 we're going to turn to a totally different location and topic. We're going to move to Italy and the SDSN Italian Network and we're going to look at the work they've been doing in the past few weeks to fight the COVID-19 coronavirus. So I'm also going to warn people that this session is going to be in Italian. If you are not an Italian speaker, we invite you to connect again in about an hour when we transition to another session that'll be back in English, but we hope a lot of you are Italian speakers and will stay on. So, Laura, over to you. So thanks a lot, Lauren. I just want to say hello to all of you and all the audience and to tell thank you and the whole organization to make possible this initiative, but allow me to switch to Italian to better involve our audience. The important topic of the International Initiative is happiness and sustainability, but we can't ignore the health emergency that we're experiencing in this particular historical moment. So we've decided to invite the professor Neroico Giovannini, who, despite all the commitments of the moment, has kindly accepted our invitation. And Professor Giovannini will focus in particular on Agenda 2030 and the COVID-19 crisis, indicators, valuations and spaces for the development of politics in the Italian panorama. Professor Giovannini doesn't need any introduction, but to highlight his experience, I remind you that he was Chief Statistician Deluxe from 2001 to August 2009, President of EASTAT from 2009 to April 2013, and from 28 April 2013 to February 2014, Minister of Work and Social Politics. He is an ordinary professor of economic statistics at the University of Roma Torvergata and a student of Public Management for the Department of Political Science at the University of Louis and the voice of the ASVIS, the Italian Alliance for Sustainable Development. Last but not least, on April 10, he was appointed member of the Task Force for phase two of the COVID-19 emergency in command of experts in economic and social matters. I remind all of you, instead, that you are connected, that the webinar is live and you can interact by asking questions to our reporter. All the questions can be written in the Q&A panel or questions for those who are watching the program in Italian that you can view on your screen. We welcome you and in the end we will dedicate some space to answer all of them. Professor Giovannini, thank you very much for being here with us. The floor is yours. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here with you. I hope you can see me well. Can you confirm me? Very well, yes. Perfect. Thank you very much to SDSN for this opportunity and then a double important symbolic opportunity because this webinar, this series of webinars, takes place during the day of the Earth. The day of the Earth is clearly connected to this planetary crisis that we are experiencing, but I will not enter into these aspects as much as the topic that I was assigned, that is, the relationship between sustainable development, happiness and well-being is sustainable, which is the BESS formula with the acronym that we chose years ago, which in Italy, well before the definition of the 2030 agenda, we chose to measure the level of progress of Italy and, above all, its equity and sustainability. This is good when I was president of E-STAT and it was a work that then led to a series of political developments that today, just today, should, if the political calendar is confirmed, bring to the approval of the document of economy and finance, the famous DEF, which has a tight relationship with the well-being, equity and sustainability. I have prepared some slides that I hope you can see. Exactly. So let's start with the fact that history will talk about us. It will talk about us because we have not only an extraordinary responsibility as the last generation, as the general secretary of the ONU, Ban Ki-moon, proposing the 2030 agenda to all the countries in the world, we are the last generation that can avoid the collapse of the planet and our civilization. But history will also talk about us because we are the generation that is experiencing a pandemic like the one from Covid-19, which, for all those who are living today, has never been experienced, because the previous situation, similar to the Spanish of 1919, has only been experienced by a few people, hundreds or almost. What we are talking about has a lot to do with capitalism. Capitalism is like a socio-economic system and a socio-economic system that is characterized by the private property of the instrumental goods, that is, goods through which the production is carried out. We generate the income and we see in these days what it means when a productive system is stopped. If, of course, the air is maybe a little cleaner, we have dolphins in the sea closer to the river, but economic disasters cannot certainly make us say that this is the world we would like to live in. Capitalism has been very discussed in the centuries, I would say, at this point and there are basically two schools of thought. The first school says that capitalism, in reality, has always existed and has characterized, certainly in some countries, where communism has always been used for a period of time, and has always existed and has characterized, therefore, the development of the economy, however. There is, instead, who says, no, capitalism is not necessarily the only state that the world has lived in and can change regimes. The first ones, which are certainly the majority, are, on the other hand, underlines the fact that in time capitalism has changed. Capitalism that we have known since the 80s, that is, since Reagan and Tatcher have been imposed on the political plane in England and the United States, is different from capitalism that we had known after the Second World War, so much so as to give an idea to those who, perhaps, are relatively young, in 1973. So, before the oil crisis in Italy, when the IRPEF was introduced, the tax imposed on the media of the physical people, the highest liquefaction on the IRPEF was 72%, while in England and in the United States, it was between 65 and 75%. And there was even a 95% higher liquefaction, the highest in absolute, on the taxes of succession, and I'm talking about the temples of capitalism, that is, in England and the United States. This is to say that if today one proposed something like that in the current context, it would be taken for granted. And yet, at the time, that was capitalism. Starting from here, because everything originally, in some way, the so-called current model of development, when, in 1944, the United States, a step from winning the World War, called the experts of national statistics and accountability from England and the United States, closed them in a room to define how the pill would have been calculated, the internal product, that then the United States would have provided to impose as a measure the rest of the world. This story is told in this book. And as you can see, it is not so much a statistical question, because Kusnetz, the American school, and Midstone, the English school, had different points of view on how it would have had to be calculated in the pill. The Americans, in the end, closed the English model, focused on the quantity of production in favor of Kusnetz, which instead proposed a measure more based on consumption and wellness. Since then, we have all been very busy to maximize the pill, and so we have seen, as you can see, these curves, very high just after the Second World War, that the human genre has actually succeeded in accelerating, as never before, the growth of the pill, but also the use of energy, in general, the well-being. It is a pity that when we have connected, sorry, the application of this model to the whole world, well, they are part of the consumption of the rest of the dimensions, especially those natural ones, and so we have applied to the whole world a model that, until then, was actually applied to a few hundred million people, the world developed, while the rest of the world fought against hunger and underdevelopment. In other words, when the model has been applied to the whole world, since we are in a finished space, it is clear that the unsustainability of that model is at stake. But here, we do not know it today, we have known it for over 50 years, when the Club of Rome, in its famous report, The Limits to Growth, made simulations showing, for example, with the Tracted Line, the progress expected in one of the scenarios of the pill, that is, the services and the pro-captain industrial output, the progress of the population, you see the rig, Tracted to the right, but also the use of resources and food. And based on this scenario, I repeat, one of the various scenarios analyzed, you see that around 2020-2030, the world collapsed, that is, the human system collapsed, and from the 8 billion of 2020-2030, it was back to 6 billion at the end of the century. The continuous lines are the effective endings of the last 40 years. And it is quite extraordinary, if not surprising, precisely the capacity of that system, based on the theory of systems, to take trends at such a long scale. And therefore, the real theme we have in front of us is to dismantle, let's say, this simulation, this scenario. What do we have to do? This was the question that we all asked ourselves only a few months ago or a few years ago, for some. But the crucial point that I would like to underline is the fact that the motivations that the economists, and the politicians, pushed, did not listen to the Club of Rome. At the time there was a big debate, in which, above all, the economists said, no, but these are all jokes, because technology will solve the problem, the relative prices will change, and therefore, if, for example, oil will become increasingly scarce, well, we will replace it with something else. Moreover, technology will allow us, as always, in the history of humanity, to face the various problems. And, of course, the world we know today is profoundly different from that of 1972. But, fundamentally, the capitalist system and the approach based on relative prices did not work. This is the truth. And therefore, we face a planetary risk, precisely because we have not changed the road. But we have entrusted ourselves to a system as a sort of automatic pilot, in addition to, of course, a series of policies that have changed the orientation in many countries of development, but we have entrusted ourselves to a model that, in reality, is not able to balance as the theory was telling us. And now, of course, the experts are strongly concerned. This slide summarizes the risk map that, according to the report of the World Economic Forum on global risks based on the answers of about 1,000 experts from all over the world, was built only a few months ago. You see, being a risk map, it basically evaluates the probability of a third phenomenon and the size of the impact that if that phenomenon were realized, it would determine on the system or on the single countries. And on the right, therefore, we have those more impactant and more probable phenomena. We now find, this year, all the phenomena related to the environment, to the climate change, to the hydropower crises and so on. So, to give you an idea, here was the pandemic. And therefore, according to the experts, the impact of the pandemic was certainly high, but the probability that it occurred was low. This error, of course, is costing us a lot of money. But what I would like to highlight, beyond the evolution in time, you see also the colors of the different dimensions, this is the probability that these phenomena occur. You see how, 10 years ago, or even just 5 years ago, the environmental themes were essentially absent. And now, instead, they are high in the classification, also together with the data, the risk of furtive data, the cybernetic attacks and so on. In terms of impact, here are four of the five themes, the fifth and the last of the nuclear wars are really at the top. This is the vision of about a thousand experts all over the world. But this year, the World Economic Forum has also published an interesting deepening, and that is to ask the young people of the Global Shapers to evaluate these same phenomena. And these maps show the comparison between the evaluation of the experts, the small balls, and the evaluation of the young ones, the big balls. And you see that, in general, the young people have much more extreme views of the various problems, both in terms of impact, both in terms of probability of the implementation of these phenomena. And so the big question is, but are the young people, who, perhaps under the pressure of Greta Tottenberg or other opinion leaders among them, are excessively concerned? Or are the experts, who, following old, typically linear models, do not see the risks we have ahead? I always say that now the battle that is being fought is between the children of the anthropocene and the children of the pill. The people of my generation are the children of the pill, that is, those with which they benefited from the economic growth, from well-being, from education, from health, etc., etc. all those positive elements that grew together with the pill. And until we arrive at the children of the anthropocene, that is, the younger ones, to whom we are basically saying, well, no, you don't, I'm sorry, but you won't be able to benefit from what we benefited from. And I'll show you this film. It's a film in which there are two chimneys that have to do a small job, they have to move a sassolino and receive a sassolino in exchange. Excuse me, a piece of cetriolo, which is very good for them. But at a certain point, that one on the right is given a douba. The one on the left does the work and, remunerated with a piece of cetriolo, really takes it a lot. As you can see, the one on the right does the work, receives a douba again. The one on the left, he asks me to do the work, he doesn't do it, he doesn't do it, at the end he trusts himself, receives a piece of cetriolo again and doesn't even put it in his mouth, he throws it out and takes it. Well, this naturally explains why the young people are on the road and they are right because, being the children of the Anthropocene, they understand that the fundamental principle of sustainable development has been violated, that is, the justice between generations. The sustainable development is the development that allows the current generation to satisfy their needs, allowing the next generations to do something else. We are violating exactly that principle. The point is that, in this situation, the awareness of the non-sustainability of the development model is not something that concerns only the young people, but it concerns more and more people. And then there is this server that is made of risks of losing the place of work in case of automation, globalization, the pandemic, the migration, the climate change. In short, all the elements that compete at this moment to do what some authors, Comin and Sperone, did in a book that was published a few years ago, called the perfect storm. Because at the time, experts told us that around 2020 all a series of problems would have been concentrated, confirming exactly those predictions made in 1972 by the Club of Rome. Before the pandemic, the main concerns and the Italians were not related to the climate change, the inequality, of course, the economic stagnation, the migratory flows, but it seemed to us to have a much stronger awareness of the non-sustainability of both the environmental and social. The point is that, as Zagrebelski has said many times, even democracy is based on fear, but it is a modicum of fear. If fear exceeds a certain level, then people are ready to give up their freedom in exchange for protection. And this graph presented in a report by the European Commission a few months ago shows this strong correlation between the percentage of people who think that the economic situation is not good and who thinks that democracy is not the best system to manage this situation. Based on this correlation, you can imagine what people think today after the pandemic shock. And this is, in fact, one of the great political themes on the institutional sustainability of our systems. In this scheme that I have changed by adding an additional element from what the ecological economists have developed since 1997, we understand how a closed system like the Earth works. There are planetary limits. I know, I draw this earth as a rectangle, you will excuse me, but on the other hand, if there are terrapies, I don't see why I can't do something like this. Our closed system, the Earth, changes the correct system of solar energy and the heat of waste. For the rest, everything is played internally and therefore the natural capital is combined, the human capital, the people, the social capital, the relationships between us, the economic capital, in a production process to produce pills. And a part of this pill is reinvested, a part is consumed. But then, the way we organize the productive process, using the slaves or involving the workers in a company, for example, changes the well-being of people. And then the way in which it is produced, the way in which it is consumed, generates waste. But in the sense of the loudness of Pope Francis, physical waste and human waste. Pope, in fact, in the encyclical remembers that the culture that generates physical waste is the same as the human waste. This impacts the well-being directly, but then also on the services of the ecosystem, the one we receive for free, apparently for free by nature, which impacts our well-being, the beauty of a landscape, the free work of the APIs and so on. And I added, with respect to the 1997 scheme, the services of the social system, that is, peace, trust in the future, common vision and also trust in the future. And these naturally impact our well-being. This scheme helps to understand the different interrelations and what do we intend for the development model? In the capitalist model, to go back to what I was initially saying, the regime of property accounts a lot and the property can be individual, or common or public. And here, where the model changes, the model can be more individualistic, less individualistic, where the concept of common goods can be marginal or purely theoretical, or instead be at the center of the functioning of the society and the economy. Here, you see, then, that the first slide on the characteristics of capitalism and the way it works the whole system is very clear through this scheme, it is very clear through this slide. I go towards the conclusion, but then I come to the question of happiness. I always say that there were four alternatives in front of this situation, the business as usual, that is, to believe that the model of growth can solve our problems. These were the predictions of the lox before the coronavirus shock, of course, and you see that, for the developed countries, it was expected that a growth of 1.75% of the pill per year for 40 years, and with a growth of this type, for example, the problem of inequality becomes essentially intractable. A second vision is that of dystopia, that is, to imagine that, in fact, the world is about to end, and therefore that the predictions of the Club of Rome will come true. And then what can you do? Well, maybe earn enough money to go live in New Zealand, in a big bunker, like those who have been built and are in construction on the request of many rich people, from Silicon Valley and not just. Or hope to be able to take off a ticket for the orbital stations that the administrator of Tesla's legacy, Elon Musk, said he wanted to build to own the rich, when the land will become uninhabited. The third possible solution is that of retro-typing, and that is the idea of being able to go back, which Bauman talks about in his book, and the idea here is that people are so inspired by the leap towards globalization that imposes the idea that we are all, that is, that what happens in a part of the world can impact on the other parts of the world, as happened also with the coronavirus, and that the planet is also new. Well, fear, the incapacity of people who are experiencing this cultural leap of globalization in 30 years, while the previous jumps, the exit from the caves, and the passage of agriculture, and then the construction of the cities, of the states, of the national states, and in every state, we were becoming bigger while they were being restricted, I am not literally able to manage this situation. And so the idea is, let's go back. Let's make US great again, not very similar to what Adolf Hitler said a century ago, let's make Germany great again. The fourth possible solution is to still believe in an utopia, a sustainable utopia, as I wrote in my book of 2018. And it is what the young people ask us, but many others ask us, of course, but to get to this change of mentality, we need to recognize the unsustainability of the current model of development. Massimo Salvadori, who wrote important books, knows about the concept of progress, has more or less remembered the fact that while the communist ideologies and fascist Nazis coming from the Aegean philosophy of a story that naturally would have wanted towards the goals of progress, I said, after the failure of those ideologies, the world abandoned the idea of a unique progress and started talking about progress, economic progress, social progress, technological progress. Massimo Salvadori tells us that if we no longer believe in the automatic, mechanical progress that is inherent in history, then we must agree on what is the idea of progress that we want to pursue. And this is where the 2030 agenda approved by all countries in the world in September 2015 becomes the highest point in the history of humanity. What do we want to achieve? With its 17 goals, its 169 targets, but above all its four pillars and an integrated vision of a development based on the economy, society, the environment and institutions. This way of reasoning represents a real leap in respect to the past. And it is because it imposes an integrated thought. So, if I go back to the slide I used previously and look at that scheme, the 17 goals of sustainable development, then we understand that those 17 goals that are practically negotiated by the rulers of the world for almost two and a half years are not just a list, but they are a plan to change the system. So, the idea of changing the system of development becomes much more concrete because we understand which pieces of the system we must change. So, this is the state of art, if you want, on the subject of sustainable development. A topic that is very hot at the moment is because there is the risk that the coronavirus crisis will kill the 2030 agenda, as part of the 2008-2009 crisis, killing the discussions. At the time I was the director of the OX services that we were launching around the world to go beyond the PIN. And here I take some slides of the time, in particular the slides that you drew on the sand with a piece of wood that I brought to life from Bhutan, because a 70% of the experts gathered around the world were invited by the government of Bhutan, I speak of January 2013, to imagine a new economic paradigm. And after the discussion day, we were a little bit planted, and as it is said in a book, while we were waiting for the king to come with the queen to take the tea with us, I was out, think of January 2013 in Bhutan, I think at 3,500 meters above sea level in the capital of Bhutan, we were wearing a shirt or a shirt, this already gave an idea of the climate change in that country, and I drew on the sand this scheme, synthesizing in other terms, in a schematic way, the old, in part the present, model of development. We started with human needs and we built a machine to produce pills, and we imagine that this pill must satisfy human needs, that's it. That analysis, that scheme, in reality it already resented the work we were doing at LOX for many years, and in particular the work that, in parallel with the Stiglitz Commission, where we were part of, we were working to imagine a different way to measure wellness. And this was the scheme that then led to the scheme that LOX developed later with the so-called Better Life Index, which is one of the most used indicators that are used just to measure the state of the various countries. And you can see that here the element of sustainability is integrated into the state of four forms of capital, natural capital, human capital, economic capital and social capital, which then you have seen in the previous scheme. In this scheme, as well as in the well-being, eco and sustainable that we were talking about, we will talk about it in a moment, you see that there is this category, the subjective well-being. And for years we have been discussing these aspects because there is the setting of the studies of happiness based on the philosopher, the utilitarianist of Bentham, who basically say that all this, all this series of topics, the health, the economic well-being, etc, etc, are actually synthesized with a single element, precisely the measurable happiness, thanks to the new findings developed around the world, even in Bhutan, in which among other things people are asked if you are happy, not if you are happy instantly. If today, at this moment I ask you, if you are happy, you will answer me, as you have eaten, the fact that you have been at home for a long time, the boredom eventually of my presentation, that is an instant happiness. If I instead asked you how satisfied you are with your life, well then you would balance your life with respect to the state of your expectations. That is what we are talking about, the happiness interpreted in this way. But as you can see, instead, in that scheme, but also in the schemes used in Italy for the best, we added that dimension, well knowing that that happiness actually depends on all the others and therefore on the logical level it was not a satisfactory solution. For this reason, always on that table of Bhutan, you draw this other graph that you find in the relationship that then Bhutan presented to the United Nations. You see that already at the time there was the idea of planetary boundaries, that is, planetary limits that we have to respect. You start from the needs, not only from the human needs, but also from the development paradigm that is aware of the natural, human and social economic capital and that is about producing what we call the sustainable and eco-sustainable well-being. That is, the improvement of health, of the environment, etc. But in this scheme there was the lack of happiness. Then the intuition that Ebbi, listening to one of the experts who told about a person who had been in jail for 40 years and when he was released, he became a poet saying... Excuse me, 20 years. Saying that the time in jail was the happiest time of my life because I was an alphabetist and there I could study and become a poet, what I hoped for, introduced in this scheme the concept of happiness and resilience skills. That is, the ability to extract happiness and to be resilient, to positively react to even less favorable situations such as being in jail, to produce happiness. That is, I understand that the mistake that we were making at the time was that we considered happiness as an additive element compared to others and not a multiplicative element. In fact, we are told about religions, but we are told, we are told about positive psychology, that these skills can be learned, they can be taught. I don't teach you to be happy, but I teach you to extract happiness from what you have. And why is this relevant? Because happiness impacts on your needs and therefore, for example, it also takes into account the needs of the environment and not only of human beings, but also with greater happiness. The machine, the system, the paradigm works better. And here is the interest of politics not so much to teach you to be happy, but to teach you to extract happiness. And this also surpasses the objection of Amartya Sen on the happy use, because here we are not trying to convince the people who must be happy. No, we are trying to develop the capabilities that Amartya Sen calls capabilities, to flourish. In this scheme, as you can see, the production of, let's say, well-being, the 17 goals, but also this is linked to the theme of happiness. In short, a new way of thinking and acting, necessary, especially now, in which the shocks are particularly violent. I conclude with a reference to this volume that is available and that helps to understand how you can think in a different way and out of the box, even in situations like these, rather, in particular, in situations like these. And I conclude with a reference to two relationships. One is the Asvis relationship, which is what, as the Italian Alliance for Sustainable Development, which we publish since 2016, no, since 2016, excuse me, the Asvis combines more than 240 subjects of civil society and collaborates with SDSN in Italy, in particular, and here you can find a whole series of information on the evolution of sustainable development in Italy, but also policy recommendations, and the other, you can find among other things, the indicators that measure the progress of Italy with respect to the 17 goals of sustainable development, but also on the website of the Asvis, you can find many other information, among other things, also an impact evaluation of the coronavirus crisis on more than 100 indicators that are then used to build these synthetic indicators. And then the relationship that, instead, Secretary General of the United Nations publishes annually on the progress of the world with respect to sustainable development goals. In short, in conclusion, as you can see, it is possible to link the measure and the political attitude between the economy, the society, the environment and institutions. But the real issue is how to make sure that when the policy is designed, it takes into account these aspects. And here it is, where the experience of the sustainable and sustainable well-being that we had at LISTAT in 2010, when I was president, which then led from 2013 to publish a BESS report with more than 130 indicators of the social, environmental, and social situation of Italy, it is connected, instead, with politics, because politics has chosen that when the government today approves the document of economy and finance, it must also evaluate the impact of the policies expected on a dozen of the 130 indicators of sustainable well-being. And then, in February, after having approved the law of balance, it must make an impact not on the plans, but on what the law has actually decided to act. And the good news is that this approach has been taken now also by the European Commission, which therefore has chosen that the European semester, that is, the mechanism of programming of European policies, is made around the 2030 agenda and therefore the national DEF must be oriented to the 2030 agenda. Here, this is a point only with which I conclude to tell you that it is possible to measure better, it is possible to develop conceptual models that make our thought advance in terms of integration of economy, society and environment, and it is also possible to link this approach to politics, but then expect politicians to realize in facts and not just words what we are talking about. Thank you, I will stop here and I think there is time for questions and answers. Thank you very much, Professor Giovannini. Now we begin to answer the questions. I have now collected one by the fly, which is especially the last part on the extraction of happiness. They are asking me to extract the happiness of not being happy. Does it not mean that the public should be responsible? It is precisely the reason why, in the scheme that I have shown you, there are the indicators of well-being, which are very strong responsibilities, in particular of politics. But then the element of happiness is left to individuals, because each of us, for example, in this cohabitation forced by COVID, may discover positive elements that he did not see before, or rather suffer, especially where there are family relationships, for example, conflict. This is a good example of the person in jail that I told you about in Bhutan. And so, apparently, in other conditions, some people manage to extract more or less happiness from this forced prison linked to social distancing. This is not responsible for nothing the public, indeed. And the curve, the arrow that I have shown you, that is, in which the public can, I do not say teach, I repeat, to be happy, but extract happiness. Let's think, as I said before, about the attitude of positive psychology, which then has to do with meditation, the forms of re-centering of people who live better, in comparison to all other conditions, shows that the state can do more. In the West, however, we are very surprised by the ethical state, that is, a state that teaches you how to live. And here, where I just give you an example, you can turn this problem around. In the United States, the Clinton Foundation, years ago, convinced the producers of gas drinks to remove the gas drinks from distributors in schools. Simply by saying, look, if you bring your children to drink gas drinks, they will have diabetes for 15 years and they will no longer drink. If you sell them when they are 15 or 20 years old, there are 50 or 60 years of possible consumption. The interesting thing is that this approach transforms a problem of efficiency into a problem of efficiency. In the United States, if you do not follow the diet prescriptions, if you are obese, you lose priority in access to health services, because you are downloading a cost related to your active behavior on a collective basis. Perfect. Stefania Toraldo, who has reached us, the other manager of the SDS in Italy, has received other questions in the meantime. I remind everyone, in fact, that there are still some doubts, some curiosities that can continue to be written in the question panel. Stefania, we can't hear you. Can you hear me now? Perfect. Good evening, everyone. Thank you, Laura. Thank you, Professor Giovannini. I have another question from Agnese. He asks, how will the position of the national governments to face the crisis and the actions carried out by the private sector and by organizations such as, for example, the International Organization for Human Development? Well, this is the great question we have in mind. And for which, as written in a book of 2014, we expect to choose the future. I'll give just three examples. You read on the newspapers that one of the ways to reduce contact when you go back to work is to use an individual means. And so people will probably be encouraged or encouraged to use their own car, instead of the public means. Why? Because there is more social distancing. And so you could say, okay, use your own cars. Exactly the opposite of what you've been trying to say so far. Another way to approach the problem is to say, okay, let's put incentives on bicycles, electric bicycles or other sustainable mobility tools. They are individual, so they keep the distance, but they make a huge difference in terms of pollution. Here, governments have a lot of decisions of this type to take in this period. And there will also be the European Union, which in turn, next to the crisis unit, has precisely created the resilience unit, as I call it, that is, to think in the mid-term. Governments can decide to react to this crisis as they reacted in 2008-2009. We create jobs even if they are. Or to say, no, we orient the choices, such as, for example, imposing small, medium-sized companies, small, medium-sized companies, making it so-called non-financial. That is, the fact of having to count not only on the economic results, but also on the social and environmental aspects. The subject, among other things, on which sustainable finance is going, because it no longer intends to invest in companies that do not have a long-term perspective. Here, this is a big question. If that is the international finance, after this crisis, will it orient itself on the new and old criteria or will it have even more incorporated the concept of risk? And therefore it will choose those companies that will not only be more sustainable in the environmental sense, but also social, for example, ensuring that their own dependents operate in a health-safety condition. Thank you. I have another question. Professor Giovannini, thank you very much for the presentation. My question is, what should we start with in order to create an inclusive and resilient society? Where do we have to start post-COVID? So, basically, it's a priority. Here, this is the typical question that is asked, even when one presents the 17 goals of development. What are the most important ones? Well, if one asks this question, it means that perhaps one has not yet taken the entire relationship of the 17 goals. Now, of course, one has to start with something. And that is why I might suggest to see a document, not only that of ASVIS on the impact of the crisis on the 17 goals and therefore the proposals of policies, for example, to set up an emergency grid for those who, even if they are working in black, do not have any social shock absorbers. But then I invite you to look at this recent paper just a few days ago that we wrote with the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, in which we applied to the COVID crisis a policy scheme that is no longer economic and social and environmental, but policies that protect, promote, prepare, prevent and transform. It's a different way of thinking, and the good news is that we can do a lot of things together. So the priority order is determined, more than anything else, by a question of a balance. But as I said a moment ago, for example, changing the rules of the company's bank accounts does not have a balance impact. The important thing to do is to ask yourself now where we want to go, that is, to avoid thinking about wanting to go back to where we were three months ago. It would be a glamorous mistake. For this we are talking about transformative resilience, which is not being resilient to go back to where it was, but to transform. And so, thinking, for example, if we really, in 2022, let's suppose that the PIL will come back at the level of 2019, we want to have 110 billion of evasions, we want to put all the gas on the ground that some areas, in particular, look at cases the most affected by COVID, etc., etc. So we don't just have to do more things, we have to do different things from what we did before. Do you have any other questions? I don't have any other questions. I have one more, excuse me, which is more related to the definition of PIL and to the use of the new indicator, especially the Happiness. Gentiles, Prof. Giannani, many are the publications that talk about the limits of PIL as a indicator of well-being. But why does it still remain the sovereign indicator? The supremacy of PIL is really only due to its simplicity and objective, unlike the example of the Happiness Index, which is highly subjective. Thank you. The beating I always do to those who say that measuring happiness is difficult, I answer them and you have to try to measure PIL, which has happened to me for many years. We believe that PIL exists in nature and that it is enough to measure one meter. Of course, no, there are a lot of hypotheses behind it. And as I said before, even when PIL was created, there was a school of thought behind it. The rules that determine PIL change over time, fortunately, with the evolution of economic theory but also of sensitivity. For example, in 2002 I wrote by the director of LOX to the other great international organizations, saying that it doesn't seem stupid that we measure the costs of research and development as a cost and not as an investment, and then we change the rules in the future and I could make other examples in general. But the point is something else. What do we have to do with these numbers? So you can see that I am totally opposite to what I said, to replace PIL with LEPINESS. Why wouldn't it really make any sense compared to that scheme? Unless you don't actually embrace the philosophy of Bentham and therefore calculate the utility, think that the utility can be summed up in some way, and then I urge you to choose the internet to live, since the English government had clearly said, well, we choose to throw away the elderly with the Covid strategy, instead of others going forward. I'm not saying this because it's not about measures, but it's about deep philosophy of life and division of the world. So the LEPINESS indicator is useful, but it can't replace PIL. No single indicator can replace PIL or it can and must be kept in isolation. The truth is that even PIL is seen alone. But today we already have many indicators that we could use, and then it says why PIL? Because we've been here for 55 years in a way of thinking that it sees that indicator as a proxy of many other indicators. Historically, with the increase in PIL and the increase in health education, there are many beautiful things. But today that indicator is no longer representative of the economic well-being. Let me give you an example. We're almost closing. Between 2007 and 2014, the pro-capital PIL in the European Union was increased by 2%. The available income of the families, that is, how much was left in the pockets in the pro-capital real life, was reduced by 5.5%. Seven points of difference. And those seven points made a difference between when I was talking to an economist and when a family leader listened to those economists talking about a world that wasn't the one he was living in. Here we already have many indicators, those Asvis, you can see them, but there are also others, often too many, and so that's why we synthesize them in 17 goals, but we're against synthesizing everything in one indicator. And the answer is, but would you buy a car that only has a tachometer? I don't think so. And so, if we learn to drive a car looking at four or five indicators, we can also clean them. Thank you, thank you, Professor, and thank you all for participating in the webinar. In case of any other curiosity, I invite you to refer to the Asvis Institute and to those of the two Austin Institutions of SDSN Italia, which are www.femme.it, founded in Enrico Mattei, and www.santachiaralab.unicy.it and Santachiaralab at the University of Siena. A video recording reminds us that it will be available on the YouTube page of SDSN in the next few days. So, in the name of SDSN Italia and our guest, thank you again for being here today and have a good day. Lauren, thanks again. We leave the floor to the next speaker. Thank you. Thank you so much, Nella. Thank you so much and allow me to, again, thank Professor Giovannini, Laura and Stefania for organizing this wonderful session. We are about to transition. We're ending this broadcast, the fourth of our six going on today. I hope to see everybody on the next session. We're moving around the world to the Black Sea region and we'll be starting that shortly. So, I put the link in the chat and we'll see everyone online. Thank you for joining.