Giovanni Sartori environment 
Today's editorial in the Corriere della Sera is a fund of one of the leading political scientists of our time, Giovanni Sartori, the which makes the point, as always in a few lines but with great clarity and impact on the situation of our planet in relation to use that makes the man. I highly recommend this reading:
A green earth produces better
of Giovanni Sartori
Earth as it is? Recently we have had so many terrible troubles - from earthquake-Eagle to the global economic depression that the health of our planet (which becomes the smaller as its people become more numerous) has been almost forgotten. On April 22 was celebrated in the world, the "Earth Day." For this celebration we went almost unnoticed. The important news is that after the disastrous Bush presidency, the United States Obama also is rapidly raising awareness to the ecological problem. And a little 'also our Confindustria (Marcegaglia dixit).
But it is true that the warming of our planet is man, that is our fault? The increasingly haggard platoon of scientists who denies it still recognizes that human emissions contribute to the order of at least 25%, the greenhouse effect and thus to the alteration of the climate. Even so (and for not more so) in any case do not see why we should not engage in all-out combat climate catastrophe that threatens us. That said, the problem is not just the climate. E 'is also missing, and will increasingly, drinking water, or at least water for agriculture. From this it follows that in poor areas overcrowded and lacking food, and then in Africa, India and even China is the threat of terrible famine. It is not enough.
A further problem is that to survive in many, too many people, we have an increasing need for energy, while our energy reserves (starting with oil) are being depleted, and there will, I fear , wind or sun are enough to satisfy the hunger for energy of the seven billion people of which will arrive soon, not to mention the estimated nine billion by dire predictions. All these problems would not exist if we were still three billion when I was born. That is to say that the Earth's population must not grow but decrease. Elementary, I think. But for the Church, the topic is taboo. And the bulk of economists has so far focused on a 'development' (rich?) Finally, as if we lived in an area equipped with unlimited resources inexhaustible. The trouble is that for a long time economists read only themselves and they have also closed their own niche in the specialty.
As lawyers evade the problems of extra-legal reality by declaring the same way as economists eliminate the problems that can not or will not deal with under the heading externalities, external effects that do not concern them. See appropriate between these externalities is air and water pollution, deforestation, desertification wild soil and, in short, all the problems posed by ecological collapse. Yet it is obvious that the environmental damage already produced is enormous and will lead to enormous costs of repair and restoration. Assuming that is not already too late. God forbid.
It 's true that when the emission of pollutant gases is falling, but it is because we are in a recession terminating industries. It is an evil that drives another is not solving the problem. To this respect, the solution is to understand that the future of industrial development is its conversion economy 'green' energy savings.
