Plan aimed to expand protection of endangered ecosystems, but opponents said it posed risk to business development

Plan aimed to expand protection of endangered ecosystems, but opponents said it posed risk to business development

Voters in Switzerland have rejected a proposal to make authorities do more to protect natural habitats from pollution and development, preliminary results of a referendum have showed.

The biodiversity initiative, which the Swiss government and parliament had already rebuffed, envisaged changing the law to set aside more land for conservation beyond areas that were already protected.

The initiative has been closely watched by conservationists outside Switzerland, at a time when concerns about global loss of biodiversity are growing. The proposal also intended to increase protections for endangered ecosystems in a country renowned for its lakes and snow-capped mountains.

In one of Switzerland’s traditional exercises of direct democracy, more than 60% of voters rejected the plan, according to a projected result published by the national broadcaster SRF. By mid-afternoon, the initiative had been rejected by too many cantons to pass, an official tally showed.

  • dan1101@lemm.eeEnglish
    221·
    3 months ago

    Posed a risk to business development. Don’t learn that from the USA.

    • EatATaco@lemm.eeEnglish
      71·
      3 months ago

      You can rest assured that, without fail, whenever there is a story about another Western country doing something bad, someone in the comments section is going to unnecessarily shit on the US. Bonus points for this one because it’s basically blaming the US for “teaching” them this.

  • Nick@lemmy.worldEnglish
    81·
    3 months ago

    The headline makes it seem way more clear than the issue actually is. As for me, I took issue with the bill potentially preventing more green energy projects which we are severely lacking, aside from hydro. Though I am very unhappy with the argument that we need to not block economic development since I am all for regulations in that sector, just not sweeping ones.

  • boblin@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    5·
    3 months ago

    63.03% rejecting it is less than I had expected. I was expecting 70% or more, so maybe there is hope for the matter to be reiterated upon in the coming years.

  • AliSaket@mander.xyzEnglish
    5·
    3 months ago

    To be fair, business development wasn’t the main hangup for many of the people I know. The two main reasons I heard (and partly raised myself), was firstly the detrimental effect on expanding solar- & wind-energy-production. And secondly overreaching, i.e. not limiting the protection to the environment, but also include townscape protection and historical sites, essentially further restraining residential development (including changing them into more dense usage) in a time where living space is scarce and expensive.

    When the pro-side has its reservations, then of course it doesn’t help that the executive (Federal Council) is dominated by pro-corporate ideology and have brought forward arguments of “damaging the business location”. But making it out to be the only reason is just dishonest.

  • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ@lemm.eeEnglish
    11·
    3 months ago

    switzerland will be leveled by nature. it’ll be a flat parkinglot nobody will use inhabitet by people nobody likes. let us end schengen so EU isnt bothered by them anymore.