153
submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Plan aimed to expand protection of endangered ecosystems, but opponents said it posed risk to business development

Voters in Switzerland have rejected a proposal to make authorities do more to protect natural habitats from pollution and development, preliminary results of a referendum have showed.

The biodiversity initiative, which the Swiss government and parliament had already rebuffed, envisaged changing the law to set aside more land for conservation beyond areas that were already protected.

The initiative has been closely watched by conservationists outside Switzerland, at a time when concerns about global loss of biodiversity are growing. The proposal also intended to increase protections for endangered ecosystems in a country renowned for its lakes and snow-capped mountains.

In one of Switzerland’s traditional exercises of direct democracy, more than 60% of voters rejected the plan, according to a projected result published by the national broadcaster SRF. By mid-afternoon, the initiative had been rejected by too many cantons to pass, an official tally showed.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Naich 38 points 1 month ago
[-] dan1101@lemm.ee 36 points 1 month ago

Posed a risk to business development. Don't learn that from the USA.

[-] oce@jlai.lu 29 points 1 month ago

I think they have a long history of privileging business over ethics.

And they still have the gold of questionable origin to prove it.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 7 points 1 month ago

You can rest assured that, without fail, whenever there is a story about another Western country doing something bad, someone in the comments section is going to unnecessarily shit on the US. Bonus points for this one because it's basically blaming the US for "teaching" them this.

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 month ago

Think about the ~~children~~ economy.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io -4 points 1 month ago

You do need to think about the economy, though. People aren't going to accept environmental regulations that will significantly impact their quality of life, that has to be taken into account if you are in a democracy.

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 month ago

They don't consider it when they make decisions. Politicians use fear. Also, I hate to tell you, if the planet dies then we might have a bigger problem then the economy.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

The point is that normal folks will not accept a reduced standard of living, or greater instability in their home and career for long term ecological benefits.

Even the perception of this risk (as you mention "political fear") is just as powerful a driver.

"The planet dying" doesn't seem like a real risk to someone worried about their income "dying".

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago

No you are 100% correct that "normal people will not accept a reduced standard of living." Mainly because we live in a capitalistic society and politicians play down the middle. You have to consume for the system to work.

Counterpoint: people are already having a change in standard of living.

Look at how hot it is, the available fruits/vegetables by season, cost of utilizes, rising taxes due to natural disasters, fighting over resources, new diseases, lack of fresh water, being denied housing insurance, etc... The list can literally go on. We are not reducing are living but instead sticking our heads in the sand and wishing it away.

Politicians are still drilling or fracking because "I might lose the election," and then tell people we have to do all this.

Implement educating the population about what is happening just like the ozone. We changed those policies pretty quick. Even if other countries denied it was an issue.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-north-carolina-home-collapse-atlantic-ocean-rcna167079

[-] boblin@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

63.03% rejecting it is less than I had expected. I was expecting 70% or more, so maybe there is hope for the matter to be reiterated upon in the coming years.

[-] NiPfi@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

The headline makes it seem way more clear than the issue actually is. As for me, I took issue with the bill potentially preventing more green energy projects which we are severely lacking, aside from hydro. Though I am very unhappy with the argument that we need to not block economic development since I am all for regulations in that sector, just not sweeping ones.

[-] AliSaket@mander.xyz 6 points 1 month ago

To be fair, business development wasn't the main hangup for many of the people I know. The two main reasons I heard (and partly raised myself), was firstly the detrimental effect on expanding solar- & wind-energy-production. And secondly overreaching, i.e. not limiting the protection to the environment, but also include townscape protection and historical sites, essentially further restraining residential development (including changing them into more dense usage) in a time where living space is scarce and expensive.

When the pro-side has its reservations, then of course it doesn't help that the executive (Federal Council) is dominated by pro-corporate ideology and have brought forward arguments of "damaging the business location". But making it out to be the only reason is just dishonest.

[-] yournamehere@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

switzerland will be leveled by nature. it'll be a flat parkinglot nobody will use inhabitet by people nobody likes. let us end schengen so EU isnt bothered by them anymore.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/22/switzerland-swiss-voters-reject-biodiversity-initiative-proposal-conservation
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
153 points (98.7% liked)

World News

39019 readers
2176 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS