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
Last week, Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates and his wife, Melinda Gates, said in a statement that they have decided to end their marriage. The news immediately caused a global sensation. When my daughter heard that I was going to write a newspaper op-ed to comment on the matter, she made sure to remind me not to focus on the divorce agreement or the handling of the world’s richest couple’s wealth. Instead of talking about how much money Melinda Gates would get from the divorce, my daughter wanted me to focus on the many sacrifices she has made, and on her many
Taiwan has finally become an ongoing public issue in Canada, due in part to its success in keeping out COVID-19, and the Chinese Communist Party’s successful efforts to offend just about everyone in Canada. Following the lead of right-wing US politicians, Canadian conservative pundits and Canadian Shadow Minister of Foreign Affairs Michael Chong (莊文浩) of the Conservative Party, politicians are urging Canada to “recognize Taiwan.” There is a small problem here for Canada, which has a different history of relations with Taiwan than the US. For Canada to “recognize” Taiwan as things stand would be to re-recognize the Republic of China
Given China’s regional might, it is little surprise that the nation casts a long shadow across Asia — including in its media coverage. However, we are now seeing a disturbing trend of Western media casting a favorable light on China, right as it stands accused of suppressing democracy in Hong Kong, interning Uighurs and obscuring investigations into the origins of COVID-19. At the same time, important coverage of Asian democracies, such as Taiwan’s 20-place leap in the Democracy Index last year — in the midst of a pandemic that brought major constrictions of democratic rights in many places — gets
As Taiwan’s August referendum on completing its Fourth Nuclear Power Plant approaches, one question that has not yet been fully considered is to what extent this and Taiwan’s other three plants are military liabilities — radioactive targets that China aims to attack. At best, a threatened strike or an intentional near-miss against one plant would likely force the government to shut the other nuclear plants down as a precaution. At worst, a strike could produce Chernobyl-like contamination, forcing the evacuation of millions. Some partial, temporary defenses are possible and should be pursued, but ultimately, the smart money is on substituting