Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Swiss reject key climate change measures

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#71

Post by choeger »

IdiocyInAction wrote: post #7

* Swiss CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita): 4.17 * US CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita): 15.5 Switzerland is already among the lowest polluters in the EU and much lower than Australia/Canada/US. Just for context.

Underrated comment. While this shows how stupid it is to be radical in a country like Switzerland, it also implies a huge problem for the US to fulfill the Paris goal. Switzerland (and to some degree the rest of Europe) have mostly only the hard parts left, while the US can significantly reduce emissions with relatively simple measures (e.g., building standards). But that only postpones the really difficult reductions to a point when there's no more time to negotiate. So it looks quite unlikely the US will be carbon neutral by 2050.

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#72

Post by tzs »

gshixman wrote: post #53
monk_e_boy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Votes need change from INT to FLOAT, so old people get 0.75 of a vote and young people get 1.5 ... because [edit] downvotes! Why? Is it a crazy idea that young people should have more of a say about their future than old people? Where I live the old generation are fucking over the young generation in a big way.

It's downvoted because it is obviously ageist... Depersoning people by age is no different than depersoning by race or gender.

> Depersoning people by age is no different than depersoning by race or gender.

Those aren't really comparable. If I have a "no black people" rule or a "no men" rule, some people are permanently excluded and some people are permanently included. Those rules each filter everybody into two permanent classes each that they can never leave.

A "no people under age X" or "no people over age X" rule does not do this. Yes, it does filter everyone in to one of two classes, but any given individual starts in one class and then after a set time switches to the other class.

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#73

Post by rsj_hn »

choeger wrote: post #71
IdiocyInAction wrote: post #7

* Swiss CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita): 4.17 * US CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita): 15.5 Switzerland is already among the lowest polluters in the EU and much lower than Australia/Canada/US. Just for context.

Underrated comment. While this shows how stupid it is to be radical in a country like Switzerland, it also implies a huge problem for the US to fulfill the Paris goal. Switzerland (and to some degree the rest of Europe) have mostly only the hard parts left, while the US can significantly reduce emissions with relatively simple measures (e.g., building standards). But that only postpones the really difficult reduction…

> it also implies a huge problem for the US to fulfill the Paris goal.

There is simply no political consensus in the US to fulfill these goals, so it's not really a problem at all for most people.

It's been strange how many people just assume that the climate debate is over and that they have convinced the population that serious efforts must be made. Then when this stuff is put to a vote, they are always shocked that people remain unconvinced. That usually results in some sort of tantrum being thrown about the world ending and how humanity will suffer untold grief, when most of the population remains unconvinced and is not willing to spend more than a dollar or so a month on this project. Of course the US isn't going to be carbon neutral by 2050. No country will. That is not even on the table for discussion as there is no support for that type of radical change.

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#74

Post by aqsalose »

alkonaut wrote: post #42
version_five wrote: post #19

The Swiss rejected some taxes. I think this is an important distinction compared to "climate change measures". The (very slim) majority may feel that such taxes are not the best way to deal with climate change, and support other ideas instead. There are a lot of politicians presenting the false choice of wealth redistribution or climate change apathy. There are other ways of looking at this, which I don't think are c…

> The Swiss rejected some taxes. I think this is an important distinction compared to "climate change measures". The (very slim) majority may feel that such taxes are not the best way to deal with climate change, and support other ideas instead. Which is a very succinct description of why “direct democracy” (or overuse of referendums) is, simply put, not a good idea. A vote on tax X versus tax Y? Fine. But voting yes…

The Swiss seem to be doing remarkably well as a country, and also on the specific point concerning matter of "government expenses financed by taxes". According to Wikipedia's table [1], the Swiss have a better debt-to-GDP ratio than the UK, US, or most of the EU.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_de...

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#75

Post by ratsforhorses »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #70
StavrosK wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> however it doesn't take away that often change is held back because of ...1-2%... Don't you mean "because of 52%"?

The poster you are replying to doesn‘t care about the 49,99% that get the hard end of democracy when they lose a vote if they're the „bad guys“. So he only cares about the 1-2% that „lamentably“ made his side lose. Basically he thinks like a dictator, that just needs to get those 51% in his favor and then can absolutely crush the other side. He completely misses that the goal of a democracy should always be consensus…

Not quite, I do care about consensus , I find it ironic that often these referendums end up with such a pithy divide yet there is little discussion about how to find a consensus from such a half/half vote ..for those not Swiss it might come as a surprise that often a big difference is between the Swiss french and the Swiss german part as well as more conventionally, between the rural and urban...

Btw, what was the proportion of voters voting..? also why not bring in the said measures in the cantons that voted for them..or on a voluntary basis.. I am also curious how much the opposing sides spent on media..

Edit to answer my own question..60% of those who could, voted...so to add to my suggestions why not make it count when say 80-90% have voted...maybe thereby giving people a taste of "every voice matters"

Here is a link to some maps...(in French) https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/12258425-les-cartes-des-resul...

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#76

Post by bprieto »

monk_e_boy wrote: post #14
ArkanExplorer wrote: post #5

It would be very interesting to see a breakdown of voting by age. Environmental destruction has a much greater impact to the young.

Votes need change from INT to FLOAT, so old people get 0.75 of a vote and young people get 1.5 ... because [edit] downvotes! Why? Is it a crazy idea that young people should have more of a say about their future than old people? Where I live the old generation are fucking over the young generation in a big way.

You are just a step away from defending that votes from people that own land should count more than votes from all the rest. There are lots of reasons for that too: they are more invested in the territory, they pay more taxes on that land, they produce the food that the rest need to eat...

But around a hundred years ago, most democracies decided that every person should have a vote, and that all votes should count the same. Including men who don't own land, women, people of color, poor people, uneducated people and young people.

And I think that, although it might seem worrisome that so many idiots vote against my personal preferences, it's better that way. Because the alternative of having an elite that consider themselves better than the rest always ends in justifying killing all who don't agree or who don't offer enough value.

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#77

Post by tsherr »

samatman wrote: post #58
Diggsey wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are three main ways governments can change behaviours: - Tax the behaviour they want to discourage. - Subsidise a behaviour they want to encourage. - Outlaw a behaviour they want to discourage. It looks like all three were attempted based on the article. > A proposal to outlaw artificial pesticides, and another to improve drinking water by giving subsidies only to farmers who eschew chemicals were both voted do…

Artificial pesticides is the naturalistic fallacy rearing its ugly head. Some of the pesticides which are allowed in organic farming are quite pernicious. It stands to reason that the opposite is true, and some of the pesticides used by conventional farming are less of an insult to ecosystems and human health than the 'natural' ones. Banning 'artificial' pesticides, in other words, is a blunt instrument, one which st…

The idea that some of "a"is bad means that some of "b" must be good is illogical.

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#78

Post by aerostable_slug »

samatman wrote: post #62
adamt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switzerland is not that densely populated. It’s 219 per square km. For context Florida is about 150 and California about 100. Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territori... https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/switzerland-p...

Tangent, but there has to be a better way to measure population density than taking total area as the denominator and headcount as the numerator. Something like 'median density': sort citizens by local density, find the median, and report that. My guess is that California would have a higher number than Florida by that measure. I don't know about Switzerland vs. California, but that's the question I'd like to answer…

Another approach might be to start by subtracting land not available for most human uses for whatever reason, e.g. up on the Eiger, or in a large national park, or on a military reservation (places like Pendleton and Hunter Liggett immediately come to mind in California).

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#79

Post by aerostable_slug »

lucb1e wrote: post #54
pyuser583 wrote: post #11

Is there a certain point where we say “it’s going to be worse case climate scenario, let’s prepare?” I’m asking for a friend from a different planet …

There isn't, actually. Even if we would find ourselves in a +4°C world tomorrow (iirc that's the worst-case scenario for 2100), we would still be trying to reduce emissions because things don't get better. It appears to be cheaper to reduce emissions than to cope with the change it causes, partially because we have really large error bars on what changes it causes and the median already isn't pretty. At the same time…

Similarly, there's a reason Russia is making a big Arctic push with their military, to the extent of fielding modified T-80 tanks that will function in the deep cold, special wide-tracked transporters (which existed, but weren't generally armed), etc.

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#80

Post by Causality1 »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #51
Causality1 wrote: post #9

Smart, in my opinion. Industrial producers are engaged in a massive and well-funded propaganda campaign aimed at distracting people from the fact the overwhelming majority of carbon emissions are from industrial and commercial sources. Even in a car-happy country like the US, personal vehicle use including commuting only makes up 16 percent of carbon emissions.

Industrial and commercial needs for what, exactly. Just the car industry relies on so many things (for happy car owners) that you can categorize as industrial and commercial. Reduce the need for cars and everything decrease quasi proportionally.

That doesn't stop the fuel tax from being regressive. If you want to stop carbon emissions then tax carbon emissions.
Post reply on HN