“The UN climate agreement? More words than deeds. In fact, it is the strengthening of an agreement already signed, that of Paris in 2015, and which continues to be non-binding". To explain to FIRSTonline the state of the art on the fight against climate change, in the aftermath of the great youth demonstrations in the streets and squares of all Italy, is Massimo Tavoni, professor of Climate Change Economics at the School Management of the Milan Polytechnic, inviting first of all not to sound alarmist: “The 2030 objectives, even if they were achieved, would not be enough to contain the increase in temperature to within 2 degrees. But I say that 2,5 degrees are still better than 4-5 degrees: since the best scenario cannot be achieved, the worst scenario must be avoided in the meantime".
Professor, what concretely came out of the recent and very important UN conference on climate?
“The agreement reached is positive but it doesn't go much beyond the Paris agreement already in force, which not all countries have signed and which no one can guarantee to maintain, given that it is not binding. Moreover, it would be difficult to make it binding, given that each country has its own national sovereignty: the Kyoto agreement itself was not respected even by many of the states that had signed it".
But this time there is no more time: is it possible that some countries, such as the USA, continue to stall?
“The USA, as the second largest emitter of CO2 in the world, and Brazil, as the first absorber of carbon dioxide through the Amazon forest, are the two biggest problems. However, Russia is also behind: it has signed the agreement, but its objectives are very limited and insufficient. And even the absence of the Chinese president is not a good sign: China is first in the world for CO2 emissions and after a couple of years in which it seemed to have contained them, in 2019 they are increasing again. However, some positive signs have arrived”.
What?
“Some countries have pledged to do more, for example the Scandinavian countries and Argentina, and the proposal for a 100 billion a year fund to finance clean energy, especially in developing countries, has been relaunched , through investments in energy infrastructure”.
One hundred billion, just like those allocated by Germany for the green turnaround in the next decade.
"A large investment, even if Germany remains among the most polluting countries and has so far done much less than one would have expected".
Europe has announced a Green New Deal through President Ursula von der Leyen, to which the new Italian government has already promised to adhere. What will it actually entail?
“In the meantime, it must be said that Europe is a virtuous example in its commitment to the climate. Italy is part of the EU, so we have to do what Brussels says and in this case, given that the goals are ambitious, that's perfectly fine. The Green New Deal is nothing more than the reinforcement of the objectives already set between now and 2030, based on three pillars: tax on CO2 emissions charged to large industrial activities (responsible for 50% of continental emissions), equal to around 25 euros per ton of carbon dioxide produced; incentives for renewables; energy efficiency. The big news is the hypothesis, which von der Leyen spoke to Gentiloni, of a so-called carbon border tax: to prevent companies from dribbling the CO2 tax by setting up plants outside the EU, a return tax will be introduced , on the importation of products whose production cost the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, in proportion to the quantity emitted. The tax is designed to prevent emissions from "escaping" and that the problem, rather than being solved, moves elsewhere".
A sort of environmental duty, one might say.
“Exactly, but in this case the idea is right. The optimal solution would obviously be that of a binding agreement, with precise sanctions for those who do not achieve the objectives: unfortunately, however, it cannot be done, and so these formulas are welcome. It is better that the costs of the fight against climate change fall in some way on big companies rather than on the poorest sections: one of the objectives of the UN agreement is also to avoid social tensions, in the yellow vests style”.
How to do it?
“Balancing taxation and subsidies. The money that will be obtained, for example, from the carbon border tax, could be used to protect families with lower incomes, so as not to make them suffer, for example, the increase in bills or the price of petrol, which may prove necessary . The money has to be taken from somewhere, but the important thing is to use it well, so that it is not the weakest who pay the cost of the energy transition”.
To save the planet, is technological innovation more important than a clear and urgent change in our lifestyles?
“I would say both. If I think of the USA, where some habits will be difficult to change in the short term, I have to say that technology will play a decisive role: I am thinking once again of renewables, electric cars, energy storage, bio fuels, energy efficiency, digitalisation. All processes, however, already underway, in evolution. In Europe, on the other hand, alongside the technological one, a cultural change is also possible. Here we begin to understand that what is good for the environment is often also good for a person's health: and therefore, for example, we are learning to reduce the consumption of red meat or to get around big cities by bicycle, public transport or car sharing”.
Are we culturally ready in Italy too?
“Actually in Italy not too much. The latest European elections demonstrate this: green parties have triumphed almost everywhere on the continent, with the exception of the Mediterranean area. In Italy there wasn't even a trace of it and this isn't a great sign, even if in any case the ecological trend is advancing here too”.
What do you think of Greta Thunberg?
“That does good for the cause. This doesn't mean that we all have to imitate her and travel from Europe to America by sailboat, mind you. But she is young and she is sending a very strong message: her predictions about her seem apocalyptic but she in my opinion she is just seriously worried, and she thinks more about the future than older people. After all, it will be you and your peers who will suffer the dramatic consequences of climate change for the longest time”.
