Renewables, environmentalists and the broad coalition: the crux of independence. The letter

To the Editor – Luciano Capone’s article published in Il Foglio on 10 October under the headline “Ambientalisti a metà” tells a story that does not correspond to the facts. The argument put forward is that the 120 scientists and researchers who wrote to Campo Largo in May to denounce delays in renewable energy projects, following a series of meetings lasting several months, have somehow ‘changed their minds’, settling for a ‘glass half full’ and abandoning their critical role. It is a convenient narrative for the newspaper, but it does not stand up to scrutiny of what actually happened.

The letter from the 120 did not ask the parties to admit guilt. It called for four concrete measures: to move beyond the logic of a standoff, to launch a serious training programme for administrators and managers, to open a dialogue with those investing in renewables, and to abandon the blanket ‘no’ that, in several regions governed by the centre-left, was blocking plants that had already been authorised. The meetings with AVS, +Europa, the PD and the M5S do not contradict that request: they are precisely how that request is being fulfilled. If the ‘Campo Largo’ coalition had responded with a refusal, the article would have made sense. The fact that it did respond – and that in some cases this has resulted in verifiable commitments – confirms that the letter had hit the mark.

The article, however, never mentions the outcomes of those meetings. It does not state that a permanent forum for discussion has been established with the PD, involving experts who will support the party in training local administrators. It does not mention that Schlein confirmed that the energy transition will be at the heart of the election campaign, nor that she acknowledged the delays in PD-led regions. It does not mention that the meeting with the M5S on 7 October concluded with the launch of a permanent collaboration, involving openness to large-scale power plants, opposition to new gas networks and the idea of a public fund with state guarantees. It does not mention that +Europa, in the words of Riccardo Magi, spoke of a “profound contradiction” and a “short circuit to be resolved”, thereby confirming the scientists’ argument exactly. None of this features in the article, because it does not serve the argument the author wishes to put forward.

Then there is the question of the figures. The article states that the Meloni government has installed more renewable energy capacity than anyone else, at a rate of around 7 GW per year – four times the average for the period 2019–2022. The figure is partly true, but it is being used in a misleading way. Those 7 GW per year are not the result of an industrial policy pursued by the Meloni government: they are largely the effect of the Superbonus and the Fer X Transitorio, schemes inherited from or at least not hindered by the previous administration. Above all, Italy is slowing down: in the first six months of 2026, it added only 3.4 GW, whereas to meet the Pniec targets for 2030, it would need to exceed 10 GW per year. Using the 2023–2024 figures to portray the government in a favourable light, without mentioning that the pace is slowing down right now, is a way of presenting the facts that does not help the reader to understand.

The same applies to the Sardinia case. The article cites this as evidence that scientists have bowed to President Todde. In reality, Terna’s data are unequivocal: Sardinia is the region with the greatest deviation from the target, with a shortfall that the article itself quantifies at 461 MW, and with new installations essentially at a standstill. The fact that a delegation of scientists travelled to Rome to meet Conte, Costa and Todde herself does not mean that they agree with her decisions. It means they are doing their job: presenting the data, calling out contradictions and putting commitments in writing. Had the journalist followed the entire story, he would know that during that meeting the delegation pointed out that the three unconnected plants mentioned by Todde represent only a minor part of the problem, and that the real crux of the matter remains regional policy on suitable sites and authorisations.

Finally, there is the way in which the article treats the individuals involved. The signatories are described as “independent environmental researchers”, with the quotation marks implying that their independence is a sham. Among them are Vincenzo Balzani, professor emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Bologna; Nicola Armaroli, director of research at the CNR; Riccardo Valentini, a member of the IPCC. They are not partisan activists: they are scientists who have been publishing on these issues for years and who have agreed to speak out personally. The article does not challenge their data, does not address the substance of their arguments, and does not cite a single one of their publications. It merely labels them. This is a style of journalism that helps no one, not even the readers of Il Foglio.

The truth is that the scientists have not changed their minds. They have done exactly what they had announced: they met with the parties of the ‘Campo Largo’ coalition, asked for concrete commitments, verified the responses, and set out in writing what had been said and what remains to be done. This series of meetings is not proof of their capitulation: it is proof of their consistency. Those who claim otherwise may not have read the document they are criticising in full.

Enrico Gagliano, ‘Energy for Italy’

The request for clarification is riddled with inaccuracies. You write that the appeal called for ‘concrete’ measures and therefore, since the problem lies with regional laws blocking the installation of renewable energy sources, it is assumed that a ‘concrete’ measure would be a legislative amendment. Yet for the 120 signatories, ‘concrete’ action on the ecological transition means ‘moving beyond head-to-head confrontation’ (what does that actually mean?), establishing a ‘permanent forum for dialogue’ (which is never denied to anyone) and launching ‘a serious training programme for administrators and managers’ (a sort of remedial course to address training gaps). In terms of concrete action, it would appear that there is nothing at all. But that, of course, is merely an opinion.

As for the figures, the rebuttal appears rather weak. Regarding the fact that the Meloni government has installed more renewable energy capacity than any other, with an average of around 7 GW per year (four times the figure for the 2019–2022 period), you write that ‘the figure is partly true, but is being used in a misleading way’. The figure is simply true. Not ‘partly’, not least because you do not explain which part is false. Nor is it misleading. On the contrary, what is false is your explanation attributing the installation of 7 GW of renewables in 2025 (we are at the same rates in 2026) to the Superbonus, which had in fact been phased out two years earlier. Moreover, it matters little whether the increase in renewables is due to previous measures, given that the Meloni government is accused of ‘blocking’ renewables: this accusation, as you yourself state, is clearly false. Nor is it ‘partly true’ that a slowdown is underway: it is false. According to the figures you yourself cite, 3.4 GW were installed in the first half of 2026, which is around 10 per cent more than the 3.1 GW installed in the first half of 2025. If we look at the latest available Terna figures, those for August, we can see that the growth trend has actually accelerated, with around 4.6 GW in the first eight months of 2026 compared to 4 GW in 2025 (+15 per cent). The pace is therefore not slowing down at all: it is picking up.

Moreover, if there is a delay in meeting the Pniec targets (which is not currently the case, given that, according to Terna’s data, Italy is 666 MW ahead of schedule), a large part of the responsibility lies with four regions governed by the centre-left, which together account for a shortfall of around 1.5 GW. As for Sardinia, the shortfall is 649 MW (and not 461 MW as you state; that, if anything, was the figure for January) and, with regard to this issue – as per the joint statement by environmentalists and the M5S – no concrete commitment has emerged to amend the law and remove the obstacles to renewables. Indeed, following the meeting with Conte and Todde, one of the signatories of the appeal, Mauro Romanelli of Ecolobby stated – as reported by La Staffetta Quotidiana – that when Todde claimed approval had been granted for three renewable energy plants, “we did not point out to her – so as to avoid a confrontation – that these represent just 3 out of 31”. Therefore, it is not even true, as you claim, that I said you environmentalist petitioners would have been satisfied with the glass being half full: I wrote that in this case, for you, “the glass is fine even if it is 90 per cent empty”.

Because this is the crux of the matter, and it brings us to the question of ‘independence’. This is not a judgement on the signatories’ personal character or credentials, but your appeal exudes anything but ‘independence’. Firstly, because the political scope is determined by the recipients of the letter: solely the leaders of the Campo Largo coalition (Schlein, Conte, Fratoianni, Bonelli, Magi and Renzi). You exclude any dialogue with other political actors, whether from the centre or the centre-right. But if the aim were truly the energy transition, regardless of political affiliations, it is hard to understand why on earth these ‘independent scholars’ have no intention of engaging with the centre-right political forces that govern the country and 13 regions.

Contrary to what Deng Xiaoping said, it seems you are more interested in the colour of the cat than in whether or not it is capable of catching mice. Secondly, political partisanship is asserted in the opening lines of the letter to the leaders of the Broad Coalition: ‘We look with interest and hope towards the creation of an alternative coalition to the current government’. The aim is to help the centre-left draw up its election manifesto to defeat Meloni. The objective is clear and legitimate, but it has very little to do with independence.

P.S.: Since we’re on the subject of corrections, I’ll take this opportunity to point out a falsehood contained in the appeal, right at the very beginning. “Dear Secretaries, we are citizens, academics and independent activists. We do not belong to any political factions,” it reads. However, among the signatories—setting aside former politicians, all of whom were elected as members of centre-left parties—is Lorenzo Fioramonti, who serves as National Head of Economic and Industrial Policy for the Greens: he signed the letter, as an ‘independent scholar’, addressed to his party secretary, Angelo Bonelli. Is this the ‘independence’ you claim? To me, it looks like something else entirely.