Di green economy, in the center of the discussions at the last UN summit, there are at least two types: there is a progressive green economy, which we should favor, and a regressive one, which we should instead oppose.
PROGRESSIVE GREEN ECONOMY
The progressive green economy leverages thetechnological innovation, On 'industrial automation, on the digital revolution and onartificial intelligence. That is, it focuses on science, knowledge and training. It encourages innovation in every way, not only in industry and in the production of electricity, but also and above all in agriculture (with the biotechnology), in the transport system and in the service system. This type of green economy is not a utopia, a wishful thinking or a must: it is a concrete possibility because it is based on the synergistic use of a swarm of technologies that already exist today and are fully available. What we must and can do is try to make the best use of them in the service of man and the environment. It can be done!
REGRESSIVE GREEN ECONOMY
The regressive green economy, on the other hand, distrusts technologies (especially GMOs and Nuclear Fusion) and focuses entirely on changing lifestyles. The conviction from which he moves is that we are the ones who endanger the earth, col our way of living, producing and consuming. We are the ones who, like debauched children, cause irreparable damage to the environment and it is therefore up to us to remedy it by changing ourselves, consuming less and perhaps even traveling less (no planes). That the needs of men, not whims or waste but real needs, grow exponentially with the growth of the world population and that, as in the past, even today science and technology can (perhaps) help us to satisfy them, not it doesn't even cross the minds of these environmentalists.
The only thing that really interests them is to change Man. Their ambition is to "straighten", as Kant said, the crooked wood of humanity, even in spite of man himself. AND a punitive and profoundly anti-human conception of life. And it is also a conception potentially criminal. It is not the first time that humanity has been called upon to contend with such reactionary utopias. The last time was in Mao's China during the cultural revolution and then in Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge Cambodia (someone who, incidentally, had studied at the Sorbonne). The outcome was catastrophic. Better not try again.
THE CONTRAPOSITION BETWEEN “DECOUPLING” AND “HAPPY DEGROWTH”
The goal of the progressive green economy cannot be to bring humanity into line but to produce everything that men, all men, really need by reducing the consumption of natural resources per unit of product as much as possible. This process is called "decoupling” and it is already concretely in place. What we have to do is implement it.
The objective of the regressive green economy is, instead, the "happy degrowth” (theory elaborated by the French economist Delouze and adopted by Beppe Grillo) which is none other than the re-proposition in a modern key of the ancient prejudice of Rousseau, who considered progress as the real responsible for the corruption of man and of contamination of nature.
Politics is called to choose between two opposing and irreconcilable visions of our future, and it is a choice that cannot be avoided because the green new deal, of which there is so much talk, presupposes an increasingly active role of both the State than of politics.
THE DISTURBANCE OF THE LABOR MARKET
In fact, what is the green new deal if not an extraordinary acceleration of the process of reconversion of production systems, agriculture and services whose purpose is to reduce as much as possible the consumption of energy and raw materials per product unit? This reconversion will certainly have positive effects on the environment and contribute to significantly reducing CO2 emissions, but it will also a disruption in the labor market. Many jobs will disappear and many will have to look for or invent a new job.
If private investments in technological innovation will not be accompanied massive public investments in school and continuing training and in active employment policies it will be very difficult to facilitate mobility from one job to another and from one profession to another. Just as, without a joint effort of public and private investments in tangible and intangible services and infrastructures, it will be difficult if not impossible to create new jobs capable of replacing those that automation erases. This is the specific character of the economic transition in which we are immersed which requires a redefinition of the role of the state in the economy.
THE ANSWERS OF THE USA AND CHINA
The USA and China have already given or are trying to give their own response, while that of Europe is still lacking. The American answer is clear enough. Trump, with the trade war of tariffs and with protectionismseeks to regain control of the global supply chain, particularly in the strategic sectors of digital and artificial intelligence in which China is undermining American supremacy. But Trump is not satisfied with this, he is also trying to regain control over the value chain in more traditional sectors such as the auto, steel and gas industries. He doesn't seem to care too much about the environment, at least up to now. For Trump, the State must intervene not to promote a productive conversion but to reaffirm America's primacy (America first).
The answer is different China, which has developed a strategy for the reconversion of the production system (Made in China 2025) which aims to reduce energy consumption per unit of product by 10% over 34 years, to reduce by an equivalent the percentage of recycling of industrial waste and the use of water. All this through a synergistic effort by the State and public and private companies to double the share of investments in research and development over the same period of time.
È a plan that leverages technological innovation and not on the low cost of labor and which goes hand in hand with a major investment plan, both public and private, in tangible and intangible infrastructures. This type of planning is evidently made possible by the particular nature of the Chinese economy (a perfect example of state monopoly capitalism) and also by the paternalistic and sometimes authoritarian character of the Chinese state.
THE DELAY OF EUROPE
Nothing similar exists in Europe and will never exist there, just as nothing similar to the United States could, at least in the medium term, take the place of the community of nations that Europe is today. But a European model of democratic development planning that directs our economies towards an environmentally compatible productive reconversion is not impossible. Draghi has outlined the possible financial structure capable of supporting an investment policy in large tangible and intangible infrastructures. Also shared industrial strategies are possible just as it is possible to imagine an ever greater synergy between the Commission's effort to program development and the autonomous productive effort of companies to achieve it.
This type of planning has nothing to do with American protectionism or Asian-style paternalism. If anything, remember the attempt at democratic programming made by Antonio Giolitti and Giorgio Ruffolo in the 70s. An attempt that failed, not because it was not valid, but because it lacked the support of all the reformist and democratic forces (the PCI opposed head-on). Today, however, things could be different. It would be worth a try.
