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.
Gwendolan on
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.
unknownkinkguy on
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.
lowladyGlitch on
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.
xXVareszXx on
It’s way to vague for me for a yes.
Fine-Resident-8157 on
Essentiel. Its very vague also
lordhelmchench on
It would be a good thing, but it was to extrem in some part for me (you can’t “move” a reserved area, …) and it was much to vage.
I would really like to accept initiatives like that (or like Trinkwasserinitiative) that would help mto preserve our nature but they are normaly to extrem. Perhaps it would be better not to push all the things into a initiative but try to do 2 steps.
[deleted] on
[deleted]
Ornery_Cake_9864 on
Usually i just ignore the text and vote against svp.
myblueear on
Look at it like what it is: a yes or no question—do you care about biodiversity, or do you not care?
The vast majority of the farmers are stuck in their industrial production concepts, they may or may not feel a bit sorry for vanishing ecospheres but sorry, money make the world go round!
spreadsheetsNcoffee on
Watching the debate around this initiative really makes me think that we need laws regulating what claims political groups are allowed to make in public. The opponents spew so much baseless nonsense, like the made up 30% and much more.
e1sprung on
Look, we need to allow more dense building to make living space without building more into nature. Ortschutz people do the exact opposite and prevent this wherever they can.
wet_noodle_447 on
Majority will likely vote no so I might as well contribute my yes
Grand_Dadais on
It’s so obviously necessary and yet not enough.
But we managed to make ecology a partisan thing, when it’s the “thin conditions necessary for agriculture” and we have and are currently destroying that.
But old people manage to brainwash people in the “fight against Nature”, as if it was “going well”.
What a species of idiots :]]
rapax on
The biodiversity bit is fine, but the parts about protecting buildings and village appearances are bonkers
MightBeEllie on
If I were allowed to vote, I’d vote for it.
But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t anything to criticize.
I think it’s vague and unspecific and nobody knows what would actually happen.
The 30% slogan is certainly coming out of some conservative ass, though.
bobba71 on
I’m voting no, not because I’m against protecting biodiversity, but because I think the initiative goes too far in protecting heritage sites. It’s already difficult to make changes to older buildings, and adding more regulations will just make it worse. Biodiversity protection is important, but this initiative overreaches.
17 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.
It’s way to vague for me for a yes.
Essentiel. Its very vague also
It would be a good thing, but it was to extrem in some part for me (you can’t “move” a reserved area, …) and it was much to vage.
I would really like to accept initiatives like that (or like Trinkwasserinitiative) that would help mto preserve our nature but they are normaly to extrem. Perhaps it would be better not to push all the things into a initiative but try to do 2 steps.
[deleted]
Usually i just ignore the text and vote against svp.
Look at it like what it is: a yes or no question—do you care about biodiversity, or do you not care?
The vast majority of the farmers are stuck in their industrial production concepts, they may or may not feel a bit sorry for vanishing ecospheres but sorry, money make the world go round!
Watching the debate around this initiative really makes me think that we need laws regulating what claims political groups are allowed to make in public. The opponents spew so much baseless nonsense, like the made up 30% and much more.
Look, we need to allow more dense building to make living space without building more into nature. Ortschutz people do the exact opposite and prevent this wherever they can.
Majority will likely vote no so I might as well contribute my yes
It’s so obviously necessary and yet not enough.
But we managed to make ecology a partisan thing, when it’s the “thin conditions necessary for agriculture” and we have and are currently destroying that.
But old people manage to brainwash people in the “fight against Nature”, as if it was “going well”.
What a species of idiots :]]
The biodiversity bit is fine, but the parts about protecting buildings and village appearances are bonkers
If I were allowed to vote, I’d vote for it.
But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t anything to criticize.
I think it’s vague and unspecific and nobody knows what would actually happen.
The 30% slogan is certainly coming out of some conservative ass, though.
I’m voting no, not because I’m against protecting biodiversity, but because I think the initiative goes too far in protecting heritage sites. It’s already difficult to make changes to older buildings, and adding more regulations will just make it worse. Biodiversity protection is important, but this initiative overreaches.