The social conflicts that are simmering under the Green deal
How and why balanced and non-ideological solutions must be found on the future of the European Green Deal. Polillo's analysis after the vote of the European Parliament and Polito's comment in Corriere della Sera
Antonio Polito, commenting from the pages of the Corriere on the dramatic political rift that divided the European Parliament , went to the origins of the problem. The green plan, that is to say what should be done (the conditional is a must) to reverse the march of the great environmental degradation, is not a uniting theme. But it divides. And as a result the Ursula majority fell apart.
THE GREEN DEAL DIVIDES THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
On the one hand, a handful of popular people who have followed the instructions of their group leader. On the other hand, the majority of that alignment that has tried, by voting with the right, to anticipate what, in all likelihood, will happen in the next legislature. Colpaccio which, however, did not succeed. Since the Parliament has however supported the theses of Commissioner Timmermans ( in the photo ). Although many consider him a pasdaran of the environment destined to work for the King of Prussia: anti-ecological extremism.
GREEN ISSUE AND SOCIAL ISSUE
For Polito, the "green question" is destined to have an analogous, if not greater, relevance than the "democratic" and "social" ones. Which characterized, respectively, the 19th century and the "short century". With a difference, at least in our opinion. In any case, those questions were circumscribed, in a dimension of a national nature, even when imperialism had assumed the form of the "supreme phase of capitalism" (Lenin). The green question, on the other hand, by its nature has a global dimension which is prevalent.
Rightly Polito points out that "Europe produces just 8-9% of global emissions" of CO2. And although everything possible is done in the Old Continent to contain them, their production increases continuously. It is in fact the global South – China and India in the lead – that does not want to give up on growing and consuming. In a logic of emulation with the West that appears difficult to contain. Especially criticizable. The truth is that given the current stage of technology, in which the consumption of fossil energy is still so relevant, only the tragic prophecies of Malthus could reverse an otherwise unstoppable trend.
Such a picture, albeit summarily evoked, encompasses all the difficulties of acting. The first is related to the scale of the intervention. Measures of an international nature would be needed, capable of imposing virtuous behavior on all countries. That sort of "perpetual peace", evoked by Emmanuel Kant, which remains the great utopia of modern political thought. The Russian aggression against Ukraine, among a thousand other things, represents an enormous cost for the green balance of the planet, which, at the moment, no one is able to quantify.
In the past, the "democratic question" was resolved by the descent into the field of a bourgeoisie, which no longer tolerated the privileges of the aristocracy. The "social" one with the growing strength of a working class which, in turn, had also been the product of capitalist development. What will be, then, the social coté of the revolution of the third millennium? Answering this question is also important to understand the value of that political fracture that can be glimpsed, as we said at the beginning, in the Old Continent. Indeed, there is no doubt that green movements have a greater audience in Europe than in other continents. And so the fracture mentioned above is not only political, but social and cultural.
THE GREEN DEAL AND THE GREAT SOCIAL DRAMA
Polito tries to get to grips with this puzzle. And the resulting image is that of a jagged archipelago, in which no island has the strength to be a gravitational centre. “On the one hand” – Polito tells us – there are “the urban classes, on the other the rural ones. On the one hand, the new workers of the immaterial and digital economy, who would like a world that is more respectful of nature, on the other, those who work with the land, transport, animals, and draw their income from nature." To then continue “on the one hand, the young people who follow Greta and are concerned about the future of the planet because it is theirs too, on the other, those who fear becoming impoverished today in exchange for a tomorrow they probably won't see. In short, all the elements are there for the great social drama, of the kind that pits generations and classes against each other, which turns into a "culture war" between progressives and conservatives, between revolutionaries and reactionaries".
Can it be avoided? Difficult to answer. It would be simpler to try not to encourage it. In this great hodgepodge, the tempo variant is of extraordinary importance. Indeed, it is evident that the longer life expectancy increases, the greater the interest in living in a world not suspended over the abyss of degradation. A matter of simple reasonableness, also because with the passing of months and years, without the necessary interventions, the quality of life risks undergoing an accelerated deterioration.
Therefore, immediate action should be taken. If the available resources were adequate and fairly distributed. But it's not like that. And it is then that the relative scarcity helps to accentuate the conflict between the subjects who are differently interested in solving the problem. Indeed, it is evident that the older generations, with a limited life horizon, are very little interested in finding out what the world will be like in the next ten or twenty years. They may be more flexible, thinking of their children or grandchildren, but it is difficult to count on this sentiment, more than noble, for the purposes of a system solution.
And then the only realistic solution is to allow the budget flexibility necessary for individual states to build the infrastructures of a better world. It is the Italian proposal to reform the Stability Pact. Rigor in business as usual . That is to say in the normal conduct of economic policy. But "golden rule" for the investments necessary for the production of those "European goods" which are our insurance for a greener and less toxic future. Even better if those same assets could be directly financed by the EU, capable of obtaining a lower interest rate for the financial provision.
And the debt? Not only the Italian one, considering that the average one, at an international level, is now close to 100 percent of GDP (compared to 144 in the Bel Paese). It will be destined, at least in the immediate future, to increase. It will therefore weigh above all on the new generations, in proportion to their life expectancy. It will weigh more on the long-lived ones which, however, will be able to benefit, for a longer period, from an environment made livable, thanks to the interventions carried out. Perhaps a good compromise that avoids the false alternative between the actions against cultural heritage of the various "Just Stop Oil" or "Last generation", and tearing one's clothes in the face of the inevitable repetition of the next environmental disaster.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/economia/green-deal-analisi-polillo-polito/ on Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:35:20 +0000.