VATICAN CITY. On the day of the official inauguration in St.Peter’s Square, wiht a following of 600 citizens of Ledro, as well as a large group of administrators and politicians, a new complaint arrives from environmentalists.
The “Forty and three million” Committee, the Committee for Legality and Transparency of Trentino Alto Adige and the Bearsandothers ODV Association, have in fact filed a complaint with the Rovereto Prosecutor’s Office regarding the affair of the tree taken from Val di Ledro and transferred dying in st. Peter’s Square in Rome.
«The Green Giant of Malga Cita (Ledro) was demolished to satisfy economic and image interests that have nothing to do with the concept of respect for biodiversity, boasted both by the mayor Girardi and by the Vatican which echoes this absurd definition. They were able to boast about the fig leaf of “natural replacement” until the pre-dawn hour of November 18th. While the “sustainability” declared several times collapses at the mere idea of dragging a dying fir tree for six hundred kilometers across half of Italy, which has been monitored by foresters and multiple Carabinieri patrols since midnight on the day it was cut down” they say the committees.
For them, «The Green Giant of Malga Cita was sawn secretly and dissected until it was within the desired size, with a great deployment of resources.And faced with the falsehood repeatedly reiterated by those who govern public affairs as a private fiefdom,it is indeed clear to everyone that this vision is in antithesis with respect for biodiversity,as well as with the concept of the symbol that represents this absurd cut. The symbol representing this operation is contested, in defiance of all common sense, both for the community’s money literally wasted, 60,000 euros, and for having acted against compliance with that
a life that is preached so much but practiced so little! The over 53,000 signatures of outraged citizens asking to stop the massacre were of no avail; The preventive warnings that the undersigned associations gave to the decision makers of this massacre were of no avail, as they could have stopped to give a different signal of respect. And therefore,the unavoidable choice: today a complaint was filed asking the judiciary to investigate and investigate whether current laws and regulations regarding environmental protection and
regarding the correct use of public funds”.
The committees write: «We defer to the judiciary, so that it can be ascertained whether what has been done is legitimate; we remain convinced that ethically the matter is to be condemned, because it is not possible to continue with practices that have brought humanity to the brink of an imminent climate crisis; it is certainly not the tree, we know this well, but Holy Mother Church has lived on symbols for millennia and could have generated a strong symbolic act by renouncing this massacre, just as the technical-political decision makers could use public money differently, perhaps helping those who are in difficulty, rather than cutting down a tree that is now dying.”
The press release then retraces the history of the matter: «It was not part of a batch of construction timber! “If we hadn’t donated it – comments the mayor, it would have ended up in the sawmill anyway (11 November 2024); but the Giant of Malga Cita is not part of a fir forest or a lumber lot, but grows isolated in a pasture! It was not “marked” by the foresters. We can safely say that those who said these things see a reality different from what actually happened. and anyone who lies,knowing they are lying,for demagogic purposes,to support behavior that could even be illegitimate,will have to account for it; justice will decide.”
The complaint has been presented and asks the Rovereto Prosecutor’s Office to investigate alleged environmental crimes and omissions of official acts by the decision makers in this matter.”
Interview between Time.news Editor and Environmental Expert Dr. Elena Rossi
Time.news editor (TNE): Welcome, Dr. Rossi. Thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent controversy surrounding the tree that was taken from Val di Ledro to St.Peter’s Square. The complaints from environmental groups have raised notable concerns. Can you give us a brief overview of the situation?
dr. elena Rossi (ER): Thank you for having me. The situation hinges on the transport of what has been referred to as the “Green Giant” fir tree from Ledro to the Vatican. Environmental groups like the “Forty and Three Million” Commitee and Bearsandothers ODV have filed a formal complaint against this act, arguing that it epitomizes a disturbing trend where economic and image considerations overshadow genuine respect for biodiversity and environmental sustainability.
TNE: That sounds quite significant. What were the main points of concern expressed by these environmental organizations?
ER: They raised several critical issues. First, the act of removing a large tree from its natural habitat and transporting it over 600 kilometers is seen as highly detrimental. The tree was already dying when it was uprooted, which speaks to a disregard for the health of the local ecosystem. Secondly,they argue that the justification of “natural replacement” is misleading at best. Such claims can create a false narrative that prioritizes aesthetic or symbolic gestures over tangible ecological health.
TNE: It’s engaging that you mention the “natural replacement” angle. How does this notion reflect on the broader conversation about sustainability in large-scale projects like this?
ER: The concept of “natural replacement” often points to a growing trend in environmental discourse where stakeholders feel they can offset ecological harm through compensatory actions. Though, this can easily lead to greenwashing—a superficial commitment to sustainability that fails to address the core issues. True sustainability involves preserving existing ecosystems rather than attempting to replace them artificially, which in many cases can be significantly harder for nature to recover from.
TNE: In this instance, what could have been an ideal approach for both the Vatican and the local communities in Ledro?
ER: Ideally, conversations between local governments, environmental organizations, and cultural institutions like the Vatican should prioritize preserving local biodiversity. If the decision to remove the tree was already made, engaging in a transparent and inclusive process with community stakeholders would have been crucial. Additionally, finding a local representation of their intent—perhaps through an art installation or a diffrent symbolic gesture—could have fostered a more responsible relationship with the environment.
TNE: So, given that this issue has generated significant public discourse, what is your take on how dialog about environmental obligation can be improved in similar future projects?
ER: Communication must start with humility and transparency.stakeholders should acknowledge potential harm honestly and seek input from environmental experts and community members. By framing these discussions around genuine sustainability rather than mere optics,we can foster more authentic relationships with nature. Moreover, using platforms that engage the public in these conversations can create greater awareness and lead to more responsible decision-making.
TNE: Thank you, Dr. Rossi. You’ve provided valuable insight into how the intersection of environmentalism and cultural heritage can be navigated more thoughtfully. As the world grapples with so many environmental challenges,these conversations will undoubtedly shape our future.
ER: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial that we continue these dialogues and advocate for more lasting practices in every sector. After all,our ecological well-being is interconnected with every decision we make.
TNE: Absolutely. We appreciate your expertise and look forward to seeing progress in this area. Thank you again for joining us.