De Rosa shares Bill Gates' new compass

In recent days, Bill Gates released a memo calling for a rethink of climate strategy, focusing on improving people's lives rather than simply tackling emissions and temperature figures. He argues that climate remains a serious challenge, but it won't lead to the end of humanity; apocalyptic language can distort public and private spending priorities.

Mr. Domenico De Rosa, what's really changing in Gates' message? The metrics of success are changing. Not just avoided tons of CO2 and short deadlines, but also health, food security, access to reliable energy, and productivity in poor countries. The goal is to maximize lives saved and prosperity, while emissions continue to decline thanks to innovation.

Does this mean abandoning decarbonization? No. Decarbonization remains a strategic goal. The key is to prevent an obsession with immediate objectives from devouring essential resources for human development and adaptation. It's a course correction toward pragmatism.

What are the phrases that sparked the debate? The most discussed is that climate change will not cause the extinction of humanity. This is an uncomfortable truth for some, but it serves to bring the conversation back to concrete and measurable priorities that improve lives now, without ceasing to innovate on climate.

How does all this connect to Agenda 2030? It's a call to realign climate and the Sustainable Development Goals. The foundation has long warned that cuts to global funding threaten progress on vaccinations and child health. That's why Gates is calling for protecting those budgets and using every euro more effectively.

Are there recent commitments that reinforce this interpretation? Yes. During Goalkeepers Week, multi-year commitments were made for programs against AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, along with a call for governments to reverse the cuts. This shift in communication is thus translating into spending decisions geared toward saving lives.

What do you say to those who speak of backtracking? I don't see a surrender. I see an attempt to avoid a false ultimatum between climate and development. Even the most critical commentators recognize that the two agendas can move forward together, if truly impactful technologies and projects that reduce human suffering are funded.

Which technologies deserve priority according to this logic? Those that reduce the green premium in hard-to-decarbonize sectors, such as heavy-duty transport, cement, steel, fertilizers, and aviation, along with more robust electricity grids, long-duration storage, and solutions for resilient agriculture. The idea is to scale the market while reducing the real costs of the transition.

What implications do you see for Europe and Italy? We need plans that combine two dimensions: reducing emissions and delivering real benefits for citizens and businesses. Less ideology, more indicators of well-being and competitiveness. This will prevent regulations that are disconnected from household income and industrial cycles from producing regressive effects.

A summary for decision-makers? Less catastrophizing, more concreteness. Evaluate each policy by how much it improves people's lives and how many emissions it avoids. Protect healthcare and development funding in fragile countries. Decisively push for high-impact innovation. This is the new compass proposed by Gates, and I support it.