Circular economy, renewables, welfare, energy efficiency, public health. Here are the recipes for a fair and sustainable post-coronavirus economy.
"The coronavirus epidemic is rapidly changing health conditions, lifestyles, social relations and economic activities. What can we learn and what can we change in the face of this emergency?" The question is posed on the portal Sbilanciamoci.info by Mario Pianta, professor of Economic Policy at the University of Urbino. These are fundamental questions, especially if the goal will be to steer the new post-pandemic society towards social and environmental responsibility. The risk of returning to old recipes — too often heedless of the environmental, climate and social consequences of productive activities — is real. More than that: many are already calling for the country to be restarted "at all costs". Even at the expense of, for example, the constraints on reducing CO2 emissions, which are essential to avoid a climate catastrophe. So, what should we concretely focus on to revive the economy in a way that is fairer and more sustainable?
According to Pianta, it would be illusory to think that, once the epidemic has passed, the economy could return to how it was before. Among the effects of the emergency, in fact, is the need to rethink production and consumption, starting precisely from health: "From an economic point of view, health is a global public good because it cannot be produced as a commodity. We need a system built on a vision of health as a fundamental right, and that right must be guaranteed by the state through the provision of universal public services designed to meet needs, outside the market logic whereby private companies sell goods for profit."
A model that, according to the professor, concerns not only healthcare but the entire welfare state: healthcare, schools, universities, social security, welfare assistance and other essential activities must be services provided and financed predominantly through public intervention. "Three decades of neoliberal policies have pushed public agencies to behave increasingly like private companies. Reduced funding, hiring freezes, pressure to 'charge' users have made many welfare services more akin to the production of goods sold on the market to 'customers' who can afford to pay." A universalisation of capitalist markets that has, however, shown its impotence in the face of the pandemic: "Private healthcare is entirely irrelevant when confronted with the epidemic, and the welfare state can be the alternative to capitalism."
That very welfare state that the prevailing neoliberal doctrine has weakened through privatisation and constraints on public spending. "The 2008 crisis marked a decade of recession and stagnation for southern Europe, precisely because of the inadequacy of European institutions and policies in addressing the crisis," Pianta explains further. According to him, "the same scenario now risks repeating itself with Europe's inability to intervene rapidly and effectively in the face of the coronavirus epidemic. Expanding the European budget, issuing eurobonds that the European Central Bank can purchase directly, rethinking the role of the ESM (European Stability Mechanism) and the EIB (European Investment Bank) to finance European public investment — these are all essential measures to make Europe a political actor capable of confronting the epidemic and its economic consequences, avoiding the fragmentation of national responses and the paralysis of national 'self-interest'."
The recipe is therefore more state, less market: "Healthcare, schools, universities, research, social security, welfare assistance, the environment must all be massively refinanced through more progressive taxation of incomes and assets and, if necessary, through deficit spending. In this way the welfare state can become the engine of a development that is of high social quality and environmentally sustainable." The current debate on the European Green New Deal has opened up a new space for national and European policy action, with the possibility of rewriting the rules of globalisation. Is there hope, then? The professor is cautious: "The protection of health, welfare, labour and the environment must be guaranteed by international standards, binding for agreements on the liberalisation of capital and goods flows. Europe will be forced to move in the desired direction, but belatedly and with far too few resources."
Then there is the chapter on public works. In a speech to the Chamber of Deputies, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte declared that "it will be crucial to overcome the structural rigidities that have prevented the country from deploying its full potential, for example in the construction and public works sector." A warning that may set alarm bells ringing for those who have for years opposed the concreting over of land. Even clearer in this direction are the words of deputy minister of transport Giovanni Cancelleri, who calls for an economic recovery through a decree to unblock construction projects.
"We believe that Conte's declaration," explains Alessandro Mortarino, coordinator of the Forum Salviamo il Paesaggio, "must translate into a commitment to halt land consumption and direct the entire construction sector towards the reuse of urbanised land — the only viable option for linking the economy, employment, social wellbeing and environmental protection. We believe that the great challenge of the pandemic must compel us to have the courage to question our development model and to activate, from now on, instruments for economic recovery based on the public works our country truly needs — namely, making existing structures safe and revitalising abandoned areas. This is the new deal that reflects the real needs of the community."
In line with Salviamo il Paesaggio is also the proposal of Fillea-Cgil, the main trade union for construction workers, which together with Legambiente has proposed that, in order to relaunch the economy, the energy retrofitting of 30,000 apartment blocks per year be initiated by 2025. Such numbers would create 430,000 direct jobs, 37 billion in direct and indirect investment, 900 million in revenue for pension funds, a saving for families on energy bills of around 620 euros per year per dwelling, and an estimated increase in property values of between +5 per cent and +15 per cent. Translated into environmental terms, this would mean a reduction in CO2 emissions of 840,000 tonnes per year and a cut in gas consumption of 418.5 million cubic metres. "All of this without adding a single extra euro to Italy's public debt, given that the aim is to improve, reorganise, refinance and strengthen a series of fiscal instruments — the environmental and anti-seismic bonuses — already in force," the trade union writes in a press release.
For Edoardo Zanchini, president of Legambiente, "we must respond to those who say we now have to start again the old way, and to those who want, yet again, to bet on major infrastructure projects that won't be ready for another five years. If we want an accelerated way out of the crisis, we must restart the whole country with many 'distributed works' that are good for the economy, for the community, and provide a direct and structural benefit to families."
After all, urbanised areas are the most vulnerable to the spread of the virus. The WHO-UNEP-CBD report of 2015 speaks, in fact, of the diluting effect that biodiversity richness in a given territory has in containing viruses: where biodiversity is rich and ecosystems are more respected, pathogens are less aggressive because they are absorbed and distributed across a richer and more varied presence of different species. Changes in land use make ecosystems weaker and therefore less resistant to the spread of the virus. "This is why financial stimuli for reconstruction must not repeat the mistakes of the past but support the ecological transition, the restoration of ecosystems and sustainable land use, industrial decarbonisation and building recovery, sustainable models of production and consumption that give back to nature more than they take from it," writes Luigi Di Marco, Asvis coordinator. "Article 41 of the Constitution must finally be put into practice," he adds: "private economic initiative is free, but it cannot be carried out in conflict with social utility." Di Marco cites the ruling by the English Court of Appeal that rejected the plan for a third runway at Heathrow Airport because it conflicts with the Paris Agreement on climate: "I think it is an example that gives food for thought," he concludes.
The campaign "Ripartiamo dall'ambiente", launched by the Opera2030 network, also agrees that a country's wealth cannot be measured solely by the number of buildings, roads and infrastructure built. The appeal put out by Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio, president of the Fondazione Univerde, is addressed to parliament and is based on the 17 sustainable development goals, to which it adds "smart cities, distributed production of energy from renewable sources, recourse to smart working and useful digital innovations, through which "thousands of jobs can be created."
Finally, the circular economy. As we know, the European Commission adopted, before the epidemic, a plan to reform (and gradually abandon) the current throwaway economy model. This model has returned to the centre of attention due to the fact that for many it is synonymous with hygiene and safety, and is therefore seen as contributing to containing the spread of the virus. On the one hand, however, Zero Waste Europe has calculated the survival times of the virus on various materials, explaining how on plastic it is greater than one might think; on the other hand, it would be important to understand what will become of the conversation around waste reduction once this particular situation is over.
"We will first need to make up for lost time on the prevention front at all levels, and therefore also and above all on waste production, given the significant repercussions this has on resource consumption and greenhouse gas emissions," comments Silvia Ricci of the association Comuni Virtuosi. According to her, "the watchword must be reducing our impact on the Planet, because the pandemic will pass — or in any case we will adapt to living with it — but the effects of climate warming are accelerating. I hope that the transposition of the latest directives on waste will be ambitious, and that as regards in particular Directive 2019/904 on single-use plastic items (SUP), its entry into force will not be postponed." Unfortunately, the signals are pointing in the opposite direction: there has already been a first official attempt by the trade association European Plastics Converters, through a letter sent to the European Commission requesting a postponement of the directive's entry into force. This is "to give EU member states more time to focus on more urgent measures in the fight against Covid-19."
