Record heat and drought test Switzerland’s climate preparedness

Nine in ten surveyed residents want cooling in public buildings. The poll by 20 Minuten and Tamedia shows that voters broadly accept stronger protection from heat, particularly where workplaces, hospitals, schools and care homes are involved.

Among 12,780 respondents, 91% supported air conditioning in public buildings. The Unia trade union’s proposal to suspend construction work when temperatures reach 33°C won 81% support, including 47% who said yes outright and 34% who leaned towards approval. Support was higher among women and lower income respondents.

The boundary becomes less clear in schools. Only 51% supported cancelling lessons when classrooms reach 26°C, while 47% opposed the measure. Women backed it by 57%, compared with 44% of men. Overall, 67% favoured wider air conditioning, and 69% supported relaxing cantonal planning rules for split units. Yet 67% opposed subsidies for air conditioning in private homes.

The results reveal a practical demand for protection alongside resistance to shifting all costs onto taxpayers. Cooling also creates an energy challenge for a country whose buildings and electricity planning have traditionally focused on winter. Shading, ventilation, tree cover and building insulation will influence whether adaptation reduces heat exposure without simply increasing power demand.

Only eight of Switzerland’s 26 cantons have heat action plans that meet World Health Organization standards. That uneven coverage is central to the debate over whether the country’s climate preparedness matches the speed of environmental change.

Cantons in French speaking Switzerland and Ticino introduced heat plans after the 2003 heatwave caused roughly 1,000 more deaths than expected. Research comparing eight Swiss cities found that heat related mortality risk fell noticeably in cities with such plans, including Geneva. In cities without them, the relationship between high temperatures and mortality did not change after 2003.

Geneva’s system includes daily welfare checks on registered vulnerable residents during heatwaves, along with free cinema and swimming pool tickets for older people. Other parts of Switzerland offer less consistent support. Responsibilities remain divided among the Confederation, cantons and municipalities, making nationwide standards difficult to impose.

Switzerland has invested heavily in natural hazard protection. Around CHF 2.9 billion a year, equal to about 0.6% of GDP, goes towards adaptation to hazards, and maps cover more than 90% of settled areas. Those systems have helped with floods, landslides and avalanches. Heat and drought demand a different network of public health measures, water planning and urban design, areas where implementation remains patchier.

The Federal Council will decide by October whether Switzerland needs further measures for heat and drought. Its review will cover public health, animal welfare, nationwide heat maps and additional agricultural support. Parliament is also expected to hold an extraordinary debate during the autumn session.

Rösti has rejected calls for a state of emergency and argued that existing law is sufficient. He has also said cantons and municipalities must carry much of the responsibility, while the federal government could support building improvements that protect people from extreme heat. The Greens have called for a new state secretariat for climate protection, and the Socialists, Greens and Green Liberals want a wider parliamentary examination.

The summer’s data will shape that argument. Researchers at MeteoSwiss and ETH Zurich have observed more hot, dry weather since 2003 and expect such summers to become more frequent and intense. Emergency loans can help farms survive a cash flow crisis. Forest funding can support species selection and long term resilience. Neither measure establishes national heat standards or guarantees water security.

Switzerland already has expertise in monitoring hazards and protecting settlements. The next test will involve coordination, predictable funding and decisions taken before the next drought reaches the fields, rivers and homes.