Why ideological environmentalism is yet another threat to Europe

But when will we realise the serious damage that the madness of ideological environmentalism is causing to the environment? For some time, a book has been appearing in the Italian bestseller lists which, somewhat surprisingly, has held a place at the very top of the non-fiction rankings for several days. The book in question is by Mario Draghi: it is published by Rizzoli, features a foreword by Martin Wolf, and has a title which the more cynical claim may have a double meaning ("Compete or Disappear" – does it refer to Europe or to the book’s author?). It is a collection – a ‘greatest hits’ – of the best speeches Draghi has delivered over the years whilst championing the need for greater and necessary competitiveness in Europe. The book’s success might perhaps be seen as an indicator of Draghi’s popularity. Alongside this argument—which, were it not for the fact that this is Draghi, might suggest speculation about a possible political bid, which obviously will not happen—there is another that deserves consideration, concerning the success of a thesis contained in the book. Or, to be more precise, a sub-thesis.

The general argument is well known: without competitiveness, without abolishing internal tariffs, without breaking down the barriers that are stifling Europe, Europe is screwed, says Draghi – who, unfortunately, has been largely ignored by the recipient of his report, Ursula von der Leyen, and by the other European institutions: Almost two years after the dossier was presented, a mere 15.7 per cent of the proposals have been fully implemented – a drop in the ocean.

This is an interesting sub-article, which deserves to be read, studied and highlighted by many politicians preparing for the clamour of the election campaign – some even through the publication of books, each naturally with a different ambition; but if you’re a politician and you write a book, you do have an ambition (in the bookshop, on the left, there’s Paolo Gentiloni, there’s Matteo Renzi, there’s Giuseppe Conte, Silvia Salis will be joining them shortly, a book by Gaetano Manfredi is due out in February, and the only one missing is Roberto Gualtieri), concerns a taboo as big as a house that Draghi tackles with courage and which constitutes one of the book’s strong points. Competitiveness is important, says Draghi. To be competitive, we must break down barriers, and we know that. But to be competitive, as well as breaking down barriers, we must reduce vulnerabilities and thus dependencies. And to reduce dependencies, we cannot fail to recognise a truth that is not particularly ‘viral’ but very real: ideological environmentalism, in the contemporary world, is not only self-defeating for industry, but has become a dangerous ally of illiberal populism.

Draghi’s assessment is borne out by certain facts. In 2024, for example, the European Union produced only 43 per cent of its available energy domestically and imported 57 per cent. In 2025, Europe’s dependence on gas imports reached 87.6 per cent. And his approach suggests above all that, in the ecological transition, not only responsibility but also prudence is required. In 2024, the European Union accounted for around 5.9 per cent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions, and its territorial emissions – excluding those linked to land use – were around 35 per cent lower than in 1990. This means that, whilst Europe still has a long way to go, it must do so in an intelligent manner. On the one hand, says Draghi, we must prevent a poorly designed ecological transition from leading to a shift in dependencies – from yesterday’s Russia to today’s China (in 2023, 98 per cent of solar panels imported into the EU from non-European countries came from China, and globally, according to the International Energy Agency, China controls around 85 per cent of production capacity across the solar supply chain, 80 per cent of lithium-ion battery production capacity, and 95 per cent of photovoltaic wafers). The implication is clear: when energy, raw materials, or essential technologies depend on a single supplier, Europe’s democratic decisions become subject to potential economic retaliation by that supplier. On the other hand, Draghi says that Europe, in order to overcome its vulnerabilities, avoid dependencies and become more sovereign, “cannot afford ideological rigidity”. And within that idea lies a clear concept. It means not treating the use of much-maligned gas to manage the transition phase as taboo: the alternative to joint, transparent management that is less exposed to spot markets is greater volatility and vulnerability. It means stopping being pro-renewables at conferences and pro-bureaucracy in government: in Italy, Draghi points out, there are “dozens of gigawatts” of renewable energy plants awaiting authorisation or contractual agreements, and Draghi is calling for procedures to be simplified and accelerated, because that new generation would be cheaper than gas-fired power. It also means removing our blinders when it comes to nuclear power, bearing in mind that solar and wind cannot, under any scenario, guarantee the security of Europe’s energy supply, and that we must be prepared to utilise all possible clean energy sources, whilst remaining neutral towards new energy solutions. Finally, he points out that decarbonisation – an admirable goal – can only be sustainable if its benefits are realised in advance. And these benefits cannot be realised if we rush to pursue a self-punishing transition that fuels vulnerabilities, destroys industries, increases dependencies and ultimately weakens democracy. Non-ideological environmentalism can help Europe become freer and more sovereign. Ideological environmentalism risks making Europe more vulnerable, more exposed and more at the mercy of autocracies. Those who cherish freedom must, while working towards decarbonisation, do everything in their power to ensure that environmentalism – rather than helping us build a better world – does not end up strengthening enemies no less dangerous than climate change: illiberal populism and bloodthirsty dictatorships, which specialise in using Trojan horses to make democracies weaker, more vulnerable, less sovereign and less free. For those who love the environment but also democracy, choosing which side to take should not be so difficult.