đŹđ§This meeting should (and could) have been an email (short version)
How to save money and accidentally make the green transition happen in the right way â and with no extra costs
We have been talking about the âgreen transitionâ for years now.
And if you look at the amount of money being mobilised, it would be difficult to argue that governments have simply ignored it.
The European Unionâs 2021â2027 long-term budget and NextGenerationEU together amount to around âŹ2 trillion. The EU originally committed to directing at least 30% of this envelope towards climate objectives; current Commission projections put the climate contribution at around âŹ662 billion, or 34% of the total. (European Commission)
The Recovery and Resilience Facility alone has a climate target of 37%, and by 2025 Member States had committed more than âŹ275 billion â over 42% of the total estimated RRF costs â to climate objectives. (European Commission)
So yes: there is European money.
But there is an important distinction.
There is not one enormous European pot of money that simply pays for the green transition everywhere.
EU funding is combined with national public budgets, national co-financing, loans, private investment and other financial instruments. The European Commission itself describes the EU budget as one part of a much larger investment effort. And the Recovery and Resilience Facility is temporary: it is due to end in 2026. (European Commission)
Meanwhile, the scale of what Europe still needs is enormous.
Recent ECB analysis estimates that Europe will need to mobilise an additional 2.7â3.7% of EU GDP every year until 2030 to achieve the green transition. Another ECB analysis estimates an average public green-funding gap of around âŹ20 billion per year between 2025 and 2030, even after taking available EU funds into account. (European Central Bank)
And this is where things become interesting.
Because we have spent years telling a very simple story about the green transition:
Governments need to invest more. Far bad countries are making this impossible to happen.
But perhaps this is only part of the story.
For instance Chinaâs clean-energy investment exceeded $625 billion in 2024, almost doubling since 2015. It also achieved its 2030 target for wind and solar capacity six years ahead of schedule. (IEA)
The IEA estimates that China continues to account for nearly 60% of global renewable-capacity growth, while solar PV has become the single largest area of global energy investment. Global solar investment alone was expected to reach around $450 billion in 2025. (IEA)
So the comfortable idea that the green transition is simply a matter of some countries being âseriousâ and others being âbadâ is becoming increasingly difficult to defend.
The reality is much more complicated.
Countries are investing enormous amounts.
ButâŠ
ButâŠ.Some are moving faster than others.
And above, allâŠ.Some have BETTER policies than others.
Some have developed impressive financial mechanisms but still perform poorly on other indicators.
And even Europe, despite its considerable investment, has many a country that fail on a daily basis in simple actions that would cost zero extra funds and would reduce enourmously amounts of public money – but also of private citizens.
This means that something else needs to change â and it needs to change now.
Because perhaps the green transition should not only be a question of:
How much more money can governments put into it?
Perhaps we should also ask:
How much waste can governments eliminate without spending more?
In my subscribers post you will find 10 crucial points of our societies that could be improved with 0 extra costs.
It is a reasoning that comes from evidence I have gathered while working and living in different countries and continents.
It is a story of digitalization, of naming things for what they are â crisis and prevention, for instance â and of bringing responsibility to the right side: the side of institutions and those that should educate and inform citizens.
Because sometimes the problem is not that we lack a green solutionâŠor funds.
Sometimes the problem is that we are still organising our societies in ways that were wrong Ă century ago and continue to worsen whilst making the solution unnecessarily difficult, expensive and wasteful.
And perhaps this is where a different kind of green transition should begin.
There is much more coming in these subscription versions of my posts, and it is a much more sustainable way to read and âget inspiredâ by my writings (instead of taking here and there and fuel your debate not even quoting me!)
đșđž When We Ban the Phone Instead of Teaching the Person
There is something increasingly strange happening in the way many societies talk about young people and technology.
A problem appears â distraction, cyberbullying, anxiety, eating disorders, exposure to violence â and the political response is increasingly to remove the object.
Take the phone away.
Ban it at school.
Put it in a pouch. Put it in a locker.
And perhaps, for a few hours, the problem becomes invisible too.
But making something invisible is not the same thing as solving it.
I am not arguing that smartphones should be permanently available in classrooms. Schools need boundaries. Teachers need to be able to teach without thirty students simultaneously checking notifications.
But I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that restricting young peopleâs access to technology is somehow equivalent to educating them about technology.
It isnât.
CENSORSHIP IS NOT EDUCATION.
The phone is not the problem. Societies way to educate youngsters is.
There is evidence that restrictions can reduce distraction in schools. The OECD has found that phone bans can help with classroom concentration, although their effectiveness depends heavily on how they are implemented. Importantly, restrictions during school hours do not necessarily create healthier digital habits outside school.
Other research is much less conclusive. A large Australian study involving more than 1,200 secondary students found no significant short-term difference between schools with and without phone bans in problematic phone use, academic engagement or school belonging.
France has also introduced a more restrictive approach. Its Portable en pause system was extended to public collĂšges from the 2025â26 school year following an experiment involving more than 32,000 pupils. The French Ministry of Education reports improvements in concentration, school climate and wellbeing.
Those findings should not simply be dismissed.
But neither should they be transformed into the much larger claim that prohibition has solved the underlying problem.
A student who learns that they cannot use a phone between 8:00 and 16:00 has learned a rule.
They have not necessarily learned how algorithms manipulate attention, how to recognise misinformation, how to respond to cyberbullying, how to protect someoneâs privacy, how to recognise manipulation, how to use AI critically or how to ask for help.
Those are skills.
And skills have to be taught.
We are giving young people a responsibility that belongs to adults
This is where the discussion becomes more uncomfortable, I think.
Many societies are increasingly placing a weight â almost a border â on the shoulders of a generation that needs quite the opposite: help, support and guide.
Young people are expected to manage their education, their digital behaviour, their relationship with social media, their exposure to misinformation and sometimes even the wellbeing of their peers.
Of course young people have responsibilities.
But education is the responsibility of ADULTS.
That means institutions. It means schools, governments, parents and teachers. It also means universities and professors.
Being an adult does not erase the difference between being an adult student and being an adult educator. A twenty-year-old student and a forty-year-old professor may both be adults, but they do not occupy the same educational position or possess the same institutional power.
Education exists partly to recognise those differences and use them responsibly.
We cannot tell young people:
You are responsible for understanding this world.
while simultaneously telling them:
You are not mature enough to be trusted with the tools through which this world operates.
That is a contradiction which brings inevitably to have the complete chaos we can observe worldwide concerning young generations now clearly failed by contemporary societies and many institutions.
We cannot educate people for a world that no longer exists
There is a strange – almost irritating- nostalgia appearing in discussions about technology.
A fantasy that perhaps we could simply return to the âgood old daysâ: fewer screens, more books, more face-to-face conversations, children playing outside.
There are certainly things from older forms of social life worth preserving.
But let us not romanticise the past.
Bullying existed.
Violence existed.
Social exclusion existed.
Eating disorders existed.
Suicide existed.
Loneliness existed.
The internet did not invent cruelty.
The smartphone did not invent insecurity.
Technology has changed mostly the visibility of some of these experiences.
That distinction matters.
But so does another change:
AWARENESS.
We now have access to extraordinary amounts of information about psychology, sociology, neurodiversity, communication, cultural difference, trauma and human behaviour.
The internet has made knowledge accessible on an unprecedented scale.
AI is now making another layer of information accessible through conversation.
That does not mean everything online is true.
It means we have an unprecedented opportunity to teach people how to determine what is true.
We should not waste it.
The dangers are real. The explanation is complex and much needed.
We should not minimise the risks of digital environments.
WHO/Europeâs research across 44 countries and regions found that approximately one in six adolescents had experienced cyberbullying, while problematic social-media use increased from 7% in 2018 to 11% in 2022.
The U.S. Surgeon General has also warned about the potential mental-health risks associated with social media, particularly at high levels of use.
But this does not make the internet a sufficient explanation for adolescent mental-health problems.
WHO describes adolescent mental health as the result of multiple interacting factors, including family relationships, school environments, social pressures, violence, adversity and access to appropriate support.
That matters.
Because when something tragic happens, we have a tendency to look for one culprit.
The phone. The platform. The teenager.
Sometimes there is an identifiable failure. But many situations are considerably more complicated.
A parent can love their child and still fail to recognise a crisis.
A teacher can care deeply about a student while being responsible for thirty others.
A friend can know that something is wrong without understanding how serious it is.
These are not necessarily stories about bad people.
They are often stories about systems that were never designed to handle the complexity we are asking them to handle.
What we actually need is support
This is why the conversation about phones should ultimately lead somewhere else.
We need better psychological education. We need teachers trained to recognise mental-health and social difficulties. We need parents to have somewhere to turn when they do not understand what is happening to their child.
And we need young people to have access to specialised professionals without having to wonder if they can afford it or reach a point of crisis first.
Because sometimes the most important intervention is surprisingly ordinary:
LISTEN.
Not interrogate. Not minimise. Not immediately correct.
Listen.
And then, when listening is not enough:
GUIDE.
And when guidance is not enough:
PROVIDE A SAFE PLACE TO HEAL.
This is not about blaming families.
Parents can be frightened too. Health, mental health and psychological difficulties are not subjects that every family knows how to deal with.
Sometimes the problem begins within a family. Sometimes it begins at school. Sometimes somewhere else entirely.
That is precisely why the responsibility cannot be placed entirely on one individual. Or a technological device.
We need systems capable of supporting ALL individuals.
Sometimes the phone is the safety device
There is another reason I would never support a complete ban on mobile phones inside schools.
We have to be willing to think about situations that are deeply unpleasant to imagine.
A fire. A violent attack. A medical emergency. A natural disaster. A dangerous intruder.
These situations are rare but REAL.
That is precisely why they are impossible to predict.
The 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, is one of the most painful examples. During the attack, children trapped inside the school used their phones to call 911 and contact their families. The official review records students making emergency calls and communicating with parents while the incident was unfolding.
And with November approaching in just a couple of months, this is also something worth remembering as France prepares to commemorate the victims of the 13 November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris at the Bataclan.
That night is a painful reminder that the situations we most need to prepare for are often the ones we cannot predict. During attacks, travel emergencies, or even the 11th September phones became a way for people inside to reach loved ones and emergency services â a small connection to the outside world when everything else had collapsed.
And letâs remember children need to be educated to properly use these devices, even at young ages, if they are thought not to overuse, because there is how to learn about safety, and they can save adults lives even at home and in unimaginable ways:
In 2020, a five-year-old boy in England saved his mother by calling 112 after she fell unconscious. He recognised the number from the side of his toy ambulance â a small piece of information he had absorbed through play, which became crucial when he suddenly needed it. This is what education can do: it can turn a tool into a lifeline.(Telford, England, July 2020; West Mercia Police, 26 August 2020.)
We cannot build school policy around the assumption that tomorrow will always look like yesterday.
The ordinary school day can be regulated.
The exceptional day cannot be predicted.
And when that day comes, a phone may be the only connection a child has to the outside world.
Sometimes the phone is also the witness
There is another uncomfortable possibility.
A mobile phone can sometimes be the only way a child can document what is happening to them.
An aggression in a corridor. Bullying somewhere. A threat. An assault. A situation in which the child knows that afterwards someone might simply ask:
âAre you sure that is what happened?â
This does not mean that students should be encouraged to film everything.
Recording people can create serious privacy and ethical problems, and filming an unfolding violent situation can put the person recording at greater risk.
But again, the answer should be education.
Teach students when they should seek immediate help. Teach them how to preserve evidence safely when appropriate. Teach them not to circulate images of victims. Teach them how to report an incident.
And, crucially, teach adults to take evidence seriously.
Sometimes, unfortunately, the phone may be the thing that allows the trusted adult to finally see what happened.
And then there is AI
This makes the issue even more urgent.
AI is not going away.
Young people are already using it. And it is part of daily work and study routines in developed counties of Easter Asia as it was the typewriter to Britain since Mill invented it in 1714 (and letâs remember how happy we all were when finally we could use computers to write and avoid that annoying editing that typewriters brought with them!).
A 2025 Pew Research Center survey found that 64% of U.S. teenagers aged 13â17 had used an AI chatbot. And whatâs should raise questions that should be considered priority in all governments is that twelve percent said they had used chatbots for emotional support or advice.
We should take that seriously.
But we should interpret it correctly.
AI is not a substitute for psychologists, teachers, parents or friends. Current evidence does not support treating general-purpose chatbots as mental-health professionals for teenagers.
But if a teenager finds it easier to type a difficult question into a chatbot at midnight than to tell an adult at home, perhaps we should also ask:
Why was the chatbot easier to talk to?
Was it because the machine did not interrupt?
Because it did not visibly judge?
Because the teenager was afraid of disappointing a parent?
Because there was no psychologist available?
Because they simply did not know how to begin?
These are educational and social questions.
And they are ours.
Not childrenâs.
The adults have to build the bridge
Young people did not create the technological world they inherited.
They are growing up in it.
So our responsibility is not to pull them backwards whenever something becomes difficult. It is to give them the education, critical thinking and support they need to navigate it.
Teach them how technology works. Teach them how to recognise danger, manipulation and misinformation. Teach them when a phone belongs in a bag and when it may be essential.
Give them the tools â then teach them how to use them.
Because adultsâ world is dangerous.
But it is also theirs.
And eventually, they will grow in these two, apparently distant, but much intertwined worlds.
A generation does not become safer because we remove its tools.
It becomes safer because we teach that generation how to use them, understand people, recognise danger, seek help and live with difference.
That is the responsibility of ADULTS.
And if we fail at that responsibility, taking away the phone will not save us.
đŹđ§ IKIGAIïŒçăçČæïŒâ A Concept, Not a Trend
In recent years, ikigai has become a widely shared term across Western media, often simplified into diagrams or productivity formulas. While this circulation reflects -at times- a genuine curiosity toward Japanese philosophy, it also risks flattening a concept that is, in reality, deeply cultural, nuanced, and lived rather than âapplied.â
I have developed my professional skills and expertise while working across Japan, France, the United Kingdom, and Italy, so I have seen this happening very often: Concepts do not travel unchanged. They are interpreted, reorganised, and sometimes reshaped to fit different intellectual traditions andsocial expectations.
What begins as a lived philosophy can easily become a model.
What is fluid becomes structured.
What is personal experience becomes a universal truth.
For this reason, approaching ikigai requires a certain attentionânot only to its meaning, but to the context from which it emerges.
Ikigai as often happens abroad with Japanese words, has been used as topic to boost some sort of empty rhetoric about Japan or to show off some self proclaimed expertise without having taken a single course in Eastern Asia studies of any sorts.
Ikigai (çăçČæ) indeed, is not simply a word or a diagramâit is a philosophical orientation toward life.
Letâs give a closer look at what Ikigai (çăçČæ) Actually Refers To
Composed by the kanji çăçČæ we can identity first two main elements in it:
çă (iki) â living, being alive, to live
çČæ (gai) â value, effect, result, worth, where æ alone means beautiful, and all together gives the sense of that which makes something worth.
A translation would therefore be:
âWhat gives value to lifeâ with a sense of living value of things in oneâs own life.
Hence nothing directly referring to success. Nor career or productivity. Rather something that one can find in small little things of everyday life.
Vey different from the diagram and set of values generally attached to this concept, don’t you think?
In Japan, it is generally referred to as meaning, in its purest, and most intimate, everyday form.
Rather than a set of instructions, it points toward a sense of meaning that emerges through living; Not something abstract, and not something to be found through some very difficult calculations.
It is embedded in daily life, in self awareness, and in small continuities.
Between Interpretation and Reduction
One of the most widespread reinterpretations of ikigai is the 4-circle Venn diagram, or four-circle diagram, that should be used to identify what one likes doing, has expertises in, what they think the world and society need, and what they could be paid for, and consequently combining all this answers, be able to indicate the one ideal life activity/job.
The questions to answer on each of these four parts are :
what do you like?
what are you good at?
what does the world need?
what can you be paid for?
This structure is effective, which explains its success.
It offers clarity, direction, and a sense of control.
However, it is important to acknowledge that:
this model does not originate from Japanese tradition.
It is a reconstructionâone that reflects a particular cultural tendency to organise meaning into systems.
On the Origins of the âIkigai Diagramâ
As already mentioned, the diagram most commonly associated with ikigai todayâthe four intersecting circlesâdoes not originate from Japan.
This model circulated independently before later being associated with the term ikigai, particularly through Western self-development literature and coaching practices.
Over time, the two became merged.
Books such as Ikigai: The Japanese Secret to a Long and Happy Life contributed significantly to the global popularisation of the term, though the diagram itself reflects more a Western framework of purpose and career alignment than a traditional Japanese conceptualisation.
Why This Matters?
This is not to dismiss the usefulness of the diagram, on the contrary, it can function as a valuable reflective tool for people from cultures where such conceptualisations are fundamental.
However, understanding its origin allows us to see it for what it is:
not a representation of ikigai itself,
but an interpretationâshaped by different cultural expectations and understandings.
Furthermore, this same diagram introduces to this concept:
structure
a sort of profiling approach,
and often, an implicit link to productivity and economic expections.
The Japanese Origins
A more recent western understanding of ikigai has been developed from Japan, and most notably was discussed by Japanese psychiatrist Mieko Kamiya in her 1966 work, but it only entered widespread Western discourse much later.
Its international successâselling millions of copies and being translated into numerous languagesâhelped establish ikigai as part of a broader trend of importing Asian lifestyle philosophies into other cultural frameworks (alongside other concepts such as zen or wabisabi, but also yoga related elements that hugely have permeated European societies since late 19th and early 20th centuries).
Ikigai, in its original context, remains:
informal
non-visual
detached from professional identity
In Japan, ikigai can be:
quiet
partial
evolving
contradictory
And importantly, it does not need to be justified through productivity or economic value.
Language, Culture, and Misinterpretation
As you can easily observe even at the supermarket, when concepts travel between culturesâespecially those rooted in lived practicesâthey often become reframed through external expectations.
This Venn model diagram can be useful, and as we saw, it is a modern reinterpretation, inspired byâbut not completely equivalent toâikigai.
Think of ikigai as something that can be:
small (a morning ritual, a craft, a relationship)
evolving (changing across life stages)
quiet (not necessarily visible or âproductiveâ)
This distinction matters, especially in a global context where meaning is often tied to performance.
âIkigai as an Inner Dialogueâ
Not by imposing structure from the outside, but by allowing an internal dialogue to take place.
A dialogue that is often postponed.
At its core, ikigai is not something you âfindâ once.
It is something you continuously negotiate within yourself.
An Inner Conversation We Rarely Allow
At the centre of ikigai is a form of questioning that is deceptively simple.
It begins with a simple, yet often neglected act:
Allowing oneself to ask honest questions.
This inner dialogue moves between two dimensions:
1. The Personal Sphere
Your intimate, individual world:
What do I naturally enjoy?
What brings me calm or energy?
What do I return to, even without reward?
What did I love before I felt observed or evaluated, or even undervalued?
This dimension is not always stable.
It shifts, it withdraws, it reappears.
This is the space of authenticity, often silenced by external pressure.
2. The Social Sphere
A space that situates the individual among others:
Where can I be useful?What is needed in the environments I am part of?
What skills can I offer without self-betrayal?What can I offer without feeling diminished?
How can I contribute without exhaustion or resentment?
What feels aligned, rather than imposed?
This is not about sacrificeâbut about sustainable participation in society.
âIt is more a sustainable process, like constructing a pathâ
In Japan, as elsewhere, uncertainty exists.
People lose direction, question their place, hesitate between possibilities.
Ikigai does not resolve this uncertainty.
It offers something else:
a way to construct a path so to allow everyone to explore oneself through questions, although none of the answers may appear clearly defined.
Ikigai indeed, emerges not from perfection, but from balance. It is the subtle convergence where:
personal happiness does not exclude responsibility
contribution does not erase individuality
As already saw, in Western adaptations, this is often mapped into four guiding questions:
What do I love? (passion)
What am I good at? (vocation / skills)
What does the world need? (mission)
What can I be paid for? (profession)
But rather than fixed categories, think of these as overlapping, sometimes in tension.
Hence, to summarise, in Japanese contexts, ikigai:
does not require monetisation
does not require ambition
does not require visibility
A personâs ikigai might be:
tending a garden
caring for family
practicing a craft
maintaining a daily ritual
baking
Gentle Practices
Rather than solving ikigai as a puzzle, it can be approached as a practice of attention.
You might begin with:
noticing what gives you energy (not just pleasure)
observing what feels meaningful after it is done
identifying what drains youâeven if socially valued
Over time, patterns emerge.
And within those patterns, a path formsânot imposed, but recognised.
This is not a question of adaptation or sacrifice,
but of finding a position that remains livable over time.
Difficult times are not new.
Every society, in every era, has faced uncertainty, imbalance, and transformation.
What changes is how we respond.
âPoints of Tension, Not Boxes to Fillâ
What do I love?
What am I capable of?
What is needed?
What can sustain me?
We have read often these questions in this post, and I hope you can now think of them rather than as fixed categories, as:
points of tension that require ongoing adjustment
They do not necessarily align.
And they are not meant to.
Ikigai does not appear as a perfect intersection as you can see now.
It takes shape within the space where different conditions, or even contradictions, become manageable.
âRethinking Valueâ
One of the most significant shifts, when returning closer to the Japanese understanding, is this:
Ikigai does not need to be visible.
It does not need to be productive.
It does not need to be monetised.
It may exist in:
Small everyday life repetition (ie. having teaâŠ)
care (ie. gardeningâŠ)
maintenance (ie. Tidying upâŠ)
attention to detail (ie. CookingâŠ)
continuity over time (ie. Finding time to send a message to a dear one, or to call, or write a letterâŠ)
Recognising this allows for a different relationship to valueâone that is not entirely dependent on external validation, but comes from our inner wellbeing and adjusts in accordance with it, whilst staying in balance with the world outside us.
Conclusions
Periods of difficulty, uncertainty, and imbalance are not anomalies.
They are recurring conditions across time and societies.
What changes is the way individuals relate to themselves within those conditions.
Returning to concepts such as ikigai is not about adopting a model,
but about reopening a space of reflection that is often neglected.
Not to find definitive answers,
but to allow a more attentive relationship to oneâs own trajectory whilst keeping respect for the worlds beyond ourselves.
And perhaps, especially in more difficult moments, to begin again from something essential:
to learn to love oneselfâso as to become more compassionate and more helpful towards others.
Not necessarily by being visible,
not necessarily by being present in a conventional sense,
but by contributingâsometimes quietly, sometimes from a distanceâ
in ways that remain aligned with both oneself and the world one is part of.
ââ
đ«đ· IKIGAIïŒçăçČæïŒâ Un concept, pas une tendance
You must be logged in to post a comment.