In May 2013 one of Italy’s leading newspapers, La Repubblica, published an article entitled “Nimby effect on renewable energy – Italy allergic to biomass electrical generation.” Living in an agricultural area where green energy subsidies have boosted the production of biomass power stations over the past few years, I couldn’t help laughing at a similar condemnation of protests against the economical power games that lie behind green economy policies, and in which I have gotten increasingly involved over the past year. Yes, many of the people involved in the numerous bottom-up committees are worried about what is going on in their back yard, but perhaps that’s also because local politics have no interest whatsoever in defending those back yards. Moreover, a sound collaboration among various committees and associations that operate both locally and on a regional and national level prove that this is more than a group of residents concerned about their neighborhood. So it’s not all that simple. Hiding behind the ever so popular green economy business, in these times of crisis, it is easy to put off any criticism of biomass electrical generation as plain nimbyism. Yet the threat is real.

Other than the discomfort for residents, i.e. the stench and the frequency of heavy vehicles passing continuously (and often without considering speed limits) on the narrow country side roads to transport corn, grain and grass to the power plants, there are a number of very serious risks, problems and ethical issues involved.

Health: experts have demonstrated that these plants produce noxious gas that may cause cancer and birth defects. Medics, university professors and scientists have sound the alarm on more than one occasion, participating in counter-informative events and protest demonstrations, but local governors – with some minor exceptions – and media have remained indifferent to their criticism.

Profit: the presence of a relatively high number of power plants in small areas, producing energy not for the purpose of disposing biological waste in return for energy but for the sole purpose of gaining subsidies, is highly problematic. For one, what to do with all the energy that is being produced? With the companies being privately owned, the energy is not being invested in the community. It is sold at a much higher rate than “ordinary” energy, whereas the subsidies are at the citizen’s expense.

Farmland: to be able to feed the anaerobic digesters of such an excessive number of power plants, farmers are being “encouraged” to one-crop farming, which is eventually harmful for the farmland. In fact, for a few years now a large part of the farmland in my area is used to grow corn, which is harvested when it is still green and grinded. A potential disaster for the local food industry!

Ethics: this also brings along the ethical problem of harvesting crops not to feed people but simply to burn them, without using the energy that is being produced.

So these are the main problems in a nutshell. Anyone who has been attending meetings and protests over the past few years knows this. Yet, local governors ignore the problems or downplay them. They treat citizens as nimbies, or pretend not to have any say in the matter, which is untrue. Currently we are collectively struggling against a project to build a renewable energy park with no less than four power plants, only a few miles from my town, adding to the existing four to five power plants already in function
or under construction, not to mention a landfill and an incinerator nearby. Is one power plant not more than enough? But the mayor of San Pietro in Casale, a town nearby which is granting one authorization to build power plants after another, yet always on the border with adjacent communes, is indifferent to the citizens’ concerns. Undoubtedly he has business interests in green economy, and the anaerobic digesters are only a part of his master plan. Thus, he has completed the construction of a long-awaited swimming pool, in an attempt also to boost his popularity, no doubt. In doing so he has had over 40 poplar trees nearby the swimming pool and adjacent sport centre cut down: they were accused of casting shadows on the solar panels located on the roof of the sport centre. Is this, then, green economy?

The problem is universal, though. A brief article in a British current affairs journal caught my eye during a recent trip to the UK: it speaks of both solar energy and green energy subsidies for biomass electrical generation threatening UK food production. Protests occur in other European countries as well as in the States and in Canada. Going against the grain of green economy is very difficult, because green economy is necessary. We cannot continue exploiting the earth without considering alternative sources of energy, especially in countries which have important natural resources, such as wind, water and sun. If only we could find a way of keeping out profiteers, greedy politicians and the mafia.

He was meant not to come and he didn’t. Barack Obama decided to make Burma, Cambodia and Thailand his first foreign destinations after his re-election, revealing U.S. foreign policy priorities in the next four years. The American president plainly doesn’t have time for Europe now. It’s not a surprise, but it does require serious European deliberation and critical self reflections.

Historic Visit

Of special significance is above all Obama’s trip to Myanmar – a country under military rule since 1960’s, which until recently invariably occupied the very far end of every possible civil liberties ranking. Myanmar’s position began to change rapidly in 2010 when the new president, Thein Sein, for reasons not entirely clear, initiated democratic reforms and freed thousands of political prisoners, including the most famous regime victim, Aung San Suu Kyi, put under house arrest in 1989 and kept in custody virtually ever since. Suu Kyi was not only allowed to go on a triumphant international tour – in Oslo she finally received the Nobel Peace Prize awarded in… 1991 – but also to run in parliamentary by-elections. In April 2012 her National Democratic League won 43 of 45 seats under contention, thus becoming the largest opposition party. Only a few months after the reforms started, non-governmental organizations and independent media began to operate in a country not so long ago deemed as an “outpost of tyranny”.

And though democratic transformation in Myanmar proceeds quickly, there are still significant problems. Millions of its citizens live in extreme poverty. Hundreds of political prisoners remain in jail. The northern part of the country is being devastated by a civil war against one of many separatist groups. A military coup is an ever-present possibility, and the authenticity of president’s commitment to democracy is still difficult to assess. For these and many other reasons democratic changes in this former British colony may collapse at any time.

That despite all these uncertainties Barack Obama decided to visit Myanmar – becoming the first U.S. president in office to do so – is clear evidence of a fundamental change in American foreign policy, all the more so, because straight from Myanmar Obama flew to Thailand and then Cambodia, taking part in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit. And all this at a time when American ally, Israel, was engaged in a major military operation in Gaza, when Syria has been engulfed in a civil war for almost two years, and when Afghanistan still claims American lives on a daily basis.

Heading East… that is West

Reorientation in American foreign policy – the “Asian pivot,” as it is referred to by the White House officials – aims to strengthen U.S. presence in the Southeast Asia, turning attention away from its current involvement in the Middle East and Afghanistan, where Americans bogged down more than a decade ago. President’s visit is also a clear signal to China. Increasingly expansive foreign policy and Beijing’s massive economic influence in the region has aggravated its relations with neighboring countries, leading to serious territorial disputes with Japan on the one hand, and the Philippines and Vietnam on the other. In response to growing pressure from China, the United States already in June conducted trilateral naval exercises with Japan and South Korea in the ocean waters south of the Korean peninsula. Now, a few months later, in a speech delivered in Myanmar, President Obama left no doubts as to where Washington will concentrate its diplomatic efforts in the nearest future:

“The United States of America is a Pacific nation. We see our future as bound to those nations and peoples to our West,” he said in Rangoon.  “As our economy recovers, this is where we believe we will find tremendous growth. As we end the wars that have dominated our foreign policy for a decade, this region will be a focus of our efforts to build a prosperous peace.”

Obviously Obama’s hands are not entirely free in this matter. He cannot bring peace to Afghanistan and Iraq by decree; he will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, nor abandon American commitment to Israel; it’s beyond his powers to singlehandedly democratize Iran or foster an overnight regime change in Syria – in short, he cannot entirely give up on American involvement in the Middle East. Even the leader of the most powerful country in the world has limited room for maneuver, as he must take into account a complex interplay of geopolitical interests and honor previously taken commitments. Still, the same leader may put different emphasis on different aspects of foreign policy and make decisions that will gradually change, if not the global balance of power, then at least the focal point of global diplomacy. For many years after the Second World War the center of the world lied in Europe, later on attention moved to the Middle East. Today it is shifting again to the South-East Asia.

Does Anybody Need London?

And what role in this new order will the Old Continent play? If domestic and foreign policies of the European Union do not change dramatically, probably a marginal one. Incurable Euro-optimists may keep on hailing the Union as the largest and one of the most competitive economies in the world, but even they admit its actual importance on the global stage is disproportionately small. Obama’s visit to Asia and the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict have once again confirmed what everybody knows but does not dare to say aloud. Alarmed by the events in the Gaza Strip, President Obama and Secretary Clinton called the leaders of several countries with the greatest influence in the region: Egypt, Turkey, France and Qatar. The idea to dial the number “to Europe,” in this case to Catherine Ashton, was not even mentioned.

European countries are rapidly losing their status of valuable partners to the United States, though some governments, especially that in London, do all in their powers to ignore this fact. On the day of Obama’s reelection, British Prime Minister David Cameron in a short interview aired by BBC congratulated the winner and expressed his hope for a close cooperation primarily in two areas: pulling the global economy out of the crisis, and helping to end the conflict in Syria. No profound geopolitical insight is needed to notice that in neither of these projects can the United Kingdom on its own may be of much assistance to the American president. Nevertheless, the bulk of British political class still seems to believe that UK’s foreign policy should be based on an Anglo-American “special relationship,” with London acting as a mediator in the dealings between America and Europe. The problem is that today Washington not only doesn’t need a middleman in its relations with the Continent – yet another side would make them even more difficult. And in fact, it’s need for the Continent itself is diminishing.

A true Euro-American partnership is possible only if the European Union acts as a whole. Many European politicians – including, I’m glad to admit, Poland’s foreign minister – are aware of this fact. Britain, probably because of its imperial past and relatively recent loss of a global superpower status, still has difficulty coming to terms with the new reality. London’s cognitive difficulties, however, seem to render Brussels increasingly impatient. They also further marginalize Europe on the international scene. Obama’s Asian trip and the way Israeli-Palestinian conflict was dealt are proofs. Hope lies with an embolden European Community to take a firmer stance towards Britain and demand a clear statement as to its future in the European club. Should this not happen, it will be another reason for presidential trips to the Old Continent to become even less frequent.