Soooo new round of votes in June, another mixed bunch of topics.

1- Popular initiative “For clean drinking water and healthy food"
2- Popular initiative “For a Switzerland without artificial pesticides”
3- COVID-19 Act
4- CO2 Act
5- Federal Act on Police Measures to Combat Terrorism

I have to say before seeing any opinion poll that I'm genuine clueless on what the Swiss will vote on 1 and 2. I think 4 might still pass easily as the "green wave" seems still go strong both on the left and right.

What do you think? Your opinions and what you will vote if you are a citizen and not an Auslander like me

It seems you need an option for "will vote but won't vote yes on any of these" in order to have a denominator for your polling.

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

I think that if you want to discuss them here it would be really useful if you were to say something more about the measures being proposed. Otherwise you'll only get opinions from those people already engaged enough to know what they're all about.

Yes can someone tell me what the CO2 act is please ?

https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/do...3/co2-act.html

Tom

That link gives no information. Is that enough for you to make decisions on?

If you change the language to a national one, there is more text. We will also receive a booklet with significantly more info when we get our ballots.

I have no idea what the two votes actually involve but there is a very strong NO to the first two around these parts.
There have been huge boards up in farmers filelds all over the place for a couple of weeks already all saying 2X NON.

I think the first says that farmers using pesticides won't get subsidies anymore, or at least less.

The second one wants to ban pesticides completely.

The second will fail no doubt, but the progressive city people might actually put the first in play. Of course, they have no clue about farming, but hey they also think wolves are cute and their population cannot be regulated.

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.

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

News description of the act:

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/climate...-vote/46280546

A description from the people supporting the YES vote:

https://www.myclimate.org/informatio...l/co2-act-yes/

The phasing out of the oil and gas heating systems looks fine in the long term. Maybe stop thinking about the environment and think about the prices oscillations of oil and gas, and dependence of foreign resources. If heating solutions relying on local resources are developed, people will be thankful one day for not being dependent on the mood changes of a foreign dictator.

The flight ticket tax is complicate. In one hand, it may make the train look more attractive. On the other hand, people may just go to EuroAirport in France. So, a tax that makes air travel more expensive from Zurich and Geneva unless some cooperation with France is agreed.

And, what about private and recreational aviation? A tax on commercial flights would be a tax on the poor that cannot afford private flight. A Gulfstream G650 or a Bombardier Global 7500 have a range between 12K-13K km and fuel capacity of 20 tons. If Easyjet passengers end up paying CO2 tax and Davos crowd doesn't, we have a problem.

The flight tax based on distance travelled is complicated and easy to get around.

If you want to go to Dubai and wish to avoid the tax you buy a one way ticket to Paris and a second ticket Paris Dubai Zurich. Who suffers? SWISS.

And what about cargo? Long haul flights are usually full of Cargo why doesn’t the tax apply to them?

While I agree in Principle with the vote, I certainly don’t agree with some of the ‘solutions’. They need further thought.

France is much closer: Basel/Mulhouse/Freiburg EuroAirport

Quick check: Stuttgart - Gatwick Euro 25.87. SERIOUSLY?

That's cheaper than the amount of shoes I'd need to buy for walking. And don't tell me, me breathing on the way is worse.

this is not a vote pro the law, I did not study it in detail yet.

Details here, I had to google them too https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/do...ion/votes.html

You need to add the option: None of the above.

Tom

Done.

Thanks!

Voted!

Tom