Letter from readers of May 6, 2024

Honey bees

Concerns the article “The Grand Council wants to protect wild bees” (“24 Heures” of April 25).

A postulate asks the Council of State to consider better supervision of honey bee hives in the city. It must first be said that some statements are erroneous. For example, honey bees are not increasing sharply. In 2022, there were 16,500 beekeepers; this figure has never been so low. Five or six years ago, a scientist pointed to honey bees as responsible for the disappearance of wild bees. The injection had its effect. The bee is now more popular in town.

In Switzerland, the profession of beekeeper is not recognized. Few people make a living from it. There is no help. If the beekeeper loses his colonies, no support. Annual losses range between 10 and 20%. The beekeeper contributes to pollination. All this for a salary of 6 francs an hour.

Beekeeping now has at least two enemies (in the animal kingdom). Mainly varroa (since 1985) and the Asian hornet. Arriving in France, in Bordeaux, in 2007, the hornet traveled in pottery from the Far East. The lack of genetic diversity was to slow down its development. Error. In 2017, he arrived in Switzerland.

If wolf attacks are devastating for breeders, the impact on our food is negligible. On the other hand, the danger posed by the Asian hornet is high. It threatens biological diversity. The loss, or even disappearance, of honey bees will have a serious impact on crops. It is declared non-invasive and non-harmful by the Confederation! For the moment. But it can also be dangerous for humans.

Favor flowery meadows and “natural” hedges. In town, encourage the removal of cedar, laurel and photinia hedges. For the good of biodiversity.

Martial Roulet, beekeeper in Lutry

Voting

In his “Reflection” published on May 1, National Councilor Roger Nordmann explains very well why it is necessary to develop renewable electrical energy. Almost no one, moreover, disputes this. But Mr. Nordmann avoids the three questions that hurt.

Firstly, it makes no mention of the imperative of protecting nature, which the federal laws submitted to the vote on June 9 make light of: almost absolute primacy for production facilities, even if they are to the detriment of the environment, even in areas protected!

Then, he refrains from talking about wind turbines. Because if photovoltaics are “very well accepted on roofs and in infrastructures”, the same is not true of industrial wind turbines, which disfigure the landscape and threaten avifauna for a low and uncertain output.

Finally, it says nothing about the unconstitutionality of the project, which upsets the balance between energy supply and environmental protection, clearly imposed by the fundamental law, and which unduly encroaches on certain powers of the cantons.

Quentin Monnerat, Lausanne

Not a study, not a treacherous figure (reflection of national councilor Roger Nordmann on May 1) does not say how Switzerland will be powered in 2035 by the magic of renewables alone, in bulk: heat pumps, electric cars, the carousels of Luna Park but above all the heavy industrial machinery, the trains at close intervals, the chandeliers of the Palace federal. Without relying on anything concrete, we promise a bright future. Alas, we are made to mistake bladders for lanterns.

In fact, to erect the thousand wind turbines planned, it would be necessary to build two per week from now on. Where are the projects, the investigations? The wind blows through this speech while the Gotthard wind turbines chop up the birds that approach them. How to make such volatile remarks?

But there is less glory: those who praise the law on electricity supply do not mention that the text tramples on and cancels decades of struggle to defend nature and essential civil rights.

We must therefore refuse magic and say no to this dangerous, unconstitutional and undemocratic law. Our elected officials are capable of better.

Jean-Daniel Rousseil, Villars-Burquin

Lausanne

At one time, the clock on the Saint-François kiosk served as a precise and practical meeting point. Especially since it was enough to look up to read the time and discover how early or late it was.

Today, we communicate directly about our location using our mobile and a glance at our screen is enough to see where we are in time. It’s progress, certainly, but the old double clock in front of the still-present kiosk retains its usefulness in this place of intense traffic and hourly bus station.

Yes, but it still has to indicate the correct time, which has been far from being the case for many months. Too bad, because apart from its decorative aspect, I ask you, what is the use of a clock that does not tell the correct time? In the land of watchmaking, can we wait for it to be repaired and for it to regain its full justification?

Bernard Jeandet, Lausanne

Consumption

Concerns the article “Parliament attacks debt hunters again» (“24 hours” of May 3).

The national socialist councilor Jean Tschopp proposes the creation of an ombudsman on the subject. Chic! One more civil servant, paid for by our taxes!

There are other methods, cheaper and more effective. When I am consulted on the subject and the customer proves to have paid, or that neither the invoice nor the debt exists, I have a standard letter which says: “You dared to send me reminders and threats of prosecution for a debt of … fr., which does not exist. You have no proof of an unpaid order of this amount, and it is up to you to prove that it would be due. Your attempts to collect imaginary and unjustified debts constitute professional fraud (146 CP), and your threats of prosecution are attempts at coercion (181 CP), which are criminally prosecutable. In addition, your costs of … fr. (art.106 CO) exceed the amount claimed, which constitutes on your part the offense of usury (157 CP).”

In 48 years in the business, I have never failed in this type of cause. Perhaps this recipe will be useful to your readers.

Elisabeth Santschi, lawyer, Pully

Did you find an error? Please report it to us.