“Environmental responsibility” initiative – thoughts?

7 comments

1. No thoughts, there is nothing concrete here to vote for

2. My assessment is that it will be overwhelmingly rejected, especially since opponents and the Bundesrat predict a very bleak future. My personal wish would be for it to be accepted – even though the initiative is, in essential parts, anything but concrete – in the hope that the issue would finally be addressed properly and that Switzerland could, in the best case, even become a shining example of how economic stability, happy people, and sustainability can coexist. I also think it’s disappointing that the Bundesrat is not making an effort to create counter-initiatives on such important topics.

3. I’m left leaning but if I had the right to vote right now (which I will have soon) I would vote no.

   Objectives but no proposals how to do it. I really dislike these lets set goals first then make everyone’s lives miserable to achieve them initiatives. Maybe design for success?

4. I will be voting No. There is a lot of improvements to be made in this area for sure, but it’s a pretty blind initiative. It’s just too radical, not enough time and no alternatives to anything just a straight restriction.

5. Noble objective, but both the speed of reaching the goal and the “yeah, just do something ig” attitude to enforcing it makes this somewhere between a catastrophe waiting or an initiative that will get all its teeth pulled in the implementation into law because actually implementing it would mean massive damage to the economy (à la Masseneinwanderungsinitiative).

   Ultimately, this is not something Switzerland can achieve on its own. See Fairphone: Because Fairphone did pioneering work and built up the network, other companies are now sourcing fair ressources too. These things don’t work in a vacuum, reaching the set goal would require every supply chain of CH (which may as well be almost every international supply chain) to be touched and improved or for consumption to lower a drastic amount (which may be what we will have to do at some point anyways, but is not a good idea to be the only one doing in the current global economy while being so dependent on said global economy).

   Like so many recent initiatives where I agree with the goal, I tend to not agree with the measures proposed. Sometimes it’s just the details that mess it up, but this one is imo intended as a signal and not as a serious proposal for a law.

6. I will vote yes. It will give a constitutional mandate to our legislators to do whatever it takes to protect the environment. Yes, they’ll have to figure it out, which is exactly what I expect our leaders to do. Today, we’re far from doing enough, this is an opportunity for the people to send a strong signal to our representatives.

7. The idea is good, the execution is bad.

   I’m also looking at Canada, which, because of the “Greens”, has dropped construction to manage its energy in the past.
   Because of this, Trump can force the issue and threaten them with taxes because they are dependent on the US.

   I’d like the world to get better, or at least not get worse, but it seems to me that ecological issues are a minefield and that the young people of the left-wing parties want to dance in it.

Comments are closed.