Fireworks initiative: Between dazzling lights and noise protection – what does Switzerland think?

The fireworks initiative aims to restrict the sale and use of loud fireworks by private individuals throughout Switzerland. The fireworks initiative strikes a chord: 68 percent of those who definitely intend to vote would currently vote in favour of the initiative. 28 percent would reject it. This is typical for initiatives, as in the early stages of opinion formation, the focus tends to be on the problem addressed (noise pollution from fireworks) rather than the specific solution proposed (restrictions).

There is majority support for the proposal from left-wing and green circles, but also from the centre and the bourgeois camp. Support is particularly high among women, younger people, the educated and pet owners – although the latter are not significantly more likely to support the initiative than people without pets. The issue is therefore more widely supported than one might expect at first glance. At the same time, there is a clear awareness of the problem among the population: noise, environmental pollution and the impact on animals are perceived as problematic side effects.

The fireworks initiative is therefore finding a receptive audience among Swiss voters, but initiatives always lose support over the course of a campaign – the big question is how much.

Fireworks are an emotionally charged moment for many people: the sky lights up, the new year begins, people are out together. But the number of people who actively buy fireworks themselves is negligible – only 13 percent do so regularly. At the same time, awareness of the negative effects is high, as the broad support for the fireworks initiative can also be explained by the strong arguments in favour of it. The landscape of arguments reveals a familiar tension. On the one hand, there is a desire for clear rules, environmental protection and animal welfare. On the other hand, there is a need for freedom, personal responsibility and the preservation of traditions.

Positions that prioritise the protection of people, animals and the environment receive particularly strong support. For example, over 80 percent of respondents welcome the idea of harmonising the current cantonal regulations through national legislation. The protection of domestic and farm animals as well as wild animals also enjoys strong support, as do environmental arguments. Almost 70 per cent are in favour of restrictions for ecological reasons.

In contrast, the opponents’ arguments are less unified. Although the majority agree that there are more important issues than fireworks, other classic counterarguments, such as personal freedom, individual responsibility and economic concerns, are far less convincing. Only about a third of respondents see the proposed ban as a disproportionate infringement of individual freedom. And even concerns about negative economic effects are shared by only a small minority.