On Energy policy decisions continue to be the focus of the greatest worries of citizens, numerous institutional representatives, and the society as a whole which has embraced the concepts of sustainable development.

While analyses have proven the relationship between poverty and lack of access to energy - especially electricity, which is not available to 1.5 billion people - as well as the analyses related to the supply and demand trends in the coming future, although with differing scenarios, opinions vary significantly on the actions to undertake in order to face global challenges.
One such opinion - held by the scientific and medical community - hinges on the consequences that link the hope for life and emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere (N₂O, HFC 23) and the increase of CO₂.


We all gladly welcomed ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, which attempts to provide a response to these concerns. Equally, we know that we have to start thinking about the years after 2012. It is vital to identify the critical points immediately. Two points in particular are worth mentioning.
The first is represented by the "ability to transfer" the actions undertaken by Kyoto 1 to Kyoto 2 and the certainty that the results achieved in the first period can be accounted for and continued in the years following 2012.
The second regards the approach that countries in rapid industrialization should take. In all probability, emerging nations will change from creditor to debtor about the emissions. No one can seriously hope that these countries will halt their development and/or that they will make drastic, and negative, changes in their economic systems. The challenge for Europe and for developing nations is to bring major innovation to energy policies with a view to creating more efficient systems and a greater use of renewable energy sources. This is the direction that cooperative policies between Europe and China, India, Brazil and other countries must take.

In this framework, it seems appropriate to remark on and reinterpret the matters discussed in a recent public meeting held by the, Chancellor of Luiss University Adriano De Majo and Corrado Clini, General Director of the Ministry of the Environment.
In every country, governments have never put a cap on financing for research into military defence systems, as it is considered a strategic investment. The results of this expenditure have made it possible to develop applications used daily by citizens, including the ability for you to read us over the Internet. If we apply the parameters of economic evaluation to this type of research, no enterprise would have been able sustain and amortize those investments.
Using the same logic, today, we can confirm that environment and health represent a strategic asset for the global community - or at least for Europe - on par with military defence issues, and important enough to allow the very survival of the "European system". In this sense, developing research in these two domains should be considered an investment for the common good of citizens, supported by public funds and promoting more investiments of private sector.

In short, we feel that Clini's suggestion that competent institutions and authorities eliminate the restriction on investments into energy and the environment from the parameters of the Stability Pact represents an uncommonly significant and insightful political initiative. We applaud it and believe that the coming governments should continue to support it.


Elio Pacilio
Green Cross Italia Vice - President

>> ITALIAN VERSION