Tuesday, March 31, 2020

The Fourth Industrial Revolution does not exist!

It is finally out the book conceptualized two years ago by German economist Klaus Schwab, inventor of the “exclusive Davos Club”  (the World Economic Forum).

It took him two years to get from the initial definition paper published by the Foreign Affairs Review (which can be viewed here based on the original Davos paper that can be downloaded here )   to the actual book that is presented by the publisher as a great novelty in the panorama of the new ideas (but really only repeats in the “chow and spit” format, concepts that Jeremy Rifkin has been expressing in due and fully researched fashon for the last 30 years, since he wrote his book “Entropy“.


Schwaub, defines his idea of Fourth Industrial Revolution” as  “ the inexorable shift from simple digitization (the Third Industrial Revolution) to innovation based on combinations of technologies (the Fourth Industrial Revolution)“. This very statement suggests that the author did not took the bother to even read the back of the cover of THE THIRD INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, book, never mind reading “THE ZERO MARGINAL COST SOCIETY” where all the aspects of the “the innovation based on combinations of technologies” are exhaustively covered since 2014, when he did not even know that Industrial Revolutions exist.

Schwab argues (echoing Rifkin)   “the key technologies driving this revolution and discusses the major impacts expected on government, business, civil society and individu­als. … We all have the opportunity to contribute to developing new frame­works that advance progress”.

But the only concrete suggestion that comes out from his pen is a warning at risks implied by the possible social riots that will be unleashed by the unavoidable effects to “disrupt the labor market” . In fact Schwaub argues that “the revolution could yield greater inequality, particularly in its potential to disrupt labor markets. As automation substitutes for labor across the entire economy, the net displacement of workers by machines might exacerbate the gap between returns to capital and returns to labor. On the other hand, it is also possible that the displacement of workers by technology
will, in aggregate, result in a net increase in safe and rewarding jobs.
We cannot foresee at this point which scenario is likely to emerge, and history suggests that
the outcome is likely to be some combination of the two.

Yes, Mr Schwaub belongs to that old school that thinks that economic scenarios “emerge”  alone by themselves like irresistable forces of nature,  No possible doubt that “economic scenarios”  are designed and forged by man. They simply “happen” by decision of the Gods of the Economy (with Capital E) because the Economy is a Science governed by unchangeable laws like Physics, laws which human beings cannot govern or influence but can only observe and suffer.

Then the Author goes on.

Discontent can also be fueled by the pervasiveness of digital technologies and the dynamics
of information sharing typified by social media. More than 30 percent of the global population
now uses social media platforms to connect, learn, and share information. In an ideal world, these interactions would provide an opportunity for cross­cultural understanding and
cohesion. However, they can also create and propagate unrealistic expectations as to what
constitutes success for an individual or a group, as well as offer opportunities for extreme
ideas and ideologies to spread.

Yes because, you know? all these people enabled by new technologies might get the wrong idea and pursue protagonism true false ideologies spread…

Also government must be aware of the danger!

As the physical, digital, and biological worlds continue to converge, new technologies and platforms will increasingly enable citizens to engage with governments, voice their opinions, coordinate their efforts, and even circumvent the supervision of public authorities.”

God forbid! Do not let the citizen  use the new technologies and platforms to circumvent the supervision of public authorities. The government must be in charge. Of course not with businesses. That would be an intrusion in economic freedom. But when it comes to simple citizen, then the government must use all its authority to prevent “citizen to engage with covernments”…

The analysis on what the government should and shuould not do in face of this new “citizen enabling” revolution goes on: ”

“Ultimately, the ability of government systems and public authorities to adapt will determine their survival. If they prove capable of embracing a world of disruptive change, subjecting their structures to the levels of transparency and efficiency that will enable them to maintain their competitive edge, they will endure. If they cannot evolve, they will face increasing trouble.
This will be particularly true in the realm of regulation. Current systems of public policy and decision-making evolved alongside the Second Industrial Revolution, when decision-makers had time to study a specific issue and develop the necessary response or appropriate regulatory framework. The whole process was designed to be linear and mechanistic, following a strict “top down” approach.
But such an approach is no longer feasible. Given the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s rapid pace of change and broad impacts, legislators and regulators are being challenged to an unprecedented degree and for the most part are proving unable to cope.
How, then, can they preserve the interest of the consumers and the public at large while continuing to support innovation and technological development? By embracing “agile” governance, just as the private sector has increasingly adopted agile responses to software development and business operations more generally. “

Finally, Mr Schwab becomes a faithful supporter of Jeremy Rifkin’s vision and concluding on a high note declares that “In the end, it all comes down to people and values. We need to shape a future that works for all of us by putting people first and empowering them. In its most pessimistic, dehumanized form, the Fourth Industrial Revolution may indeed have the potential to “robotize” humanity and thus to deprive us of our heart and soul. But as a complement to the best parts of human nature—creativity, empathy, stewardship—it can also lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of destiny. It is incumbent on us all to make sure the latter prevails

But these are just words. The facts remain that governments must “embrace agile governance” and “mantain their competitive edge” (a concept that should not apply to public powers but only to private businesses).

Bearing in mind that the above mentioned definitions given by the authors, of the Third and the Fourth Industrial Revolutions clearly shows that he has not understood either, we then go now to see more in detail how according to Mr Schwab the industrial revolutions can be recognized:

Schwab says that the First Industrial Revolution introduced steam-powered and mechanized production. The Second Industrial Revolution introduced electric power and mass-production processes. The Third Industrial Revolution introduced the digitalization of technology. He then declares that “now a Fourth Industrial Revolution is building on the Third, the digital revolution that has been occurring since the end of the last revolution. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.”

But here’s the hitch. The very nature of digitalization — which characterizes the Third Industrial Revolution — is its ability to reduce communications, visual, auditory, physical, and biological systems, to pure information that can then be reorganized into vast interactive networks that operate much like complex ecosystems. In other words, it is the interconnected nature of digitalization technology that allows us to penetrate borders and “blur the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.” Digitalization’s modus operandi is “interconnectivity and network building.”  In other words the  “simple digitization” that is supposed to characterize the Third Industrial Revolution and the “innovation based on combinations of technologies”  that is supposed to connote the Fourth Industrial Revolution, perfectly coincide in the Third Industrial Revolution. That’s what digitalization has been doing, with increasing sophistication, for several decades. This is what defines the very architecture of the Third Industrial Revolution.

Which raises the question: why, then, a Fourth Industrial Revolution? Here we should ask the enlightement of Jeremy Rifkin who, in an editorial published by th Huffington Post on January the 15th (that you can read in its full lenght at this link:  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-rifkin/the-2016-world-economic-f_b_8975326.html ) explains: “Perhaps, realizing he’s on thin ground, arguing that “blurring the lines” between the physical, digital, and biological world is somehow a qualitatively “new development” that necessitates the postulation of a Fourth Industrial Revolution, Professor Schwab switches his argument away from what the technology does, concentrating rather on the dramatic temporal, spatial, and organizational effects of digitalization, suggesting that the changes are so pronounced that they warrant the exiting of the Third Industrial Revolution and the entrance of the Fourth Industrial Revolution onto the world stage. Schwab writes, “there are three reasons why today’s transformations represent not merely a prolongation of the Third Industrial Revolution, but rather the arrival of a Fourth and distinct one: velocity, scope, and systems impact.” On closer examination, Schwab’s argument that a qualitative change in the velocity, scope, and systems impact of the new technologies forces a shift from a Third to a Fourth Industrial Revolution fails to hold up on several grounds.
The plunging fixed costs of digital technology, the near zero marginal cost of utilizing it and the intrinsic interconnected nature of the technology itself is what has enabled a qualitative leap in “velocity, scope, and systems impact” for the past twenty-five years. Certainly Professor Schwab is aware that digital technology — the heart of the Third Industrial Revolution — has been responsible for unleashing exponential curves, disrupting entire sectors of the economy, and creating new business models for several decades, beginning with the doubling of capacity and the halving of cost of computer chips at Intel, bringing the cost of computing to near Zero Marginal Cost.
Wherever digital technology has spread — personal computers, cell phones, the World Wide Web, social media, data storage, digital music and video, renewable energy technology, fabrication technology, robotics, artificial intelligence, gene splicing and gene sequencing, synthetic biology, GPS tracking, and now the Internet of Things — the velocity, scope, and systems impact has been both exponential and transformative. Again, this has been going on for decades.

The music industry, television, the news media, the knowledge sector, and more recently, the energy sector, transport sector, and retail sector have been massively disrupted and diminished by the free sharing of music, YouTube videos, e-books, social media, Wikipedia, and Massive Open Online Courses at near Zero Marginal Cost. Millions of people are also producing renewable energy at near Zero Marginal Cost, car sharing and home sharing at low marginal cost, producing 3D printed products at low marginal cost, and increasingly transferring their shopping to virtual retail. At the same time, while traditional industries have declined, thousands of new entrepreneurial enterprises — some profit driven, others nonprofit — have arisen. These new enterprises are harnessing the productivity potential of the digital revolution by creating the digital platforms, algorithms, apps, and interconnections, speeding humanity into the digital era and a Third Industrial Revolution.

Still, despite the fact that for several decades now, the introduction and spread of digital technology and accompanying networks across sector after sector has gone hand-in-hand with exponential curves whose velocity, scope, and systems impact has been massively disruptive and forced a wholesale rethinking of the way we do business, Professor Schwab argues that “the speed of current breakthroughs has no historic precedent.” Quite the contrary.

Nor are exponential curves and velocity, scope, and systems impact only unique to the digital revolution. Consider, for example, the exponential curves and the velocity, scope, and systems impact that accompanied the First Industrial Revolution as society was forced to make a wholesale transformation from a largely agricultural society to an industrial economy in less than four decades. Would Professor Schwab have said that the dramatic change in velocity, scope, and systems impact during the First Industrial Revolution justify naming it a Second Industrial Revolution at some point, even though the defining technologies of the First Industrial Revolution were still operational and not yet replaced by the Second Industrial Revolution technologies and infrastructure? Doubtful!”

What makes a break between Industrial Revolutions os not a quantitative change in pace and velocity of the defining technologies, but a quality change in those technologies. This happens, (explains Rifkin), when three defining technologies emerge and converge to create what we call in engineering, a general purpose technology platform that fundamentally changes the way we manage, power, and move economic activity: new communication technologies to more efficiently manage economic activity; new sources of energy to more efficiently power economic activity; and new modes of transportation to more efficiently move economic activity.
For example, in the 19th century, steam-powered printing and the telegraph, abundant coal, and locomotives on national rail systems gave rise to the First Industrial Revolution. In the 20th Century, centralized electricity, the telephone, radio and television, cheap oil, and internal combustion vehicles on national road systems converged to create an infrastructure for the Second Industrial Revolution.

These are not simple quantitative changes of the technologies velocity and pace! These are quality indications of an historic great economic paradigm shift!
That’s what qualifies as a new industrial revolution and not a simple modulation of intensity of the same industrial revolution.

This is where Mt Schwaub theory falls to its epic fail!

As Jeremy Rifkin concludes, ” The Third Industrial Revolution — the digital revolution — has yet to reach its vast potential, making it far too early to declare it over and done. It is possible that a new technology revolution, as powerful, expansive, and far-reaching in its impact on society as digitalization, will come along in the near or distant future, at which time we might affix the label “Fourth Industrial Revolution.” Until then, we can safely mantain that the Fourth Industrial Revolution does not exist!


After spending €587 million, EU has zero CO2 storage plants


The following investigation was published on the EU Observer last September 25th and we decided to re publish it in view of its translation that we are taking care of on the Italian Page of the TIRES-CETRI web site, to spread information and sparkle a debate on how badly EU tax payers money is wasted just to permit the fossil industry to survive a few more years. In fact what we learn from this investigation is that, like in the Wolkswagen diesel scum two years ago, there is NO clean way to make energy from fossil fuels. And all attempts to establish that,  resulted, results and will result in an intolerable waste of public resources and a diversion of public funds from much more needed clean and zero marginal cost Third Industrial revolution solar energy technologies. The only sustainable economic plans are decarbonized economic plans. All the rest is a travesty and should be banned immediately for a fast transition to a post carbon, T.I.R. society.

Angelo Consoli
President of the Third Industrial Revolution European Society (T.I.R.E.S.)

Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, a major risk for banks, as well as for the environment

A new analysis warns that TAP could be a blood bath for the financial institutions even before being an environmental hazard. The Third Industrial Revolution SOciety is proud of having been the engine of the opposition to this useless, harmful project since day one.

NO COAL Brindisi with CETRI-TIRES’ President Angelo Consoli, at the NO TAP march on 20th of September 2014

An analysis published today by the finance watchdog groups Counter Balance and BankTrack has warned potential commercial bank investors to steer clear of the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) owing to the project’s non-compliance with the Equator Principles, a set of risk management guidelines for project finance adopted by 89 commercial banks around the world. [1]

Based on a range of evidence from Albania and Greece, where TAP construction is under way and posing threats to numerous communities, and Italy, where the €5 billion gas pipeline’s construction is stalled due to extensive local and regional opposition as well as ongoing legal challenges, the new analysis comes a day ahead of the latest high-level Southern Gas Corridor Advisory Council meeting in Azerbaijan which will involve representation from the corridor’s transit countries, the European Commission, the USA and international public development banks. [2]

According to the TAP company, the 879 kilometre pipeline project will affect approximately 19,060 plots of land and approximately 45,000 land owners and users in Albania, Greece and Italy. At least 13 complaints from affected individuals and stakeholder groups about the TAP company’s implementation of the project in Albania, Greece and Italy have already been submitted to the European Investment Bank, which has been considering the TAP project for finance since August 2015.

Reflecting these complaints, the NGO analysis identifies problematic issues related to compensation for land owners, the TAP company’s heavy-handed approach to land acquisition and pipeline routing, and – in Italy – the project’s fundamental lack of preparedness which has resulted in a string of legal disputes still awaiting verdicts in the Italian courts.

Xavier Sol, director of Counter Balance, said:

“The European Commission’s alarming cosying up to the hardline Azerbaijan regime for more fossil fuels which Europe doesn’t need is now resulting in serious, direct headaches for Europeans, as our new analysis of the TAP project reveals. The likes of the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development which are considering finance for TAP should be aware of these ongoing failures in the project construction. If they should choose to rubber stamp TAP in its current state, it would not give the project a clean bill of health for private banks to enter into the financing.”

Yann Louvel, Climate and Energy campaign coordinator at BankTrack, said:

“Private banks need to be aware about the shoddy way in which the TAP project is proceeding on the ground, far removed from the public relations fanfare ringing out from the governments involved. Serious impacts to communities and the environment are cropping up and not getting resolved. For banks which have signed up to the Equator Principles, this has to mean that TAP is a no-go investment. The reputation of the Equator Principles has suffered recently from the Dakota Access Pipeline debacle in the US, and banks need to make sure these lessons are learned when it comes to TAP.”


Read the full report here.

Germany goes Hydrogen to 2026!

Klaus Bonhoff – N.O.W.

We received from Dr. Klaus Bonhoff Managing Director of NOW GmbH
(Nationale Organisation Wasserstoff- und Brennstoffzellentechnologie)
(National Organization for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell technologies)

(Courtesy of  Byron McCormick)

the very important information that the German Government has approved to continue the National Innovation Program for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies (NIP) for another ten years (2016-2026).

While in the first phase (2007-2016) the target was on market preparation of respective web_bra_001_dr-_klaus_bonhoff_dr-_christopher_hebling__werner_diwald_dr-_bernd_pitschak_markus_bachmeier_5923technologies, with the result of market-ready technical performance,  the second phase (2016-2026) will focus on (i) continued R&D to further reduce costs and (ii) market activation. Market activation for transportation will especially include support for a commercial development of a hydrogen station network (e.g. via H2 Mobility Germany), development of hydrogen production based on renewable power (electrolysis), incentive programs for fuel cell vehicles (especially rail and busses) and green logistics (FC applications at production sites, airports etc.).dsc00304_488x324

Very soon we’ll make available a translation of the program document that was approved by the German Government on Sept. 28th, 2016.







Best regards,

Klaus Bonhoff



Rome from the “integrated” waste management ( = incinirators) to the virtuos closing of the Consumption cycle with NO WASTE

13873164_10208435752146283_3206294684886037752_nThere has been an awful lot of talking these last days on Paola Muraro, the new Rome Environment chief who has been working for the Waste Utility AMA for the last 12 years and represents no discontinuity with the catastrophic management of the waste cycle in the eternal city.

Zero Waste means a revolution towards the circular economy and  ten steps towards a virtuous closing of the consumption cycle without waste. In this sense Ms Muraro professional experince and competence is the opposit of what is needed.

She obviously belongs to a completely opposit culture, mentality and spirit having been for the last 12 years the main consultant of AMA supervising the inciniration related plants and processes, and the President of the association of the pro incinirators lobby in Italy Atia-ISWA.

She was responsible for the managment of the two AMA MBT plants who lie in disastrous conditions, and for the policies concerning the organic waste which is organized “exporting” 150 tons of organioc waste a day (!!!) on trucks to the compost plant of Pordenone in Northern Italy, a process that press sources report as the result of dodgy tendering process that saw Ms Muraro as a consultant to AMA to write the tendering specifications and to the Company Bioman who won.

The Rome prosecutor office has opened a criminal investigation against Ms Muraro for her relations with “Mafia Capitale” personalities and for environmental violations reported by citizen of the Colleferro incinirators on the toxic quality of the MBT material that was certified non toxic by Ms Muraro according to the prosecutor claims, while instead it was.

In 2014 after  Ms Muraro in her capacity of the incinirators supporters lobby ATIA-ISWA wrote a letter of complaint to Rai television for having broadcast the film, Trashed that she accused of making “environmental ill information and misguidance about the health risks of the incinirators“, (http://www.atiaiswa.it/2014/07/29/trashed-la-disinformazione-ambientale/), the 5 Star Movement wrote an article against her accusing of being the top lobbyist for incinirators (see   http://www.movimento5stelle.it/parlamento/ambiente/2014/08/il-film-trashed-le-polemiche-e-quel-disperato-bisogno-di-monnezza.html).
The choice of Ms Muraro doesn’t find any possible justification under no point of view, because she needs mixed waste to justify her services, and is absolutely unable and unwilling to plan any  strategy to reduce the outrageous amount of 3.000 tons of mixed waste that are incredibly produced dayly by the City of Rome (so much so that “waste reduction” is completely disappeared by the Roman radar screen.

She is instead very clear that that Rome should use Cerroni’s plants paying an outrageous amount of money  per ton to use his very expensive waste chopper and MBT facilities, as reported by newspapers who unveiled that she met with Cerroni’s people even before she got appointed in order to make this unbelievable deal (anything but reducing waste!).

ZERO WASTE Master, Paul Connett

One can ask what has that to do with a Zero Waste Strategy promoted world wide by professor Paul Connett as main reference for the circular economy?

Which part of the REDUCE/REUSE/RECYCLE/REDESIGN strategy does the Rome Mayor not understant that she has appointed Ms Muraro as Environment Chief of the City of Rome?

Justifiers of this wicked choice mantain that Ms Muraro, regardless to her pro incinirators past, will now have to implement the Rome administration Zero Waste strategy.

But is that really so? In this analysis of  the Rome Metropolitan Zero Waste Network, it is evident that it’s the opposit. It’s not Ms Muraro that is complying with Zero Waste, but it is the City of Rome that is complying with Ms Muraro / Mr Cerroni’s vision of the waste management, adopting the controversial “Gestione Integrata” which has no ambition of reducing or reusing but simply recycling a very small part of the waste produced, and leave  the rest to be treated by MBT and chopping plants to end up in incinirators.
It is evident that when this Mayor says Zero Waste, she means something different, from what Zero Waste really is, as one can see by this article she wrote on Beppe Grillo’s blog a few days ago.

In that article she claimes Zero Waste strategy by referring to vague policies “aiming at the culture of reuse and recycle” (whatever that means), while the only concrete example of a Zero Waste action she claims is the fact of having made ordinary manteinance to MBT plants (see http://www.ilblogdellestelle.it/con_coraggio_ca.html).

It is evident that there is no ZERO WASTE  plan for Rome despite the bombastic announcements of the pre-elections program (see http://www.beppegrillo.it/movimento/virginiaraggisindaco/singola2.html).

A plan that has obviously ended up in a Trash bin as soon as the word “Muraro” was pronounced by the Mayor.

The truth is, as this analysis shows, that Zero Waste is completely out of the Roman administration radar screen, and the city guidelines speak of a way less ambitious “Gestione Integrata” of the Waste Management.

This document hopes for a rapid correction of route towards a Zero Waste oriented policy based on existing legislation (deliberation 219/2014 of the Roman City Council), and calls for the 5 Star city government to stick to the origional Zero Waste claim and remain faithful to the strategy proposed by Paul Connett.

And by the TRASHED Film that Ms Muraro considers “ill informed” and “environmentally misguiding”.

(the document is in Italian and will be made available also in English soon).

Dalla gestione “integrata” a quella “orientata” dei rifiuti urbani a Roma

Zero Waste Roma-logo

Siamo appena entrati nella tanto attesa fase di “rivoluzione popolare” da parte del M5S e
di un auspicato “nuovo corso” da avviare in molte grandi e piccole città sulla base del
terremoto delle ultime elezioni amministrative, tra cui spicca per ruolo guida nazionale la
conquista della guida di Roma Capitale ovviamente.
E proprio da Roma Capitale ci aspettavamo segnali chiaramente distinguibili di
“discontinuità” ma soprattutto di “alternatività” a quanto sinora era stato messo in campo
dalle precedenti giunte nella gestione dei rifiuti urbani, sulla scorta di normative tuttora
ancorate al gestire i rifiuti urbani, soprattutto nelle Regioni del Centro Sud del paese, come
un problema di igiene pubblica legato allo smaltimento dell’immondizia utilizzando e
promuovendo largamente tecnologie nocive come megadiscariche ed inceneritori.
Ci aspettavamo quindi quel salto di qualità o di “paradigma” che da un decennio
abbiamo diffuso e condiviso con i movimenti tra cui il M5S, che anzi ne ha fatto uno
dei cinque valori fondanti, che risponde al percorso “verso rifiuti zero”, nuovo paradigma
che parte dall’esclusione pregiudiziale dell’uso di tecnologie nocive per la salute e
l’ambiente come megadiscariche ed inceneritori per avviare finalmente il ciclo virtuoso che
trasforma attraverso un percorso graduale ma ben delineato i rifiuti in “scarti differenziati”
da cui ricavare nuovi materiali nell’ottica di una vera sostenibilità del sistema e del suo
Tale percorso “verso rifiuti zero” è esattamente quello che abbiamo promosso noi
per primi a Roma sin dal 2007, condividendolo con la nascente rete di Meetup e con il
neonato M5S nel 2009, sino al lancio di una specifica Delibera di Iniziativa Popolare nel
2011 con un vasto Comitato promotore, che ha visto dopo tre anni ed un lungo confronto
tecnico la condivisione dei suoi principi ed obiettivi con la giunta Marino, e la sua
approvazione in Aula Capitolina a dicembre 2014 come Delibera AC n. 129/2014.
Un patrimonio culturale che abbiamo quindi condiviso con la città e con quanti come il
gruppo consiliare del M5S ne hanno apprezzato quello spirito innovativo e rivoluzionario,
pur astenendosi al voto come gruppo di opposizione, contenuto in particolare nella parte
relativa all’istituzione di una rete di Osservatori municipali e comunale che ha introdotto un
nuovo concetto di Partecipazione Popolare e di “confronto permanente” sul territorio. Una partecipazione che passa dalla semplice “consultazione” dei cittadini ad un
possibile percorso di “decisionalità condivisa” tra cittadini ed amministratori in
organismi paritari che si assumono il compito di monitorare l’attuazione del percorso e di
informare i territori, in cui la delegazione civica dovrà essere espressione della parte attiva
presente nei territori e farà da portavoce anche delle risultanze di “Forum cittadini” aperti a
tutti in cui si discuterà delle criticità presenti ma anche delle proposte alternative.
Tutto ciò non sembra sia stato né valutato né tantomeno citata la Delibera AC n. 129/2014
sia nel programma elettorale del M5S, pur condivisibile in larga parte, che nel documento
di “Linee programmatiche 2016-2021 della giunta Raggi” approvato in Aula Capitolina che
disegna i cardini dell’attività della presente consiliatura.
Anzi nel citato documento programmatico ci ritroviamo illustrati concetti che
ritenevamo superati dal M5S come la “gestione integrata” dei rifiuti, presente
nella normativa sin dalla originaria legge Ronchi, e che elenca nel vetusto T.U. vigente (D.
Lgs. 152/2006) la previsione “integrata” di filiere “antagoniste” come il ricorso sia alla
raccolta differenziata ed al riciclaggio (per il recupero di materia) che all’incenerimento ed
allo smaltimento in discarica (per la distruzione di materia) oltre che le modalità di gestione
tra enti diversi territoriali.
Infatti nel citato documento programmatico non solo non si trova neppure una riga di
commento rispetto alla uscita dalla attuale filiera “inceneritorista” in atto da anni, con
la cessazione della produzione del pessimo CDR nei TMB di Rocca Cencia e via Salaria
ed il suo conferimento negli inceneritori di Colleferro o in altri inceneritori del Nord, ma
neppure si ipotizza la loro riconversione a “recupero di materia” concetto teorico pur
accennato ma senza alcuna descrizione attuativa.
Tanto per essere chiari, si dovrebbe intanto prendere atto che l’ex decreto Sblocca Italia
oggi Legge 133/2014 ha già stabilito la costruzione nel Centro Sud di nove nuovi
inceneritori e dei sei inceneritori già autorizzati, tra cui ricadono sia l’esistente ma
fermo “Malagrotta 1” ed il già richiesto raddoppio con l’avvio di “Malagrotta 2” che
l’ampliamento del mega-inceneritore di ACEA a S. Vittore-FR ed un nuovo inceneritore nel
Lazio da 215mila ton/anno ancora da ubicare, con la previsione per il LAZIO con il
parere favorevole della giunta Zingaretti di passare dalle attuali circa 450.000 ton/anno
di incenerimento autorizzato al suo raddoppio con ben 940.000 ton/anno !!!!
Noi chiediamo invece l’attuazione di una “gestione orientata” dei rifiuti di Roma, ed
orientata molto precisamente “verso rifiuti zero”, dal momento che non ci sono più
neppure gli impedimenti normativi passati in merito al conferimento in discarica di frazioni
di scarto “ad elevato contenuto energetico”, che si era tradotto nell’inevitabilità di
incenerirle “per legge”, e ribadiamo quanto in parte già contenuto nella Delibera AC n.129/2014 rispetto alle previsioni impiantistiche contenute ai commi 9 – 10 – 11 ed in parte
quanto rappresentato alla precedente giunta Marino ma non inserito nella Delibera stessa:
1) la conferma della attuazione piena del principio di “autosufficienza” di Roma
Capitale all’interno del suo territorio e l’ubicazione di piccoli impianti di “prossimità” per
il trattamento dei rifiuti di livello municipale, ubicati in ogni Municipio eccetto quelli del
Centro storico;
2) la realizzazione una rete capillare di infrastrutture comunali, con Centri di Riuso
per i beni usati e Centri di Raccolta per i rifiuti domestici da ubicare in ogni
3) la chiusura della produzione di CDR intanto nei due impianti TMB di AMA, la loro
riconversione a “recupero di materia”, migliorando la separazione della frazione organica
ed aggiungendo la selezione con un impianto in coda per separare carta e plastica,
materiali da avviare a riciclo industriale od estrusione con altri scarti di plastiche
eterogenee per la produzione di “plasmix” a bassa temperatura;
4) la delocalizzazione degli impianti TMB di AMA fuori dai centri abitati e la
realizzazione di nuovi “piccoli” impianti TMB riconvertibili, il riutilizzo dei due impianti
esistenti modificati con la riconversione ad impianti di selezione per il multi-materiale
secco stradale e domiciliare, una lavorazione da re-internalizzare in AMA che ne
eviterebbe di pagare sia i costi dei sub-appalti ai privati che la cessione gratuita del valore
dei materiali;

piras consoli

5) la previsione di piccoli impianti di riciclo del secco e di compostaggio aerobico
dell’umido tarati sull’utenza del bacino municipale, in cui la previsione sia di costituire
Sub-Ato nei quindici Municipi con una autonomia gestionale implementata con il percorso
di decentramento operativo di AMA e con il necessario ma graduale avvio della
trasformazione dei Municipi in “Comuni Metropolitani”;
6) la previsione di piccoli depositi, nei Municipi dotati di impiantistica, per un futuro
riutilizzo di scarti di lavorazione dalle frazioni secche non riciclabili post-selezione da
TMB o scarti provenienti dalle frazioni residue domiciliari ma non recuperabili con le attuali
tecnologie, in attesa di nuovi processi di recupero dei materiali.
Ora è del tutto evidente che questo rappresenti il Programma strategico al 2021,
mentre al momento stanno crescendo giorno dopo giorno le condizioni per la
proclamazione dello stato di emergenza rifiuti a Roma ed il suo commissariamento a cura
del Governo, condizione che ucciderebbe nella culla la nuova giunta di Virginia Raggi e la
confusa ed omissiva programmazione quinquennale adottata dai neo Consiglieri Comunali
distratti e forse talmente emozionati dal non aver nemmeno letto i contenuti delle Linee
citate, visto che non c’è neppure una riga sull’alternativa all’incenerimento ed agli esistenti impiantisti di TMB di AMA, che pure continuano a produrre un pessimo CDR da incenerire
a Colleferro od in qualsiasi inceneritore del Nord.
Quello che vorremmo capire della giunta Raggi e dal M5S, al di là della cronaca legata
alla gestione dell’emergenza romana in agguato, è se la voluta omissione di un giudizio
sulla Delibera AC n. 129/2014 e di una chiara posizione anti-inceneritorista derivi dalla
visione “integrata” della sua assessora Muraro e da una possibile riedizione a Roma del
“sistema pubblico-privato” di Hera Ambiente (che in Emilia Romagna gestisce sia ben
sette inceneritori che una raccolta differenziata circa al 50% anche per ovvie esigenze di
“alimentazione dei forni”).
Una operazione forse già pianificata (?) attraverso un accordo strategico tra AMA e
CO.LA.RI. giustificato dalla pre-emergenza in atto che chiuderebbe qualsiasi dubbio in
merito alla contesa in atto ed all’indirizzo da dare alla “gestione integrata” dei rifiuti
romani, specialmente se nel contempo si registrerà la mancanza di una capacità politica
“alternativa” ad affrontare i rischi connessi ad una decapitazione dei vertici di AMA per
procedere alla totale ristrutturazione dell’azienda comunale AMA spa che implica scelte
coRaggiose ma anche dirompenti.
Una ristrutturazione che dovrebbe vedere al centro del processo i lavoratori ed i
tecnici di AMA che elaborano insieme agli amministratori comunali ma anche ai cittadini
un “Piano straordinario provvisorio” in cui si taglino tutte le consulenze esterne e le
posizioni dirigenziali non di stretta necessità, si re-internalizzino le lavorazioni appaltate
all’esterno e si proceda con un fondo straordinario ad hoc all’assunzione straordinaria di
nuovo personale e di nuovi mezzi da utilizzare per l’estensione immediata della
raccolta porta a porta in tutta la città che resta l’unica alternativa all’emergenza se
vengono insieme attivati anche gli strumenti di monitoraggio popolare sul territorio.
Tale Piano straordinario infatti dovrebbe vedere la sua attuazione con una
gigantesca e capillare Campagna di comunicazione, attivando subito in forma
sperimentale gli Osservatori municipali e comunale “verso rifiuti zero” come
strumento di monitoraggio – proposta – confronto permanente tra Amministrazione –
AMA da una parte e la parte più attiva della cittadinanza dall’altra per prevenire
fenomeni di vandalismo o di abbandono attraverso gruppi di controllo civico volontari.
Roma 26 luglio 2016
Il Presidente di Zero Waste Lazio
Massimo Piras

Per ulteriori approfondimenti:
Su Rifiuti Zero:

Sull’economia circolare:


“WALK ON WATER” to support Medicines Sans Frontieres refugees support work.

“If I could walk on water I don’t have to cross that bridge,
If I could walk on wather I won’t give my body to the sea”

Bai Kamara Jr and a host of other top Belgian artists release a new single in support of Médecins Sans Frontières Belgiums Refugee support work

Bai Kamara Jr.

Sierra-Leonian a
uthor and singer Bai Kamara Jr has donated his song If I Can Walk on Waterto Médecins Sans Frontières Belgiums refugee support work, for a fund-raising collaboration.

The song has been recorded with the generous participation of a number of BelgiSchermata del 2015-12-16 13:50:15an Artists including Daan, Guy Swinnen (The Scabs), Marie Daulne (Zap Mama), Stéphanie Blanchoud, Manou Gallo, and Beverly Joe Scott (Solo Artist and Judge on The Voice
Schermata del 2015-12-16 13:50:55
Belgique). All proceeds raised will go directly to M
édecins Sans Frontières Belgium.

Bai said: After seeing the horrific images of refugees and their families drowning on the beaches of Turkey and on the Mediterranean coast I called AZG/ MSFwith whom I had collaborated in the past and told them about my idea of recording the song, “If I could Walk On Water” with a handful of Belgian artist who I know would be generous with their talent for a worthy cause.

To make this worthwhile collaboration a success we need your participation. Schermata del 2015-12-16 13:49:23You can show your support by sharing the video and purchasing the song on iTunes, Amazon Downloads, and other digital outlets, and asking all your friends to do the same. Lets make this fund raising program a big success for Médecins Sans Frontières Belgium.

All the proceeds of the sales and composers rights of this of the song will go directly to Médecins Sans Frontières Belgium to thank them with their efforts in helping the refugees.

Schermata del 2015-12-16 13:49:35

All artists, musicians, technicians, distributors and studios gave their time for free for this project.

Schermata del 2015-12-16 13:51:57


You can watch the video at this YouTube link:

iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/be/album/if-i-could-walk-on-water-single/id1064143792

Amazon: https://amzn.com/B018UTKW3M


For donations:

Bank account for the campaign:

BE53 7320 2523 9653

The payment code “WALK ON WATER”


Daan:Lead vocals

Guy Swinnen:lead vocals

Marie Daulne:Lead vocals

Stéphanie Blanchoud:Lead vocals

Beverly Jo Scott:Lead vocals

Nina Babet:Background vocals

Kiù Jérôme:Background vocals

Daddy Waku:Background vocals

Marie-Ange Tchaï Teuwen:Background vocals

Anna Claire Bullock: Reading

Manou Gallo:Bass

Jon Bradshaw:Percussion

Bai Kamara Jr:Acoustic guitar & lead vocals

Eric Moens:12 string & electric guitar

Co-produced by Steve Bullock & Eric Moens

Arrangements Eric Moens & Manou Gallo

Recorded & engineered by Steve Bullock at Zinne Studios, Brussels

Mixed by Mark Francois

Schermata del 2015-12-16 13:48:09

keep it in te groundSo, what was the deal in Paris? Adam Vaughan, of “The Guardian” sheds some light for us on what appears like a very controversial agreement in which everybody agreed to have vey ambitious but not binding commitments. It is worth recalling that the Guardian is the only newspaper who undertook a campaign to plede the end of the fossil era… Keep it in the Ground… ———————————–

Adam Vaughan
I’ve just returned from Paris, where exhausted delegates from 195 countriesagreed on the first ever universal deal on climate change.

There was no end of superlatives for the Paris Agreement. It would be a turning point in human history, transformative, momentous, historical, according to François Hollande, Ban Ki-moon, Al Gore and the many other dignitaries in the French capital. 

This deal would be a game-changer and redefine future economic development, Jim Yong Kim, the World Bank president, told my colleague Fiona Harvey.

The atmosphere at COP21, where the deal was struck after several sleepless days and last minute haggling over a verb in the 31-page text, was unprecedented in two decades of climate talks, according to veterans of the negotiations. 

When Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister and president of the talks, announced the deal’s adoption and brought down his leaf-shaped gavel, the halls of the summit erupted with applause. UN and French officials laughed, hugged, held hands aloft on stage and gave thumbs-up to the crowd. Even journalists clapped.

Not everyone thinks the deal goes far enough, and the carbon curbs it’s linked to are entirely voluntary. But, as Barack Obama put it, the Paris Agreement is the “best chance” we have of stopping dangerous global warming. 

Adam Vaughan
Editor, theguardian.com/environment

Reading list:


Keeping temperature rises below 1.5C

Governments have agreed to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels: something that would have seemed unthinkable just a few months ago.

There is a scientific rationale for the number. John Schellnhuber, a scientist who advises Germany and the Vatican, says 1.5C marks the point where there is a real danger of serious “tipping points” in the world’s climate.

The goal of 1.5C is a big leap below the 2C that nearly 200 countries agreed as a limit six years ago in Copenhagen. But bear in mind we’ve already hit 1C, and recent data shows no sign of a major fall in the global emissions driving the warming.

As many of the green groups here in Paris note, the 1.5C aspiration is meaningless if there aren’t measures for hitting it.

Pledges to curb emissions

Before the conference started, more than 180 countries had submitted pledges to cut or curb their carbon emissions (intended nationally defined contributions, or INDCs, in the UN jargon). These are not sufficient to prevent global temperatures from rising beyond 2C – in fact it is thought they will lead to a 2.7C rise or higher.

The INDCs are recognised under the agreement, but are not legally binding.

Long-term global goal for net zero emissions

Countries have promised to try to bring global emissions down from peak levels as soon as possible. More significantly, they pledged “to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century”.

Experts say, in plain English, that means getting to “net zero emissions” between 2050 and 2100. The UN’s climate science panel says net zero emissions must happen by 2070 to avoid dangerous warming.

Jennifer Morgan of the World Resources Institute said the long-term goal was “transformational” and “sends signals into the heart of the markets”.

Take stock every five years

187 countries have put forward their plans for how to cut and curb their emissions beyond 2020, as far out as 2030.

But those pledges are not enough to keep warming below 2C, beyond which climate change is expected to have catastrophic impacts. According to several analyses, the plans will see around 2.7-3C.

That’s why the text has a review mechanism to ramp up those pledges every five years, in order to make them strong enough to keep under 2C. The first stocktake will happen in 2018, but the first one under the deal happens in 2023. The text promises that parties “shall undertake … [the] first global stocktake in 2023 and every five years”.

Loss and damage

The deal includes loss and damage, a mechanism for addressing the financial losses vulnerable countries face from climate impacts such as extreme weather.

But it also includes a clause that will keep the US happy – that it won’t face financial claims from vulnerable countries hit by climate change: it “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation”.


Finance to help developing countries adapt to climate change and transition to clean energy was an important sticking point in the negotiations. This part of the deal has been moved into the non-legally binding “decision text” – a sop to the US, which knows it would not be able to get such a pledge of cash past the Republican-controlled Senate.

The draft text says that the countries “intend to continue their existing collective mobilisation goal through 2025”. That means the flow of $100bn (£66bn) a year will continue beyond 2020. By 2025 the draft agreement undertakes to improve on that “from a floor of $100bn”.




Life after capitalism…

Is there Life after Capitalism?

Jeremy Rifkin shed liSchermata del 2015-12-11 15:51:08ght on the raise of the collaborative Commons, the internet of things, the sharing economy and the transition from the economy of possession to the economy of access, the evolution from consumer to the “prosumer”, the technological unemployment (but also the technological employment)… and the “end” of the European Dream.

See all of this in this 6 minutes long interview on Europarl TV by Maria Maggiore…


Schermata del 2015-12-11 15:49:43 Schermata del 2015-12-11 15:51:58

Schermata del 2015-12-11 15:51:22 Schermata del 2015-12-11 15:51:32 Schermata del 2015-12-11 15:51:43 Schermata del 2015-12-11 15:52:13


When the German Court took a decision against Uber Cars Jeremy Rifkin made a substantial comment on the Huffington Post. First of all are we sure that UBER Cars is “Sharing Economy”?

Bloomberg via Getty ImagesIn a stunning decision, the German court system yesterday banned Uber, the global carsharing service, from operating in the country, citing safety risks and lack of regulatory oversight. The court decision is part of a much larger story unfolding around the world. A new economic system — the Collaborative Commons — is beginning to flourish alongside the conventional capitalist market, wreaking havoc on traditional industries. (The Collaborative Commons is a digitalized space where providers and users share goods and services.)

Uber’s success is due, in large part, to the morphing of the Internet into a super Internet of Things, allowing carsharing services and other types of enterprises to operate on a Collaborative Commons, at near zero marginal cost, undercutting the higher fixed and marginal costs of conventional businesses. (Marginal cost is the cost of producing an additional unit of a good or service after fixed costs have been absorbed.)

The near zero marginal cost phenomenon has already transformed the “information goods” industries as millions of consumers turned prosumers and began to produce and share their own music, videos, news, and knowledge for free in a Collaborative Commons on the Internet, disrupting the recording industry, film and television, newspapers and magazines, and book publishing.

Now, the zero marginal cost phenomenon is moving from the virtual world to the brick-and-mortar economy. The Communication Internet is converging with an embryonic automated Logistics and Transport Internet and a fledgling Energy Internet, combining communication, mobility, and energy into a single operating system — a Third Industrial Revolution. Billions — and soon trillions — of sensors will connect everything in the economy, continuously feeding Big Data across the Internet of Things platform, allowing enterprises and hundreds of millions of prosumers to use the information to reduce the marginal cost of producing and sharing physical things and services to near zero, just as we have done in producing and sharing information goods on the current Internet.Businesses like Uber are able to set up a website with low fixed costs, connecting thousands of potential drivers to their service at near zero marginal cost. Uber trumps traditional taxi services by utilizing GPS guidance on a Logistics Internet to connect riders with drivers, at near zero marginal cost to the company.

Carsharing services like Autolib’ are taking mobility a step further, introducing electric vehicles in Paris and London powered, in part, by green electricity. In Paris, 140,000 subscribers have taken 5 million trips since 2011. While the fixed costs of the harvesting technologies to generate green electricity are decreasing exponentially, the marginal cost of producing renewable energy is near zero. The sun and the wind are free and only need to be captured and stored.

Electricity companies are beginning to transform their transmission grids into a digitalized Energy Internet, enabling millions of prosumers to share their green electricity with others across electricity lines. (On May 11th, 74% of the electricity powering Germany came from renewable energy.) The transformation of the global electricity grid into an Energy Internet will allow hundreds of millions of people to travel in car-shared vehicles powered by near zero marginal cost energy.

Soon, even the marginal labor cost of driving shared cars will plunge to near zero, as driverless vehicles — connected to the Internet of Things — replace human operators. Google, General Motors, Mercedes, and others companies are already testing driverless vehicles.

Looking further down the road, micro manufactures will be able to 3D-print electric and fuel cell vehicles, at low fixed costs, further weakening the prevailing auto industry. Local Motors, a US based company, will introduce the Strati, a 3D printed electric vehicle, at the International Manufacturing Technology Show in Chicago in September. While the car uses an electric powertrain from a Renault Twizzy, its chassis is printed out in a single piece. The seats, dashboard, hood, and trunk are also 3D printed. The Strati is produced in layers and the additive manufacturing process uses approximately one tenth of the materials needed to produce factory made automobiles.

Uber and other carsharing services reflect a fundamental shift in how a younger generation views mobility. Millennials prefer access to ownership; why purchase a car, when Uber and other carsharing services can provide convenient and instant mobility on a Collaborative Commons at a fraction of the cost of owning an automobile? Each car-shared vehicle eliminates 15 personally owned cars.

Carsharing services are just the tip of the zero marginal cost iceberg. Millions of people are also sharing apartments and homes, clothes, tools, and other goods and services on the emerging Collaborative Commons at low or near zero marginal cost. A 2012 study found that 62% of Gen-Xers and Millennials are attracted to the notion of sharing goods, services, and experiences with one another.

The conventional capitalist market is not going to disappear. New companies, like Uber, will thrive, primarily as aggregators of shared network services, allowing them to prosper as powerful partners in the coming era, but they will no longer be the exclusive arbiters of economic life. We are entering a world partially beyond markets where we are learning how to live together in an increasingly interdependent global Collaborative Commons. Germany and other governments around the world will need to create the appropriate legal framework to allow the sharing economy to grow.images

This is the link to the original article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-rifkin/uber-german-court_b_5758422.html

1.5 stay alive! A cry from Paris (by John Vidal from The Guardian)

John Vidal
John Vidal

John Vidal, environment Editor of the Guardian reports from Paris at a crucial time when the negociating teams are deciding weather they have an agreement or not. For all those who  want to be informed of what is really going on in Paris, especially with regards to the “money issue” (how to fund the poorer countries in order to fight climat change)  we reccommend careful reading of this report and its attachments.

John Vidal3
John Vidal, Environment Editor – The Guardian

It is crunch time in the UN climate talks in Paris. We had the diplomats wrangling last week but now the politicians have taken up the baton and with only the next day and a half to go, countries are going to have to make their mind up what they want and what they are prepared to sacrifice.

On Wednesday afternoon the French hosts published a draft of the final negotiating text. It’s a bit shorter, there are many fewer brackets (points of disagreement that are still unresolved), but all the core sticking points remain unresolved. Last night the countries met in plenary to give their reactions, and today there will have to be movement if there is to be a deal.

Night during the day: Chinese pollution yesterday whil Paris talks

The good news, especially for poor countries, is that the new text now includes the figure of 1.5C as one of three options for a target rise in temperatures (this piece by my colleague Adam Vaughan explains what impacts are likely to be associated with each extra degree of rise). The other options of “2C” and “under 2” are still there but it does suggest that the pressure put on countries by development groups, churches, the media and others to be ambitious has paid off. Its another matter whether that is the final figure agreed.

Finance to help poorer countries to adapt to climate change will be a major issue and the text recognises the $100bn figure promised by 2020, but indicates that this is just a starting point. Although no ongoing figure is given.

Equally, the thorny issue of loss and damage (what some poor countries see as compensation for climate impacts) is in the text but with no new language around it. That probably means that no-one is prepared to compromise yet.

As I write this around 400 people from environment and development groups are inside the centre demonstrating that they want countries to be ambitious. The cry is “1.5 to stay alive.”

The next 24 hours will decide if there is to be a deal. There will have to be compromises made but by lunchtime we should have the bones of a final agreement. Then there will be long plenary sessions, possibly another text, and a deal possibly on Friday night or Saturday morning.

It could all go wrong but the mood here is positive. Whether they can now find a way through the labyrinth of alternatives and brackets is another matter.

John Vidal, environment editor, The Guardian

Thursday reading list:

March towards a green future like terminator, says Arnold Schwarzenegger

John Vidal2
John Vidal – Is the COP 21 lifting off?!?

RSS Feed