Swiss residents voted against three proposed environmental regulations, rejecting proposals that would have improved their long-term quality of life. By abolishing incentives for the use of food pesticides and antibiotics, the first program aimed to assure clean drinking water and nutritious food. The second proposal called for the outlawing of all synthetic food pesticides. Both of these proposed legislations were defeated by over 61% of voters.
A CO2 legislation with provisions aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 was the third planned environmental effort. To achieve this goal, the Federal Council and Parliament would raise petrol taxes and levy a fee on airline tickets. A part of the taxes would be transferred to the general public, with the remainder going toward climate-friendly initiatives like solar-powered public buildings, fuel-efficient automobiles, and electric buses. The CO2 legislation, according to the Economic Committee, is “expensive, ineffectual, and antisocial.” They thought the legislation was unjust since it would disproportionately affect those with low and moderate incomes.
Despite the fact that more than two-thirds of National Council members voted in favor of the CO2 bill, it was barely defeated in the general vote, with 51.6 percent of voters against it. Simonetta Sommaruga, a Swiss Federal Councillor, claimed that this vote was not a rejection of climate protection, but rather of the statute on which they voted.