Nature has its laws

Let’s Save the European Green New Deal. Today one might say that the dividing line lies between conservatives and progressives or innovators. Positions on some environmental issues often blur between those who belong to a certain right or left in politics. They become “environmental populism” in both cases. On others, the difference still remains (for now). First line of reasoning. Let’s simplify with some examples where there are no substantial differences.

There are those who argue that Italy’s greenhouse gas emissions are between 0.7 and 0.9% of global ones. Since this is very little, they claim our commitment to an ecological transition reducing reliance on fossil fuels is unjustified. Instead, the opposite is true: Italy is the country most affected by extreme events and by energy dependence. To expand businesses and jobs, Italy should be even more interested in developing technologies in every green field, both already existing and in discovery and design.

There are those who argue that wind turbine installations can be left aside by the Regions. A similar argument applies to solar panels: there are already too many. Instead, installations must be spread as widely as possible, especially in suitable areas, with broad criteria: covering warehouse roofs, parking lots, industrial areas. Even with panels elevated above ground, with crops and grass underneath, in agricultural areas. It is possible to imagine new models of territory: high-cost energy is already today a penalty for businesses and families.

There are those who argue that electric cars must not be “imposed” (?!) on everyone. Consequently, the set objectives should be postponed and later reconsidered. Instead, we must reach a real system change in sectors such as mobility, because implementation requires long times, and it is foolish to think only of postponing them. Targets can only be relaxed if there is widespread awareness that they are now inevitable. You cannot build the near future by just digging in your heels.

There are those who argue—ignoring the upheaval generated by Trump’s environmental choices—that we must lash out against Europe and its decisions: above all, they ignore that these are motivated, careful, and financed also to reduce their social impact (see the Social Fund). Without Europe, we would not have: funds granted in agriculture for soil fertility and protection against pollution; consumer protection from foods harmful to health and the environment, with the reduction and replacement of pesticides and fertilizers; regeneration of buildings and parts of cities; support for the circular economy, which has been creating new jobs for years. In short, every aspect of the Green Deal (actions and choices to achieve climate neutrality by 2050) is rejected.

There are those who argue that the goals of the Green New Deal bring too many novelties and create disorientation and anxiety in people. Instead, once the false arguments of catastrophists are discarded, we must also overcome people’s unpreparedness in the face of choices of a society that cannot go backwards. To avoid restlessness, one must not fall prey to social media and conservative salvos: rather, we must reclaim a positive and correct relationship between nature and humans in modernity. On the contrary, security is made of corrections in lifestyles, sustainability in every action, and positive changes.

And so we come to the second line of reasoning. The heavy attempt to link a conservative vision of the environment with the rejection of hospitality. From a phrase by Marine Le Pen: “It is populations united by an ancient presence on the territory who can claim complicity with nature (…) which mass migrations and modernity irreversibly destroy.” The goal is to spread the belief that borders must be closed to immigration because immigrants are also “vandals of the environment,” a local and national danger (when in fact, only thanks to them—along with the contribution of new technologies—can we continue working the land!). There is nothing true about this. The conservatism painted in “green” also rests on two allegedly “ecological” assumptions:
a) the local community may be the privileged place of environmental defense, only because it is made up of people born there and white;
b) supranational policies (such as the Green Deal) would be an undue interference in territories.

In short: the ephemeral defense of one’s own “backyard”, indifferent to general phenomena and crucial issues that only a healthy and attentive relationship with science can face positively.


NP May 2025
Carlo Degiacomi