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

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#91

Post by fencepost »

pyuser583 wrote: post #52
fencepost wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have or are planning to have a family, you should likely be thinking about just this already on a personal and family level. Do what you can to reduce your footprint, but also do your long-term planning based on expectations of climate change. Among other things, don't buy property within anything considered 100-year or possibly even 500-year flood zones - climate change may mean that 100-year zones start gett…

Meh. I mean I have my family. We’ve bought property. I think the important thing is how careful the local government is about resiliency.

Likely - you can probably get a decent idea of how vulnerable to climate change or other disasters just by looking at insurance costs both for homeowners and possibly for mortgages.

Higher risk areas should already be showing signs of increased cost, because risk doesn't change overnight. A hundred year flood isn't one that happens every hundred years - it's one that should have a 1% chance of happening in any given year. The biggest issue with that is whether the flood maps (https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps) used for pricing are based only on historical data or if they account for climate change.

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#93

Post by ratsforhorses »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #89
ratsforhorses wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, you have a source ? from the wiki "with a constitution promulgated on 12 September 1848. This constitution provided for the cantons' sovereignty, as long as this did not impinge on the Federal Constitution. The creation of a bicameral assembly was consciously inspired by the United States Constitution, the National Council and Council of States corresponding to the House of Representatives and Senate, respec…

We replaced it in 1999 [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution

Sorry for nitpicking but where does it say California?

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#94

Post by fragileone »

smnrchrds wrote: post #61
PKop wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for them. Ultimately they view their positions on these issues as best for the well being of their nation and its people. Who are you to say otherwise, should they pursue policies that go against their interests to satisfy foreigners? Why would they want refugees and migrants to come into their country? How would it benefit them?

> Who are you to say otherwise, should they pursue policies that go against their interests to satisfy foreigners? One should be able to criticize policies that directly affect them, for example those on climate change, whose effects go well beyond a country's borders.

When they're responsible for not even 0.1% of global emissions you're best served targeting the countries who are the most responsible.

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#95

Post by alkonaut »

Glavnokoman wrote: post #64
alkonaut wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

How is direct democracy worse than the non-direct one in this respect? By enabling the politicians to not hold to the promises that got them elected?

If they don’t, you vote them out. You don’t get rid of politicians even with direct democracy.

Politicians faced with inconsistent referendum results (not budget neutral) aren’t even able to deliver. If people got a chance to vote for lower taxes and increased government spending, they would. But who will deliver? A party that promises both those things would be considered crazy/populist (hopefully) and lose the election.

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#96

Post by pyuser583 »

fencepost wrote: post #91
pyuser583 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh. I mean I have my family. We’ve bought property. I think the important thing is how careful the local government is about resiliency.

Likely - you can probably get a decent idea of how vulnerable to climate change or other disasters just by looking at insurance costs both for homeowners and possibly for mortgages. Higher risk areas should already be showing signs of increased cost, because risk doesn't change overnight. A hundred year flood isn't one that happens every hundred years - it's one that should have a 1% chance of happening in any given…

I just got done buying a house. Waterfront (vulnerability to flooding) real estate is worth a lot. Everyone wants to live by by the water.

We had a once in a 1000 year flood two years ago. It changed nothing.

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#97

Post by soco »

fragileone wrote: post #94
smnrchrds wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who are you to say otherwise, should they pursue policies that go against their interests to satisfy foreigners? One should be able to criticize policies that directly affect them, for example those on climate change, whose effects go well beyond a country's borders.

When they're responsible for not even 0.1% of global emissions you're best served targeting the countries who are the most responsible.

Which is why finger pointing works so well towards achieving... nothing, ever. Unless you're able to set an example, calling for others to act is pointless. So the countries most responsible can sit and do nothing now because they will claim "not even the Swiss want a clean planet"

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#98

Post by soco »

mustafa_pasi wrote: post #12

"Fighting" climate change on a national level like this is disingenuous. It is not going to accomplish anything. There needs to be global agreements involving the biggest players. Else it is just a self inflicted penalty that accomplishes nothing.

If there only was some international treaty for everybody to bind, maybe if we signed it in Paris...

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#99

Post by soco »

T-A wrote: post #84

21 cantons (out of 26) voted against. Looking at the geographic distribution [1] it's evident support was narrowly concentrated to cities like Geneva, Zürich and Basel. Conclusion: people who need their car on a daily basis think that gasoline is expensive enough at 6.492 USD/gallon [2] (as of June 7, when US drivers paid 3.399 USD/gallon according to the same site). [1] https://www.bluewin.ch/de/news/schweiz/so-stim…

When asked to choose between a slightly emptier wallet today and a desertified country in a few decades, the choice is incredibly obvious to make: leave my wallet alone!

Re: The Swiss reject key climate change measures

#100

Post by Glavnokoman »

alkonaut wrote: post #95
Glavnokoman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is direct democracy worse than the non-direct one in this respect? By enabling the politicians to not hold to the promises that got them elected?

If they don’t, you vote them out. You don’t get rid of politicians even with direct democracy. Politicians faced with inconsistent referendum results (not budget neutral) aren’t even able to deliver. If people got a chance to vote for lower taxes and increased government spending, they would. But who will deliver? A party that promises both those things would be considered crazy/populist (hopefully) and lose the elec…

You vote them out once in a while maybe if the herd does not forget being fooled. And their place is taken by the same sort.

And why do you think the same people would vote differently for some crazy idea directly or via the party promoting that same thing?

Post reply on HN