An official study proving the environmental benefits of electric vehicles has been buried by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy, revealing a disturbing degree of self-censorship in Switzerland when it comes to climate issues.
Research deemed embarrassing for the authorities?
In 2022, the Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE) commissioned the renowned consultancy Infras to carry out a major study to answer a crucial question: under what circumstances is it justified from a climate point of view to replace a combustion engine vehicle with an electric car? This question, far from being insignificant, was part of a recurring debate within public opinion, fuelled by the idea that the manufacture of an electric car could generate an environmental impact equivalent to, or even greater than, that of a conventional vehicle.
The study cost 100,000 Swiss francs, around 106,000 euros of public money. The aim was to inform consumers about the real environmental benefits of switching to electric vehicles, in a context where Switzerland has set itself ambitious targets: 50% of new vehicles must be electric by 2025.
When the conclusions of the Infras study came out in autumn 2024, they were clear and unambiguous: in more than 90% of cases, immediately replacing a combustion car with a similar-sized electric model leads to a net reduction in CO₂ emissions. Only vehicles that are virtually unused escape this rule.
These results perfectly corroborate existing scientific data. In Switzerland, an electric car emits around half as much CO₂ as a conventional car over its entire life cycle, thanks in particular to Switzerland’s particularly clean electricity mix, 75% of which is made up of renewable energies. According to the Paul Scherrer Institute, after just 30,000 kilometres, an electric car is already greener than a comparable combustion vehicle.
However, in view of these favourable results, which are in line with national energy policy, the SFOE took the surprising decision not to make the report public. This withholding of information only came to light thanks to the work of the Swiss investigative media Republik and the WAV research collective, who obtained the document through an official request for transparency.
Self-censorship with harmful democratic consequences
An analysis of the SFOE’s internal communications, obtained via a second access to information request, reveals the real reasons for this censorship. The exchanges reveal a fear of political and media criticism that took precedence over the public and scientific interest.
In December 2024, those in charge of the project referred to the “potentially sensitive” nature of the report. They feared that the recommendations would be “misinterpreted”, particularly in a context where the federal administration is perceived negatively by some sections of public opinion. More revealing still, they feared that the populist right might accuse the government of “re-education” with an energy policy deemed too ambitious.
The SFOE’s head of communications even described the study as “merely academic”, saying that in reality no one would consider replacing their five-year-old car “from a climate point of view”. This position is in stark contrast to the SFOE’s primary mission, which is to inform political choices to achieve climate objectives.
This case raises fundamental questions about democratic transparency. A number of political figures have condemned this blockage, including Jürg Grossen, a Green-Liberal National Councillor, who points out that if a study is financed by taxpayers’ money, the results must be accessible “in order to avoid an opacity that is harmful to democracy”.
The decision to censor this study seems all the more paradoxical given that Switzerland is struggling to achieve its electrification targets. With electric vehicles currently accounting for around 30% of new car sales, the country is in danger of missing its target of 50% by 2025. And yet the buried study would have provided a strong scientific argument in favour of electrification.
This self-censorship is a perfect illustration of how the energy transition remains a sensitive subject, all too often the victim of ideological issues, when the scientific facts should be enough to inform public debate. At a time when Switzerland urgently needs to accelerate its transition to electric mobility if it is to meet its climate commitments, this withholding of crucial information calls into question the ability of institutions to fully assume their role of informing the public.
