![\"Traffic](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/337765763_highres.jpg\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Traffic around Zurich. <\/p>\n
Keystone \/ Gaetan Bally <\/p>\n
Switzerland\u2019s climate emissions gap is significantly larger than officially reported, according to research by the Swiss public broadcaster SRF, which shows the environment office underestimated the shortfall by up to a third.\n<\/p>\n
This content was published on <\/p>\n
June 12, 2026 – 09:00\n<\/p>\n
\n Julian Schmidli and Jurek M\u00fcller, SRF <\/p>\n
34 million tonnes of CO\u2082: this is the amount Switzerland is expected to be unable to reduce domestically by 2030 and will instead have to offset abroad. The Federal Council communicated this figure to parliament last year. But research by SRF shows that the gap is significantly larger. The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) underestimated it by up to one third \u2013 despite being aware of the higher figure.<\/p>\n
The issue was first raised by Centre Party politician Christine Bulliard-Marbach in a written interpellationExternal link<\/a> to the government. Her questions focused on Switzerland\u2019s approach to CO\u2082 compensation: emissions that cannot be avoided domestically are to be offset through climate projects abroad. The larger the emissions gap, the higher the costs for the federal budget \u2013 and ultimately for taxpayers. At the same time, the figure reflects Switzerland\u2019s progress in climate protection. A sound calculation of this gap is therefore crucial.<\/p>\n FOEN calculation excludes forest and land use<\/p>\n However, this calculation is now under scrutiny. The actual emissions gap is likely to be significantly larger than the Federal Council has reported. An earlier SRF forecastExternal link<\/a> had already raised doubts. Now, via the Freedom of Information Act, SRF has obtained access to the FOEN\u2019s internal calculation on which the official emissions gap figure is based. This reveals that the methodology did not comply with the rules of the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n A key component was omitted: the land-use sector \u2013 known as \u201cland use, land-use change, and forestry\u201d (LULUCF).External link<\/a> This includes emissions absorbed or released by forests and soils in Switzerland.<\/p>\n Excluding this sector leads to a substantial underestimation. Depending on the scenario, the gap by 2030 is underestimated by approximately 7 to 18 million tonnes of CO\u2082. This corresponds to additional, previously undisclosed costs of CHF245 million ($307 million) to CHF630 million.<\/p>\n Taking this into account, Switzerland\u2019s realistic emissions gap by 2030 would be between 40 and 50 million tonnes of CO\u2082 \u2013 up to 50% higher than officially stated. Total costs for Swiss taxpayers could rise to as much as CHF1 billion by 2030. Moreover, the FOEN methodology made Switzerland\u2019s climate progress appear significantly more favourable than it actually is.<\/p>\n The effect of land use <\/p>\n Switzerland\u2019s climate target \u2013 a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 35% between 2021 and 2030 compared to 1990\u2014is based on net emissions, meaning all sources and sinks are included.<\/p>\n A key factor is land use or \u201cland use, land-use change, and forestry\u201d (LULUCF), which refers to the contributions of Switzerland\u2019s forests and soils, which store large quantities of carbon. Switzerland\u2019s forests and soils historically functioned as a carbon sink, absorbing more CO\u2082 than they emitted. However, since 1990, this sink has steadily weakened due to factors such as heat and drought. In recent years (2018, 2022, 2023, and 2024), the land-use sector has even turned into a net source of CO\u2082, meaning it emits more greenhouse gases than it can absorb.<\/p>\n Because the carbon sink has diminished significantly since the reference year 1990, reductions in gross emissions (excluding land use) appear larger than reductions in net emissions. Calculations based solely on gross emissions therefore result in a smaller calculated target gap than when using net emissions, which are decisive for achieving the target.<\/p>\n Several experts have confirmed this. Cyril Brunner, a climate physicist at the federal technology institute ETH Zurich, has independently analysed SRF\u2019s scenarios and reached similar conclusions.<\/p>\n Environment office defends its approach<\/p>\n When asked, the FOEN acknowledged that its calculation is not aligned with current Swiss climate targets. It stated that the figure was based on Swiss law as it stood at the time \u2013 not on the Paris Agreement rules. The inclusion of the land-use sector only became legally relevant three-and-a-half months after the parliamentary interpellation was answered. The FOEN also noted that it had communicated the issue earlier as part of its annual greenhouse gas inventory.<\/p>\n Trees that died due to drought in the Jura Mountains. Swiss forests can also become a source of CO2 emissions. <\/p>\n Keystone \/ Jean-Christophe Bott <\/p>\n However, the new CO\u2082 Act, which entered into force at the beginning of 2025, was always intended to align Swiss law with the Paris Agreement. In its messageExternal link<\/a> accompanying the draft law from 2022, the Federal Council wrote: \u201cThe reduction targets to which Switzerland committed itself under the Paris Agreement will be incorporated into the CO\u2082 law\u201d and \u201cthe scope of the law should [\u2026] encompass the effects of forests, timber used in construction, and land use\u201d.<\/p>\n The later amendment to the ordinance therefore does not represent a sudden change in the basis of calculation, but merely a formal clarification of the existing legal interpretation.<\/p>\n \n More<\/p>\n More <\/p>\n Climate adaptation\n <\/p>\n Climate fatalism and disengagement in Switzerland are on the rise <\/p>\n This content was published on <\/p>\n May 12, 2026 <\/p>\n Despite being one of the world\u2019s fastest-warming countries, Switzerland stands out for its public\u2019s relatively low appetite for climate action. <\/p>\n![\"Trees](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/566163950_highres.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Activists\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1781250490_23_sciopero.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"aircraft](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/547333681_highres.jpg\")
<\/p>\n