Italians and climate change | report by Maurizio Ferrera

We publish below the introduction of the report entitled “Italians and climate change: an eco-social barometer”, edited by Maurizio Ferrera, full professor of Political Science at the University of Milan, Scientific Supervisor of Percorsi di Secondo Welfare and Advisory Board member of the Lottomatica Foundation. A full downloadable version of the report is attached at the bottom of the page.

Fighting climate change is imperative for the future of Europe and the entire planet. In 2019, the Green Deal committed the EU to becoming climate-neutral by 2050. This implies reducing polluting emissions as much as possible and compensating for any that remain, so as to reach a net-zero balance between emissions and offsets. Only by achieving this goal can we neutralise the greenhouse effect and its dramatic consequences.

The Green Deal includes a wide range of measures: incentives for environmentally friendly technologies, support for innovation, promotion of cleaner forms of transport, and decarbonisation of the energy sector. The “green” transition will impact every aspect of daily life, from the walls and windows in homes to appliances, and from how we get around to food. For this reason, the Green Deal is symbolically based on a “European climate pact”, aimed not only at governments and companies, but at all communities, civil society organisations, families and citizens. Only if the climate emergency and the objectives of the pact succeed in engaging individuals and changing their tendencies and behaviours, will it really be possible to achieve the objectives of the Green Deal.

The transition to a more sustainable society will certainly not be a walk in the park in terms of the financial, economic, social and political costs. While the benefits of the transition will be widespread and affect everyone (reduction of the negative effects of climate change, less pollution, sustainable transport, access to healthier food and so on), most of the costs will be concentrated on specific productive sectors, social categories and regions (essentially, those with a greater number of jobs and production activities dependent on fossil energy). This will lead to distribution tensions that will not be easy to manage. As the war in Ukraine has shown, there is also the risk of sudden shocks (in this case, the increase in the price of gas) that can cause obstacles and delays in the adaptation process.

The consequences of climate change are now being felt measurably in all European regions, with droughts, floods, landslides, fires and so on. The sudden rise in the cost of bills and petrol in the second half of 2022 has started to affect citizens’ pockets. The announcement of regulatory measures (the discontinuation of fossil fuel vehicles, reduction of emissions from livestock farming and energy efficiency in buildings) has already triggered various forms of protest. And the journey is just beginning. It is no wonder that experts predict the emergence of increasingly acute “eco-social” conflicts as a distinctive feature of European politics in the coming decades.

To properly address this series of challenges, it is essential to start from known data, beginning with public opinion trends. This “barometer” shows the data of a recent survey carried out in seven European countries at the end of 2022. The questionnaire covered the following areas:

• citizens’ knowledge of climate change and the importance given to it;
• • concerns and fears regarding the consequences of this phenomenon;
• “ecologically responsible” actions that citizens have already taken in their daily lives;
• preferences regarding government priorities and the distribution of the transition costs.

As you will see, the picture that emerges contains both light and shadows. The citizens of the seven countries (including Italy) are adequately informed about the climate emergency; they consider it important and this opinion is reflected in daily behaviours in line with the “green” agenda. There is also widespread fear regarding the impact this emergency may have on living conditions, from the workplace to income. Similarly, the majority of respondents in each country believe that the objective of environmental sustainability should be given priority over the traditional objective of economic growth.

The shadows that emerge from the survey mainly concern the costs and the distributional implications of the transition. There is a clear aversion to the reduction of existing welfare: few seem willing to make sacrifices in terms of living standards, if necessary. Support for subsidies to businesses is also low.

As mentioned, the green transition cannot be a free lunch: people will have to sacrifice something. If they are unwilling to make sacrifices (for example, a little less welfare or slightly higher taxes), the transition risks not happening or being too slow. If cornered and forced in some way to choose between environmental sustainability, economic growth or social protection, which objectives would Italians prioritise? As we will see, a certain number of citizens are in favour of mediation between the three. However, there is also a polarisation between those who support a combination of “environment and welfare” measures, even at the expense of growth, and those who support “growth and welfare” at the expense of sustainability. In other worlds, there seems to be potential for a new line of “eco-social” conflict, as envisaged in the debate among experts.

How worrying is this prospect? Can anything be done to avoid or contain the conflict? Before answering these questions, we must examine the data thoroughly. In the next sections of this report, we will therefore present the most important indications that emerged from the survey.

To view the full report, click the link below: