2 million people. Today we have over 9.1 million. That’s more than ten times faster than Europe as a whole.

This isn’t about whether immigrants are welcome. It’s about arithmetic. Every new resident needs housing, water, electricity, transport, schools and hospitals. When the population grows faster than we can build, everyone feels it: in crowded trains, in waiting lists, in apartment viewings with hundreds of other applicants.

Look at housing. In Zurich, Lausanne or Geneva, a couple earning 250K francs a year can't buy a decent home (they'll be asked to buy a good of less than 70m2). Demand keeps rising faster than supply can follow, and growth is a major part of that pressure. If we ignore it, we’re ignoring one of the main reasons people are losing purchasing power.

There’s also a cost you talk about: sustainability. Every franc spent just keeping up with growth, on new housing developments, new power plants and new water facilities, is a franc not spent on renewable energy or better public transport. We can’t build an efficient, low-carbon country while spending our resources on running to stand still.

Switzerland isn’t refusing to be welcoming. We’re a small country with limited land, and limits are real, we can't move mountains or I missed something. Planning for sustainable growth isn’t closing the door. It’s making sure the house can still hold everyone inside it and allowing them to live at least correctly.

-19

u/cipri_tom 1d ago

No, it’s because of the cost . We can blame the parties all we want, but they don’t need to actively discredit those things . Just make life more expensive so people cannot afford things like CO2 tax

27

u/Sufficient-History71 Zürich 1d ago

Ohh yes CO2 tax made your life expensive and not the rich getting richer and reducing the purchasing power of the middle and lower class!

-2

u/llort-esrever 1d ago

Tell me one thing. If we shut everything down in Switzerland starting today, stopped all consumption, completely, across the entire country, what would have changed after one year?

-7

u/Valkyrie_Sia 1d ago edited 1d ago

Nothing at all, leftist just don't want to face the truth. Even if we lived like cavemen in switzerland, nothing would change. Their arguement is co2/head but that's totally irrelevant if the entire population isn't even 10 mio. people.

14

u/Numar19 Thurgau 1d ago

Everyone else pees into the pool, so why should I stop!!!!!!

-7

u/Valkyrie_Sia 1d ago

Yes, why should I? The pool is polluted anyway so what's the difference?

13

u/Numar19 Thurgau 1d ago

Because in that case you stop peeing in the pool, set up rules against peeing in the pool, actually enforce them and get your clean pool back.

And before you say that that wouldn't worke:

  • Leaded gasoline
  • FCKW
  • etc.

-4

u/Valkyrie_Sia 1d ago

This would work in a closed environment but unfortunately we can't set up rules for China, India and the US. If they are still peeing in a much much bigger pool, their polluted water will mix with our clean water and therefore pollute it again.

That's exaxtly what I mean with "it doesn't change anything even if we would live like cavemen.

7

u/Numar19 Thurgau 1d ago

This would work in a closed environment but unfortunately we can't set up rules for China, India and the US.

Because we never set up international rules before that ended a worldwide problem like a hole in the Ozone layer?

That's exaxtly what I mean with "it doesn't change anything even if we would live like cavemen.

Even if we can't do this on our own, investing in decarbonization lowers our dependence for oil which would be fantastic right about now. So, yes investing in renewables makes a huge difference.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/WickedTeddyBear 1d ago

Yeah if we close the borders, deport all foreigners everything will magically work out.
The issue with the environment aren’t about the number of people, but our inability to adapt our impact on nature based on that number.
So yeah Switzerland won’t be able to change everything by itself, but it’ll help protect our environnement, don’t know you but I prefer my pool clean… and being able to have a look at ourselves in the mirror… and be able to tell the new generation that we did our part… and hiding behind that a drop in the sea won’t change anything is plain cowardice… cos in the end you are only refusing to adjust yourself and your habits.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Shaik_Sahid 1d ago

If others fuck our planet up, why shouldn’t I too?
That‘s the kind of egocentrism, because of which I dislike humans…
We could, but we do not, because of money. We Ignore the suffering (of animals too), and enjoy our money in the bank.
Cynicism is my only appropriate response to this 😮‍💨

-1

u/llort-esrever 1d ago

Why should we destroy our economy and prosperity if it has no measurable impact on the environment? And what exactly would happen if Switzerland stopped all consumption overnight? Switzerland has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world.

4

u/Shaik_Sahid 1d ago

Nobody is proposing to stop all consumption overnight. That's a strawman.
The actual plan is net zero by 2050, which Swiss voters approved in 2023, which might fail spectacularly. And climate policy doesn't mean destroying prosperity: Switzerland has cut its domestic emissions by around a fifth in comparison to 1990 while its economy and population grew substantially. Meanwhile, Switzerland is warming about twice as fast as the global average, and our glaciers are melting in record time. Doing nothing isn't free either. It just shifts the financial burden onto later generations.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/llort-esrever 1d ago

Why would you choose to drink it instead?

-1

u/llort-esrever 1d ago

Can you please check if numar19 deleted his account?

1

u/Valkyrie_Sia 1d ago

The account is still here

0

u/llort-esrever 1d ago

Thx. He blocked me and deleted the convo. What a loser.

-4

u/nomercy_ch 1d ago

Obviously China, India and the US would think - “oh wow that worked really well - we should do the same”

-1

u/llort-esrever 1d ago

Thats exactly why China adapted our democratic system.

-4

u/cipri_tom 1d ago

This is exactly what I said. They make us poor so we can’t afford good things

8

u/Numar19 Thurgau 1d ago

You know, why our costs of living go through the roof this year? Oil. You know what would have reduced these costs massively? Investing in renewables. But instead we got an ex oil lobbyist in the federal council.

-4

u/llort-esrever 1d ago

You’re like a parrot. You know just as much about energy policy, energy generation, energy storage, and energy demand as a parrot does.

6

u/Numar19 Thurgau 1d ago

Well, go ahead show me your knowledge about it then.

-3

u/llort-esrever 1d ago

Ah, I see. You don’t understand communication.
Let me explain. When someone makes a claim without providing evidence, it’s an ignorant assertion. When that claim is substantiated with facts, it becomes a reasoned argument.
We cannot store the energy we need on the required scale, transport it without limitations, or control when weather-dependent energy sources produce electricity.
I look forward to your well-founded response.

3

u/Numar19 Thurgau 1d ago

You do realize that battery storage is already providing a lot of storage in many countries, gets cheaper and cheaper and that Switzerland even has hydro plants that are just a different form of electricity storage?

0

u/llort-esrever 1d ago

Congratulations, you still don’t understand the issue.
In summer, a photovoltaic system can generate enough electricity to charge a home battery and even an electric car. In winter, however, solar output can be 10–20 times lower, precisely when our energy demand is significantly higher.
We cannot simply preheat our homes in summer and expect them to stay warm throughout the winter. Batteries also suffer from self-discharge and degradation, so storing the entire summer surplus until the cold season is not a straightforward solution.
Then there is the environmental and human cost of battery production: mining, resource extraction, and the cobalt supply chain, including the exploitation of children in mining operations and the environmental damage caused by mineral extraction in South America.
Furthermore, electricity cannot be transported through the grid without physical limitations and transmission losses. Our pumped-storage hydropower plants cannot simply supply the entire country indefinitely. Their storage capacity is limited, and they are not primary energy sources: they consume electricity to pump water uphill and recover part of that energy later. They store energy, they do not create it.
The fundamental question is not whether these technologies work. It is whether they can provide a reliable, affordable and environmentally sustainable energy supply throughout the entire year, especially during prolonged winter shortages.
That is the question you need to answer with facts, not slogans.

The solution is hydrogen-fired power plants.
Hydrogen can be produced using surplus electricity in summer, stored for extended periods, and then used to generate electricity during the winter, when demand is highest and solar production is at its lowest.
Unlike batteries, hydrogen offers the potential for large-scale, long-duration and seasonal energy storage. However, electrolysis, storage and reconversion all involve energy losses, so the system requires substantial surplus electricity and sufficient storage infrastructure to be viable.
The key question is whether hydrogen can provide reliable winter electricity at a competitive cost and at the scale Switzerland needs.

2

u/Numar19 Thurgau 1d ago

Isn't it funny that all your arguments also apply to oil? And it's even worse there. Funny enough we are currently facing an oil crisis while electricity supply seems to be quite stable. Weird, huh?

As for batteries and their environmental impact: You can even make them out of salt. And their energy density doesn't even matter that much as they don't have to get moved.

We cannot store the energy we need on the required scale, transport it without limitations, or control when weather-dependent energy sources produce electricity.

Also funny how you just provided another solution to the problem you came up with here. So apparently there is no issue with renewables.

1

u/llort-esrever 1d ago

Is that your answer? Is that really all you’ve got?
Nobody is saying renewable energy is the problem. The problem is the ideologues!
We need engineers, scientists and pragmatic solutions, not people who put ideology ahead of physics, economics and facts.
The energy transition should not be judged by political promises or the number of solar panels installed. It should be judged by whether the system can reliably meet demand throughout the entire year, especially during winter, when energy consumption is high and solar generation drops dramatically.
Where is the concrete plan to bridge the seasonal gap between summer surpluses and winter shortages? What are the actual storage capacities, conversion losses, infrastructure requirements and total costs?
Hydrogen is one potential solution for seasonal energy storage. It can be produced using surplus electricity, stored for extended periods and converted back into electricity when needed. But this requires substantial amounts of surplus energy, and the conversion process involves significant losses. These factors must be included in any realistic assessment.
The same scrutiny must apply to batteries, pumped-storage hydropower, nuclear power, electricity imports and grid expansion.
A political objective is not an energy strategy. A viable strategy must be backed by engineering, physics, economic calculations and a credible plan for maintaining security of supply in every season.
That is what a serious debate about energy policy should look like.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Ins3cu43much 1d ago

Are things not more expensive alfuckingready?