“One million workers at risk without sustainable transition”

Listen to the audio version of the article

“If we do not appropriately manage the green transition and decarbonization, favoring a path that is not only environmentally sustainable, but also from an economic and social point of view, we risk putting a million jobs at risk in energy-producing sectors (downstream and upstream) and energy-intensive industries. Grants must be given Everyone has the opportunity to stay competitive by ensuring energy supplies at a reasonable cost.” Giuseppe Ricci, former president of Confindustria Energia, goes straight to the heart of the issues as a profound expert in the sector he entered, through the ‘door’ of refining, as director of Eni in 1985 to take on roles of increasing responsibility until today that general manager Energy Evolution of the group. He has recently officially handed the baton over to Guido Brusco, general manager of Eni’s natural resources, after two terms at the helm of the federation.

Let’s start with the new Pniec that the Ministry is finalizing and then sending to Brussels. What is your verdict?
Based on the first rumors, it can be seen that this new plan, compared to the old strategy of 2019, tends to achieve the most The 2030 targets set by the EU Fit for 55 package, but at the same time, it highlights the extreme difficulty in focusing on them and the excessive optimism that was in old Pniec. There are only 7 years left for this achievement and it seems that the new plan favors a more realistic approach, which takes into account not only the environmental dimension of the transition, but also the economic and social dimension, along with the features related to energy security. This choice is in line with the observations that we, as an association, submitted to the Ministry on the document, which contributed to its updating.

What are the most important fronts?
For us, there is above all the upstream issue because Europe, with its decarbonization policies, follows an approach that sees everyone on the same level. Instead, there are structural differences from country to country, and it cannot be said that a solution is good for any context. Because it is clear that, for example, in terms of renewables, the wind farm in the North Sea cannot be compared to the solar plant in the Po Valley. With notable differences in terms of efficiency and thus contribution to downstream supply chains.

As a federation, you have made several important notes about the targets required of the non-ETS sectors (civilian, transportation, agriculture, and services) with regard to emissions reduction. What does not convince you of this path?
We do not question the goal of mass reduction. Indeed, we have implemented increasingly challenging European targets, but we have doubts about some of the sub-targets. In particular, the non-ETS sector decarbonization target, which specifies a 43.7% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, is critical. Pushing those goals means, for example, Excessive building efficiency acceleration With the risk of new quarrels such as those caused by the super reward and without it being clear how many millions of tons of carbon dioxide we have reduced. For this reason, we have proposed focusing on all low-carbon solutions, always keeping in mind that if one solution does not allow us to keep up, others can compensate.

She often returns to Europe. What is missing now in Brussels?
There is a lack of a non-ideological approach capable of assessing all available technologies in an impartial manner. It’s okay to promote electricity, but don’t see it as a solution to all ills. Especially if there are other technologies, from biofuels to blue hydrogen (that is, produced from fossils combined with carbon capture and storage), to waste and waste valorization processes or CFCs, which are complementary to electricity and some have less expensive applications.