Log in to the online community

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in  Having trouble logging in? Read our help guide
How the Green Movement will fail
Roger Bryant
349 Posts
This weekend three Green proposals were rejected at the ballot box in Switzerland, one on CO2 limits and taxes, one on Pesticides and one on water quality, why?



These were all formulated by (over?) privileged woke types who exist in their own belief bubbles and are completely disconnected from reality. There are a few greens I know who are genuine and practise what they preach, although I may think them misguided I respect them for this. Most, however,  are content just to tell other people what to do so long as it does not restrict themselves in any way. They have never had real problems in their lives so they have to make up some imaginary ones. They are not the ones who worry how they can pay their bills, go shopping at the end of the day to buy the reduced at their sell buy date items and clothe their families from second hand shops. They stand in protests with their latest mobile phones while someone else, usually mummy and daddy, pay for it all.
If you ask one of this privileged woke types how they intend to pay for and find the resources to carry out their grandiose plans you get an almost Pavlovian response that we have to do it sooner or the world is going to burn up. If you ask for actual evidence that is also thin on the ground as it would be with a belief rather than fact based creed. Their solution to the lack is evidence is threats and demands, rather like a spoilt teenager.

This is a piece written by a long term green who also notes these problems:


Although I respect Ms Thunberg’s neuro-atypical condition being an aspi myself I did have to chuckle at the Verruca Salt meets Dracula description.

If the greens want to get anywhere they will have to re-join reality and try and engage with the people will be paying for it all. If presented with real evidence, not disaster predictions that are always wrong, and costed project plans real people might be more sympathetic and we will have a chance to reduce our impact on our planet. If they continue down their present path they will lose credibility,  anti-movements like the French Gillet Jaune  will spread worldwide and the true message will be lost.
2 Replies
25 Posts

thanks for your post. It’s interesting to see that despite the messaging on climate emergency that when put to a vote the Swiss as a nation have not been swayed by the arguments. The split in voting sentiment between the urban and regional citizens is also telling and something that probably exists in other countries. 
Roger Bryant
349 Posts
So E&T joins in on this without actually understanding why.


Ernest spotted the town/country divide in the vote and that is the basis. The three pieces of proposed legislation all targeted the Swiss agricultural industry but were written by town dwellers. If you live in a Swiss Town/City you have what is probably the best public transport system in the world. This gets less as you move away from the centres  but is still probably better than most other countries. When you get to the farming areas there is almost nothing so the farmers have to rely on their own private transport for everything.

There are no electric tractors, especially the low centre of gravity types used in the steep areas.  (tractor enthusiasts please look here)



Even if electric versions exist how would they be charged? A couple of jerrycans of fuel are much easier to take up a mountain than a very long extension lead.
The E&T piece states:

“Government estimates calculated that the average Swiss family would have paid an extra 100CHF (£78) per year if no lifestyle changes were made. The purpose of the green plan was, of course, to accelerate lifestyle change.”

The farmers would face a much higher financial penalty and they have very little option to change their lifestyle other than to give up farming. The article also states that Switzerland is a rich country, true in parts, it is also a high cost country and there are many more people living on the edge (ok it’s a better edge than a lot of other places) than there are super rich.

The pesticide and water proposals also target the farmers. Swiss farming is already much cleaner than many other lands and pesticides are avoided, but they need to be available for example when widely travelled big tourists brings some little tourists on their boots or rucksacks.

If this three pieces of legislation had been passed the Swiss agricultural industry would have been significantly reduced with a set of consequences:

- Less food production in Switzerland.
- More food imports from abroad with higher transport emissions.
- Food imports from countries with lower standards of environmental control.
- Loss of alpine farming which maintains the Switzerland that tourists come to see.

Maybe that’s what the greens wanted. Luckily most Swiss have relatives in farming and these proposals were rejected.


Log in

Want to post a reply? You'll need to log in  Having trouble logging in? Read our help guide