The Present Comes at a Price

For years, we've told ourselves that Europe was naive. Naive in delegating its security to the United States, in its dependence on Russian gas, in leaving China in control of crucial segments of manufacturing and green technologies. But according to Sylvie Goulard, this interpretation is wrongheaded. The EU’s problem hasn’t been idealism. It has been cynicism.

"We preferred the comfort of the present to preparing for the future," argues the former French Defense Minister, former Member of the European Parliament and former Deputy Governor of the Banque de France. She articulates this thesis in her latest book, The Cost of Cynicism: There is no prosperity without respect for nature (Il costo del cinismo, published by EGEA), where she addresses the greatest challenge of our time: the relationship between the economy and the environment. For decades, governments, businesses and citizens have benefited from a growth model that treated natural resources, biodiversity and climate stability as if they were inexhaustible endowments. Today, Goulard warns, the bill is coming due.

Her criticism is not exclusively environmental. On the contrary. The issue concerns the very functioning of our economies, the EU's ability to remain competitive, the security of its supply chains, and the stability of democratic institutions. Currently Vice President of the Institute of European Policymaking @ Bocconi University (IEP@BU), as well as Professor of Practice at the SDA Bocconi School of Management, Goulard offers a reading at the intersection of economics, geopolitics and sustainability, rejecting both climate denialism and the idea that the ecological transition is incompatible with growth.

At a time when the European continent is simultaneously confronted with global technological competition, geopolitical fragmentation and the consequences of climate change, the question that runs through her reasoning is as simple as it is uncomfortable: what will be the cost of inaction?

Why do you argue that Europe's problem was not naiveté but cynicism?

Because naiveté implies a lack of awareness. In many cases, however, we were perfectly aware of our dependencies. We knew that entrusting our security entirely to the United States carried risks. We knew that depending on Russia for energy or China for certain strategic industries made us vulnerable. Yet, we gave priority to immediate benefits. The same is happening today with nature. We know the scientific data, we know the effects of biodiversity loss and global warming, yet we continue to postpone difficult decisions. This is not idealism. It is a form of collective cynicism.

In the European debate, the word competitiveness has become almost omnipresent. What do we risk losing if we interpret it too narrowly?

We risk forgetting that competitiveness is a means to an end. It creates jobs, innovation and prosperity. But if we reduce it exclusively to cuts in costs or market deregulation, we end up weakening the very foundations of our economy. There is no competitiveness in areas that are losing water, soil fertility, air quality or the ability to attract talent. The real challenge is to combine innovation, sustainability and social cohesion.

You emphasize the concept of natural capital. Why is it so difficult to incorporate it into economic decisions?

Because for centuries, we have considered nature as a free resource. Economic and accounting systems measure very well what we produce and consume, but much less what we destroy. Yet, water, soil quality, pollination and climate stability are indispensable conditions for any economic activity. When these services provided by ecosystems are degraded, the cost emerges later in the form of lower productivity, health damage or extreme weather events. The problem is that we continue to view these as side effects, not as central consequences of the system.

Many citizens perceive the climate transition as a threat to their wellbeing. Has politics failed to sell the green imperative?

I think so. In some cases, too much emphasis was placed on prohibitions and too little on opportunities. In others, the impression was given that all the burden falls on individual citizens. The transition certainly requires changes in individual behavior, but above all, it requires investment, innovation, infrastructure and coherent public policies. People must feel involved and supported, not blamed.

What is the economic and strategic cost of continuing to consider nature as an issue separate from security?

We've become used to considering spending billions on defense normal, while we almost never ask ourselves how much it costs us to lose an aquifer, degrade agricultural soil or depend on external suppliers for energy and raw materials. Yet these are strategic vulnerabilities in their own right. Security isn't only about protecting borders. It means protecting a society's ability to continue functioning. If we don't understand that nature, the economy and security are part of the same system, we risk having to continuously increase spending to manage the consequences of problems we could have prevented.

What role can finance play in this process?

Finance has the tools to assess risk and direct capital towards activities that create long-term value. We've grown accustomed to thinking that environmental issues were marginal to financial stability. Today, we know this isn't the case. Risks related to climate instability and biodiversity loss are also economic risks. This is why finance can become a powerful accelerator of the transformation.

Why is public debate on these issues so polarized?

Because it has turned into a clash of identities. On one side, there are those who deny the existence of the problem. On the other, those who present every solution as a radical transformation of society. The intermediate space for pragmatic debate has shrunk. I believe we should discuss solutions, not the existence of verified facts. Physical reality belongs neither to the right nor to the left.

What role can businesses play?

Firms should not be considered simply as entities to be regulated. They can be protagonists of innovation. Many have already understood that access to natural resources, the resilience of supply chains and consumer trust are strategic factors. Sustainability and competitiveness increasingly coincide. Using fewer resources, reducing waste and innovating production processes can generate tangible economic benefits.

Many young people look to the future with concern. What would you say to those who fear it's already too late to change course?

The history of Europe is replete with crises that seemed insurmountable, but which were addressed thanks to our ability to innovate and cooperate. The situation is serious, but we have scientific knowledge, technological tools and resources that previous generations lacked. The real question is not whether it's too late. It's whether we will be able to use those tools with sufficient determination.

What is the decisive challenge for Europe in the next decade?

Learning to look ahead again and bring together all the actors of change. Our democracies tend to focus on the short term, while the great challenges of our time require a broader vision and collective effort involving institutions, businesses, research and citizens. Climate, biodiversity, technological innovation, security and demography are processes that unfold over decades and cannot be addressed separately. The European Union was born from the ability to imagine the future beyond the emergencies of the present. Today, it must rediscover that same ambition.