Share

Who is the greenest of them all? Open war between environmentalists divided between radicalism and realpolitik

In a context of divided environmentalism, a contrast emerges between the most extreme souls, who pursue radical environmental policies, and those who adopt a more pragmatic vision. The energy recipe of the future? Nuclear, gas and realism

Who is the greenest of them all? Open war between environmentalists divided between radicalism and realpolitik

Hard times for them environmentalists more extremist and ideological. Now that the excesses of the Green Deal europeo are laid bare by farmers, first of all, but gradually also by entrepreneurs, by the experts who dare to challenge the fallacious claims of clean energy fanatics with more courage, up to Mario Draghi who recently stated that with the prices of energy 20-30% higher than in the rest of the world, European competitiveness may go to hell, here are the conflicts between the various souls of the Greens.

Environmentalists divided between ideals and environmental realpolitik

To go from the most modest issues to the largest, we can highlight a strong letter sent by a group of employees to all the members of Future electricity, in which the president Agostino Re Rebaudengo, to always act on his own without consulting anyone, leading the association to extremist positions and ultimately towards irrelevance.

Then there is a tough stance against it Environment League by numerous associations that are also green, such as Italia Nostra, Friends of the earth, Asso Tuscania etc. The reason for the dispute lies in the fact that Lega Ambiente harshly criticized the Minister of Culture Sangiuliano, to obtain further simplifications in the approval process for the installation of photovoltaic and wind farms, avoiding the obstacles of all the bodies that work for the protection of the landscape and the conservation of territorial diversity. Let's be clear, renewables can lend a notable hand to the decarbonisation process which most scientists now consider essential to keep global warming within acceptable levels. But the solution of the problem cannot be entrusted exclusively to renewables which have many defects: they consume a lot of land, they are not stable because they depend on atmospheric events and therefore alone they cannot support continuous energy needs, even from an environmental point of view it is not clear how much Co2 is emitted during their life cycle and in the final phase of scrapping. Finally, everyone says that today renewables provide energy at cheaper prices than all other sources (apart from hydroelectric).

But this last statement also seems denied by a large operator in the sector, Alexander Garrone, who recently declared that the base prices of the auction with which concessions are assigned are too low. But from calculations made by some experts, the bases of Italian auctions are approximately 40% higher than those of German auctions. And then if renewables are truly competitive as those who operate in the sector say, why is there still a need for public incentives which then end up in one way or another in the bills paid by families and businesses?

The energy recipe of the future: nuclear, gas and realism

It's actually time to consider a mix of energy sources capable of satisfying various needs: reducing Co2 emissions, giving stability and reliability to the system, truly reducing energy costs for users. In this case it is quite clear that a share of electricity production entrusted to the company is needed nuclear which does not emit Co2 and produces in a stable and controlled manner. And not fourth generation nuclear power as the fearful Pichetto Frattin is claiming, but the one existing today, i.e. the third generation one modified by the experiences of the power plant built or under construction throughout the rest of the world. You will then need to use the again gas which will have to replace the more polluting coal, developing CO2 capture systems which are currently being hindered by certain green groups. 

One thing is clear: if in the West we want to continue development, also ensuring good growth levels for the poorest and most energy-hungry countries, we will have to start thinking without ideological screens by examining the data with a critical eye, but open to the new. Surely people don't want to go back from the current level of well-being (while backward countries want to grow) so the talk about returning to a frugal life and in contact with nature no longer takes hold. Politicians have the responsibility to tell the truth and make proposals realistic plans.

comments