How is the issue of Climate Change perceived by the citizens?

Column by Francesco Grillo for the Italian newspaper Il Messaggero. 

In a survey to be presented at the global climate change conference to be held in Trento and Bolzano from 5 October, there is a picture of the dilemma in which we seem to be trapped. Italians are overwhelmingly convinced that the unfolding phenomena will have a negative impact on the future (where these percentages are high, they become even more so for women, the youngest and the elderly). And, however, the perception also prevails that the energy transition from a model that was dominated by oil and gas will have significant costs. It seems from this evidence that we have to make a very painful choice between health and economics. Between an already precarious present and the future that will be inhabited by our children. But is this really the situation? Is there a way to make the transition convenient for everyone so that people feel responsibility for a process that does not work if imposed from above?

There is no doubt that the political points of view around the climate change agenda has changed a lot. Polls by Politico Europe, the newspaper that- perhaps- best follows the contortions of the EU institutions, predict that in the next European elections, the defeat of the Greens will be even greater than the victory of the 'conservatives' led by Giorgia Meloni. Growing doubts are emerging in public opinion: according to the poll mentioned, in Italy there is a particularly strong concern about the cost that compliance with European regulations may have on a population of 'homeowners'. In the Netherlands, the party that grew out of farmers' anger over rules that would have reduced nitrogen emissions by reducing the amount of meat produced, is about to clash with Frans Timmermans, who, after devising the European climate change strategy, resigned as Vice-President of the Commission to stop farmers. Everywhere, the environmental agenda is in danger of being perceived as that of those who live comfortably in the centre (in the zones protected by ZTL, traffic-restricted zone) and who can do without their old cars.

Common sense says that this 'narrative' is misleading. And, however, for those who are really concerned about environmental disaster, the time has come to reckon with some important mistakes. Of communication and of substance.

It is not true that a world that has made the energy transition will be a poorer world or one with even greater inequalities than those already breaking cohesion amongst people. In a model based on solar and wind power, in which the consumer of energy can also produce it and return it to the system, it is obvious that the cost of the bill and the dependencies (on a very few producers)- that have made the world of oil so dangerous- will decrease. It is true, however, that we are separated from that model by infrastructure investments (on the transmission grid and storage mechanisms) without which renewables are not reliable. Equally true is that adjusting an Italian real estate stock that for 55% is two bands away from that considered (by the European Commission) to be the minimum of energy efficiency can turn the house from an asset into a concern. But Economy and Finance Minister Giorgetti is right to be disappointed about 80 billion of euros spent on a 110% bonus with which we have only reached 3% of homes.

The Dolomites conference will try to answer a fundamental question: how can we turn what is perceived as a cost - effectively unsustainable for indebted governments and impoverished families - into an investment that can be repaid with future benefits? This is the main point to which international negotiations seem no longer able to answer. Instead, we might need places where talented people meet - natural, political and economic scientists; innovative managers and entrepreneurs; journalists; politicians, students; from all over the world - and learn from each other in order to find solutions.

Surely, however, the method that the climate Taliban have so far pursued no longer works, feeding the opposite extremism of those who go as far as denial. Faced with a complex problem, there can no longer be those who simply give lessons, providing others with an instruction manual to follow in order to save the world. We need humility and awareness of the limits of the institutions and intellectual tools we have used to govern a global order that no longer exists. We will need intelligent people rather than experts. At the end of the day, climate change is the great opportunity to come to terms with an approach to problems that is making us lose out on all the big governance issues related to a globalisation that is now out of hand.