In times of climate change, the world faces the challenge of reducing CO₂-emissions drastically. But how realistic is it for companies to become climate neutral? This article sheds light on the importance of CO₂ as a waste product, draws parallels with the successful introduction of waste charges and uses the example of a pizzeria to show what measures companies can take to minimise their CO₂-footprint can be minimised. The central question remains: Is climate neutrality an achievable goal or just an excuse?

Polluter pays principle and CO₂-Reduction

With the introduction of waste charges in the 1970s, Swiss society decided that the costs of waste disposal should be borne by those who generate it. This led to a significant reduction in waste volumes of 30 per cent. Similarly, the polluter pays principle should be applied to CO₂-emissions.

At that time, it was decided that the costs of waste disposal should be borne by those who generate it: instead of being borne exclusively through taxes, the costs should be shared by those who generate the waste - thus waste charges were introduced across the board. The immediate reaction: waste volumes fell by 30 per cent, as determined by the Federal Office for the Environment in 2001. Steering mechanisms can work very well and therefore do not necessarily lead to market distortions - there is nothing in the online archives about companies that have left Switzerland because of the introduction of this charge. The costs of cleaning up old landfills and dealing with the existing mountains of waste were transferred to the general public, which is equivalent to financing through taxes, borne by both individuals and companies. This has neither destroyed the economy nor driven taxpayers out of Switzerland.

Today's pollution from climate-damaging gases is like the mountains of waste back then: all polluters, including companies, have a responsibility to minimise their CO₂-emissions and also contribute to the reduction of global CO₂-waste mountain. As with the mountains of waste, there are large "landfills" in the atmosphere that also need to be dismantled. These measures must also be financed, either through a polluter-pays principle or through tax-financed interventions by society.

Example: A climate-friendly pizzeria

Let's take a pizzeria as an example. The owner wants to make the business climate-friendly. Completely CO₂It can only become carbon-neutral if it ceases operations, which is not practicable. It is therefore analysing its processes and optimising them in terms of CO₂-emissions. For almost all those directly involved, the clear sequence of target-oriented interventions is: firstly, avoidance of emissions, secondly, reduction of unavoidable emissions and thirdly, compensation for emissions that can neither be avoided nor reduced. For the pizza baker's main processes, this means

• Cooking and bakingUse of energy-efficient appliances.
• TransportUse of electric vehicles for the delivery service.
• Purchasing of goodsSelection of suppliers with sustainable practices.
• Heating and ventilationOptimisation of energy efficiency.
• LightingUse of LED technology and motion detectors.

Long-term perspective and solutions

Despite all the optimisations, the pizzeria is still CO₂ emissions. These residual emissions must be offset. At present, there is the possibility of doing this with CO₂-certificates or by financing projects that use CO₂-emissions. These projects must, of course, be transparent and verifiable: the impact of these projects on CO₂-emissions.

The measures to reduce and offset CO₂-emissions cause additional costs, which must be reflected in higher prices. This would of course put the entrepreneur at a competitive disadvantage, which would have to be compensated for: she must be given access to capital that also reflects the fact that she is making these investments and expenditures with an impact on total CO₂ has made. Ideally, a credit institution would be found that interprets "sustainable finance" in such a way that it effectively makes a transfer from non-climate-friendly activities to climate-friendly investments and offers it the necessary corporate financing more favourably than its competitors, who do not yet incur the additional costs. Alternatively, the state can also transfer part of the CO₂-The carbon tax should be refunded to precisely those companies that have ensured that emissions are reduced. As everything that is required for this is already measurable in reality today, financing can also be calculated quite easily and reported transparently.

Conclusion: A simple and market-based approach

The polluter pays principle has proved its worth in the case of waste and should also be applied to CO₂-emissions. Through avoidance and reduction strategies as well as offsetting, companies and individuals can make their contribution to reducing CO₂-waste mountain from growing any further or even reducing it.

P.S.If the pizzeria raises its prices, it generates higher VAT, from which the federal government benefits. This additional revenue could be invested in CO₂-reducing projects, which would strengthen the overall effect.