Let’s start with the costs. Energy&Strategy of the School of Management of the Polytechnic of Milan is the most optimistic. To comply with the directive on green houses of the EU, improved thanks to pressure from Italy but voted against Italy’s opinion, would be enough, so to speak, 180 billionwhich is how much has been spent so far on the building bonuses that have shaken up public finances, with the Super bonus which allowed us to intervene on just the 3.5% of our properties.
According to the “Value of living” report developed by Cresme and Symbola and promoted by Assimpredil Ance of Milan together with the European Climate Foundation, they will be between 260 and 320 billion euros needed to make it green 3.2 million homes. But Istat has calculated that 43% of the least efficient properties will have to be redeveloped from an energy point of view. And since there are approximately 12 million residential buildings, it will be a priority to intervene on the approximately 5 million buildings with the poorest performance, each of which is made up of one or more real estate units. More accurate and dramatic seems to be the study carried out by Deloitte, according to which over 83% of Italian residential buildings were built before 1990 and more than half (57%) date back to before the 1970s. Properties in energy classes F and G (the worst from an environmental point of view) are 63% of the total residential real estate park, while in Germany they reach 45%, in Spain 25% and in France 21%.
Read also: Superbonus, the Bank of Italy report: benefits on GDP lower than costs, the shocking figures
Result: according to the Deloitte experts, to bring our homes up to code, we would need among the 800 and 1,000 billion (one thousand!). Which is why, suggests the consultancy giant, a systemic solution capable of addressing the financial and economic critical issues that the “Energy Performance of Buildings Directive” could impact on citizens and the banking system in the absence of a coordinated strategy is needed.
Does this systemic solution exist today? Apparently not. Also because, as seen from the various studies cited, no one knows exactly how much money each owner will have to shell out, in a range of around 20 thousand to 60 thousand euros per apartment. Prohibitive figures for citizens, which however are very tempting for businesses. Let’s be clear, no one like us at Libero is attentive to the needs of the productive fabric and the requests of companies, which create wealth, employment and grow the GDP.
But the cost-benefit calculation cannot be swept under the carpet, especially when the costs are public and the benefits are private. As in the case of the EU directive, which clearly requires intervention from general taxation to be transposed and respected. This is why it is difficult for us to share and support the analyzes arrived yesterday by the president of the ANCE, Federica Brancacciousually pragmatic and realistic, who on the one hand defended the Superbonus and on the other rejoiced at the arrival of the EU directive on green homes, considered “an opportunity that we must be able to seize without fear”.
For the number one manufacturer, “the biggest suspect of public waste in recent years was the 110% Superbonus” but only the negative aspects of a measure were highlighted which in the two-year period 2021-2022 allowed Italy to grow at rates higher than those of China (+12.3% GDP compared to their +11.3%)”. A reflection that comes a few hours after the release of a Bank of Italy report (and Istat and the Upb have already intervened on the subject) according to which the economic impact of two tax credits, the Facade Bonus and the 110% Superbonus, is amounted to «170 billion in the period 2021-23 (around 3% of GDP on average for the year)» but «the benefits for the entire economy in terms of added value were lower than the costs incurred for the benefits » and the measure «does not pay for itself» but «creates further public debt for the new generations».
Read also: Meloni: “Healthcare? They threw 17 billion out the window for the Superbonus”
Do we want to do an encore? It seems so. Perla Brancaccio, who is worried about the 7 billion euros of stalled works more than the 40 billion of additional debt per year that will be burdened on all taxpayers, it is necessary to travel quickly on the environmental redevelopment of properties. Of course, you admit, «resources are needed: Europe and the State must do their part to support the expenses of families and above all of those who do not have the means to cover them. At the same time, banks and operators will have to imagine innovative financial instruments. The benefits will be enormous for everyone in terms of social, environmental and economic sustainability. A less polluting house could save up to half the bill.” Handsome. It remains to be seen how many halved bills will be needed to repay the 60 thousand euro investment needed to make the apartment popular in Brussels.
