What is Carbon Pricing?

02/06/202009/04/2022

Since 1972, the International Community has acknowledged the dangerous effects of climate change on human life and the environment[1]. Over the past 40 years, great steps have been made to counter the irreversible effects of climate change, starting from scientific research, to global political action aimed at promoting sustainable societies, to major technological changes in the field of renewable energy, going as far as geoengineering. A lot has been done so far, but there is still much to be done. In 2020, we can no longer continue to speak in moderate terms when we talk about climate change, the time has come to treat this problem for what it really is: an environmental, economic, political and human emergency.

It is with this awareness that academics around the globe firmly argue that pricing carbon is an important move to achieve the ambitious targets of reducing CO2 emissions, of facilitating the transition to a zero-emission economic system and of reversing the route of global warming by 2050[2]. To find out what European petitions and initiatives are on this issue, I invite you to read the article by Giovanni Sgaravatti “Decrease taxes on labour through Carbon Pricing“ that you can find here in Jeune Europe.

What do we mean by ‘ Carbon Pricing ‘?

In order to explain what carbon pricing is, it is necessary to spend a few words on what environmental policies are and what are the tools to implement them. When we talk about environmental policies, we mean all those strategies defined at government level to solve problems that negatively impact the environment and society. Once these strategies have been defined, it is necessary to find the most suitable methods and tools to implement them. In this context, we can divide environmental policy tools into two macro-groups: market-based instruments and command-and-control instruments (environmental regulations and legislation). When we talk about carbon pricing, we refer to a set of tools based on market mechanisms. In this group of instruments, we find both taxes on CO2 emissions (price-based instrument) and cap-and-trade systems such as the EU ETS (quantity-based instrument).

Decrease taxes on labour through Carbon Pricing

Giovanni Sgaravatti 02/06/2020

Phasing out nuclear power, a solution for the future?

Laura Poiret 24/11/2019

According to economists, the best way to reduce CO2 emissions is to use tools based on market mechanisms. Currently, more than 50 countries worldwide have adopted carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions[3].

Why adopt Carbon Pricing ?

In economic terms, CO2 emissions represent a negative externality. Negative externalities are referred to when the price of goods / services in the market does not reflect the real cost paid by the society. For example, the price of kerosene used as fuel in the aviation industry reflects only the cost of production, while the cost of damages generated by its emissions is not taken into account[4]. This means that, in the context of air transport, the decisions that businesses and consumers make are not in the interest of society, because they are based on prices that do not reflect the real cost of the good or service: cheap flight tickets provide an incentive for consumers to take a plane and increase the frequency of their travels, contributing to an increase in CO2 emissions at the expense of the collective interest; aviation companies, on the other hand, increase their travel offer more than it is optimal for the society. So we understand that, in the presence of negative externalities caused by CO2 emissions, the market is unable to act in the interest of society and the market fails. How can this failure be solved? By adjusting prices, making sure that the price paid for a particular good or service also reflects the environmental cost. In a nutshell, the market failure can be solved by establishing carbon pricing through an emission tax[5] or through a cap-and-trade system[6].

The advantages of Carbon Pricing

Economists love carbon pricing not only because it can solve the negative externality generated by CO2 emissions, but also because it allows to reduce emissions quickly and at a low cost. In other words, it is a “cost-effective” policy instrument that brings great benefits at the lowest possible cost. Pricing CO2 emissions not only leads to a reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels, it also creates an incentive to adopt and develop non-polluting technologies[7]. Unlike other environmental policy tools (such as incentives for solar energy), which create a distortion within the market of renewable energy sources, carbon pricing guarantees free competition among different clean-energy alternatives, letting the best one emerge. The increased competition also pushes investment in research and development towards innovative technologies, promoting the creation of an increasingly sustainable and cutting-edge society in ‘clean’ technologies.

The challenges of adopting a Carbon Pricing Strategy

In concrete terms, what would be the impact of adopting carbon pricing? It is likely that the cost would fall entirely on consumers, as the producers and companies that pollute would increase the prices of the products and services they offer. This is inevitable, but it is also necessary and useful because with the increase in the prices of goods and services harmful to the environment, consumers will be incentivized to make more sustainable choices. In response to this change in consumer preferences, companies will be driven to transform their modus operandi and to offer goods and services in line with the demand.

An often-raised criticism of pricing emissions is that the most vulnerables (society’s lowest income categories) are also the hardest hit by this policy. This is also true. Nonetheless, this problem can be solved if the revenues collected from taxation are used to lower taxes on labour, because what kills employment and feeds unemployment are not environmental taxes but taxes on labour. By lowering this taxation, unemployment is reduced, employment is created and higher wages can be offered to the most disadvantaged groups[8].

In conclusion, carbon pricing can be a key tool not only to improve environmental conditions, but also to improve the conditions of the most vulnerable groups in the society, which are the indirect beneficiaries of lower labour taxation. However, since the benefit of this policy is seen only in the long term, while the costs are immediate, today it is still politically unpopular to speak of carbon pricing[9]. Consensus is difficult to reach in this context and the great political challenge of being able to find the right compromise between environmental protection and social consensus remains.

REFERENCES

[1] UN Conference on the Human Environment 1972

[2] Paris Agreement 2015

[3] State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2018

[4] Kerosene Currently Untaxed

[5] Pigou, Taxation and Public Goods

[6] How Cap-and-Trade Works

[7] How Carbon Pricing Accelerates Innovation

[8] Environmental Fiscal Reform in Developing, Emerging and Transition Economies: Progress & Prospects

[9] Economists Love Carbon Taxes. Voters Don’t

Climate Emergency and Civil Disobedience

21/09/201909/04/2022

The urgency of action

Anyone who is intellectually honest and who has taken the time to document himself knows that our civilization is galloping towards a wall. It is useless to beat around the bush, the effects of human activity on the environment are unequivocal and under everyone’s eyes. I came up with this article to give myself a general picture of both the phenomenon and the historical moment we are living. In the first part, I list a series of incontrovertible data that outline the current situation (and I warmly invite the sceptics to verify the sources). In the second part, I make a brief consideration about the peculiarity of the problem. Then, I report the forecasts of the most eminent body on the subject: the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Subsequently, I give space to some critics addressed to the IPCC, accused by a slice of the scientific community of being too conservative in its estimates. Finally, I conclude with some reference to working groups and initiatives to save what can be saved.

The situation today

With the year 2018 we have just experienced the four hottest years in history (from the start date of measurements), with as many as 17 of the 18 warmest years in the new millennium [1a] [1b]. Reason for which the Arctic continues to lose a volume of ice at the rate of about 13% per decade, following a rising trend (it is estimated that between 1979 and 2018 the ice lost has been between 35 and 65%) [2]. In the meanwhile, the seas have already risen by 80mm since 1993 [3] and we begin to see its impact on the total surface of emerged land (see Florida, or the 5 islands in the middle of the Pacific erased from the maps) [4];[5]. In addition to the uninhabitability of some coastal areas, climate change increases episodes of drought and floods. These extreme events impact the livelihood of entire countries, reason for which migrants caused by climate change are increasing, and the United Nations estimates they could reach up to one billion by 2050 [6]. Meanwhile, permafrost in Siberia and Alaska began to melt, releasing methane and probably triggering a chain mechanism that cannot be stopped [7]. As if this was not enough, pollution and economic overproduction are amplifying the effects of climate change, seriously damaging the planet’s biodiversity. In 2016, the WWF declared that we are in the middle of the sixth mass extinction in the history of our planet, with a loss of global wildlife topping to 58% just between 1970 and 2012 [8a]. This is validated by the United Nations’ Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which estimates a rate of species extinction already at least tens to hundreds of times higher than it has averaged over the past 10 million years and likely to accelerate [8b]. Unfortunately, the list is still long: from the acidification of oceans, with the consequent annihilation of entire ecosystems (see coral reefs), to whales dying from plastic indigestion, fires increasingly frequent and extensive, stronger whirlwinds and hurricanes due to the greater energy present in the air, the melting of glaciers, more and more countries experiencing water scarcity, etc … [9];[10];[11].

WWF 2016 Living Planet Report. Intense colour indicates absolute water scarcity, the middle one indicates water scarcity and the green one water stress.

The response

The main problem in dealing with climate change is the discrepancy between its global nature and the political structure of human beings relying on multiple States. Furthermore, the first impacts of climate change have been localized, causing far greater damage in poorer countries. This has contributed to a general feeling that climate change was just another plague of the South of the world and that the West (the only possible leader of an international equity-based concertation) would not have suffered much from it. However, recently, the effects have started to become increasingly stronger and more frequent, helping a belated as much as indispensable global awareness.

Prospects according to the IPCC

While the time available is relentlessly thinning, indifferent to the long delays necessary for international coordination, the planet’s temperature has already increased by one degree and the damage is starting to become irreversible. The IPCC’s predictions, laid down in its 2018 special report, tell us that even if we could keep the temperature increase within 1.5°C (best-case scenario) we would still see a further decline of coral reefs by 70-90%, an Arctic for the first time ice-free by 2100, a rise of seas level between 26 and 77 centimeters, a 9% decrease in wheat harvests, a lowering of about 1.5 million tonnes of fish caught (with a growing world population), a further increase in extreme weather events and a 9% decrease in fresh water just in the Mediterranean [11]. The increase of 1.5°C is estimated to take place between 2030 and 2050. To achieve this “optimal” scenario we should start from 2020 to cut global emissions so to place ourselves on the trend depicted in graph (b), which represents a 45% reduction of the CO2 levels emitted globally by 2030 (compared to those of 2010) and zero emissions by 2055 (gray line). However, the cumulative figure for greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase for a few decades (c) and (d). This is because we have triggered natural mechanisms that cannot be turned off with a switch (if you are going at 200 mi/h and you start breaking you will still make several feet more from the point where you pulled the break).

IPCC Summary for policymakers 2018 Special Report, SPM.1

The criticism

It is terrifying to think that those measures needed to put the world on the trend shown in graph (b) have not yet been undertaken and nothing seems to indicate that they will be in the next months. In contrast, political leaders willing to free-ride on others’ commitments abound in rich countries (USA, Russia, UK, etc). Not to mention those in developing countries like Brasil where we recently assisted to a deforestation revival in the Amazon [12], or Poland, where political leaders have no intention of replacing coal as the country’s main energy source, or China, the incarnation of energy ambiguity with a government that declares waging war on pollution but at the same time (a bit out of necessity, a bit out of interest) finances coal power stations abroad and holds the majority share in the most polluting company in the world [13] [14].

Below you can look at a map elaborated by three international institutes that depicts the degree of efficiency of the combined climate-related policies by country.

Counries’ efforts to achieve the Paris agreement targets. Picture obtained from the collaboration of Climate Analytics, Ecofys and NewClimate Institute.

This political landscape is probably one of the factors that pushes more and more researchers to disagree with the IPCC forecasts, labelling them as too optimistic. The skeptical front is quite broad, I will here mention some of the most prominent figures: Peter Wadhams, one of the most famous glaciologists in the world, Jem Bendell, professor at Cumbria University (UK), Mayer Hillman, a scientist who dedicated his life to sustainable transport, Stuart Scott, founder and president of Transition University (USA), Guy McPherson, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona, James Hansen Former Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute. What is being reproached to the IPCC are basically three points: 1) underestimate the impact of methane released into the atmosphere as a result of the permafrost thrusting, 2) considering the effects of climate change as linear and not exponential and 3) putting in the equation geoengineering technologies to extract CO2 in a scale currently not available. Wadhamas, for example, predicts an ice-free September in the Arctic already in the imminent future and a rise of the seas between 1 and 2 meters before the end of the century [15]. Professor Bendell, after a sabbatical year dedicated to research, wrote a paper entitled “Deep Adaptation” (rejected by the scientific journal to which he submitted it due to its harsh language). In the paper, Bendell writes that it does no longer make sense to do research on sustainable development, field to which he dedicated his life, because the 1.5°C and also the 2°C targets will be extensively exceeded by the next twenty years and all efforts should now turn to understanding how to adapt to a scenario of civilization collapse.

Data obtained from Corinne Le Quéré et al. (to compare with graph (b) above)

Save what can still be saved

The fact that people who have dedicated their lives to studying and research are so alarmist surely gets one thinking. Of course, the most respected body on climate change is and remains the IPCC. However, it must be acknowledged that the panel only reports forecasts widely accepted by the scientific community at the international level, and therefore these are necessarily conservative. This article aims at encouraging the reader first of all to document himself, by now there is an amount of bibliography, articles and documentaries on the subject (in all languages) that anyone can have a sound idea of the phenomenon. Secondly, I hope this piece of writing has transmitted the urgency of a global response. In democracy this can only come from a strong popular pressure towards governments, for this it is necessary to participate in movements like that of Fridays for Future, or at least to support organizations deployed for environmental protection. Individual actions are certainly important, but investments in the fashion of the Marshall plan are needed if we want to put ourselves on the trend outlined in graph (b) of the IPCC (above). For those wishing to explore the type of investments required, I recommend taking a look at the Drawdawn project (there is also a Ted talk by Chad Frischmann translated into 19 languages). In order for this change of gear to take place, you need to vote more carefully, inform the sceptics and hit the streets.

Giovanni Sgaravatti

References

[1a] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/history-earths-surface-temperature-1880-2016

[1b] https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201813#gtemp

[2] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/ ; https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0008.1

[3] https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/key-indicators/global-mean-sea-level

[4] http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/news/floria-and-the-rising-sea

[5]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change

[6] https://www.unhcr.org/49256c492.pdf

[7] http://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0095-z

[8a] https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-report-2016

[8b] Report of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on the work of its seventh session (May 2019)

[9]https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/08/explore-atlas-great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching-map-climate-change/

[10] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/30/plastic-debris-killing-sperm-whales

[11] https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

[12] https://www.ilpost.it/2019/07/29/amazzonia-bolsonaro/

[13]https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal?t=1565430393525 ; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-20/top-china-fund-sdic-joins-global-shift-away-from-coal-investment

[14]https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

[15] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/21/arctic-will-be-ice-free-in-summer-next-year

[Picture in Cover by Nick Cobbing, Greenpeace]

[Global Carbon emission picture from: https://blog.datawrapper.de/weekly-chart-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-crisis/]

https://www.coolearth.org/2018/10/ipcc-report-2/

Les six avantages les moins connus d’être en Europe (pour l’Italie)

23/05/201910/11/2020

Il est vraiment difficile d’expliquer les avantages d’être au sein de l’Union européenne (UE) et de l’union monétaire à ceux qui ont vu leurs salaires rester les mêmes au cours des vingt dernières années, lorsque les services et le coût de la vie ont généralement augmenté. Néanmoins, j’estime qu’il est important d’essayer de le faire car l’Union européenne est notre seul espoir et nous devons garder cela à l’esprit. Vous trouverez ci-dessous une liste, inévitablement incomplète, des six avantages que l’Italie tire d’être en Europe. Certains des bénéfices d’être au sein de l’UE (comme les 70 ans de paix ou Erasmus) sont très bien connus, donc cet article tente de ne s’intéresser qu’à ceux qui sont le moins connus.

1) L’Agence européenne des médicaments (EMA) garantit l’évaluation scientifique, la supervision et le contrôle de la sécurité des médicaments à usage humain et à usage vétérinaire dans l’Union européenne. En tant qu’agence européenne (ne représente donc aucun gouvernement, secteur ou entreprise), l’EMA s’est portée garante de la commercialisation de médicaments spécifiques dans des pays différents de celui où ils étaient fabriqués. Cela garantissait une harmonisation au médicaments européen, en limitant les cas où la législation locale empêchait la vente de médicaments en provenance d’autres pays de l’UE, avec des justifications souvent arbitraires de non-respect. La création de l’EMA en 1995 a donc contribué à une augmentation significative de la production italienne de médicaments destinés aux marchés étrangers. En 2017, l’Italie dépassait l’Allemagne en termes de production de médicaments, ce qui en faisait le premier producteur européen, avec un chiffre d’affaires total de 31,2 milliards d’euros (dont 79% exportés, 15 fois plus entre 1991 et 2017, passant de 1,3 à 24,8 milliards d’euros). Le secteur pharmaceutique en Italie emploie 65 400 personnes (90% de diplômés).

2) L’Agence spatiale européenne (ESA) est créée en 1975 et compte 20 pays européens, dont l’Italie. Notre pays abrite également l’un des 8 bureaux de l’agence spatiale: ESRIN, le centre d’observation de la Terre, situé à Frascati, Rome. Il est juste de mentionner que l’ESA n’est pas une organisation de l’UE (par exemple, la Norvège fait parte de l’ESA seulement). Cependant, les deux entités développent une stratégie spatiale commune et entretiennent un lien très étroit, défini par l’accord-cadre ESA/UE. L’idée d’un effort de recherche spatiale au niveau européen découle de la volonté de combiner ressources et capacités pour mener à bien des projets bien au-delà des possibilités de chaque pays. L’ESA est connue dans le monde entier et ne se classe que derrière la NASA (compte tenu également de la différence de budget: la contribution annuelle du citoyen européen pour l’ESA est environ un quart de celle du citoyen américain pour la NASA). Aujourd’hui, l’ESA remplit une fonction explorative et apporte une contribution considérable à la connaissance de l’humanité dans son ensemble (par exemple, elle a joué un rôle clé dans l’acquisition de la première photo d’un trou noir jamais obtenue). En outre, des programmes tels que Copernicus (celui-ci de marque UE, financé par HORIZON 2020), ont permis le lancement de dizaines de satellites dotés de fonctions de surveillance terrestre, maritime et aérienne; nous donnant des information très précises utilisées pour l’administration territoriale, la gestion des urgences environnementales, le changement climatique et la sécurité nationale. Comme Copernicus, le programme spatial Galileo (également financé par l’UE) a permis le lancement de dizaines de satellites. L’objectif de Galileo est de développer un système global de localisation, indépendant du GPS américain. Le service en est déjà à ses débuts, il est entièrement gratuit et ouvert à tous les citoyens européens. On estime qu’il contribuera à l’économie de l’UE à hauteur de 90 milliards d’euros au cours des vingt premières années d’activité.

3) Le plan d’investissement pour l’Europe, appelé plan Juncker, a été proposé au Parlement européen en novembre 2014. Le projet vise à relancer les investissements en Europe (et donc l’emploi) pour un valeur totale de 500 milliards d’ici à 2020. En gros, l’idée est de placer la Banque européenne d’investissement (Bei) comme garant de tous les financements réalisés parallèlement au fonds européen pour les investissements stratégiques (le bras financier de la Bei). Le montant total des fonds déjà approuvés par la Bei pour l’Italie s’élève à 9,8 milliards d’euros (le deuxième chiffre le plus élevé de toute l’UE), ce qui devrait mobiliser 63,6 millions d’euros d’investissements supplémentaires. Parmi les exemples de financement approuvé et en cours, citons: l’hôpital de Trévise (avec 70 millions d’euros financés directement par la Bei et des investissements totaux de 267 millions d’euros), les services d’approvisionnement en eau de l’aqueduc des Pouilles (avec un financement direct de 200 millions d’euros et des investissements totaux de 542 millions d’euros), Dolomiti Energia (avec 100 millions de fonds approuvés, pour un total de 180 millions d’investissements). La liste complète peut être trouvée ici. Une partie des 9,8 milliards (pour être exacte 2,8) est consacrée au financement des petites et moyennes entreprises (Pme) par le biais d’accords avec de grandes banques européennes. Par exemple, on apprend en janvier 2019 la signature entre Bnl (groupe Bnp Paribas) et la Bei (conjointement avec le fonds européen pour les investissements) de deux contrats de crédit accordés par les Pme italiennes d’un montant maximal d’un milliard deux cent millions au cours des deux prochaines années.

4) Au cours de la dernière législature, le Parlement européen a approuvé le règlement général le plus avancé au monde en matière de protection des données (Gdpr). À partir du 25 mai 2018, les citoyens italiens sont protégés par une réglementation européenne sur la protection de la vie privée (celle-ci a en fait été harmonisée dans tous les pays membres). Le règlement vise à responsabiliser toutes les entreprises qui traitent des données à caractère personnel de citoyens européens (qu’elles se trouvent dans l’UE ou à l’étranger). Depuis l’année dernière, les entreprises ont été obligées d’indiquer expressément comment elles entendent utiliser les données personnelles des utilisateurs et de demander leur consentement explicite (les boîtes pré-choisis sont interdites). En outre, le Gdpr établit le droit des consommateurs de rectifier leurs données à tout moment, le droit de supprimer des données personnelles dans certaines circonstances et le droit de demander des données anciennes (vous pouvez demander quelles données vous avez fourni précédemment). Les amendes en cas de violation du Gdpr peuvent être très coûteuses, comme le prouve l’amende de 50 millions d’euros que les autorités françaises veulent imposer à Google.

5) En ce qui concerne la protection de l’environnement, il est peu connu qu’environ 80% des normes italiennes récentes viennent de la nécessité de s’adapter aux directives européennes. Les domaines concernés sont les plus divers, comme les émissions de gaz à effet de serre à la pollution par les particules fines. Par exemple, les déductions fiscales pour l’efficacité énergétique résidentielle (jusqu’à 75% dans les copropriétés) sont une conséquence directe de la mise en œuvre de la directive 2012/27/UE. En ce qui concerne les émissions, l’UE a mis en place le premier et le plus grand marché mondial de CO2. Depuis 2005, la quantité totale de gaz à effet de serre (CO2, N2O, PFC) qui pourra être produite par environ 11 000 centrales à forte intensité énergétique (centrales électriques et grandes usines) et par les compagnies aériennes est plafonnée. Chaque année, ce plafond est abaissé afin de réduire l’empreinte carbone des secteurs les plus polluants (grâce à ce système, on estime qu’en 2030 les émissions seront inférieures de 43% à celles de 2005). Pour tous les autres, l’UE prévoit une réduction de 30% de CO2 pour 2030. Les objectifs de l’UE devront être transformés en objectifs nationaux contraignants pour les secteurs ne relevant pas du système actuel d’échange de quotas d’émission de l’UE, à savoir l’agriculture, les transports, la construction et les déchets, qui représentent ensemble environ 60% des émissions de gaz à effet de serre de l’Union. Il convient également de mentionner le programme annuel Life dans le cadre duquel l’UE alloue des subventions à des projets pilotes visant à relever des défis environnementaux d’intérêt général (le budget de Life pour 2014-2020 s’élève à 3,4 milliards d’euros).

6) L’Agence européenne de sécurité des aliments (EFSA) est basée à Parme et emploie plus de 400 personnes. L’EFSA évalue les alertes en matière de sécurité des denrées alimentaires lancées par l’un des 28 pays de l’UE (plus la Norvège, le Liechtenstein, l’Islande et la Suisse) et, si elle le juge approprié, veille à ce que ces produits dangereux soient retirés du marché européen. Outre la sécurité alimentaire, l’UE a joué un rôle fondamental dans la défense des produits bénéficiant d’une appellation d’origine protégée (Pdo) et des produits biologiques. En fait, les produits Pdo, ainsi que ceux comportant une indication géographique protégée (Pgi), sont protégés au sein du marché unique européen (un producteur berlinoise ne peut pas nommer son jambon «prosciutto di Parma»). La confédération italienne des agriculteurs (CIA) a récemment rappelé que: “Il est indéniable que l’accord de Schengen, avec la suppression des douanes, a donné une impulsion importante aux exportations agroalimentaires italiennes qui exportent des produits dans la zone euro pour plus de 210 milliards d’euros (+ 40% par rapport à 2010). En tête les certifications de qualité (+ 38%), actuellement entre 85 produits entre Pdo et Pgi.» De même, dans tous les nouveaux accords de libre-échange, l’UE mène une bataille pour la défense de Pgi. Pour les seuls accords de libre-échange les plus récents, l’UE garantissait la défense de 165 indications géographiques en Corée du Sud (dont 38 en italien), 143 au Canada (41 en italien), 200 au Japon (44 en italien), 340 au Mexique (où trouver le “parmesan” dans les supermarchés était la norme). Au cours des dix dernières années, selon la CIA, le nombre de travailleurs dans l’agriculture a augmenté d’environ 85.000 unités (+ 21%). Grâce à l’impulsion européenne l’agroalimentaire fabriqué en Italie a trouvé une nouvelle force dans le développement des produits bio avec environ 25.000 nouveaux opérateurs, soit une croissance de 60%, dans le sillage d’une prise de conscience et d’une sensibilité environnementale toujours plus grandes.

Giovanni Sgaravatti

[1]

https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/agencies/ema_it ;

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/what-we-do ;

https://www.farmindustria.it/app/uploads/2018/07/i-numeri-dellindustria-farmaceutica-in-italia_luglio_2018.pdf ;

http://www.ansa.it/canale_saluteebenessere/notizie/sanita/2018/07/11/italia-supera-germania-primo-produttore-farmaci-in-ue_5f9973fd-d5a5-42b3-a4d1-09332fe5f4d9.html

[2]

https://www.esteri.it/mae/it/politica_estera/economia/cooperaz_econom/agenziaspazialeeuropea.html

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/what-we-do

https://www.ansa.it/scienza/notizie/rubriche/eccellenze/esa.html

https://www.copernicus.eu/en

http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/space/galileo_en