Economy Analysis – KOF Economist Survey: broad support for climate policy instruments

Survey respondents were asked for their general assessment of the effectiveness of pricing instruments (such as carbon pricing). 82 per cent of respondents either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed with the statement that pricing can achieve a given reduction in greenhouse gas emissions at a lower economic cost than regulatory instruments such as standards or bans. Around 11 per cent of respondents strongly or somewhat disagreed with this statement. At the same time, 64 per cent of respondents stated that carbon pricing alone is (somewhat) unlikely to be sufficient as a tool to achieve Switzerland's emission reduction targets. By contrast, 29 per cent consider such market-based price signals to be (somewhat) sufficient.

Carbon pricing for more sectors

Switzerland currently uses two instruments to regulate carbon prices: a tax of CHF 120 per tonne of CO₂ on fossil heating fuels and a mandatory emissions trading scheme (ETS) for heavy industry and aviation. The Swiss ETS covers around one-eighth of national emissions and is fully linked to the European Union (EU) ETS. This means that emissions permits from the EU and Swiss ETS are mutually recognised and freely tradable, resulting in a single, integrated carbon market and virtually identical prices.

Against this backdrop, respondents were asked whether Switzerland should unilaterally raise carbon prices or extend their scope across sectors. Whilst a majority of 50 per cent of respondents were somewhat or strongly in favour of the sectoral expansion of carbon pricing, 31 per cent were somewhat or strongly in favour of a higher price level. Twenty per cent and 47 per cent respectively opposed extending its scope and raising prices.

Three in four respondents in favour of swifter expansion of renewable energy
Recent geopolitical tensions are having an impact on the availability and prices of fossil fuels in Europe. Survey respondents were therefore asked whether the expansion of renewable energy in Switzerland should be accelerated. Around three in four respondents (somewhat) agree with this statement, with 38 per cent even strongly agreeing. Just under 10 per cent see no additional need for the expansion of renewable energy, whilst 15 per cent were undecided or did not express an opinion.

Support for a carbon border adjustment mechanism linked to the EU

The EU has been implementing its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on a mandatory basis since the start of 2026. This mechanism levies a carbon tax on emissions-intensive goods imported from outside the EU. Survey respondents were therefore asked whether Switzerland should also introduce such a mechanism – and, if so, to what extent it should be modelled on the European system. 67 per cent were in favour of a Swiss carbon border adjustment mechanism, 17 per cent were against it, and 13 per cent were undecided. Assuming that this mechanism were to be introduced in Switzerland, 43 per cent believe it should be fully aligned with the European framework, while a further 37 per cent believe it should be largely aligned with it. Six per cent and five per cent of respondents respectively believe that a Swiss mechanism should be either only loosely aligned with the European system or not aligned with it at all.

Mixed views on green growth

The latest edition of KOF Economists' survey gave respondents the opportunity to express their views on green growth in an open-ended format. Green growth aims to decouple economic output from environmental pollution and degradation, thereby making economic growth and environmental protection compatible.

Eighty economists gave their assessment of this topic, revealing a mixed picture. Thirteen respondents consider green growth in Switzerland to be fundamentally unrealistic or undesirable. The remaining respondents see potential here but identify various constraining factors. Some respondents perceive a lack of political and social will to implement green growth. Others are of the view that green growth is only possible in certain sectors or with substantial investment. The time horizon also plays a major role: many respondents consider the decoupling of economic output and greenhouse gas emissions to be unrealistic in the short to medium term. Finally, some respondents highlight Switzerland's special role as an open, service-based economy. To achieve green growth, they argue, consumption – including imported emissions – must be taken into account.

Demographics of survey respondents

Survey respondents were also asked about their age, gender and political leanings. Of those surveyed, 7 per cent are under 36, 32 per cent are aged between 36 and 45, 21 per cent are aged between 46 and 55, and 34 per cent are over 56. 78 per cent of respondents are male and 13 per cent are female. Broken down by age group, the proportion of women is highest (20 per cent) in the 46–55 age group. The proportion of women is lowest (0 per cent) in the under-36 age group.

33 per cent of respondents described themselves as (more) left-leaning, compared with 19 per cent who described themselves as (more) right-leaning and 31 per cent who regarded themselves as centrists politically. The remaining 17 per cent did not specify any preference. Statistical analysis shows that political leanings have a significant impact on response patterns for five out of the seven questions. However, the relevant majorities shift along the political spectrum only in relation to the question of whether Switzerland should unilaterally raise carbon prices. The results in all other cases are more pronounced among left-leaning respondents. Age and gender, on the other hand, have no statistically significant impact.

About the survey:

The KOF Economists' Survey addresses economic policy issues relevant to Switzerland and serves as a tool for bringing the views of academic economists to the public's attention. KOF conducted a survey of energy and climate policy in Switzerland in May and June. The survey began on 26 May this year and ended on 12 June. 791 economists were contacted. Responses were received from 131 economists at 20 institutions.