the false myths of environmentalism (which still resist) – Corriere.it

The road to saving the world is (still) paved with false myths, dangerous ideologies, trendy green millenarian articles of faith. Instead, it would be time to shake it off, if we really wanted to save the world. As is clear in his head Francesco Vecchi, Mediaset journalist who hosts Mattino Cinque, the daily program of Canale 5, already author of essays and novels, but also of children’s books. And therefore, if one asks him why he chose such an explicit, if not provocative title for his latest essay, published by Piemme, We must not save the world.

From the electric car to the bio, all the false myths of the green religion, this is how Vecchi does not hesitate to retort that posing the problem in “missionary” terms is not useful. Neither to the planet nor to us human beings. Meanwhile, it is not exactly the planet that is in danger, but rather the ecosystem of which man is also a part. And therefore our aim is to find a balance point in a system that does not damage the planet but does not endanger our survival either.

The cauldron of environmentalism

If it is clear that a model that causes extreme climatic events that lead to hunger and the destruction of entire regions is unsustainable, it should (by now) also be clear that happy degrowth does not exist and that the needs of a population that is growing at a dizzying rate – the The UN has already predicted that we will touch the ten billion inhabitants of the globe – they cannot be silenced. To avoid tomorrow’s climate and environmental disaster we cannot anticipate it today, the author’s summary. And so what are we to do? Using our intelligence and the most advanced technologies we have available, deploying all our resources, to find that famous balance point. A balance that exists, urges Vecchi. Where are we going wrong then? The fact that a bit of everything ended up in the “cauldron” of environmentalism – explains the journalist -. Wind turbines, the protection of animal species, nuclear energy, GMO agriculture. Practical examples are found scattered throughout the book. For example, on page 26 we read: Who takes the trouble to admit that the nesting of the plover (a small wading bird typical of Italian beaches, ed.) is less or more important than one of the country’s most important railway arteries? Or who wants to challenge archaeologists arguing that Italy’s energy independence is more important than Neolithic pebbles?

Responsibility principles

The book outlines, page after page, an important gap between what could be defined as an environmentalism of principle and an environmentalism of responsibility, both of the ruling class and of politics, which must make decisions, establish a priority of emergencies to remedy and intervene to be put on the ground, as well as citizens, who must take note of the importance of compromise, when it comes to dealing with such crucial issues. Not deciding and giving everyone a share of reason leads to a short circuit, to paralysis, and paralysis leads to degradation – argues Vecchi -. The impression was often given that not deciding, not taking a position on issues such as energy policies, for example, did not constitute a problem for the country’s future. Today the consequences of this attitude are there for all to see.

The bill factor

Vecchi’s invitation to accept, without ideological prejudices, technologies and scientific progress that could become decisive in the fight against climate change and the depletion of natural resources, without endangering the survival of the human species. I am positive about fourth-generation nuclear power, for example, just as I believe it is correct that science should intervene to make some plant species more resistant to phenomena such as drought and overheating, lists Vecchi. Of course, another crucial aspect, which emerges along the 156 pages of the essay, is how much these themes really reach Italian homes, how much they are felt, experienced. We cannot deny it, environmentalism has been an elitist topic for a long time – concludes Vecchi -. More than the “Greta factor”, what shook the Italians was the high bill. Not only for portfolio issues, but also because it is clear how much the environment, geopolitics and the economy are linked, now and for the future. In short, after the war in Ukraine, even environmentalism should never be the same.