Yesterday night I watched a tv program made by reporters I consider clever and good, and I got disappointed at some considerations they did on how strict regulation in protected areas (on cutting trees) would negatively affect some cultural landscapes which could attract tourists to Italy… I did not appreciate how they put the landscape regulation against the wildlife conservation regulation for sake of tourism economy, but most of all I was disappointed for realising to what extent the value of nature, both ethical and economic, is far away from the thoughts of most people, even the ones that should be well-informed. In this period of crisis, everybody is talking about innovation, network and creativity, fostering techno labs and e-jobs, to restart the GROWTH.. ENVIRONMENT is a word which has faded out from political agenda, and GREEN ECONOMY has never succeeded in coming in.
How is it possible that politicians STILL think people would be more willing to vote them next time if they postpone the payment of a small tax, giving 200€ free to be spent in consumable objects, rather than if they solve the energy dependency problem which would cause the same people to save money forever???
Natural areas are considered only empty, unproductive regions???
How is it possible that natural areas protection laws could be seen as unuseful constraints to economic growth run by tourism?? and if it is too much to expect people could give an ethical value at the existence of life out of the human society, and could recognize the right of existence of the natural world besides mankind, how is it possible that reporters fail to understand at least the importance of ecosystem services??
and what can scientists do to contaminate the local policies with environmental knowledge and raise awareness in people about their indispensable link with natural elements.
So this is more or less what I wrote to the editorial board of the Report program, the whole Italian text is here.