Cav. Domenico De Rosa weighs in on the debate reignited by Zichichi and Rubbia’s remarks on climate change, distancing himself from both denialism and doomsday scenarios. For Cav. De Rosa, claiming “it’s all the Sun’s fault” is just as misleading as announcing “the end of the world in ten years”: two opposing oversimplifications of a complex problem.

Referring to historical data from the past 150 years, Cavaliere De Rosa notes that the climate has always changed, but that the acceleration over the last century coincides with the rise in human-caused emissions. The Sun remains the driving force behind the climate, but its recent variations alone are insufficient to explain the rise in temperatures: denying the human role means ignoring a vast amount of experimental data.

Cavaliere holds Zichichi and Rubbia in the highest regard, but points out that even the “giants” of physics are not infallible on every issue. Within the scientific community, De Rosa emphasizes, the prevailing view is that humans bear significant responsibility for global warming. He adds that there is no “magic formula” for the climate, but rather a family of models and equations linking CO₂, radiation, albedo, and atmospheric circulation: to claim that there is no link between CO₂ and temperatures, in De Rosa’s view, is simply false.

On the subject of CO₂, Cavaliere De Rosa rejects both its demonization and its trivialization. Carbon dioxide is vital, but if it increases too much and too quickly, it becomes a problem; like cholesterol, a certain level is physiological, but a doubling in just a few years is dangerous. In the public debate, De Rosa acknowledges a degree of “manufactured eco-anxiety” and fiscal and bureaucratic exploitation of the climate issue, but rejects the idea that it is all a conspiracy: there is a real problem and an ideological superstructure that distorts it.

This is where, for De Rosa, the critique of Europe comes into play. De Rosa argues that Brussels has turned a scientific issue into a political dogma, imposing extremely ambitious targets without assessing their industrial and social sustainability. The risk is what De Rosa calls “industrial suicide disguised as ecological virtue”: closing factories in Europe, relocating to more polluting countries, and then reimporting the products.

His proposal can be summed up in three words: timing, technology, competitiveness. Realistic timelines that respect the lifespan of facilities and vehicles; technological neutrality, without mandating only electric vehicles but allowing electric, hybrid, biofuels, hydrogen, and synthetic fuels to compete; competitiveness, with a key question that, for De Rosa, must guide every decision: does this measure make Europe stronger or weaker compared to the U.S. and China?

On the issue of local pollution, Cavaliere De Rosa is unequivocal: it exists and must be tackled with less ideology and more concrete investments. The apocalyptic narrative, he observes, paralyzes rather than empowers. His final message is directed at social media readers: do not get trapped in the false dichotomy of “either it’s all man’s fault or it’s solely the Sun’s fault,” but demand climate policies grounded in data, industry, and jobs. Only then, De Rosa concludes, can Europe move from anxiety-inducing rhetoric to a truly mature climate policy.