> National Assembly Speaker Yael Braun-Pivet on Sunday ruled out abandoning the legislation, named after the conservative lawmaker who proposed it, as it would "save a certain number of our farmers".
Sometimes I have questions about the narrow-minded views of politicians. Sure, it helps 10 farmers but harms 100. Nobody seems to keep in mind the fact that if we kill the bees they're gonna take us with them.
Feels like that episode from Yellowstone:
John Dutton: And what effect you think 7000 acres of solar panels are going to have on their environment?
Stanley: There's no evidence that solar panels would have any impact on the sage grouse
John Dutton: What do they do with the sagebrush when they put in the solar panels?
Stanley: They, they, they would clear it before putting in the solar panels.
John Dutton: And remove the sagebrush?
Stanley: Yes sir.
John Dutton: Sage Grouse live in the sagebrush.
Stanley: They do.
John Dutton: And you don't think removing the sagebrush is gonna have an effect on the population?
Stanley: I just said there's no evidence...
John Dutton: You know what scares me about you, Stanley? You're serious.
This government gives zero fuck, listening to them is like listening to a LLM: they say whatever they think is going to convince you to give them a pass.
It's not that they're serious about the grouses, it's that the grouses, the country or their own mother could crash and burn, they won't shed a tear as long as they can escape in time. And they're not smart enough to realize that they will probably not escape this one.
Some people support this law, not because they think those pesticides are harmless, but because other EU country can still use these pesticides which give them an economic advantage. I don't understand while they are not instead asking for a European law to ban them. So every EU country would play with the same rules.
I don't know how it is in other european countries, but most French people wouldn't even think about it. They are used to the EU laws being dictated one sidedly by people they don't know and haven't voted for, and then parroted by French politicians with no resistance.
> Some people support this law, not because they think those pesticides are harmless, but because other EU country can still use these pesticides which give them an economic advantage
A race to the bottom. I understand the idea, but I don't find it great.
> National Assembly Speaker Yael Braun-Pivet on Sunday ruled out abandoning the legislation, named after the conservative lawmaker who proposed it, as it would "save a certain number of our farmers".
Sometimes I have questions about the narrow-minded views of politicians. Sure, it helps 10 farmers but harms 100. Nobody seems to keep in mind the fact that if we kill the bees they're gonna take us with them.
Feels like that episode from Yellowstone:
John Dutton: And what effect you think 7000 acres of solar panels are going to have on their environment?
Stanley: There's no evidence that solar panels would have any impact on the sage grouse
John Dutton: What do they do with the sagebrush when they put in the solar panels?
Stanley: They, they, they would clear it before putting in the solar panels.
John Dutton: And remove the sagebrush?
Stanley: Yes sir.
John Dutton: Sage Grouse live in the sagebrush.
Stanley: They do.
John Dutton: And you don't think removing the sagebrush is gonna have an effect on the population?
Stanley: I just said there's no evidence...
John Dutton: You know what scares me about you, Stanley? You're serious.
This government gives zero fuck, listening to them is like listening to a LLM: they say whatever they think is going to convince you to give them a pass.
It's not that they're serious about the grouses, it's that the grouses, the country or their own mother could crash and burn, they won't shed a tear as long as they can escape in time. And they're not smart enough to realize that they will probably not escape this one.
[dead]
This law doesn't help the farmer as much as it does the pesticide producer.
The UKs got rid of Neonicotinoids this year and the difference in the amount of flying insects in just half a year has been amazing.
The only downside is the front of the car is looking a bit more grubby than usual.
Do you have some sources regarding a possible correlation between the two?
> The only downside is the front of the car is looking a bit more grubby than usual.
If you're getting grubs on your windscreen you're driving needs work :)
1 670 000
Seeing the number grow by the seconds is somewhat fascinating
https://petitions.assemblee-nationale.fr/initiatives/i-3014
Some people support this law, not because they think those pesticides are harmless, but because other EU country can still use these pesticides which give them an economic advantage. I don't understand while they are not instead asking for a European law to ban them. So every EU country would play with the same rules.
> I don't understand while they are not instead asking for a European law to ban them
That is exactly what they are asking for, but it's not up to them to decide for the other countries.
I don't know how it is in other european countries, but most French people wouldn't even think about it. They are used to the EU laws being dictated one sidedly by people they don't know and haven't voted for, and then parroted by French politicians with no resistance.
Not that I know every French people
> Some people support this law, not because they think those pesticides are harmless, but because other EU country can still use these pesticides which give them an economic advantage
A race to the bottom. I understand the idea, but I don't find it great.
> a European law to ban them
... would indeed be a better solution.
The French love their flowers. One of the most amazing things about Paris was how every patch of earth was bursting with flowers.
It's difficult to know about this pesticide if it's harmless or not, many conflicting studies.
I guess the problem is the dosage? Why can't they just divide doses by 5 or 10?
I fear they can't trust farmers to put too much?