One hundred and sixty billion euros of EIB funding in the fight against climate change, but only a third of Italians are enough to change pace. The European Investment Bank has applied to be among the major lenders in the fight against environmental change. Already today on this assumption, it presents a flattering balance sheet. Over the past seven years, it has supported investments of 600 million euros worldwide. An amount equivalent to Poland's GDP, say its managers. Not yet completely satisfied, however, they question and question public opinion on the effects of their commitment.
Together with YouGov – an analysis company – the Bank has published the results of the second climate survey. About how a large audience of people in Europe, the United States and China perceive the changes. COP 3, the new world climate conference opens in Katowice in Poland on 24 December. Until December 14, the most virtuous paths will be analyzed to reach the climate objectives established by the Paris Agreement of 2015. Europeans, after Trump's retreat in the US, are a fundamental audience for understanding where we are going, with which money and with what degree of trust. And not just because we're talking about a European financial institution, but because the peoples of the old continent have been the most determined to take a new course.
Contradictions are accumulating, as the French protests of these days also tell us. But the survey says that Europeans are most concerned about the financial repercussions generated by environmental change. They outnumber the Americans and the Chinese in fear, despite the not at all green policies of the governments of these two giants. They intrigue Americans who declare themselves optimistic about the economic benefits associated with measures to combat climate change. Nearly a third of them -- 26 percent -- think federal decisions will be good for the economy. The confident Chinese, in the presence of the US, are instead just 11%.
In the European panel, the Italians stand out with one half convinced that if it is really decided to stop the climatic afflictions, it will be up to them to bear higher insurance costs, new energy costs, unexpected taxes. Only 4% say they have no idea - whether positive or negative - in the face of government decisions. But the starting economic conditions also stand out. 46% with an annual gross income below €12 are convinced that good climate change practices weigh on the economy. Those who earn twice as much and think the same way, are instead 000%. It is understandable why the EIB's money is considered ineffective.
We are facing a differentiated audience on a global scale where the fight against climate change proceeds between ups and downs and autarkic gusts. The states that have implemented coherent policies and strategies since the Paris Conference are shrinking in number. And the regression causes different feelings in the social classes, even before the economy. On the one hand, we are all certain that greenhouse gases, coal and the massive use of fossil energies are bad for health and for the planet. On the other hand, there is a fear that everything that can improve things relies only on the pockets of taxpayers.
Is the EIB right to promote such substantial initiatives, making resources and expertise available? Rulers alone are not in a position to take virtuous paths. They have small expenditure items, they are torn apart by different visions, they are furniture on the armchairs that count. It becomes difficult not to share the opinion of Monica Scatasta, head of environmental policy at the EIB. You say that public funding alone, even when it comes from international institutions, is not enough to trace a path of trust. It takes more. Investors, entrepreneurs, economic forces, all aware of facing an epochal game which, if played well, will end with positive results.
Financing climate action can produce long-lasting benefits and jobs. Once again, a few percentages found among Italians are useful. Over the next ten years, they said, the financial repercussions of climate change will materialize. 62% of those interviewed fear the health effects of the arrival of new diseases or the worsening of existing ones. More than half are afraid of surviving floods, water shortages, extraordinary events. 18% see the need to move from the place where they live due to environmental pollution. We need money.
