This is how we will lose the battle against global warming

It has long been a truism among political scientists that a well-organized minority usually succeeds in defending its interests even against a clear majority. The reason is that the minority is focused, the majority is fragmented. Moreover, the rule of law offers many opportunities to postpone the procedure until the end of the day.

Farmers in Switzerland are often used as an example in this thesis. Today they make up less than two percent of the population. Nevertheless, the farmers’ lobby is still a powerful voice in parliament.

However, you do not have to delve into sociological theory or turn to parliament to see this statement confirmed. I’m experiencing it firsthand right now. And so:

I live with my wife in a condominium in Zurich Enge, a middle-class neighborhood. The twelve owners who live in the two houses are also a mix of middle-class people. We are not talking about an eco-stronghold, but rather about a community that was lucky enough to buy an apartment about 25 years ago, at a time when this was also possible for the middle class.

During a meeting of condominium owners last March, residents decided to replace their gas heating with a heat pump. This is despite the fact that the existing heating system would continue to function for years. The pros and cons arguments had been discussed in detail previously. Shouldn’t we wait for the city’s emerging district heating network to reach our neighborhood? Are the costs too high in relation to the benefits?

Legitimate questions to be debated, especially since every owner has to spend a significant amount of money. Nevertheless, the shareholders’ meeting voted 10-0 in favor of approving the investment. Two owners abstained from voting. The clear decision was partly made because two pensioners had agreed to undertake the extensive research free of charge. Both are proven experts.

Everything seemed to be going well: a dozen responsible citizens had decided to do something concrete against global warming, against their short-term financial interests. They act democratically and are fortunate that two experienced men do this voluntarily and without payment. That is to say, Swiss grassroots democracy and civic pride are at their best.

Not quite. As the detailed explanation shows, further registration in the land registry is necessary because of the building line. All owners must sign this. The two who abstained now see this as their opportunity. They refuse to sign, putting the entire business on hold. In other words, they can enforce their selfish interests and not only delay the installation of the heat pump, but possibly even prevent it altogether.

Yes, we are talking about an isolated case here, and yes, it is anecdotal. But there are probably plenty of cases like this. We are perverting our democracy and the rule of law. We are a country in which mini-Trumps have the ability to use the courts to delay democratic decisions until they become invalid. The tragedy in the Zurich football stadium is the most striking example of this.

Switzerland is not an isolated case. The Economist reports in its latest issue on the example of Sweden. In this traditionally green country, only four percent of the population believes that global warming is “not a threat”. But the right-wing conservative government relies on the support of the Sweden Democrats, a right-wing populist party. Therefore, it was forced to reduce gasoline taxes several times.

We are currently experiencing a global backlash against the transformation towards a sustainable society and economy, even though no one, apart from a few inveterate people, still doubts the danger of global warming. After years of record heat, record forest fires, record floods and melting glaciers and icebergs, this is simply no longer possible from a rational point of view.

Nevertheless, the “NZZ” recently stated: “Almost everywhere in the European Union, citizens are increasingly reacting negatively to the constant new regulations and bans designed to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

What has long been recognized by responsible scientists as a threat to the survival of our planet is being reinterpreted by right-wing populists as a new class struggle. Every dirty trick, every slander and every conspiracy theory is used. “A left-green elite wants to impose its will and lifestyle on you,” the populists cry. They chatter about how meat consumption should be banned, or at least taxed.

Measures that have already been decided will either be completely reversed or at least significantly weakened. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has weakened laws that had already been passed to achieve a sustainable society. In Germany, the traffic light coalition had to withdraw a law under populist pressure that wanted to make the installation of heat pumps mandatory when replacing old heating systems.

We live in a schizophrenic world. On the one hand, we are bombarded with promises of sustainability. Every bank wants to invest greenly, every company wants to at least plant trees, including in Africa. Civilian politicians also want to become climate neutral and promise deadlines, knowing that they will not be met. Everyone wants a CO₂-free world, and many still fly like there is no tomorrow. And according to all research, the Greens will be punished in the elections next Sunday.

When the dying forests caused emotions in the 1980s, the stupid saying went around: “My car runs even without the forest.” We haven’t learned much since then.