Dear Editor, it seems to me that, compared to just a few years ago, the green ideology is no longer trendy. Perhaps the recent case of the Spanish blackout, which seems to have been caused by the overuse of renewables, has helped many to open their eyes. Of course, we are still bombarded by a certain green environmentalism (I think of certain ads that air on TV), and yet I see many signs of rethinking. Less “extinction rebellion” rhetoric, fewer gimmicks at Friday for Future, no more talk of Greta Thunberg, and even Tony Blair has discovered that “ecological transition is destined to fail.” I read the former British Prime Minister’s intervention in the translation proposed by Il Foglio and I was positively impressed. Presenting the study “The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change,” Blair writes that it is wrong to ask people for “financial sacrifices and lifestyle changes when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal.” He says that although this is clear to all political leaders, none of them “dare say it because they fear being accused of denialism.” He explains that if the debate is left in the hands of “activists,” the problem will never be solved and instead, we must focus on “carbon capture” and technological innovation. A big step forward, isn’t it?
Matteo Sinopoli
What Tony Blair has said and written is what many have been saying and writing (including us) for several years. The news, in fact, more than the merit of his observations, is that those words were spoken by Tony Blair, a global liberal icon and, let’s not forget, an advisor to Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Better late than never, welcome him too; even though the irreverent folks at Spiked haven’t hesitated to criticize him: “The document proposes more carbon capture, more nuclear energy, more adaptation to climate change, more reforestation, and – of course – more artificial intelligence (the technocrat’s answer to everything). This is certainly not a repudiation of elite environmentalism and all its illusions: Blair defines renewable energy as ‘both necessary and cost-effective,’ even though it comes with sky-high prices and, very plausibly, a historic blackout in Europe. However, Blair – at least – has understood which way the wind is blowing, and it certainly doesn’t blow towards all those glittering new wind turbines.” So, Matteo, the answer to your question is “yes, it is a step forward”; gradually, people are realizing, to paraphrase a famous motto by Milton Friedman, that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, not even a green one. Of course, as Spiked notes, Blair is being clever when he asks us to “depoliticize the climate debate.” In truth, “this is exactly what got us into trouble – with a disastrous ‘consensus’ imposed by global leaders with more private jets than common sense. In fact, it’s only thanks to the ‘populists’ – who are naturally mentioned with disdain – that public anger against ecological austerity has been voiced, forcing Blair and his experts to reconsider their positions.”
Dear Editor, finally, after the most beautiful constitution in the world has been in force for 77 years, someone has referred to article 30 which proclaims that the right to educate and instruct children belongs to parents (and only to them). So far, no institution (from the highest to the lowest) has ever mentioned this right. Finally, the Minister of Education and Merit, Giuseppe Valditara, referred to this article to justify the rule proposed by the Government, which requires parental consent when schools organize lessons or courses on sexuality. Given the delicacy of the matter, the final word on this type of education theoretically returns to the family. Hooray for article 30, the great ignored by all! Starting from this historic turning point, however, I would like to make some observations. If the right to educate and instruct children belongs to parents, then their freedom of educational choice must also be respected if we do not want to end up in a totalitarian state. The law proposed by Minister Valditara goes in this direction, but apparently, it is not enough. If we dutifully take article 30 as a reference, then we also need to review the overall relationship of parents with the school, in the sense that they can no longer be considered as intruders to be kept as far away as possible. Intruders, if any, are others, with unions at the forefront. I know that some parents behave badly, as do some teachers, some janitors, some principals, and so on. It is necessary to monitor those who behave badly but without eliminating an entire category in relation to the school. Article 30, among other things, obliges the State to ensure that parents have the possibility to freely choose a school for their children, which today does not happen. In fact, if we talk about a right, then the State is obliged to ensure that this right can be exercised. For example, article 32 of the Constitution proclaims the right of citizens to healthcare, and indeed the State invests billions to ensure care; article 35 states that the Republic protects work, and indeed the State invests millions to protect this right. Only the right to free educational choice is not economically protected, and this is a serious flaw in the democratic life of our country. I hope that the Government’s opening under article 30 cited by Minister Valditara constitutes a first step towards the protection of one of the fundamental rights, a protection that should be in the thoughts of the entire Government and not just some ministers, including those dealing with the State’s budget. Money must be found to protect rights, perhaps by cutting some unnecessary expenses. Having said all this, I would like to add two more observations in the form of questions. Why should schools take on all of society’s problems? Why should the school dedicate hours to sexual education, courses against violence, ecological education, anti-drug education, safe driving, and so on, in addition to the curriculum subjects? I believe that the best way to educate is to seriously address the curriculum subjects: for example, teaching Dante well would be the best way to provide a “total education” that would lead students to approach every problem life presents in the right way. Furthermore, why should the family be deprived of its primary educational responsibility? Wouldn’t the family be the most competent subject to discreetly and delicately propose sound sexual education to their children? And shouldn’t this apply to many other “subjects” as well? The truth is that the dominant culture has been attacking the family from all angles for decades and unfortunately has succeeded in relieving it of its responsibilities, to the point that now the family itself is happy to delegate education solely to the school and perhaps to some TV talk show. One of the most serious dramas of our time is this: the family has become too silent about its responsibilities and therefore about its rights, which is creating the human disasters to which the news is now accustomed. The blame is not only on the “single thought” I just mentioned, but also on many Christians who inexplicably have forgotten (or ignored from the beginning) the significant teaching contained in the apostolic exhortation “Familiaris Consortio” by St. John Paul II, in which the great pontiff issued this great invitation: “Family, become what you are!” We could translate it as: “Family, wake up!”
Peppino Zola
Perfect.
***
Dear Tempi, Matteo Matzuzzi’s article highlights appropriate and valuable content in the papal text. What will always remain an enigma is the contradiction between these statements and the Pope’s appointments, praises, and approvals of ecclesiastical figures in contradiction with his principles. For example, the dismantling of the teaching staff of the Pontifical Academy for Life, replaced by Monsignor Paglia and other figures known for statements contrary to the famous homily (e.g., on euthanasia and contraceptives). Public letters of praise to Father James Martin, who intends to introduce LGBT ideology into the Church. The approval of Monsignor Fernandez’s document on blessings for same-sex couples (which was preceded by another document by Monsignor Ladaria only about two years earlier and of completely opposite sign), thus moving away from biblical and Christian anthropology. It would be interesting to have an article from you that analyzes with thoughtfulness these contradictions between appointments and principle statements and attempts to unravel the enigma. What truly allows us to understand a leader’s orientations are the appointments of his collaborators! Thank you and warm regards.
Alessandro Pacini
Dear Alessandro, I see no enigma, only contradiction. Perhaps the most glaring one of Pope Francis’s pontificate.
