FLORENCE. After weeks of uncertainty, the regional council has given the green light to the Peccioli oxy-fuel plant. With a surprising conclusion, a twist worthy of the season finale of a thriller series. The protagonist is the 5-Star Environment Councillor, David Barontini, who voted in favor after weeks of openly opposing the project. The only opposing vote came from the Labour Councillor Alberto Lenzi, representing Avs. All other councillors from Pd and Casa Riformista (six, including Giani) were in favor, with the School Councillor Alessandra Nardini absent.
- Peccioli, what is the oxy-fuel plant? All the details of the 130 million waste giant – What it is for and where it could be located
The two open issues: political and technical
At this point, two issues arise: one political and one technical. Regarding the latter, with the vote on Monday, September 7, the Council gave the green light to the Regional Single Authorization Measure for the plant, accepting the positive outcome of the Environmental Impact Assessment and the necessary authorizations for the construction and operation of the plant. Now, before the start of work, the executive design phase begins, which must also include the geological surveys required by law.
The political earthquake in the Tuscan Campo Largo
The political level is much more complicated. The seismographs indeed record a not insignificant tremor in the Tuscan Campo Largo. Barontini’s coup de théâtre mainly creates internal problems within the 5 Star Movement. Until late morning, the councillor was firmly against the project. Or at least, that’s what everyone, including party comrades, believed. Then, after some talks with Giani – evidently in such a diplomatic form that would have convinced Putin to give up Donbass – the surprising “yes” arrived.
Giani’s satisfaction
The president is delighted and claims: “I am very happy with the favorable vote, which I dedicate to the citizens of Tuscany. Barontini? He is a person of great intellectual honesty; we have confronted each other several times these days. He explained to me that this kind of plant does not belong to his philosophy, but he realized that to govern you have to build an innovative plant.” It seems that Giani’s reassurances, especially that the plant would not turn into a waste-to-energy plant or incinerator, a scenario feared by Barontini who would not have given his consent in that case, worked.
The three positions of the Pisa councillors
A political fact intersects with the territory. The three “Pisan” councillors in the Council – Barontini, Lenzi, and Nardini – expressed three different positions. The School Councillor actually did not attend the sessions and did not make any public statements. It is easy to think that the divisions among the municipalities that are part of Retiambiente may have caused her some doubts, avoiding a favorable vote. The assembly of the company managing the integrated urban waste cycle on the Coast approved the plant plan at the end of June, but with many reservations: several municipalities in the province governed by the Pd were against or abstained. Even Pisa, the provincial capital governed by the right, said no.
Lenzi’s position and the confrontation with Bonelli
Lenzi, former mayor of Fauglia, openly speaks of an evaluation made “with political coherence.” Before the vote, the councillor had a discussion with the national leader of the Greens, Angelo Bonelli, agreeing on the line then actually adopted. “We have a very clear national position on waste; we shut down the incinerator in Livorno, and I believe coherence is a value.” He denies any future political repercussions, despite after his opposing vote the Pd Economic Development Councillor, Leonardo Marras, called him to responsibility for being in the majority. “It is a group with many sensitivities; on a thousand things we agree, and it seems normal that on four or five a year there are different positions. We have been clear from the start on programmatic points, I also think of the regasification plant. Then maybe others stray. President Giani has the ability and political culture to hold together the differences, which I think are only a value.”
Giani’s reply to the Greens
Giani accepted the “no,” but emphasized the meaning of the position taken by the Council. “The Greens have this radical position, and I respect it; honestly, I expected more courage. In reality, these are positions that become conservative because they say no to a project that transforms what is considered waste into energy.” And regarding criticisms that the costs for building the plant in Legoli could fall on the Tari, the president is clear: “It is expensive to continue sending our waste outside the Region, to Lombardy or Emilia-Romagna. Today, instead, we create conditions for a 20% reduction in bills.”
The Barontini case: between responsibility and doubts
Finally, there is him, Barontini, the responsible rebel. A week ago in Il Tirreno he declared it was not appropriate “to commit Tuscany for decades to burning waste,” speaking of “the courage to look in the opposite direction.” After his yes, he found himself in the situation of Italo Calvino’s Visconte Dimezzato: split in two. His favorable vote, he explains, represents “the acknowledgment of the conclusion of a long and complex administrative procedure and the outcome of the Conference of Services.” A Barontini yes respectful of the institution, one might say.
The distinction between administrative and political levels
But deep down he does not deny the Barontini of a week ago, the fighting Barontini. “Doubts about the project remain, already publicly expressed, and today’s vote does not in any way change my political position on the future of waste management in Tuscany. These are two distinct levels: on one side, there is the administrative responsibility to acknowledge the conclusion of a procedure started in June 2023; on the other, there is the political responsibility to define what the future of waste management in Tuscany should be. Our political path therefore remains the one already outlined and will find its main tool in the revision of the Regional Circular Economy Plan. The direction does not change: prevention and reduction of waste, material recovery, and circular economy. The vote expressed today therefore does not constitute a change of political direction, nor can it be interpreted as a green light to a strategy based on incineration.” The art of walking a tightrope.