The party imposes a tremendous burden on its voters. Have the FDP delegates ever read the law?

With 234 yes to 51 no (5 abstentions), the FDP base says yes to the climate protection law. It imposes a tremendous burden on its voters. Did the delegates read the law at all?

With the federal law on climate protection goals, innovation and strengthening energy security (KlG), the federal government wants to gain new powers to intervene in the financial market. By controlling financial flows, he wants to patronize investors in their capital investments and dictate that banks only grant loans to companies and for projects that correspond to the left-green ideological ideas. Both market interventions are dangerous.

A lot of people are unaware of the implications of these new skills because it could well mean that banks will no longer be allowed to give loans to garage owners, petrol at the gas station cannot be paid for with credit cards, etc. There is a whole list of SME Industries that would suffer from these new regulations. Either they no longer receive loans or have to accept poorer conditions and conditions. This also applies to homeowners.

Many of them have to worry about a mortgage extension, because the banks are practically forced to attach conditions such as replacing oil heating, post-insulation, etc. Not every homeowner has enough funds to finance these additional investments. Discounts for renovations could soon become surcharges for old properties.

These new competencies open the door to arbitrary regulations. And who will monitor and sanction compliance with these regulations? Once again, it will probably be Finma where another corresponding “competence center” will have to be set up. The banks and their customers will in turn have to pay for the additional costs. The left is also targeting commodity trading, which is often co-financed by Swiss banks. The consequences are foreseeable, because the USA would like to curb the commodity trade based in this country to the USA.

Ultimately, banks and private individuals should no longer invest in infrastructure that is partly state-owned, starting with Zurich Airport and extending to bonds from power plant companies that also purchase coal-fired electricity from Germany, etc. Energy guzzlers such as indoor swimming pools, snowmaking systems and mountain railways in tourist areas would have to be closed, otherwise there would be no more “sustainable loans” to communities. Acting consistently would also mean prohibiting investors from buying Confederation bonds (federal bonds), because the federal government also collects around 6 billion in taxes from fuel, car imports, etc. annually.

No less problematic are new regulations in the investment business. The free choice of personal capital investments should be restricted with bans. The portfolios must be ideologically aligned and no longer follow well-tried principles of diversification and prudence. But the state does not want to bear the responsibility for losses from cluster risks and reduced earnings. At general meetings, voting behavior should be based on the red-green positions, even if these are diametrically opposed to the ideas of many shareholders in collective investment schemes such as funds or pension funds.

This Article 9 alone would be reason enough to reject the KIG at the ballot box on June 18, 2023. But the rest of the law is an even greater disaster. Contrary to the title of the law, it guarantees neither innovations nor a secure energy supply.