Climate protection ?
Yes, but…
Many people want to protect the climate. So why are we not taking all the necessary measures right here and now? One explanation is that we are too good at finding reasons not to: not like that, not now, not me, it is too late anyway.
The image shows a hand holding a smartphone displaying “Perfectionism” as an example climate excuse: “Only perfect solutions are the right solutions! For example, electric cars save CO₂ but cause problems like harmful raw material mining for batteries.” Next to it is a colorful wheel divided into segments representing various excuses and mindsets: “There’s nothing we can do anyway,” “Others should go first,” “Denial,” “Intimidating change is unrealistic,” and more. Each segment includes brief explanations and English translations. The graphic highlights common mental barriers to climate action.
Spin the wheel in the exhibition…
… to learn more about common climate excuses, how much truth there is in them, and how to provide counter arguments – to inspire and encourage further thought.
Graphics: Studio Nippoldt
Only perfect solutions are the right solutions! For example, electric cars may save CO₂, but they also cause problems like the harmful extraction of raw materials for the batteries.
YES
Existing solutions for the reduction of CO₂ are not perfect, and there are still many uncertainties surrounding some of them.
Moreover, when implementing such solutions, it is certainly important to consider not just the CO₂ but other environmental aspects and the social impact as well.
BUT
The need to reduce CO₂ and other greenhouse gases is urgent, and our window of opportunity to do so is limited. Shouldn’t we implement and further develop existing solutions – like recycling valuable raw materials – responsibly while also searching for other, new solutions? There will never be a single perfect solution. Waiting for it means ignoring the progressive damage that our inaction causes.
«We need fossil fuels for development, and they bring prosperity. If you demonise them, you deprive poorer countries of their development opportunities.»
YES
Fossil fuels still play a key role in economic development and all countries should have the chance to benefit from them.
BUT
For a future worth living, development everywhere must manage without fossil fuels in the long term. Emerging countries have the opportunity to rely directly on non-fossil energy sources (‘leapfrogging’ = skipping development stages as, e.g., Kenya did). This offers advantages such as greater energy independence, low long-term costs and low local air pollution. However, they need financial support from more developed countries to achieve this.
«Climate protection measures are expensive and unfair because they place the heaviest burden on the poorest. Are they supposed to just work all the time and never fly abroad for a relaxing holiday? Or not own a car?»
YES
Specific climate protection laws such as a CO₂ levy on fossil fuels and combustibles can impact people differently.
BUT
People with high incomes pay higher taxes in absolute terms, as they fly more and own larger houses, for example. The revenue from CO₂ levies is usually redistributed evenly, which benefits lower-income households. Nevertheless, some regulations favour the wealthy, such as property owners. However, climate protection is essential – and it must be socially equitable. After all, it is precisely the most vulnerable who are most affected by climate change and have less ability to adapt.
«Climate protection measures are expensive and harm the economy, and therefore us.»
YES
Climate protection does not come for free. And it is understandable that today’s investments in climate protection measures can seem unattractive, as the benefits are often not felt immediately.
BUT
The initial investments for climate protection measures are often particularly high, while the long-term costs are significantly lower than for more climate-damaging alternatives. In addition, technological measures become cheaper the more widely they are implemented (‘scaling up’). It is important to stress that climate change is already causing major problems and high costs. If we don’t start implementing consistent climate protection measures soon, the problems will become bigger, and climate-related damage as well as adaptation and prevention measures will become increasingly expensive.
«If we reduce our CO₂ emissions, it will weaken our economy; other countries will not join in and will then overtake us.»
YES
If all individuals, industries and countries do not make a concerted effort to reduce CO₂ emissions, there will be those who benefit in the short term from not taking action.
BUT
We are at a point where we no longer have time to simply wait and see. The problems are clear, and solutions are available.
Now it is up to everyone to do their part and keep their promises. Additionally, countries and players that take effective climate protection measures early on can benefit from pioneering advantages in the long term. For example, they can sell their expertise or technologies with a profit if regulations are tightened or if demand for sustainable products or services increases.
«Our CO₂ emissions are tiny in comparison to the big players like China or the USA. Until they act, there is no point in doing anything.»
YES
To date, the USA has emitted more CO₂ than any other country. Since 2006, China has had the largest emissions every year, and the trend is still continuing upward.
BUT
This in no way minimises our own impact. A person in Switzerland causes an average of about 13 tonnes of CO₂ emissions every year at home and abroad. That is almost 3 times as much CO₂ emissions as the global average, 6.5 times as much as one person in India emits and 22 times as much as one person in Kenya emits. If Switzerland had the same number of people as China, our consumption would be twice as high as that of China.
«I am very environmentally friendly already: I recycle diligently and avoid plastic. I reckon that means I can fly on holiday now and then.»
YES
Recycling and avoiding plastic are important, good for the environment, and absolutely something to be proud of.
BUT
Plane travel is extremely harmful to the climate. A long-haul flight (both ways) causes 2–4 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per person. By recycling and avoiding plastic waste, a person can save about 0.02 tonnes of greenhouse gases. This is why, to truly be sustainable, we need to ask ourselves: Am I weighing small climate-friendly behaviours against big climate-damaging ones to appease my conscience?
«As an individual, there’s nothing I can do to change things. That is the job of politics and industry.»
YES
A large share of greenhouse gas emissions cannot be influenced directly by individuals and require changes in industry, business, agriculture and politics.
BUT
If we don’t change our own behaviour, we won’t be able to prevent climate catastrophe. Each personal decision influences our own carbon footprint as well as the system as a whole. Avoiding products that harm the environment, making climate-friendly investments and supporting good climate policies are all ways in which individuals can have an important impact.
«No matter what we do, the climate catastrophe is coming. It’s too late. We should focus on adapting ourselves and put our fate in the hands of Mother Nature.»
YES
We have already caused irreversible damage and must make great efforts to keep warming near 1.5 °C or 2 °C. Adaptation measures are absolutely essential.
BUT
Do we really want to give up on protecting the climate for that reason, even though we know that any further warming, however slight, will intensify the negative consequences of climate change? Wouldn’t that be unfair to those who are already affected by the consequences, and to those who will be affected in the future – like our own children?
«People are comfortable and do not want to do without. Anything that would help combat climate change would go against human nature and against our current way of life.»
YES
Climate protection measures are often seen as a sacrifice and a restriction of our freedoms – and no one likes to make sacrifices.
BUT
Instead of seeing climate protection as a sacrifice, we should see it as an exchange – for a healthier future worth living. For example, car parks make way for play areas and shady trees. It is better to act voluntarily now, before the environmental damage forces us to act. Our way of life is constantly changing, anyway. Climate-friendly lifestyles are possible in many ways without noticeable ‘sacrifice’: mobility by train or electric car and renewable heating systems offer opportunities and comfort without causing global warming.
«The world is on fire, and no one is doing anything about it. I feel angry, guilty, helpless and afraid. These feelings are stopping me from doing anything.»
YES
Climate anxiety, anger, frustration and hopelessness are understandable reactions to a real problem, and they are
on the rise – especially among young people.
BUT
To protect our well-being and that of others, we should take negative emotions seriously, share them and use them to drive collective action. This creates self-efficacy, hope and joy instead. There is some good news, too: many countries have been reducing their emissions for years and investments in renewable energies are outstripping those in fossil fuels. We may not have reached our goal yet, but we are on the way.
«Regulations and rules only scare people. We should focus on incentives and voluntary self-commitment.»
YES
Referendums in Switzerland show that the population is generally sceptical about regulations. Incentives for voluntary climate-friendly behaviour can therefore be quite effective, provided the motivation, opportunities and resources are available.
BUT
Experience shows that incentives alone, such as subsidies for climate-friendly food, are not enough. Incentives must be combined with binding regulations, like carbon footprint labelling for food. Besides, there are many regulations in Switzerland that initially met with resistance but are now taken for granted (e.g., the Waters Protection Act or the smoking ban in restaurants).
«We have already set ourselves a very ambitious target, as we have committed to reducing all CO₂ emissions to an absolute minimum by 2050. And we will use new technologies to get the rest out of the atmosphere.»
YES
Ambitious climate goals are fundamental because they send a signal, for example that investments in fossil fuels will (or should) no longer be worthwhile in the long term.
BUT
Big words are of no use to the climate if they are not followed by action. Many countries with high CO₂ emissions set ambitious targets, but don’t take sufficient measures swiftly enough, even though solutions do exist. Short-term thinking and poor cooperation stand in the way. This is why support and a clear mandate from voters is crucial, and why we need to keep a critical eye on political promises and on the implementation and effectiveness of measures.
«Fossil fuels are part of the solution, highly efficient, and act as a bridge to a low-carbon future.»
YES
We cannot replace all fossil fuels overnight and there will be a transition period in which both fossil fuels and non-fossil energy sources will be used in parallel.
BUT
In order to sufficiently protect the climate and ourselves, a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is essential. And that is why it is no longer appropriate to refer to fossil fuels as a ‘bridge fuel’.
«New technologies will save the climate, and we can carry on as before.»
YES
Technological progress will play an essential role if we want to mitigate the risk and impact of a climate catastrophe. Examples are low-emission power and energy generation, carbon capture and storage or technologies that help us adapt to the consequences of climate change.
BUT
Technology alone is not enough. The capabilities of new technologies and their social acceptance are often overestimated at the beginning of their development, and potential negative consequences are underestimated or neglected. Even in areas like nutrition, consumption and mobility, where technology has advanced, personal lifestyle changes remain essential – and they help to open doors for wider social, economic and political change.
«The climate has always been changing. And plants need CO₂ anyway!»
YES
The climate has always been changing. And of course, CO₂ is part of the natural carbon cycle, which also includes photosynthesis in plants, which requires CO₂ and provides us with oxygen.
BUT
Never before in the history of humankind has the climate changed so quickly and drastically. It is undisputed that humans are responsible for this. Adapting to these changes is an enormous challenge for us, and it is often impossible for plants and animals. The problem is not the CO₂ itself, but the amount of additional CO₂ and other greenhouse gases that are released by human activities. They cause temperatures to rise and throw the natural cycles out of balance, with serious consequences for life on Earth.