voting doesn't work that way - you need double majority and it be downvoted by all the farmer / small and agriculture dependent cantons - I'd give it 58% yes but only 12 cantons.

12 when 13.5 are needed. I said in play, not more.

Bunch of hypocrites if the CO2 vote goes through.

What about personal responsibility?

In other words, perhaps people here could consider not buying the biggest, fastest Audis, Mercedes and BMWs with the biggest and most unnecessary engines.

Sure, increasing duty on cars with these engines will be part of the law but can't people just avoid buying these cars themselves?

Historical background:

That‘s the farmers‘ vote. They make up a small percentage of the population but a very vocal one, and one that has been and still is over-represented in Parliament, largely by the SVP (which started out as the BGB, the Bauern- und Gewerbepartei). This is why the Agrarpolitik 22 bill failed to make it through Parliament, though the reforms it proposed would have been quite gentle.

Farming is a very traditional business in Switzerland as farms are hardly ever for sale. Instead, they are passed on over generations. They also tend to merge, meaning there are even fewer available for people with less traditional ideas.

We have been adding several thousand tons of excess nitrogen compounds and phosphorus to the soil for decades, as well as about 2000 tons of pesticides. Lakes like the Hallwiler- and the Baldeggersee have been artificially ventilated since the 1980s. They need less oxygen now, but they still can‘t do without. If anyone‘s interested: https://www.bafu.admin.ch/bafu/en/ho...-in-lakes.html

One obvious solution would be to reduce the number of livestock. If the Trinkwasserinitiative was accepted, we‘d probably have to do that. From what I’ve read so far, it proposes three limitations to the federal direct payments that are a main source of income for many farmers. Given that we can produce practically 100% of meat and dairy demand on our own territory but less than half of demand for plant-based food, and given that plant-based food yields more calories per area, the general idea of reducing livestock strikes me as sensible. (Source for those percentages: agrarbericht.ch.)

What the Trinkwasserinitiative wants:

First, that farmers should only receive direct payments if they do not keep no more animals than they can feed from local produce. This is usually not the case today. Soy imports for fodder have tripled since the 90s and are currently about 280‘000 tons a year, mainly from Mato Grosso in Brazil. Which is a problem because soy is fast replacing the rain forest there.

Second, that such direct payments should only go to farmers who do not use prophylactic antibiotics on a routine basis. As an MD (for humans, not animals) I find this entirely reasonable. Antibiotic resistance is a problem. We should use them judiciously.

Third, that direct payments should go only to farmers who do not use pesticides. The need for reducing pesticides in our drinking water is debatable, but it is too easy to say it’s not a problem: exposure to pesticides has been linked pretty solidly to reduced sperm quality. Shanna Swan (in Count Down) argues that we might become infertile on a huge scale. True, the culprits are probably not only pesticides; look it up if you like. Then again, reduced human fertility would certainly solve a problem or two, so feel free!

For me personally, that makes two and a half reasons to vote yes, as opposed to 0.5 points in favour of a no. So it’s a clear yes to the Trinkwasserinitiative on my part.

So far, I‘m less clear on the Pestizidinitiative, which demands an outright ban on pesticides.

I hear you. Swiss cars are the heaviest and priciest in Europe. I‘m all for personal responsibility and have been car-free for years. But in a society this dedicated to the dance around the golden calf, personal responsibility would benefit from a nudge. It‘s not as though it‘d hurt someone who can afford a Porsche Cayenne.

The CO2 law proposes the following measures (German): https://www.uvek.admin.ch/uvek/de/ho...o2-gesetz.html

Several of them already exist. E.g. the CO2 fee on fuels. It gets partially redustributed to the population every year, meaning that those who use little fossil fuels actually make a (small) profit. You may have noticed it in your Krankenkassenabrechnung.

Up to now, kerosene was exempt from this fee, which is absurd given that its greenhouse effect is larger than that of petrol used in cars, partly due to the higher altitude. Private planes would have to pay too, so - continued cos I dunno how to quote two posts in one -

In response to your last paragraph: the Davos crowd (will they ever return?) would pay too. Quote from the link in the previous post: „Für Geschäfts- und Privatjets gibt es neu eine Lenkungsabgabe. Pro Flug ist je nach Distanz und Gewicht des Jets eine Abgabe zwischen 500 und 3000 Fr. fällig. Die Hälfte der Gelder wird gleichmässig an die Bevölkerung zurückverteilt. Der Rest fliesst in den Klimafonds.“

As for airports across the border: they already have fees. Switzerland has been an island. See https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftverkehrabgabe.

I could not agree more with „dependence on foreign resources“! What‘s more, oil and gas tend to come from states that either suffer from the resource curse (e.g. Nigeria - read Helon Habila‘s Oil on Water) or that are undemocratic and corrupt in other respects (e.g. Kazakhstan, Libya, Russia). Source: https://www.watson.ch/wirtschaft/wis...nten-seit-1988 and https://www.republik.ch/2020/10/07/d...zer-gasbranche

The Swiss Parliament is firmly centre-right, yet they approved this law. The measures proposed are a small step, but it is a step in the right direction. My vote is a yes for certain. I admit to being a science nerd and believing in logic and reason, and to taking climate change quite seriously. As do the 100+ Swiss scientists who joined the committee in favour of the proposed law: https://ethz.ch/de/news-und-veransta...einordnen.html

Done.

Thanks!

Voted!

Tom

My motto!

Except when NO means YES!

Tom

Does that vote require double majority? Not all of them do.

Why do some votes have double majority requirements and some not? How do they decide that?

Initiatives do, referenda do not.

So, 1 and 2 do, the others not.

Tom

Thanks.
I did learn about it a while back but have slept since then and had forgotten about the difference between an initiative and a referendum.

Sorry, 12 votes needed. 23 votes in total. Bloody half cantons.

I am with the farmers on this one.

If it passes, not only will prices go up but we will probably end up importing more products ... all those "bio" "organic" and other "wonderful" stuff coming from countries where organic is just a nice word used to sell at higher prices.

I am always baffled when I see people swearing by organic food and vote green party when they do their weekly grocery shopping. Very few items are from Switzerland, but apparently it's ok to buy organic lettuce coming from Spain or organic beens from Turkey. Maybe they are flown into Switzerland by travelling pigeons?

by not voting it be vote given to the winner . Or none of the above you expect to have "maybe" option and see which party offers more for you vote ?

To be fair, if the farmer's association hadn't been so obstructive to reasonable ways to regulate the use of pesticides, there might not be these initiatives. I am for using as little pesticides as needed, but I think zero is too extreme. I would agree with a ban of prophylactic antibiotics.

Independent of Switzerland's decisions on farming, I believe it is impossible to feed 7-8 billion people based on "bio" and "organic" farming. The answer may be GMO rather than pesticides though.

Could I vote, and without having read much about the CO2 law, I would say:

No
No
Yes
Tentative yes
No

How's about when the organic produce items are individually plastic wrapped?:

Classic error. Transport emissions are essentially irrelevant compared to the emissions involved in growing food. Basically if you want to reduce emissions don't buy meat, dairy, coffee and chocolate.

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

So, instead of buying local produce, we should buy imported ones?

Coffee and chocolate are hardly local, are they?


It amazes me that, despite the internet, TV and so on, people really have no idea where food comes from.

It barely matters. Obviously local will tend to be better yes but I wouldnt bother worrying about it.

Also, it may be useful to add something like "1-2 No" and "3-4 No", very few will be against all five.