“The point is not to defend the production of 3% of national gas and oil needs or even to pursue the dream of energy independence, which we will never have. By voting No in the referendum or by not voting at all, we defend the Italian energy industry, innovation, work and investments in renewables”. Julius Sapelli, Professor of Economic History at the Milan State University and former director of Eni, goes straight to the point in the interview given to FIRSTonline: submitted to the referendum on Sunday 17 April, there are no drills but there are 35 concessions of gas (mainly) and oil, of which 26 are productive, out of a total of 69 at national level.
In general, speaking of the gas which is by far the resource most affected by the referendum, Italy produces only 10% of the energy it consumes, while buy the remaining 90% from abroad. “Defending this in itself would be ridiculous, energy independence will never exist, not even with renewables. Instead, we must save the Italian company by continuing to focus on clean energy: one thing does not exclude the other, on the contrary, it is precisely the major to make the biggest investments. We must allow Eni to continue working in Italy, in compliance with environmental protection, as already envisaged, and continue to welcome investments from foreign groups such as Total".
For clarity: if the No (or if the quorum of 50%+1 of those entitled is not reached) the concessions for oil and gas extraction within 12 miles of the coast will continue "for the useful life of the reservoir, and in compliance with safety and of environmental protection”, as prescribed by the 2016 Stability Law and as wished by Sapelli. If instead it passes the Yes, all ongoing activities will be abandoned, depending on the deadlines that will gradually intervene. With the loss of an industrial heritage and thousands of jobs in a sector that employs 11.000 workers employed in direct activities in the Peninsula and over 20.000 in related industries.
Professor Sapelli, what will you do on April 17?
“I will definitely not go to vote. I am precisely against referendums in principle, because the criterion of competence should prevail over that of the majority. And in any case, voting is a right, but not voting is also a right".
Are you therefore against the intervention of the President of the Constitutional Court, Paolo Grossi, who said that voting is a duty?
“Absolutely, Grossi made a creepy exit, a vulnus to the separation of powers”.
It has been said over and over again that the referendum will not be about the drills: why do you think the No must win?
“Italy needs to rebuild an industrial culture, to allow its large companies, such as Eni and Enel in this case, to work in Italy, innovating and creating know-how, jobs, professionalism. According to some estimates, the halt to concessions would cost tens and tens of thousands of jobs, considering related industries, in the 9 Regions (Puglia, Calabria, Sardinia, Basilicata, Campania, Marche, Molise, Veneto and Liguria) that host the fields and who promoted the referendum".
However, the supporters of Yes insist on environmental risks, even if Emilia-Romagna, which has the most concessions of all (31 of which 28 are active), received 2015 blue flags from the European Union in 9 and hosted 2015 million tourists and did not promote the consultation: who is right?
These are unfounded environmental risks, the Italian energy industry is very controlled, far too much. The pollution of the sea that is so worrying is mainly due to river discharges and coastal urbanization. Emilia-Romagna is an example of this: its offshore activity alone is worth almost a thousand companies (and tens of thousands of workers considering related industries), but apparently neither the sea nor tourism have been affected”.
However, a Greenpeace report states that a significant proportion of the samples taken in the areas of offshore concessions have high levels of pollutants.
“Since when is Greenpeace reliable? Furthermore, that report refers to samples taken in areas that do not exactly correspond to those of the drillings. I say that the concerns of the coastal communities are also understandable, but they should not be exploited".
Yet the perception of part of the population is completely different.
“Few know that the Italian chemical industry is among the best in the world in terms of compliance with the parameters of the Kyoto Protocol. Chemistry is considered a symbol of death, but it isn't at all. Unfortunately in this there has been a decline in the mentality of the population, above all of the middle class which has become impoverished. The crisis, the lack of work and low wages have led to the return of a Luddite mentality, which ends up going against progress”.
In general, the supporters of the Yes motivate the abandonment of the platforms with the opportunity to resort more and more to renewable energies, in great expansion. A recent report by the IEA agency revealed that Italy, for example, is the world's leading consumer of solar energy, in proportion to its total electricity consumption. What do you think?
“This referendum is not against renewables. We still need the energy industry, and at the same time it is sacrosanct to focus on clean sources. After all, they are the big ones major, like Eni and Enel in Italy, to invest the greatest resources: they will be able to continue to do so if they are allowed to continue their industrial and innovative activity in Italy".
The era of incentives is over, what is the right strategy to follow for renewables?
“Large private investments, which will be possible if companies work at full capacity. Public incentives are outdated. On the merits, I would say no to biomass and I would focus more on the sun than on the wind, also for landscape reasons. There is much work to be done on biothermal energy, on the exploitation of wave motion and above all on energy saving, which is the first "renewable" energy and on which Italy is far behind".
In recent weeks' debate, there has also been talk of concessions to foreign companies, such as for Total in Tempa Rossa.
“By voting No, you are also defending Eni from the competition of these companies. For me, the liberalization of the energy market has been negative, but once done, it is right that Italy can attract foreign investments. With the No, this too is defended: the competitiveness and credibility of the country”.
In the appeal for the No published by Il Foglio and signed by you and dozens of entrepreneurs and insiders, a book of yours from 2008 is cited in which you say that Italy needs "a capitalist and liberal technological revolution". What do you mean?
“What I said just now. Italy's problem is labor productivity: for this we need more investments, that these investments are projected on innovation and that a liberal culture prevails again, which does not mean liberal, in which the center of the economic system is 'business. It is the company that must change: it must grow, produce more, invest”.
You are notoriously Catholic: how do you comment on the decision of the bishops to support the Yes?
"Evidently the bishops did not understand the meaning of Pope Francis' latest encyclical, Laudato si ', which certainly gives an important message in defense of the environment, but this message must be reconciled with the needs of the industry. And the Stability Law clearly refers to compliance with ecological sustainability standards”.
He agrees with those who argue that in reality the real issue at stake in the referendum is on the energy powers between the Regions and the State and that, if anything, the right ground for tackling this matter is not this referendum but that of October on the reform of the constitution and Title V?
“Yes, at the time it was madness to delegate this competence to the Regions: I was on the board of Eni and I expressed an absolutely contrary opinion. And in any case I repeat: the people are not mature enough to express themselves on such complex issues, so I don't agree with that consultation either. Referendums should be abolished”.
