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.

  • FaceDeer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months 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