Switzerland considers jail sentences for those heating their homes unreasonably
bnn-news.com
bnn-news.com
Google translated "Anyone who violates the requirements faces imprisonment or a fine. In the case of intentional action, a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine is possible. Even in the case of negligent violations of the measures, a fine of up to 180 daily rates is conceivable."
Then the original article goes into more discussion how enforcement is close to impossible and that a company who heats a large swimming pool on purpose is obviously worse than a resident setting their heating higher. My take-away is that there will be at most spot checks, some monetary fines possible. But jail is meant for the worst repeat offerenders of grand scale.
Use your brain... Homes are not uniform. The amount of gas it takes to heat a small, well-insulated modern apartment is pretty low. Require an older, larger, poorly insulated farmhouse to fall within similar utilization ranges and that home is no longer livable.
And homes have multiple residents. Who's at fault if usage is high? Perhaps the property owner's name is on the bill, but a tenant has control of the thermostat, or a family member. Who do they intend to arrest? How would you prove who the responsible party is for high usage? And what about the extreme burden this would place on the courts? And then you have a large chunk of your population in jail, instead of contributing economically to the country, supporting their families, etc. The economic damage of such a policy would be far worse than doing nothing at all.
This is the thinking of people who live under an authoritarian regime, which presently is not Switzerland. This only makes sense to somebody who has no human rights and whose country doesn't give a fuck about their economic standing if it means undermining the regime. Who could that be? I wonder...
There are consultations on what to do in an energy shortage: https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/xbfpsq/comment...
https://www.blick.ch/politik/gfroerlis-muessen-im-ernstfall-...
However, there should not be a broad-based hunt for energy sinners. "We are not a police state," said SVP Economics Minister Guy Parmelin (62) last Wednesday at the media conference of the Federal Council. "The police don't go to everyone - but there can be spot checks," says Parmelin. There are also specifications in other areas that are not constantly monitored. "The draft ordinances are primarily based on the fact that the vast majority of the population abides by the law," emphasizes Spörndli.
But controls are not excluded - for example, if you are ratted out by an angry neighbor or an overzealous neighborhood sheriff. A Gfrörli that heats up to 20 instead of 19 degrees must expect a penalty. Spörndli also confirms this – at least, “if the offense were reported and controlled and could subsequently also be proven”.
And it's not like Switzerland is some backwards dictatorship shit-hole either, this is a reliable democracy of considerable wealth!
With any luck they'll manage to switch their heating/energy production to some better method than gas
How is this news? This will likely never become law.
Are you sure you are not mixing them up with Sweden? For example the last Swiss canton to give women the right to vote did so in 1991. And same sex marriage in Switzerland was made legal in July this year.
How quickly we forget the lessons so recently learned.
I don't get it; if it's "rationed" the entire "using more than reasonable" doesn't seem to be an issue. Don't they track usage at a billing level?
Can anybody explain the radiant heaters? Aren't they are actually more effective in keeping people warm compared to heating the air?
> But in a decade or so, it will be the prevailing opinion. Some czar of the environment will go around deciding who gets AC, and telling others "You don't need AC". (Generally, this is decided by campaign donations and party support.)
Fair enough. It wasn't a decade, it was happening now -- and it was heat instead of AC.
That said, I think the idea is mostly unworkable, it would be much better to look at differences in energy bills for similar size homes and send round advisors to mee the home owners and discuss how they might improve energy efficiency.
That doesn't sound so weird to me. The whole point of rationing (which isn't happening yet[1]) is that efficient market allocation in severe shortages isn't capable of meeting society's needs, and that the government needs to step in to do the allocation instead. Now, knowing HN, there are going to be a lot of people here who reject this premise a priori. But nonetheless that is the premise behind the law, and given that having some sort of enforcement mechanism is necessary, just like it is for all laws.
[1] And probably won't. The idea of shutting off gas is a pretty obvious bluff by Russia. They need that cash at least as much as the Europeans need the gas.
Shutting off the taps has limited long term utility if Europeans reduce demand for Russian gas by introducing substitutes or otherwise reducing demand!
Rationing gas like this is foolish in all cases. That's what markets are for. They have no way to enforce this and it can only cause immense social strife for near zero payback. You'd think they'd have learned from the attempt to break up families at Christmas to punish the unvaccinated, but no. The current Federal Council really is trash.
We can only win it by not destroying the planet.