It sounds more like a swiss town in crises. The local economy probably relies on visitors coming during the snow season to provide for the rest of the year. It is nothing to do with greed.
The actual Swiss we interacted with were the most rude and dismissive hosts I’ve ever had to meet. The times when someone (at a restaurant, chalet, train station, truck/road stop) was kind and patient surprised us… and they always ended up being non-Swiss temp workers. I wonder where those workers will go; they are the ones who are going to need financial help with any transition because the Swiss will finally get what we heard many grumbling about - no more tourists.
It’s not for the wealthy, it’s for the working class. Of course don’t compensate asset price destruction due to climate change except for those who have limited means.
In my coal plant example, workers are typically close to retirement and have limited means. They aren’t financially independent, so they need something to bridge the gap between this painful transition and death. I apologize that wasn’t clear in my original comment.
Help those who need the help, but let the wealthy take the L.
"It’s not for the wealthy, it’s for the working class."
I think the swiss working class is a bit better of, than those in the subsahara facing drought.
They are in the need of transition funds.
I also think it would not be helpful to ban helicopter snow transport or something populistic, but it is really not smart, trying to keep things artificial alife - like certain wintersport areas - by means that contribute to the problem.
> I think the swiss working class is a bit better of, than those in the subsahara facing drought.
With such an argument we could drop everything we're doing in Switzerland, as we're probably better off than most other people in this world (by average).
Don't make the mistake to think that every Swiss citizen is well off. Very well off compared to the rest of the world, sure. But we have our own class of people who barely get through the month. (These people would be homeless and absolutely devastated in the US, so we have that going for us.)
The only income smaller ski regions have are winter sports. If this goes away, these regions will probably have some very difficult times. Now, I'm talking about the smaller ski regions with not that much wealth. Different story compared to Zermatt, St. Moritz etc.
> it is really not smart, trying to keep things artificial alife
I do agree with your main point! I also smh when I see all of the artificial snow machines which waste lots of water and energy, the tons of cars which travel to these regions, mass tourism etc.
Which doesn't mean that we can't also say, that the working class in these regions will be in serious trouble if we stop.
Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop. Complicated, I guess :)
You really need to contextualize the working class to the area we're in. Comparing your situation to the entire world's is a bit reductionist and useless as a comparison.
The residents of ski towns aren't rich just because they provide services for the rich. In Switzerland residents in the alps are generally poorer than those on the plateau.
Sure they're "rich", in the same way everyone in France, Italy and Austria are rich in a global context. But those areas are still going to need government support when the basis of their economy is wiped out.