Karl Marx, of whom everything can be said except that he was a utopian, maintained that men only pose those problems for which the conditions for solving them already exist, or are being created. Who knows if the young people who have invaded the squares of half the (Western) world demanding a change in environmental policies did they move on the basis of this rational belief or if, more simply, being immersed in an extraordinary technological revolution, they only intuited it. The fact is that the change they are demanding today is not only necessary, but it is also possible.
The "decoupling”, that is, the separation of the growth trend from that of emissions is a process already concretely underway in developed countries, even if it proceeds with difficulty and at different paces from country to country. In the electricity generation, for example, energy savings and efficiency, diversification and proper use of sources (more renewables and gas and less oil and coal), the continuous flow of technological innovations and scientific discoveries (not to mention in "magnetic fusion", the nuclear fusion on which Italy is also working) already today allow for a reduction in emissions compared to the energy produced.
In 'energy industry, a similar process has been underway for some time. Consuming less energy, less raw materials and less space is something that all companies in all sectors strive for without anyone imposing it on them because it is a condition of their own success. L'energy efficiency it is a value that materializes in the balance sheet. And this is true not only for the technological industries but also and above all for the traditional ones, from the car to the iron and steel industry (we invented the mini hyper-technological electric steel mills). The driver of this industrial reconversion taking place all over the world is process and product innovation, the result of which is the reduction of the energy content per product unit.
The same could happen in the sectors that most pollute and waste energy, such as agriculture, transport and services. Already today we could produce all the foodstuffs we need (even niche ones) consuming less land, less water and less fertilizers and pesticides if only we open this sector to a greater use of new technologies, starting with GMOs. But the environmentalists, mistakenly, oppose it in the name of organic agriculture, omitting the fact that, as documented by 400 researchers and agronomists, including the scientist and life senator Elena Cattaneo, organic farming would require twice as much land and reduce production by 50%.
Also in the sector of transport (whose energy transition will in any case take a long time and for whose functioning hydrocarbons will still be indispensable for a long time) considerable progress could be made if only the the transfer of freight transport from road to rail (see Tav) or if it were strengthened urban public transport, something that, with the sole exception, perhaps, of Milan, still does not happen in the big cities. But it is in the service sector (cycle of waste and water) that it would be possible to achieve truly important results in reducing energy waste and reducing pollution. We already have the administrative, managerial and technological tools necessary to do so.
We are perfectly capable of handling the waste cycle and the water cycle as industrial cycles and we are able to start a virtuous collaboration between the public and private sectors in these fields. But, instead of moving decisively in this direction, there are those who invoke not the "advertising" of services (which, moreover, are already public), but their "nationalisation", which is a very different thing and would mean if not their transformation into sectors of the Public Administration. This is a regression which, in addition to not guaranteeing greater universality, cost-effectiveness and quality of services, would prevent public, private or mixed enterprises from making all the contribution they could make in terms of technological innovation and development.
In all these cases, it is not the powers that be, the oil companies or the large industrial groups that are slowing down the energy transition. Instead, they are incompetent public administrators or an inefficient public administration.
We must therefore say to young people who want to commit themselves to accelerating the energy transition, paraphrasing Obama, that: "Yes, we can". Provided, however, that it is clear that to this end no need to reduce consumption (which is impossible and unjust for developing countries), nor do we necessarily have to experience pauperism or "happy degrowth" (an economic theory that is criminogenic). What you really need is one constant scientific and technological revolution. In short, the energy transition is a challenge for the future, not a return to the past.
On this path, however, there are two obstacles to overcome. The first is the weakness of the policy which, crushed as it is on tactics and contingency, struggles to make the medium-long term political choices that would be necessary to give strength to the energy transition process. The second obstacle is of a cultural nature and is represented by the many, too many anti-scientific biases that feed movements that reject method and scientific evidence and despise merit and competence. They are movements (the No Vax, the No Tav, the No Gmo etc.) of which we must try to understand the deep reasons and the fears that feed them, which must be dispelled with information and democratic involvement (the public debate) but which in no way should be encouraged and pampered.
All of them could be usefully reminded of the words that Anton Chekhov wrote to Tolstoy about the populist philosophy of the great Russian writer. “I have peasant blood in my veins – writes Chekhov – and I certainly cannot be subjected to peasant virtues. From childhood I believed in progress. A dispassionate and balanced meditation tells me that there is more love for man in electricity and steam than in chastity and fasting”.
Here it is: love for Man, faith in progress and a dispassionate and balanced meditation is what we will need most to manage the large and complex problems of the energy transition and the protection of the planet.
