In Switzerland, in the general elections two years ago, the Greens gained a lot of ground, but a large part of the Swiss voters, while appreciating some of the themes proposed by ecologists, are clearly opposed to solutions on the environment that they perceive as excessive, radical. At least this is what emerges from the results of the popular votes of this June 13, in which environmental issues were in one way or another at the center of the scene.
In the Swiss Confederation, the two initiatives aimed at eliminating synthetic pesticides were rejected, both with about 60% of no. As for the new federal law for the reduction of Co2, which many polls in recent months had given as a winner, there was instead a head to head between for and against, which ended with the victory of measure of the no. , who got the better of about 51%; the no was stronger in particular in the countryside and in small and medium-sized cities, while the yes registered strengths especially in the major cities.
The “For clean drinking water and healthy food” initiative aimed to ban subsidies for those who use pesticides and prophylactic antibiotics in agriculture and livestock. The initiative “For a Switzerland without synthetic pesticides” was in line with the previous one and aimed at banning these substances in Swiss agricultural production and also at prohibiting the commercial import of foodstuffs deriving from the use of the same substances.
The Swiss government and the majority of the federal parliament have come out in favor of these two initiatives, indicating them as excessive and stressing that there are already restrictions and controls on pesticides. Instead, the Government and Parliament supported the Federal Law on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (Co2 Law), which also provided for greater anti-Co2 taxation in some segments – for example in the fuel-transport aggregate, on the basis of the principle “Polluter pays” – combined with investment incentives and new technologies. For Bern, it was a useful tool to try to achieve the goals set by the Paris Agreement on climate.
There have been criticisms on this law both on the right and on the left, against a committee that has lined up on the one hand, which has indicated it as an instrument of greater bureaucracy, and on the other, sectors of environmentalists who have instead indicated it as a still insufficient tool. in the fight against climate change.