HOW CAN WE MAKE THE WORLD GREENER WITHOUT REDUCING ECONOMIC GROWTH? WHICH ARE THE MERITS AND LIMITS OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES/ ENERGIES?

The perceived trade-off between the cost of the environmental transition and the (much higher) cost of mitigating/ preventing the impact of climate change has been one of the elements that have oriented global actions to climate change policy. 
One preliminary reflection is, however, on whether this trade off unavoidable. The chart below seems to say that this is not the case.

The Great Green Transition will require huge investments and the development of a series of instruments catered towards regulating, nudging and incentivizing the transition. These investments however will produce innovation and economic growth if governments will choose to partner with private investors and individuals and the right incentive system will be engineered so that interests of different parties and of different generation can be carefully aligned.

There are three main macro areas where the economy and the green transition meet. First, investments in the green transition will avoid depletion of resources and thus enable the long-term resilience of all global production chains. At the most basic level, safeguarding resources will avoid the cost of a slow demise of obsolete industrial patterns.

Secondly, sanctions and nudging measures. These include carbon trading and those measures that make it more costly to pollute than to invest in green energy. The issue here arises on the instability and lack of global coordination on these measures. SDG can also be considered part of this macro area, with issues ranging from homogenous implementation of the indicator to effective monitoring and the possible collateral risk of creating bubbles of pushing investments away from industries that are currently very polluting but that exactly for this reason need the most investments.

Thirdly, the green transition opens up huge opportunities to invest in new technologies and riding the wave of innovation. Those who will be able to capitalize of these opportunities will probably be the leaders of tomorrow’s world order. In this matter, the issuing of green bonds by governments and the overview of how money from bonds is invested needs to be taken into consideration. In a similar way, enabling SMEs to develop and invest in sustainable solutions will also contribute to the economic sustainability of the transition. Loan guarantee programs could be an instrument to reduce interest rates and could be funded by green bond revenues.

Overall, while considering the possible instruments and solutions, we should keep in mind the sustainability of public debt and aiming at not penalizing future generations, as well as ensuring a fair transition also for developing countries.

HOW CAN WE FIND A COMMON AGENDA BETWEEN DIFFERENT GENERATIONS (AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE EMBEDDED SHORT TERMISM OF ELECTORAL CYCLE)? HOW CAN WE AVOID THE GILETS JAUNES EFFECTS?

In 2018, France had to face the gilet jaunes manifestations. Initially following the rise of oil products (which may sound familiar even today), the protest quickly spread and turned to encompass a multitude of revendications that made decision makers all over Europe finally aware of multiple, deeper discontents and gaps in the state of current European democracies. These included a dissatisfaction with fiscal and social policy, as well as public spending and, more generally, a criticism towards liberalism and current social democracies.

The movement, characterized by a strong reliance on social media and a decentralized and disintermediated nature (Boyer and others, 2020), is not too dissimilar to other kinds of protests (for example the very recent Canadian “Freedom Convoy”) that are currently taking place all over Europe in reaction to the management of the COVID19 pandemic.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, the global “Fridays for Future” also saw the questioning of established frameworks and priorities. In short, we are, as defined by Capoccia and Kelemens (2007), at a moment of critical juncture, a “relatively short periods of time during which there is a substantially heightened probability that agents' choices will affect the outcome of interest” where not only we are fighting for climate change, but where we are also forced to confront the democracy question and the changes that need to be implemented in order to make it functional for our new, more connected and globalized world.

First of all, there is the issue of short-term electoral cycles and the necessity of being able to plan on the very long term, keeping in mind the imperative of safeguarding future generations (according to the 1983 Brundtland Commission definition of sustainability). How can we find a common agenda between different generations (and solve the problem of the embedded short termism of electoral cycle)?

Secondly, how can we empower the democratic process to avoid the gilets jaunes effects? May, for example, technologically enabled participative democracy actions be a possible solution?


And lastly, can climate change policies, if sufficiently owned by citizens at both the national and European level, be an opportunity to bring people closer to decision makers and re- awaken trust and collaboration between the two?

HOW CAN WE MAKE POLICY MAKING PROCESSES AT GLOBAL LEVEL MORE TO RESPOND TO THE CRISES WHICH ARE DEFINING THE 21ST CENTURY?

Our current world is characterized by increasing interdependence on both the economic, social and political level. The emergence of two new main “global commons”, the environment and cyberspace, has further increased the demand for global governance. On one hand, we may argue that we are in the golden age of global governance. Never like today the world has seen such a dense, interdependent, and institutionalized net of global governance institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, COP and the International Criminal Court. However, we are also living through a period of great contestation and fragilization of this system (Zurn, 2018), where the legitimacy of these institutions is being questioned based on their effectiveness.
We need a global governance system in order to tackle issues that can only be conceived on a global scale, but we are faced with inefficient and outdated global governance structures that struggle to respond to crisis. In particular, we see fragmented institutions, with slow decision-making processes and with little accountability systems that go beyond simple state compliance.

For climate change governance we have seen a multitude of Conferences, summits and groups see the light of day, but their usefulness, legitimacy and effectiveness are subject of debates: some scholars accuse institutions such as COP, the G7/8 and the UN of having crystallized the debate around climate change in a neo-liberalist key, impeaching the advance of more structural changes (Bernstein, 2000, Gill 2000). Some others criticize the often weak and fragmented nature of international institutions that are dedicated to climate change governance. However, other currents of thought praise the ability of these institutions to embed environmental priorities in the public discourse. In general, there are some key issues that need to be addressed in the development of new global governance system:

Firstly, harmonizing objectives, concepts, and priorities between countries. What kind of economic development is compatible with environmental sustainability? How to find and what common concepts and principles should provide the basis for debate in a new global governance system? How find common goals?

Secondly, a harmonization of economic incentives. SDGs are a step in the right direction, but how can we make sure that countries or regions do not create imbalances through diverging economic incentives?

Lastly, how can we make the decision-making process faster, more efficient and more democratic, ensuring the actual representation of developing countries?

WHY ARE DIFFERENT CITIES DIFFERENTLY PERFORMING AS FAR AS EFFICIENCY OF WASTE MANAGEMENT, HOUSING, MOBILITY?

Cities are one of the four corners of the system we need to reinvent in order to save it: factories and offices where most of our goods are manufactured and services are designed; farms where food is produced; physical and digital infrastructure through which goods and services are exchanged; and cities where 78% of consumption happens, 60% of emissions are generated and which host most of the communities (universities, government agencies, media, think tanks) where the ideas to fight climate change can come.

Each of the above components is affected by technologies evolution which have been further accelerated by the innovation that the COVID19 Pandemic unleashed (from remote working to the Internet of Beings) and yet cities are impacted even more.

Forecasts on the future of cities range from visions where the entire world population will be rationalized in megacities to their decline due to the possibilities that technologies open up to work even from the countryside. What the cities of the post-Covid era will look like it’s not easy to say, what it is certain is that many urbanists are discussing on creating cities with more public spaces to booster outdoor activities that make communities more inclusive and healthiest (Zevi, 2021).

Certainly, the idea that many management consultants seem to like that cities will unavoidably attract more and more people seems to be naïve. European capital cities, for instance, are losing people; the same applies to Chinese megacities where the government has deliberately put limit to their expansion. Urban agglomerations appear to follow the same law that economic geographers (Krugman and Venables, 1995) envisaged: they first grow thanks to the advantage of having talents to meet, compete, partner with each other; they then risk to shrink when the congestion costs exceed the benefits of proximity.

The figure below appears to effectively represent the forces that make cities to rise and fall and the cases of some of the European capitals appear to provide evidence.

The growth of cities is, then, not to considered unstoppable and, in fact, history teaches that many of the great capitals of the Past now only exist in the memories of students and archeologists.Even the mantra of the “smart cities” does not seem to always hold true: after years of conferences and exhibitions on the unstoppable progress of technologies delivering sustainability, European Commission’s numbers say that we are still wasting enormous amount of energy: at any moment of an average day, we only use about one third of the habitable space of our houses; we (fortunately) use only one quarter of the speed that cars were meant to accommodate; we throw away one third of the food we buy and for each kilogram of food we buy, we also purchase an other kilogram of package.

However, there is no deterministic pattern to establish the destiny of cities. Technologies can solve each of the three above mentioned examples of inefficiencies (housing; mobility; consumption) which can make them less attractive. They can enable process which require transformations which will involve everybody – households, firms, governments – and which can still lower congestion costs and footprint.

The wills and skills of local communities and their leaders will matter a lot and make huge differences even vis-à-vis similar pre-existing conditions. We will need leaders capable to “plan” the future; or, at least, to coordinate the efforts of many different actors which now speak different languages, use different metrics and time horizons, hold different interests.

The European Commission has launched the mission of having 100 cities to accomplish zero net neutrality by 2030 (in a way which appears to be compatible with the eleventh SDG of having “sustainable cities and communities”). The questions are, however, are these attempts equipped of enough (financial and political) resources to accomplish such high expectations?

The working group will do problem-solving starting from the section of the VISION concept paper trying to frame the following questions: why are different cities performing differently as far as efficiency of waste management, housing, mobility? What about recognizing a formal status to cities as parts of the global or European decision-making process? How is the pandemic (and, thus, remote working as well as the explosion of e-commerce, food delivery, NETFLIX) changing the role of urban agglomerations?

Ansa

Dolomite Conference: firmato a Trento il manifesto per Cop27

Clima: a Trento e Bolzano la prima 'Dolomite conference'.

Clima: dalle Dolomiti un manifesto verso la Cop27

Università, politica ed imprese insieme per la transizione climatica 

Il Sole 24 Ore

Cercasi nuova strategia per il clima 

Repubblica - Affari e Finanza 

Il cambiamento climatico diventa il rischio più temuto

Dolomite Conference on the Global Governance of Climate Change: presentato l'evento di problem solving a carattere globale

Forbes

Al via Dolomite Conference, la prima in Italia su Climate Change e transizione energetica

La Presse

Clima, la prima Dolomite Conference sul Climate Change a Trento e Bolzano

Clima, dalla finanza all'agricoltura: come affrontare il climate change 

Corriere.it

Cambiamenti climatici, Vision e Axa presentano la prima conferenza italiana sulle Dolomiti

Il Giorno 

Ambiente, le soluzioni per gestire la crisi

Agenzia Giornalistica Opinione

Conferenza Stampa 14.10.22 Trento.

Il Corriere del Trentino

A22 organizza e una conferenza internazionale sul clima

L'Adige

Una “Piccola Davos” per il clima

RAI - TGR

Autobrennero in prima linea per il clima con la Dolomite Conference

Rai News 

Clima, anche tra le Dolomiti priorità a integrazione tra gomma e ferrovia 

Al via a Castel Firmiano la Dolomite Conference

Class CNBC

Report

Adnkronos

Grillo (Vision): “Importante confronto per concretizzare cambiamento”

Vita.it

Contro il cambiamento climatico appuntamento alla Dolomite Conference 

Themapreport.it

Vision Think Tank: sulle Dolomiti per parlare di governance globale del climate change 

Dealflower.it

Al Dolomite conference un manifesto sul clima da presentare al Cop27

Fundspeople

AXA Italia | Dolomite Conference | 20-22 ottobre 

Dire

Ecco la prima "Dolomite conference" sul cambiamento climatico  

Video 33 

Aspettando Cop27, al via la prima Dolomite Conference

La Voce di Bolzano

Kompatscher alla conferenza internazionale sul cambiamento climatico 

 

 

 

VISION PAPER - INEQUALITIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE  (draft)

VISION PAPER - ENERGY vs CLIMATE CHANGE (draft)

European Journal of Agronomy - Net ecosystem carbon balance of an apple orchard.

La mela può essere neutrale. Strategie per ridurre l’impronta carbonica.

Journal of Cleaner Production - Greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption during the post-harvest life of apples as affected by storage type, packaging and transport.

Net Zero E-conomy 2050 - Decarbonization roadmaps for Europe: focus on Italy and Spain by Enel

Global Challenge Foundation - Reports of the Climate Governance Commission

Global Governance Forum - The 2024 UN “Summit of the Future”: An Opportunity to Revisit the UN Charter

Global Governance and the Emergence of Global Institutions for the 21st Century