News, 19 June 2025
A study commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy revealed that replacing over 90% of existing gasoline and diesel cars with electric vehicles of comparable size would immediately lead to reduced CO2 emissions. Despite this finding, the Office reportedly withheld the study’s public release, citing concerns about potential backlash, particularly from “right-wing populist” factions who might view the conclusions as governmental overreach or unrealistic energy policies.
The research, titled “Purchase decision: When is it worth switching to an electric car,” unequivocally showed that adopting electric vehicles consistently provides superior climate advantages compared to retaining combustion engine cars. This comprehensive study also considered various factors, such as the environmental effects of selling used fossil-fuel vehicles to international second-hand markets.
However, the Federal Office of Energy subsequently distanced itself from the findings, claiming that the relevant questions regarding electric vehicle purchases had evolved since the study’s conception in 2022, and that it no longer provided a clear answer on the climate impact of such a switch.
This official statement has been challenged by both Republik and Romain Sacchi, a mobility expert from the Paul Scherrer Institute, who lauded the study by research institute Infras as “outstanding” and its conclusions as “clear.” They also noted that the efficiency of electric vehicles has improved since the study, further strengthening its argument.
Green-Liberal National Councillor Jürg Grossen, who presides over the Swiss E-Mobility Association, criticized the non-publication, asserting that publicly funded research, costing CHF 118,000 (approximately 126,000 euros), should be made public, especially when its findings align with existing knowledge. The withholding of these scientific findings, as highlighted by Martin Winder of the Swiss Transport Club, raises concerns about government authorities suppressing information due to fear of public backlash and electoral consequences, rather than informing the public on critical environmental behaviors.
