The planet is sick. Why do we refuse the cure?

Let’s imagine a scene at the doctor’s office.

— Sir, I won’t lie to you. The results of your tests are not reassuring. It’s a tumor, at a fairly advanced stage. I’ve discussed your case with other oncologists. We all agree on the need for chemotherapy. The treatment is tough, I won’t hide that from you—it requires a change in lifestyle—but it can yield good results. Provided we start immediately, and you fight, you can pull through. But you have no time to waste…

— Really, Doctor, cancer? I have better things to do. And let’s be realistic, you don’t seriously expect me to accept chemotherapy! It’s punitive! And Doctor, do me a favor, be a little more optimistic. Stop with your ideology. One day, less invasive therapies will come along, and until then, leave me alone.

Few people would say such things to an oncologist. And if they did, they wouldn’t be able to boast about it for long. So when the planet is sick, and solutions are proposed to combat climate change or environmental degradation, why do we let some politicians dismiss these proposals out of hand on the grounds that they are “punitive”? By exploiting nature endlessly, we have degraded it to the point that the economy is suffering the consequences. Climate change, caused by CO2 emissions, leads to floods and droughts and rising sea levels. The use of pesticides harms pollinating insects and some fertilizers pollute arable land. The artificialization of soil reduces wetlands and makes cities stifling, to the detriment of productivity. The planet is suffering, like an organism whose cells are under attack, so the measures we need to take are curative, not punitive.

Everyone can understand that it is not possible to sustainably consume more resources than the planet can provide. And, as in oncology, the sooner we act, the higher the chances of recovery. Several potential solutions are explored in the book Green or Greed. No Prosperity without Respect for Nature .

First, since the problem is systemic, the response cannot be limited to marginal measures. We need to revise the extractive economic model, based on fossil fuels, which was established with the Industrial Revolution and has since spread worldwide. We must transition to renewable energy sources and circular production methods that promote ecosystem regeneration.

This also requires engaging the entire society in the process: public authorities and the private sector, consumers and scientists. This is the recommendation of researchers from IPBES (the equivalent of the IPCC for nature) in a report published in February 2026 . Science allows us to take informed measures, based on rigorous analyses, such as those conducted by IPBES or the Stockholm Resilience Center on planetary boundaries. Scientists are clear: The problem is serious, and the ongoing degradation is massive (a 73% decline in wildlife over 50 years, according to the WWF). Governments and local authorities can take a number of actions: establishing a more favorable legislative or regulatory framework for respecting nature, freeing up funding, create fiscal incentives, encouraging the publication of precise and comparable data, and, if necessary, sanctioning polluters. Indeed, this was the commitment made in Montreal in 2022.

This framework cannot be conceived without the involvement of the private sector. Businesses are on the front line to transform their production methods; they innovate and invest to safeguard their value chains. Moderation reduces dependencies and costs. Finance can include nature-related risks in its analyses, risks that are far from negligible. In fact, according to the ECB, 75% of loans granted in the eurozone go to companies dependent on nature. These efforts, however, assume that consumers are aware of the issues and change their habits.

It is truly strange that reducing the consumption of material goods is always framed as “punitive,” when in fact greater moderation would give individuals a precious asset: free time to spend on sports, artistic activities, or with loved ones, moving beyond materialism.

Denying the need to transform our economies is just a form of cynicism. Burying our heads in the sand will only make the solutions harder—and more costly.

This blogpost draws on elements published in the book Green or Greed. No Prosperity without Respect for Nature (Bocconi University Press, 2026).