Ecological transition without change. A paradox, a misinterpretation, or a renounce?

This paper highlights weaknesses and contradictions that emerge with the implementation of the “ecological transition” goal, ostensibly supported at all policy levels, looking at (1) how trans-national, European “Green Deal” post-crisis measures are translated at the urban scale; (2) which are the main obstacles to fulfill a substantial change, and (3) which is the actual role of planning. The paper provides examples from long-lasting research in Rome, Italy, framing them critically by combining planning theory and practice and political ecology perspectives, to show that: (1) the implementation of the “ecological transition” goal at the urban scale through direct and indirect interventions makes it impossible to unequivocally assess policy results; (2) to be actually realized, “ecological transition” asks to redefine priorities among the ever existing conflicting interests in the urban space, and to revise previous planning and policy choices, while a strong resistance emerges in overcoming the “business as usual” way of operating; (3) planning regulation is ambiguous since it is used in opposite ways (both as the source of the “certainty of the right”, and as the “flexible tool” for negotiations), with the only undeniable purpose to preserve the established, dominant interests, even when evidently conflicting with the declared public goals.