The taboos of green Europe, the clash over the Green Deal

As was largely predictable, the green deal has become one of the most heated points of confrontation in European policies. Up to bringing the Popolari out of the majority Ursula, who narrowly saved herself in the vote a few days ago on the renaturalization program. But with a wound that is difficult to heal. The right has been provided with decent opportunities to unleash the attack with at least two arguments. The costs that the European transition implies for families and businesses; the centralist and ultra-prescriptive nature of many of these measures which rest on an intrusive and excessive European sovereignty. Obviously no offers. On the other hand, a different, but equally inconclusive, ideological populism which preaches the imminent catastrophe and therefore the need not to retreat an inch. Indeed accelerate accelerate accelerate. Positioning that is not only of the most extreme environmental groups, including the despoilers of monuments, but also of various intellectuals and politicians variously oriented to the left. The political climate heats up and the merits of the issues risk being completely overlooked. With all due respect to the possible solutions. Someone, for example the reasonable position contained in the recent book by Francesco Rutellli, “The green century”, or the proposals put forward by Roberto Cingolani with other authors (Agnoli, Zollino, Dialuce, Gracceva, Macchi) in the book which also summarizes his experience government (“Rewriting the future”) tries to propose a constructive approach, but the risk is that of being crushed between opposing populisms. But to frame the object of the dispute it is better to take a step back. Keynes once said that when economists make predictions, economics begins to resemble astrology. That is to say, it has the same reliability as horoscopes.