I read the text of the initiative and was suprised to see that the claims of the opponents such as “30% of the territory would be totally kept untouched” are simply not there.
The initiative is actually pretty vague and lax and lets a lot of room for the government to make a reasonible implementation.
IF it were about biodiversity, okay. That could indeed be an issue. But it’s also about protecting “landscapes” and protecting “heritage sites” or: “how nice little towns have looked 100 years ago”. That’s a big no from me.
A no from me but not because i think the biodiversity part goes too far. Most of the criticism is just made up shit imo but i dont like how they want to protect landscape/heritage sites.
A big yes on the biodiversity but a no for me in the end because i definitely disagree that we need to protect heritage sites even more. Its such a pain already to change anything on older buildings because it feels like each and everyone of them needs to be protected.
It is indeed a necessary step, to protect the nature. The early and “easy-to-accept” signs we already see… like much less insects and amphibians, but we can’t let it get worse, to a point of no return because we can not know all the results of worsening biodiversity
The counter-arguments (renewable energy, agriculture) are too much fear-mongering and conservative for me. As agriculture needs to change anyway as our viable soils are already degrading, even our lakes are getting “sick” of this way of agriculture and we need to invest a shit ton of money to limit the impacts, that could have been avoided. Solutions for renewable energy are already regulated, and will not be more restricted as it already is.
4 comments
I read the text of the initiative and was suprised to see that the claims of the opponents such as “30% of the territory would be totally kept untouched” are simply not there.
The initiative is actually pretty vague and lax and lets a lot of room for the government to make a reasonible implementation.
IF it were about biodiversity, okay. That could indeed be an issue. But it’s also about protecting “landscapes” and protecting “heritage sites” or: “how nice little towns have looked 100 years ago”. That’s a big no from me.
A no from me but not because i think the biodiversity part goes too far. Most of the criticism is just made up shit imo but i dont like how they want to protect landscape/heritage sites.
A big yes on the biodiversity but a no for me in the end because i definitely disagree that we need to protect heritage sites even more. Its such a pain already to change anything on older buildings because it feels like each and everyone of them needs to be protected.
It is indeed a necessary step, to protect the nature. The early and “easy-to-accept” signs we already see… like much less insects and amphibians, but we can’t let it get worse, to a point of no return because we can not know all the results of worsening biodiversity
The counter-arguments (renewable energy, agriculture) are too much fear-mongering and conservative for me. As agriculture needs to change anyway as our viable soils are already degrading, even our lakes are getting “sick” of this way of agriculture and we need to invest a shit ton of money to limit the impacts, that could have been avoided. Solutions for renewable energy are already regulated, and will not be more restricted as it already is.