The European study showed that among those surveyed 36% support most climate proposals and 21% oppose them. Another 33% make up the “conditional middle”, whose views shift depending on the details of each policy.
Keystone / Anthony Anex
Swiss voters roundly rejected the country’s recent “climate fund” vote, yet climate change still ranks among their top worries. A new study published in March suggests a reason why climate-conscious voters might reject eco-friendly initiatives. As in much of Europe, the success of climate initiatives relies on a large “conditional middle” – voters who care about the climate but judge each proposal through a personal cost–benefit lens, the lead researcher tells Swissinfo in an interview.
The debate over such climate policy initiatives often centres on those firmly pro or con, and far less is known about the large group in between. The new study of 19,000 people in 13 countries of the European Union published in the Nature Climate ChangeExternal link scientific journal sheds light on this influential segment.
The researchers found that among the Europeans surveyed 36% support most climate proposals and 21% oppose them. Another 33% make up the “conditional middle”, whose views shift depending on the details of each policy.
“While we hear and see a lot from the people who are really for climate action or the people who are really against it, in fact, these are just two visible groups that may actually be in the minority,” Keith Smith, a senior researcher at the federal technology institute ETH Zurich who led the survey, explains to Swissinfo.
This means the large swing group in the middle matters most for climate issues, said Smith, who is chair of international political economy and environmental politics at the university.
“It’s really this group that really determines whether we have political majorities… and the feasibility of climate change policies across Europe,” he adds.
Switzerland, which is not an EU member state, wasn’t part of the survey, but Smith believes the conditional middle in the Alpine state represents a major segment – “maybe the largest of the four” – given how actively Swiss voters engage with climate issues and evaluate proposals case by case. This could be as much as one million potential voters.
Voting on climate-related issues is common in Switzerland. In the ten years since countries in Paris committed to cut global carbon emissions, Swiss voters have gone to the ballot box at least as many times to decide on climate issues, giving a range of results. Most recently, 71% of voters rejected a “climate fund” initiative on March 8 which called for 0.5-1% of Switzerland’s GDP a year – roughly CHF4-8 billion (2024 figure) – to be invested in climate and nature protection measures and in expanding renewable energies, including solar power.
More
More
Ten years of Swiss climate votes since the Paris Agreement
Cost-benefit balance
The “climate fund” vote result reflects a key finding of the EU study: personal cost–benefit assessments often decide where the conditional middle lands. Across Europe, people prefer policies that help households and businesses switch to greener practices – such as subsidies – over measures with visible financial impacts like taxes or restrictions.
The Swiss result showed voters do not want to increase public climate funding, or at least not in the form advocated by left-wing or green parties. In the current context it is difficult to achieve consensus around a proposal that entails costs but which nobody knows how to finance, says Cloé Jans, a political scientist at the gfs.bern research institute.
More
More
Climate is a concern in Switzerland but no longer a priority
Smith reckons this latest Swiss vote should not be seen as climate indifference. Rather, many voters likely hesitated because the initiative was vague about both funding sources and spending priorities. “It was a long list of pretty much everything,” he says.
People are willing to accept some costs for climate action, he adds, “as long as they see that where the money comes from is fair and that where it goes is also fairly distributed.”
Policy design or communication?
So how should policymakers in Switzerland and the rest of Europe interpret the results of the climate policy survey? Is the challenge a matter of design or communication? “Both,” says Smith.
He gives the example of Switzerland’s CO2 levyExternal link. The federal government levies a duty of CHF120 ($152) on every tonne of CO2 produced when heating oil, natural gas and other fossil fuels are burned. Two-thirds of the revenue is redistributed to the public via a health insurance rebate – yet few people realise this. “We make the cost visible and the benefits invisible,” says Smith.
As to which climate policy instruments might work best in Switzerland, the ETH Zurich researcher believes there is no simple answer. He says incentive-based policies – for example, subsidies that encourage homeowners and businesses to improve the energy efficiency of buildings – may be more politically feasible than tax-heavy ones. “Sometimes perfect can be the enemy of the good,” he notes, referring to those on the political left or in the Green Party who continue to push for strong climate change action.
Among other findings, the EU study also shows that people are enthusiastic for policies that support making pro-climate adjustments, rather than complete bans on certain products or practices. A proposed general ban on combustion-engine cars was rejected by 73% of the conditional middle in the survey, but rejection drops to 39% if synthetic-fuel alternatives remain possible – showing how “elastic” this group can be.
Survey respondents also favour investing revenue from climate funds, such as the EU Emissions Trading SystemExternal link, in adaptation projects like green technologies or low-emission transport services, or compensation measures for individual households rather than payments to workers at risk from climate policies. This is particularly noticeable among the conditional middle who prefer to invest the funds in visible, public services.
Swing voters’ impact
Another key takeaway of the survey was that small shifts within the swing group in the middle could significantly change outcomes: if those who were unsure moved to support, the number of proposals with majority backing could rise substantially from four out of fifteen, to ten out of fifteen.
This is an important conclusion that underlines the group’s importance, Smith says. “If even a smaller portion of this group can be won over, we can find majorities for a range of concrete climate policies in Europe,” he adds.
People across Switzerland and Europe want climate action, he says, but new creative approaches may be needed as direct, consumer-facing financial measures remain politically difficult, not just in Switzerland but also worldwide.
“All is not lost,” he says.
Edited by Gabe Bullard/vm
More
More
