Swiss officials buried a taxpayer-funded study showing how ordinary citizens could save money and help the climate—not because the science was wrong, but because they’d been politically manipulated into fear about telling the truth.

The Smoking Diesel: A Study That Should Have Helped Everyone

Swiss taxpayers funded important research in 2022. Allocation of 118,000 francs went to the Federal Office of Energy to answer a practical question: When does switching to an electric vehicle (EV) save both money and emissions?

The answer would help families make one of their biggest financial decisions—buying a car—with complete information. Multiple peer-reviewed studies internationally had already established that electric vehicles save money over their lifetime for most drivers while significantly reducing emissions.

The Swiss study clearly confirmed the facts:

More than 90% of current gas and diesel car owners would reduce both costs and emissions by switching to an electric vehicle immediately—unless they barely drive at all.

Experts from the Swiss Touring Club, Paul Scherrer Institute, and other respected organizations validated the research. Mobility expert Romain Sacchi called the work “excellent” with “clear conclusions.”

This is exactly the kind of practical consumer guidance government should provide.

Instead… Swiss officials ran and hid, trying to bury the facts that would save lives and reduce costs.

Smoke Signals of Information Warfare

Internal emails obtained by journalists through freedom of information laws reveal what happened:

Officials had been fed a very dangerous toxic narrative that providing consumer guidance (doing their job) would harm the very people it’s meant to help. It’s like gaslighting a surgeon into believing life saving surgery would kill the person who will die without surgery. Or like telling the police not to file a crime report needed to help the victim because the victim might not like to read it.

When the study neared completion in December 2024, the project manager suddenly showed distress that the topic had been made “potentially sensitive.” The communications chief went further, expressing fears of thoughts being judged “too academic” (e.g. lack a profit motive).

The truth: Helping consumers understand the lifetime costs of major purchases is basic public service.

The manipulation: Bad actors had convinced officials that providing this service was somehow condescending to citizens.

The reality: Withholding cost-saving information from taxpayers who funded it is what actually disrespects citizens.

When Public Servants Are Terrorized to Stop Serving the Public

The emails reveal a cascading panic among officials who should have been proud to share helpful research:

What actually helps families: Clear information about transportation costs and environmental impact.

What officials feared: Being accused by “certain media” of political manipulation.

What really happened: Officials were manipulated by far right extremists into hiding helpful information.

When journalists requested the study under freedom of information laws, the scramble intensified. Officials explored various deceptions:

• Falsely claiming the completed study wasn’t finished
• Retroactively renaming the “final report” as “interim”
• Inventing new requirements to justify suppression

Only after exhausting these options did they inform the minister’s office. Leadership ultimately released the study to journalists but refused to publish it officially.

Real Harm to Swiss Democracy

Democratic governments exist to serve citizens with accurate information. When Switzerland’s transport sector produces the most greenhouse gases and remains furthest from climate targets, citizens deserve facts about their options.

Instead, a disinformation campaign achieved its goal:

• Thousands of Swiss families made car-buying decisions without complete information
• Switzerland missed its 2025 goal of 50% electric vehicle adoption (achieving only 30%)
• Public servants learned that doing their jobs invites punishment

The truth about who this serves: Withholding consumer information benefits industries that profit from uninformed decisions. Disabling experts and public servants serves fascism.

The false narrative: That sharing price comparisons somehow harms consumers.

The reality: Consumers are harmed when they lack information needed for major financial decisions.

Understanding the Manipulation Playbook

The following patterns seem to be consistent across topics and countries.

Healthcare

Reality: Vaccines prevent disease and save lives, as shown by centuries of evidence.

The disinformation: Bad actors falsely label this scientific consensus as “Big Pharma propaganda.”

The result: Public health officials become afraid to share life-saving information.

Education

Reality: Comprehensive education improves life outcomes for all students.

The disinformation: Bad actors call evidence-based apolitical curricula the opposite, such as “indoctrination.”

The result: Educators fear educating despite well established facts.

Economics

Reality: Progressive taxation and social programs reduce inequality and improve social mobility.

The disinformation: Bad actors dismiss economic research with practical proofs as “socialist theorizing.”

The result: Policymakers fear implementing policies that demonstrably help most citizens.

Swiss Democracy in Retreat

Switzerland built its prosperity on pragmatic, evidence-based decision-making. The country’s direct democracy depends on informed citizens making collective choices.

What democracy requires: Citizens with access to relevant information making decisions based on facts.

What actually happened: Officials hid facts because they’d absorbed narratives designed to prevent evidence-based policy.

The outcome: Swiss voters deciding on energy and climate policies without access to relevant research their taxes funded.

The bitter irony: Officials thought they were avoiding controversy. Instead, they created a democratic crisis where public servants fear serving the public.

Respect vs. Saccharin

Actually respecting citizens:

• Trusting them with factual information about major purchases
• Sharing research they funded about topics affecting their lives
• Believing people can understand cost comparisons and make informed choices
• Providing consumer guidance as a basic public service

Actually toxic to citizenship:

• Deciding they can’t handle straightforward information
• Hiding research because you assume they’ll misunderstand
• Withholding data that could save them money
• Treating taxpayers like children who need protection from facts

Protecting Democratic Information Sharing

Breaking this cycle requires recognizing how disinformation campaigns manipulate public servants into betraying public service:

Officials: Your duty is providing citizens with accurate information. When you hide helpful research, you’re not avoiding elitism—you’re practicing it.

Leaders: Defend civil servants who share evidence-based information. Make clear that taxpayer-funded research belongs to taxpayers.

Media: Report on information suppression as democratic failure. Don’t amplify narratives designed to prevent evidence-based policy.

Citizens: Demand access to research you funded. Support officials who prioritize transparency. Recognize when “controversy” is manufactured to hide helpful information.

Threats to Every Democracy

Switzerland’s buried electric vehicle study forces us to confront fundamental questions about information warfare in our midst.

What is government for?

If not to help citizens make informed decisions with accurate information, then what?

Who benefits from ignorance?

When public servants fear sharing consumer guidance, who profits from uninformed purchasing decisions?

What does democracy mean?

Can it function when officials hide information because they’ve internalized anti-democratic narratives?

What Swiss Officials Tried to Hide, to Appease Anti-Government Elites

• Electric vehicles have lower lifetime costs than gas cars for most drivers
• The climate benefit of switching is immediate and substantial
• These findings align with international research and basic physics
• This information could help families save thousands of francs

This is helpful consumer information. There’s nothing controversial about helping people save money while supporting energy independence.

The controversy was manufactured by those who benefit when consumers lack information. Swiss officials fell for it, choosing institutional comfort over public service.

The real scandal

Public servants so paralyzed by false narratives that they forget their job is serving the public with facts.

The Swiss case isn’t unique. Across democracies, public servants increasingly fear that doing their jobs—providing helpful information to citizens—will bring punishment.

This fear doesn’t arise naturally. It’s cultivated by campaigns designed to prevent evidence-based policy by making evidence itself seem dangerous.

The simple antidote

Recognize that democratic governments exist to help citizens make informed decisions. Any narrative suggesting that informed citizens are bad for democracy is itself anti-democratic.

When officials hide helpful information, they don’t avoid elitism—they embody it. When they share facts that help people save money and protect their children’s future, they practice democratic respect.

The choice is clear. The question is whether democratic institutions will remember their purpose and remove toxic right wing extremists like removing lead from gasoline, or upgrading from petroleum altogether.

---

An investigation by Republik and the WAV research collective first uncovered how false narratives about “elitism” led Swiss officials to hide helpful consumer information. Thanks to freedom of information laws, the study “Purchase Decision: When It Pays to Switch to an Electric Car” is now publicly available.

The case demonstrates why transparency laws and investigative journalism remain essential for democratic accountability—especially when public servants forget they serve the public.

Reuters is already reporting the likely source of the outage, opening the door to finding cause.

REE’s system operations chief Eduardo Prieto told reporters the loss of power supply was beyond the extent that European systems are designed to handle and caused the Spanish and French grids to disconnect, which in turn led to the collapse of the Spanish electricity network.

On the 25 of April, just days before the outage, Spain had called out security risk with the French interconnection.

…Joan Groizard, Spain’s secretary of state for energy. Better interconnection with the rest of Europe would increase energy security…

BYD, founded in 1995 as a Chinese battery company, has achieved some significant engineering advantages over Tesla according to a new scientific study. While Tesla has promoted its battery innovations extensively, this research reveals that BYD’s Blade cell outperforms Tesla’s 4680 cell in several important areas, particularly thermal efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Comparing this specific heating per volume, the Tesla 4680 cell creates around 2× of the heat to be dissipated at a 1 C load (Figure 8). Thus, when designing a system with the same power requirements, the cooling needed for the Tesla 4680 cells must dissipate approximately 2× more heat per volume than that needed for the BYD cell at the same load.

The study clearly demonstrates BYD’s engineering prowess in developing more thermally efficient batteries. Tesla’s 4680 cell generates twice the heat per volume compared to BYD’s Blade cell at the same charging rate, requiring significantly more cooling to maintain safe operation. For consumers, this translates to important advantages in fast charging capability and longevity of BYD vehicles.

Beyond thermal performance, BYD’s cells are also more cost-effective, with the research showing approximately €10/kWh lower material costs than Tesla’s cells. This efficiency in both thermal management and cost reflects BYD’s practical engineering approach versus Tesla’s focus on energy density.

BYD’s technology demonstrates that engineering addressing real-world concerns like heat management, cost, and safety ultimately provides better and more sustainable value to consumers than maximizing a single metric.

Findings on Tesla batteries generating twice the heat of BYD’s also points the discerning technology professional towards critical safety questions. The connection between higher heat generation and observed fire risks demands urgent independent investigation. Further research should determine if such measured differences help explain the real-world safety outcomes. This scientific study provides clear technical evidence why thermal management in EV batteries requires closer scrutiny for consumer safety.

Higher energy density of Tesla (more energy pushed into smaller volume) can create greater risks for thermal danger. Batteries that force more energy into a smaller space, makes heat more challenging to engineer back down from, because it can lead to a chain reaction:

1. Higher heat in confined space accelerates chemical reactions
2. Chemical reactions then generate even more heat
3. Lack of adequate cooling allows even even more heat
4. Thermal runaway means the process becomes self-sustaining
5. Tesla’s density thus is suspected in causing fires and explosion

For the vast majority of consumers, safety isn’t a preference but an expectation rooted in engineering ethics (cars as trusted systems). Professional engineering codes explicitly require prioritizing public safety above all other considerations. Random performance metrics are irrelevant when they ignore basic safety principles, like the absurdity of a South African man claiming in 2016 he will be launching rockets to colonize Mars within five years despite no real plans for survival.

BYD’s engineering approach demonstrates adherence to established principles in the engineering code of ethics, where safety and reliability take precedence. A focus on thermal efficiency and cooling systems reflects an ethical obligation to design systems that minimize foreseeable risks. This isn’t simply a market strategy but fulfillment of the foundational ethical requirement that engineers hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. Consumers rightfully must demand that vehicles are safe regardless of any marketing claims in a design change.

Tesla’s singular pursuit of energy density without adequate thermal management directly challenges engineering ethical standards. No engineering innovation can be considered successful if it creates undue risk to users. Just as an engineer cannot justify a structurally unsound bridge that falls down by highlighting they developed more density in its cables, battery systems that generate excessive heat cannot be defended solely on more density. Obligation to prioritize public safety is not optional or secondary to performance metrics, it is the fundamental ethical requirement upon which all legitimate engineering is built.