Italy was the first European country to implement a COVID-19 lockdown and subsequently it managed the summer months relatively well.
However, we are now seeing the effects of a second wave, similar to that in other European countries, and we cannot let our guard down.
Italians are doing their best to deal with this deadly crisis, wearing masks everywhere and, for the most part, respecting restrictions. We cannot let our sacrifices go to waste by returning to our pre-pandemic normality.
Italy has an opportunity to build a stronger, greener and more resilient post-pandemic economy, buoyed by higher employment and improved public health. By emphasizing the health and well-being of its people, the country can continue to set a global example as it prepares to assume the G20 presidency and cohost next year’s COP26 UN climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland.
Whether Italy achieves this goal will depend on how it uses the 209 billion euro (US$247 billion) stimulus from the EU’s new COVID-19 recovery fund.
A report by more than 30 Italian economists and analysts, coordinated by energy consultancy REF-E, estimates that if Italy spends 80 percent of the EU funds on reducing carbon emissions — and not on expanding its gas infrastructure — its GDP could be one-third higher by 2030 than it would have been without the money.
Moreover, the working-age employment rate would increase from 57 percent today to 68 percent by 2030, benefiting young people in particular.
Alternatively, Italy’s recovery money could become stuck in the gargantuan and fragmented decisionmaking processes that have hamstrung the economy’s low-carbon transformation for years. Should that happen, the country will face another decade or more of lackluster GDP growth, and worsening risks related to climate change and exposure to viruses.
The choice should be a no-brainer. The Italian economy could shrink by 9 percent this year, with investment falling to just 16 percent of GDP — from 18.4 percent last year — hitting jobs and incomes, increasing inequality and prompting people to save rather than spend.
At the same time, Italy’s greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to decline by 7.5 percent this year, setting a baseline from which we could continue cutting pollution rather than bouncing back to pre-pandemic levels.
Italians want to pursue a greener, healthier future — even more so than people in the France, the Netherlands, Poland, the UK and the US, according to a survey commissioned by the More in Common initiative.
Seventy-seven percent of Italians surveyed expressed support for a European “Green Deal” involving “large-scale government investments to make our economy more environmentally friendly,” while 81 percent agreed that the decrease in carbon emissions during the COVID-19 lockdown “shows that we can reduce our impact on the environment if we really want to.”
However, nearly two-thirds of Italians said that the government is not doing enough to fight climate change.
Achieving a sustainable future would therefore require fundamental changes in Italy’s economic policies and implementation, underpinned by a broad consensus that fast and deep decarbonization goes hand in hand with growth, health, stability and resilience.
Our inability to approve and develop green projects until now reflects the lack of a coherent political vision and strategy, but as our battle against COVID-19 has shown, Italians can successfully unite to fight a common threat.
Building a more resilient green economy requires the right investments, with priority given to low-risk carbon-free projects that guarantee long-term employment, health and equity.
Renewables, energy-efficiency schemes, electric-vehicle charging stations and clean modes of transport would advance these goals; new gas pipelines would not.
Green hydrogen, made from renewable energy, could be a game changer for hard-to-abate sectors such as steel and long-distance freight transport.
Europe’s largest steel complex, in the southern Italian city of Taranto, is struggling to stay afloat, but could secure a long and sustainable future by becoming the poster child for zero-carbon steel.
Such investments make clear economic sense. Italy spends 19 billion euros per year on fossil fuel subsidies and spent a net average of 44 billion euros annually on fossil fuel imports over the past decade.
In 2018, more than half of all loans from Italian banks — 14 percent of their total assets — were tied up in carbon-intensive sectors, according to the Bank of Italy.
With the low-carbon transition already under way, and financial institutions and firms worldwide committing to decarbonize and divest from fossil fuels, these banks risk being left with stranded, devalued assets unless Italian policymakers help to accelerate the shift.
A faster green transition would also save lives. The European Environment Agency estimates that about 76,000 Italians died prematurely in 2016 as a result of air pollution, one of the highest rates in western Europe.
As of this year, five northern Italian cities are among Europe’s top 10 for average health costs from air pollution, including premature death, medical treatment and lost working days, according to a new study.
Recent research suggests that people exposed to air pollution are more at risk of suffering the worst effects of respiratory illnesses like COVID-19.
Moreover, the Mediterranean region, including Italy, will likely be more affected than other parts of Europe by global warming and the migration that it fuels.
After the economic blow delivered by COVID-19, Italy cannot afford to keep pumping public money into polluting industries. Instead, we must redirect that capital to create high-quality jobs in sustainable sectors — especially for young people and women, the groups hit hardest economically by the crisis. By channeling its long-standing innovative and engineering prowess, Italy can secure la bella vita verde.
Enrico Giovannini, a former Italian minister of labor and social policies, and former head of the Italian National Institute of Statistics, is spokesperson for the Italian Alliance for Sustainable Development.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In a recent interview with commentator Hugh Hewitt, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dropped a bomb. It was simple, direct and succinct, and it was one that has been long overdue. When Hewitt asked him about Taiwan, Pompeo wasted no words. He stressed how important it is “to get the language right.” Then, with no further comment, he went on to say: “Taiwan has not been a part of China.” In that one brief statement, Pompeo blew the US’ longstanding, official, 75-year-old “undecided” position on Taiwan out of the water and definitely put the US on a new track. There was more. In doing
I think it is fair to say there is a widespread sigh of relief among many Americans — particularly those of us focused on foreign policy — that the chaotic and unpredictable Trump years will soon be over. Mr. Trump brought little real knowledge or experience to his foreign policy, and it showed. He also — in my humble opinion — did not err on the side of expertise in his choice of top foreign policy officials. Nor was he particularly open to listening to advice. All in all a poor set of traits for overseeing the complex foreign policy
After more than eight years of talks, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was signed on Nov. 15, combining the individual free-trade agreements signed between ASEAN member states on the one hand, and China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand on the other. Under the leadership of ASEAN and China, most observers did not expect the RCEP to provide a high degree of openness, and the announced agreement lives up to these expectations, containing few surprises. All products covered by the RCEP tariff reductions are agricultural and industrial products, but reductions of agricultural product tariffs are very limited, for example covering
On Nov. 14, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) commented on the nation’s low birthrate, claiming that young people would surely have children if only they married first, and that the low marriage rate among young people is the cause of the rapid aging of Taiwan’s society. The Taipei City Government therefore proposed to offer subsidies to couples willing to marry. Ko’s comment stirred up a great deal of protest. As a sociology student, I would like to remind the mayor that his remarks not only decontextualized the population aging issue, but also oversimplified the low birthrate problem. First, a look at systemic