Should the Swiss economy be adapted to the planet’s ecological limits?
On February 9, Swiss voters will decide on the “environmental responsibility initiative”, spearheaded by the Young Greens.
Campaigners have proposed a new constitutional article obliging the national economy to operate within nature’s capacity for renewal within the next ten years. Resource use and pollution would not be allowed to exceed what ecosystems can withstand.
Proponents argue that this is essential to avoid the depletion of natural resources. But critics warn it could damage the economy and undermine Switzerland’s competitive edge.
What are your thoughts on this idea? Let us know!
More
A ‘no’ vote forecast for the ‘environmental responsibility’ initiative
Resolving global problems like climate change led the 'equal per capita' approach in 1990. The introduction of 'Contraction & Convergence' (C&C) at the 2nd 'Conference of the Parties' to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1996 was based on that and it came close to being adopted at COP-3 in Kyoto.
http://www.gci.org.uk/COP3_Transcript.pdf
In fact C&C comes from the 'Well Tempered Climate Accord' (WTCA).
Octaves (pitch doublings) govern music. Ask any string player how long is a violin string (e.g.) and the answer is always exactly twice half its length - (an 'octave' - the first harmonic).
Well temperedness simply means twelve equal semi-tones per octave over seven octaves, as demonstrated in the tuning of a grand piano. The diversity and the success of music rests on this framework.
Despite the quarrels over thirty years the 'Well Tempered Climate Accord' rests on that simple harmonic framework for 'sharing under limits'. As time runs out for UNFCCC compliance, the failure to suggest something better by those who disagree has become entrenched - we are always solving the problem too slowly.
Hello! to all of you
Yes, of course. Respect, love, admire and continue with this beautiful creation of God. The Earth itself, our great mother nature, animals, birds, insects, we humans, among others, need to preserve this wonder that God gave us and it is our responsibility to take care of it, love it, preserve it. No excuses...we have to take care of it and preserve it, it is the home of birds and diversity of animals and insects. Nature is life, it gives life and it is part of everyone. Thank you.❤️🌳🌱🪴🌻🌳🌳🌳💐🪻🌳🌳🌳🌳💐🪻
¡Hola! A todos
Claro que Si. Respeto, amor, admiración y continuar con esta bella creación de Dios. La Tierra misma, nuestra gran madre naturaleza, los animales, aves, insectos, nosotros los seres humanos, entre otros., necesitamos preservar esta maravilla que Dios nos regalo y es nuestra responsabilidad cuidarla, amarla, preservarla. Sin excusas…hay que cuidarla y preservarla, es el hogar de las aves y diversidad de animales e insectos . La naturaleza es vida, da vida y es parte de todos. Gracias.❤️🌳🌱🪴🌻🌳🌳🌳💐🪻
I consider this to be one of the most sensitive issues, and I think that because of its importance it should be treated with a certain delicacy, because it is very easy to say NO or YES. Then come the results and we don't know what to do. In my humble opinion, a balance must be found (perhaps I am asking too much), so as not to attack natural resources or not to attack the progress that affects nature or humanity. In Argentinian: neither too much nor too much.
Yes, I would like to defend my opinion.
Considero al tema uno de los más delicados, y, pienso que por su importancia debe ser tratado con cierta delicadeza, porque es muy fácil decir NO o SI. Luego vienen los resultados y no sabemos qué hacer. Bajo mi humilde idea se debe encontrar un equilibrio (quizás esté pidiendo mucho), para no atacar los recursos naturales o no atacar los progresos que afecta a la naturaleza o a la humanidad. En argentino: ni muy muy ni tan tan.
Si, me gustaría defender mi opinión.
I am speaking from the point of view of a person from Costa Rica, we definitely have to protect what we have left, every day pollution and logging in the Amazon and all the countries in the world.
1-Agricultural soils are depleted
2-Chemicals and plastic are depleting our oceans.
3-Single-use products from clothing, shoes and household utensils .......
4-Who are China or Asia going to sell to if they are killing us with pollution?
5-I visited Switzerland in 2024 and found it to be a beautiful and well laid out country, but although I drove through all the Cantons I did not see any large tracts of forest.
6-In search of money or improvements in the economy every day we forget our unique Planet found in several galaxies around with enough Oxygen and water for life.
7-We are left economically well off and a destroyed Planet, does this make sense?
Le hablo desde el punto de vista de una persona de Costa Rica, definitivamente debemos de proteger lo que nos queda, cada día la contaminación y la tala de árboles en Amazonas y todos los países en del mundo.
1-Los suelos agrícolas están agotados
2-los productos químicos y el plástico están acabando con nuestros océanos
3-Los productos de un solo uso desde la ropa, zapatos y utensilios domésticos.......
4-A quien les van a vender China o Asia si nos están matando con la contaminación
5-visite Suiza el año 2024 me pareció un país hermoso y muy bien distribuido, pero a pesar que maneje por todos los Cantones no ví grandes extenciones de Bosques.
6-en Busca del dinero o mejoras en la economía cada día nos olvidamos de nuestro Planeta único encontrado en varias galaxias alrededor con Oxígeno y agua suficiente para la vida.
7-Quedamos económicamente bien y un Planeta destruido, Tiene sentido esto?
Environmental responsibility should not be an economic or prosperity duty, it is a moral obligation to humanity. This fact is in line with the clamour made by some actors in the United Nations and social opinion makers. Economic growth, hence corporate business profits, cannot be placed above the yearnings of humanity in order to preserve its relevance.
Perhaps one day, all the assets together will not be enough to buy a small terrestrial space of air, water and human well-being.
Moral reason cannot be auctioned in the forum of greed and enrichment.
The vote must be for the Swiss to take responsibility for the planet and the generations that will follow us.
La responsabilidad medioambiental no debe obedecer a un deber economico o de prosperidad, este sujeto es una obligacion moral con la humanidad. Este hhecho concuerda con el clamor que hacen algunos actores en Naciones Unidas y ectores sociales de opinion. El crecimmiento economico, por ende ls beneficios empresariales corporativos no pueden estar por encima de los anhelos de la humanidad paara preservar su vigencia.
Quizas un dia, todos los patrimonios juntos no alcancen para comprar un pequeño espacio terrestre de aire, agua y bienestar humano.
La razon moral no puede subastarce en e foro de la codicia y el enriquecimiento.
El voto debe ser por que los suizos asuman su responsabilidad con el planeta y las generaciones que nos seguiran.
Listening to the interview for and against the initiative, I get the impression that these are two opposing parties.
Shouldn't these parties work together to get out of the crisis?
And the time to act is now. Not "quickly", but immediately. And the people best placed to take the decisions, are they the Greens, or the 'whites' like Pauline? No, it's the responsible citizens that we all are. It's up to us to behave responsibly so that we don't fall back into nuclear power, the ...
I'll give you an example, and I should point out that I'm not an ecologist, I'm a PLR, but I've been cycling around town for twenty years, passing people instead of running them over, taking their place with a car in town, polluting their air and breaking their ears. In short, by behaving as responsibly as possible to remain free.
Here's an example: I was a teacher (now retired) and I fought against paper waste with the teenagers who lived with me. As a science and geography teacher among others, I informed them that to produce paper, we were killing people in the Amazon, with a film to back it up (the Emerald Forest). Unfortunately, I didn't have the support of adults... yes, adults. Some parents complained to the management that the school was free and that I had to give paper to my pupils. When I refused to give a new notebook to a pupil who threw away a half-filled notebook to ask for a new one, I had to comply.
Adults! There are thousands of them listening to you. No, it's not up to politicians to make decisions. It's up to us, sovereign citizens, to behave properly. Ms Romy, when are you going to turn to the cameras and say loud and clear: dear listeners, let's be responsible and act now. We've had the information since the 70s. What are we waiting for? To hit the wall, really???? Already today, we can save electricity, oil (to leave a little for the generations that follow us), energy, and be in good health, i.e. in tune with our conscience.
En écoutant l'entretien pour ou contre l'initiative, j'ai l'impression que ce sont deux partis opposés.
Est-ce que ces partis ne devraient pas collaborer pour sortir de la crise...?
Puis c'est maintenant qu'il faut agir. Non pas "vite", mais immédiatement. Et les personnes les mieux placées pour prendre les décisions, est-ce que ce sont les Verts, ou les "blancs" comme Pauline? Ben non, ce sont les citoyens responsables que nous sommes tous. C'est à nous de nous comporter de façon responsable de telle manière à ce que nous ne retombons pas dans le nucléaire, dans la ...
Je cite un exemple et je précise que je ne suis pas écologiste, mais PLR, mais ça fait vingt ans que je roule à vélo en ville, que je croise des gens au lieu de les écraser, de prendre leur place avec un véhicule en ville, de polluer leur air et casser leurs oreilles. Bref, en me comportant de façon le plus responsable possible pour rester libre.
Bref, voilà l'exemple: j'étais enseignant (à la retraite maintenant) et je me battais contre le gaspillage du papier avec les adolescents qui vivaient avec moi. Comme maître de sciences et de géographie en autres, je les ai informé que pour produire du papier, nous tuions des gens en Amazonie, avec un film à l'appui (la forêt d'émeraude). Malheureusement, je n'avais pas le soutien des adultes... oui, des adultes. Des parents se sont plaints à la direction, que l'école était gratuit et que je devais donner du papier à mes élèves. Alors que je refusais de donner un nouveau cahier à un élève qui jetait un cahier à moitié rempli pour en réclamer un nouveau, j'ai dû obtempérer.
Ah ces adultes!!! Ils sont des milliers à vous écouter. Non, il n'appartient pas aux politiques de prendre les décisions. C'est à nous, citoyens souverains, de nous comporter de façon adéquate. Madame Romy, quand est-ce que vous vous tournerez ver les caméras pour dire haut et fort: chers auditeurs, soyons responsables et agissons tout de suite. Les informations, nous les avons depuis les années 70. Qu'attendons-nous? De toucher le mur, vraiment???? Aujourd'hui déjà, nous pouvons économiser l'électricité, le pétrole (pour en laisser un peu pour les générations qui nous suivent), l'énergie, et être en bonne santé, à savoir en accord avec notre conscience.
Let's banish the exaggerations (!) that do nothing but annoy the electorate who then turn against almost all Green initiatives. A sense of responsibility, and above all balance, must be maintained.
Bando alle esagerazioni (!) che non fanno altro che infastidire l'elettorato che poi si rivolta contro quasi tutte le iniziative dei verdi. Bisogna mantenere il senso della responsabilità, e soprattutto dell'equilibrio.
Could someone please explain the green or climate change issue? What is the goal? To raise the temperature so farmers can grow more crops and feed more people? Or to lower the temperature so more people will starve from shortages and bring back the plagues of the mini-ice age that killed over a third of the world population? Also, in this discussion the International Climate Science Coalition point out that climate is always changing due to natural processes. The only correlation with climate change is with the energy coming from the sun. How is that going to be controlled? Also considering CO2 is required by plants to create oxygen and is naturally created by all living things on this planet and is released tons every minute by volcanic activity, again how is that going to be controlled?
Greens are fundamentally mistaken, because mankind can change ecological limits. In the 18, century, the fear of Malhusian catastrophe was common, where growing human population would outstrip agricultural production. it was avoided by artificial fertilizers. In the 19. century, extinction of wild animals was considered inevitable. National parks and reintroductions mean that Switzerland in 2025 has more large wild animals than anytime in the last 200 years. In the 20. century, the bogeyman was industrial pollution and trash. It was avoided by recycling, not by tearing down factories and return to simple living. Etc.
The initiative is pointless and futile. If it were accepted, nothing would change or improve worldwide, because the Swiss economy would lose its competitiveness to foreign companies that would work more cheaply without such drastic measures and would immediately replace the Swiss companies that fail. Many Swiss companies would have to give up, cease operations, thousands of jobs would be lost and general prosperity would fall sharply.
Accepting the initiative would mean self-mutilation in Switzerland, an increase in bureaucracy for control purposes and a return to the pre-industrial era of hunger and poverty. Last but not least, the Greens, who launched this idealistic and unrealisable initiative, would also suffer badly if it were adopted. Thank God the Swiss people are not stupid enough to vote in favour of this bill.
Die Initiative ist sinn- und zwecklos. Bei einer Annahme derselben, würde sich weltweit gar nichts ändern oder verbessern, weil die CH-Wirtschaft ihre Konkurrenzfähigkeit an ausländische Firmen verlöre, die ohne solche einschneidenden Massnahmen günstiger arbeiten und die ausfallenden CH-Firmen sofort ersetzen würden. Viele Schweizer Firmen müssten aufgeben, den Betrieb einstellen, Arbeitsplätze würden zu tausenden verlorengehen, der allgemeine Wohlstand stark zurückgehen.
Die Annahme der Initiative wäre CH-Selbstzerstümmelung, Aufblähung der Bürokratie zu Kontrollzwecken, ein Rückmarsch in die vorindustrielle Zeit mit Hunger und Armut. Nicht zuletzt hätten auch die Grünen, die diese idealistische und unumsetzbare Initiative aufgleisten, bei deren Annahme schwer darunter zu leiden. Gott sei Dank sind die Schweizer Bürger nicht so dumm, dieser Vorlage zuzustimmen.
Green energies have existed for a long time, e.g. hydroelectricity, cars, planes...., let's change our current heritage of diesel, coal, etc. Consumers with better carbon borrowing will continue to be involved in domestic and international trade.
Les énergies verte existent depuis longtemps ex: hydroélectriques..., voitures, avions...., changeons nôtres patrimoines actuelles gasoil, charbons...des consommateurs meilleurs emprunt carbone fauts continues le commerce intérieur et international
Industry is too pervasive, with too many frontier workers, requiring costly infrastructure, roads, railways and aviation. All this contributes to the disappearance of nourishing land. Only the SVP respects the environment by putting the brakes on immigration. This is no stranger to the appointment of Mr Trump as President of the USA. The Swiss, for the most part, no longer want to work, and are content with lots of leisure, air travel, sport and useless state subsidies, putting pressure on the middle class. Surrounded by farmers and craftsmen who work 60 to 70 hours a week for wages of CHF 15 to 25 an hour, with few holidays and especially few long-haul air travel. Those in the tertiary sector, for the 40% who are useless, earn salaries 2 to 3 times higher, work few hours and travel a lot by plane. Very few left-wing or Green politicians think things through; they prefer to ignore the real problems. I hope that real politicians will take the real problems of society in hand. A better distribution of the population across the globe could improve the global environmental situation.
L'industrie trop envahissante, avec trop de personnel frontalier, nécessite , infrastructures coûteuses, routes, rails, aviation. Tout cela contribue à la disparition des terres nourricières. Seul l'UDC , respecte l'environnement, en mettant un frein à l'immigration. Ce n'est pas étranger à la nomination de M. Trump à la tête des USA. Les Suisses, pour la plupart, ne veulent plus travailler, se contentent de beaucoup de loisirs, de voyages en avion, de sport et d'aides inutiles de l'Etat , en mettant la pression sur la classe moyenne. Entouré d'agriculteurs, d'artisans qui euix travaillent 60 à 70 heures par semaine, pour des salaires de CHF 15 à 25.- / heure, avec peu de vacances, surtout peu de vacances lointaines en avion. Ceux du secteur tertiaire, pour le 40 % inutile, des salaires 2à 3 fois plus important , peu d'heure de travail, et beaucoup de voyages en avion. Très peu de politiciens de gauche ou Verts réfléchissent , ils préfèrent passer par dessus les problèmes réels . Je souhaite que de véritables politiciens, prennent en main les vrais problèmes de société. Une meilleure répartition de la population sur le globe terrestre ,pourrait améliorer la situation de l'environnement mondiale.
The current problem is that the Swiss population is growing too fast. Too many foreigners in Switzerland, too many cars and public transport moving between countries towards Switzerland. Too much concreting, too much destruction of farmland, with the aim of limiting the Swiss population to 6 - 7 million. With the current population and all the movement of people, the infrastructure is no longer sufficient. We're heading for disaster. No longer allow the opening of new factories requiring more than 30% foreign workers. And limit economic immigration. Put some order into the countries that are driving people away, and limit the useless bureaucracy that is ruining our countries. Encourage agriculture, to provide food and maintain life-saving landscapes.
Le problème actuel, est que la population suisse est en trop forte augmentation. Trop d'étrangers en Suisse, trop de déplacement de voiture et transports publics entre les Pays, vers la Suisse. Trop de bétonnage, trop de destruction de terres agricoles, but : limiter la population suisse à 6 - 7 millions d'habitants. Avec la population actuelle et tous les déplacements de personnes, les infrastructures ne suffisent plus. On fonce dans le mur. Ne plus accepter d'ouvrir de nouvelles usines , nécessitant plus de 30 % de personnel étranger. Et limiter l'immigration économique. Mettre de l'ordre dans les Pays qui font fuir les habitants, Limiter l'administration inutile qui ruine les Pays. Encourager l'agriculture , pour l'alimentation et le maintien de paysages salvateurs .
You seem not to understand that people moving abroad have the same impact on Earth as they would in Switzerland.
non les verts sont trop idéologique au lieu de protéger la planète ils la détruise voir avec les éoliennes qui pollue la visibilité et qui tue la faune protéger ils sont des terroristes ils ont détruit des champs de cultures par idéologie ils veulent imposer leurs idées si non ils saccages tous voir les Degas qu'ils ont commis en France et les attaques et voitures brulés contre la police
non les verts sont trop idéologique aux lieux de protéger la planète ils la détruise voir avec les éoliennes qui pollue la visibilité et qui tue la faune protéger ce sont des terroristes ils ont détruit des champs de cultures par idéologie ils veulent imposer leurs idées si non ils saccages tous voir les Degas qu'ils ont commis en France et les attaques et voitures bruler contre la police
The real danger is precisely the fanatical green dictatorship that is often out of touch with reality!
Il vero pericolo è proprio la dittatura verde fanatica che è spesso fuori dalla realtà!
Years ago king Charles was quoted as ìf the situation deteriorated to such a terrible extent that martial law might be an option to consider, if it does the reality of it is, it's either martial law or anarchy, I do believe they are the only 2 options, neither of which appeal in the slightest to me personally
I have read the text and it seems to me to be one of the best measures, if not the best measure, to take to ensure the future of our country, our people and our planet.
It's a short text, but it sums up the fundamental challenge facing humanity and all living things.
I will be voting yes without hesitation, knowing that we will all have the intelligence to gradually implement the objective set.
It's our future, our children's future, the future of humanity - in short, the future of every living thing on earth.
J'ai pris connaissance du texte et il me semble une si ce n'est la meilleure mesure à prendre pour assurer l'avenir du pays, de la population, de la planète.
Un texte court mais qui résume l'enjeu fondamental de l'humanité et de tout le vivant.
Sans hésiter je voterai oui, sachant que nous aurons tous l'intelligence de mettre progressivement en oeuvre l'objectif fixé.
C'est notre avenir, celui de nos enfants, celui de l'humanite, en somme tout le vivant sur terre.
I fully agree, but there are ways and there are ways. In 10 years, such a drastic change is not accepted by anyone (perhaps we are convinced that if we do not change the future of the planet is clear). We could have been less drastic and perhaps the initiative that was dead in the water would have succeeded.
pienamente d'accordo, ma ci sono modi e modi. In 10 anni un cambiamento così drastico non lo accetta nessuno (forse noi convinti che se non si cambia il futuro del pianeta è evidente). Si poteva esser meno drastici e forse l'iniziativa che è morta in partenza, la portavamo al successo.
How to legislate a foundational change in consciousness from a machine model to a Living Systems framework? This is the central issue.
I don't think the swiss position is the problem, I think the swiss problem is they are a target as a result of their success, and their success is a result of their hard work, if some elements of society feel like giving away their hard work they don't need government intervention to do so
No … it should not …
Sadly the Green party has been too influenced by the Propaganda and ruthless actions against farmers and the fallacy that their cows, steers and crops are destroying the planet.
After continued efforts of the likes of Bill Gates and the WEFs Klaus Schwab to reduce the national stocks and exports from certain Western Nations for what? Climate control or, simply for control.
If Switzerland allows these extreme measures to become policy. Or worse still, to become law, then it will be less than a decade before we will be begging for a crust of bread.
If Switzerland takes a pragmatic viewpoint, look at the science, our own science, not the spoon fed lies given out by non governmental bodies.
Independent food supply for all that we can produce is the first goal. Vertical green growing is also a great innovation.
Don't. Please, follow the false flags carried by the WEF or the UN currently. This will lead to more immigrants, less international food contracts and an economy designed to subjugate us all.
As a guide. Look what almost happened in the USA.
Look at what is happening in the UK.
Look into the German mess right now.
And finally see what France and Italy are going through.
Stay as independent as possible, Switzerland.
In the situation our planet finds itself in, we humans on earth should realise that every time we throw away one of our wrappers we are harming our earth, and therefore our survival and that of other animals.
The planet will find a way to survive, not us. If should immediately determine which products are now altering our future survival and stop producing them.
It's up to us to choose the path, along with the industry.
Dans la situation oü se trouve notre planète, nous les humains sur terre devrions réaliser que chaque fois que nous jetons un de nos emballages nous faisons tort à notre terre, donc à notre survie et celle des autres animaux .
La planète trouvera un moyen de survie; pas nous. If faudrait immédiatement déterminer quels sont les produits qui altèrent maintenant notre future survie et arrêter de les produire.
C'est à nous de choisir la voie, avec l'industrie .
Join the conversation!