The Great Simplification with Nate Hagens - Antonio Turiel: "Deep Challenges: Oceans, Scarcity and Culture"

Episode Date: April 5, 2023

On this episode, physicist Antonio Turiel joins me for a wide-ranging discussion from oceans and climate to energy and culture. Oceans are one of the most important factors regulating the Earth's climate, and yet they receive relatively little attention from the climate community. There are numerous critical risk factors to unpack regarding just the oceans alone - and still so much that we don't know. This conversation also delves into the complexity of an economic system requiring continuous growth itself embedded in an Earth system that is already hitting its limits. What are the boundaries of our energy systems and what options do we have - and not have - for the future? Is the root of the critical issue we're facing - not a technical problem - but a cultural problem? About Antonio Turiel: Antonio Turiel Martínez is a scientist and activist with a degree in Physics and Mathematics and a PhD in Theoretical Physics from the Autonomous University of Madrid. He works as a senior scientist at the Institute of Marine Sciences of the CSIC specializing in remote sensing, turbulence, sea surface salinity, water cycle, sea surface temperature, sea surface currents, and chlorophyll concentration. He has written more than 80 scientific articles, but he is better known as an online activist and editor of The Oil Crash blog, where he addresses sensitive issues about the depletion of conventional fossil fuel resources, such as the peak of oil and its possible implications on a world scale. To watch this video episode on Youtube → https://youtu.be/n1fIkS4y798 Show Notes & Links to Learn More: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/65-antonio-turiel

You're listening to The Great Simplification with Nate Higgins. That's me. On this show, we try to explore and simplify what's happening with energy, the economy, the environment, in our society. Together with scientists, experts, and leaders, this show is about understanding the bird's eye view of how everything fits together, where we go from here and what we can do about it as a society and as individuals. Amigos and amigas, bienvenitos to the great simplification. Today's guest is Antonio Turiel, who is a physicist at the Institute of Marine Science

in Barcelona, Spain, specializing in remote sensing, turbulent sea surface salinity, water cycle, sea surface temperature, sea surface currents, and chlorophyll concentration. He is also, truly a polymath and a Renaissance man.

Most times when you see the word polymath, it's someone self-describing themselves on LinkedIn. I am describing Antonio Turiel as a polymath. We talk about oceans, how they are important in regulating Earth's climate, yet they receive very little attention as to what's going on with the ocean, temperatures, the AMOC, et cetera.

Antonio also runs a, a popular blog in Europe called The Oil Crash. He truly is working 60 to 80 hour weeks on the human predicament, very active in Spain, on trying to get Spain to do things more sustainably. This conversation covers a wide spectrum of content. Antonio and I have known of each other's work for 15 years, but this was the very time, first time we've ever spoken together. It was a great conversation for those of you who are listening to this on the podcast apps.

I might suggest that you watch this on YouTube where there are full captions available because Antonio, even though it's his third language, he speaks very, very fast. This was a great episode and I hope to have Antonio back. Please welcome Antonio Turiel. Saludos, Amigo. Good morning. Antonio, I have known of your work for a very long time, and you've probably known of mine, and we're finally having a conversation.

So thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule today. Well, I am very glad to be here with you, actually. And yes, I have been following with you for very long now. We had to wait until the crisis was upon us to have a conversation, the irony. So you are among many other things. You're a physicist specializing in remote sensing, turbulence, sea surface salinity, water cycle, sea surface temperature, sea surface currents, chlorophyll concentrations, and other marine ocean issues. You also run a popular blog on oil and you're very active in Spanish, in Spain, in the sustainability discussions. and you have a family and a full-time job.

So my first question is, how in the heck do you do all this? Well, you know, the secret, the secret is not sleeping. It's quite easy, actually. For instance, today I have slept just for hours. This is not my usual schedule, but sometimes it happens. Now, I think it's a question of having a good organization of time, my guess. And also, when you are combines it of something, when you think that something must be done, I think that you find the energy to do it.

Yeah, I feel the same way, but I still need eight or nine hours of sleep. And you and I on these prep calls with our technology, you were up at 10, 10.30 p.m. doing these tech checks. So carry on with your important work. So I think we could talk for three or 12 hours, but we have a 90-minute hard stop because of your train. What should we talk about? I think that we can start talking about the situation with the climate in general, and in particular ocean climate, which is my specialty. And then we can go ahead discussing on natural resources and the condoondry that we have

for energy and for economy at the global scale. I think this will be more or less the things that we could tackle. Excellent. That was my idea as well. So I've had a lot of ocean experts on this podcast, one. Peak Fish, another on prior mass extinctions with hydrogen sulfide and DJ White, who's a cetacean activist. But no guests so far has unpacked specifically how burning fossil fuels leads to acidifying oceans. Can you, just for starters, in like a basic primer sort of way, explain the mechanisms and the risks

and implications of ocean acidification? Well, something that happens in the oceans is that the oceans are continually being mixed by the action of wind because when it generates waves, you know? So the question at the end is that because of this mechanism, oceans are continuously capturing a small bubble of air inside it. The question is that if you are increasing the concentration of CO2,

this is contributing to the solution of this CO2 inside of the ocean. This is what we call inorganic, and dissolve CO2. There is a normal mechanism for the dissolution of CO2 inside water, which is caused by the action of living organisms. So in particular, in algae, because when they die, all the carbonates, all the chemical substances,

they have assimilated COD2 from these bubbles, like mentioned before. And when they die, they go to the bottom of the ocean, and then because several mechanisms, the CO2 is also released and also dissolved. and this contributes to the acidification of the ocean in the deeper layers of the ocean. So we have a mechanism for the upper layers, a mechanism for the lower layers. And anyway, all of them are contributing to have more dissolved CO2. The CO2, when it is dissolved on water, because it is carbon oxidide,

it becomes the carbonic acid. And the carbonic acid, as the name implies, it's an acid. So this contributes to acidification. Why acidification is important? Because there are a lot of marine organisms that need the pH, the concentration of ions, the acidity, the say, of the water, to be in a particular specific margin. Otherwise, they die. This affects physes and this affects, for instance, corals because corals have a problem to integrate carbonatein in order to form their exoskeleton. so this becomes dissolved, they tend to disaggregate and disappear.

This affects also the skeletons of algae. At the end, it's affecting all marine life because in one way or the other, they are depending on having an stable, let's say, acidic level in the ocean. So, yes, this is one of the conundries that we have. Because also we know that from all the emissions, the man-made emissions of CO2, because of the burning of fossil fuels,

we know that two thirds of them finish into the ocean. So this is the reason why the ocean is a verification at this very rapid rate. Okay, I have multiple follow-up questions to that. Let's start with your last ones. So most of the heat

and emissions from fossil fuels have been absorbed by the oceans, right? Like something like 90%. What is that? 80% in the case, yeah, 80% of the case of the heat. Well, the main reason is because

the ocean has more capacity to store heat than air. So this is what is called the heat capacity, which is, let's say, the amount of energy, the amount of heat that you need to accumulate in order to increase the temperature by 1 degree. And when you

compare the heat capacity of the water against the heat capacity of the air, it's about one million times more in the case of water. It's much, much, much larger. So water is the large storage of heat of the earth. So anytime they are putting into contact the warm air with the ocean in a continuous basin, the water is assimilating this heat, is getting rid of this heat from the air

and accumulating the water because it has a huge capability to store in it. the probability that it has a huge capability, but not an infinite capability. So the problem at the end is we continue to do this. We are going to alter or so on. What are they actually? The structure of all the water column, you are affecting the consistence where the fishes live. We are affecting the many, many things, and this is what is happening. And which is more worrisome even is that all this heat that the ocean is accumulating

could be released suddenly if the given specific physical processes take place. And this may happen. So one part, a significant part of this accumulated heat, could be suddenly released causing a massive disruption. How would that happen and has that happened in the past? It seems that there are several cycles that favor this release of heat from the ocean. It has mainly to do with the movements, the vertical movements of water in the ocean and also the difference between their temperature and the water temperature.

So what happens is that as we are accumulating heat on the oceans, if the warm water finally up wells at a place at which the air is colder than the water, the water will be transferring heat to the air. And this is the main mechanism of transfer. And it seems that this happens with more intensity because this happens always, I mean. But the question at which times this mechanism intensifies, it seems to happen. Following several cycles, we don't know all of them, but it seems that we have a 20-year cycle that in fact we are now going to the back part of the cycle in which the ocean is releasing a significant greater amount of heat to the air.

And there are other cycles, other periodicities, other times at which this release is even increased more. But we don't know exactly why this happens with this periscity. We don't know the mechanisms at the end, take into account, as in any other branch. of science. We know some phenomena, but we don't know all the answers that why this things take place. At least we know it take place, but we don't know all the mechanisms being involved. So it's safe to say that most people don't really think much about the ocean unless you live

on the coast, but the oceans have been acting as a huge buffer for the heat that we've been emitting over the last hundred years and we just take it for granted, yes? Yes. Now, something which is. important is when you are running climate simulations with large computers, it is very clear that what is driving the behaviour of health climate on the long run is the ocean. The ocean is the main driver because it's the main system in terms of accumulating heat and energy in general. So the effect of the ocean is felt all over the world. And many of the important perturbations, for instance, El Niño, which is something that has been discussed this year, because this year's.

seems that it's probably to be one in linear year. And it is associated to droughts and floods. And it's associated also to heat waves and so on, depending on the place you're living on. This is mainly, at the start, it's a mainly ocean phenomenon. It starts in the ocean, and it finishes on the ocean, actually. So, yes, the dominant part of all the climate machine is the ocean. So compared to the rest of Earth system,

Is the ocean fast or slow to change? And what if oceanic changes begin to speed up? The ocean, because of this huge capacity that it has to store warm heat, let's say, an energy, is the slowest part of the comet system. It's typically, well, probably not the solid is the slowest because maybe the cryosphere, the ice is even slower. But the cariosphere has less size and impact. So from the most active parts is the slowest one.

with difference. And the fact that some processes are speeding up actually right now in the ocean is quite worrisome actually because it is indicating that all the processes around what we typically call climate, which is what is happening on the air, the weather

and so on, probably are going to accelerate as well and much more. So this is the reason why any accelerating in the ocean is very important because normally it is a slow. It should be as low and actually it is accelerated. Okay, so getting back to your comment on coral,

there are some scientific reports that suggest coral reefs will be 75% gone by 2050 or nearly gone this century. So this, I think, affects like 25 to 30% of ocean species because they depend on them for their life cycles. But this is probably due mostly to sea surface temperatures, acidification will play a role going forward, depending on latitude, currents, et cetera. But what are your thoughts on the implications of a loss of coral? And would a loss of coral this century, in turn, kick off a collapse of trophic food webs in the ocean?

Well, this is clear because coral offers the habitat for many species of fishes in particular. So the question is that if coral is collapsing, many species and especially species of fishes are collapsing as well because they are going to lose the place at which they live. So this is implying that all this part of the traffic chain disappears. Something that people must take into account is that when you are considering the living beings on earth and the different places on Earth, they are all connected. This is the cycle of life. So at the end, you have, you have, very first you have the air gate, which is the same as plants in the ocean.

There are other animals that eat those planes, animals, those who, which eat those orifices, orifices and so on, have to arrive to the greatest. The perin perinators, but at the end, everything dies. And in dying, all the organic and inorganic matter that you have gets dissolved, and this is the basis for the new generation, of our guide to bloom.

And 10 million years from now, it will be oil. Well, 10 million years, I don't know, but seven tens of millions of years, yes, of course. Once they accumulate, and if the geological conditions are the appropriate ones, for sure, this will be turned into it. Yeah, of course. But the problem is that we cannot wait, so for so long. But the key point here is that if you have one part of this trophic chain, This trophic means eating.

So the way in which one eats from the other, and the other which one is one and so on and so on. And at the end, everything is reduced, is decomposed and serves as food for the algae. Everything restarts. The problem with this is that if one part of this chain collapses at the end, all the chain collapses. And it is something that, for instance, we have observed in several parts here in the Mediterranean Sea, that we have what is called barren Cs.

So on the barren buttons of the origin. Matarans Sea. We have lost the Posidonia, which is a kind of grass that lives there. We have lost also corals. We have lost a lot of things. We have no fishes. So the only thing that we have there is orchins, this, you know, this is this is more animal. And on top of it, I mean, on the surface of water, you have jellyfish. And this is the only thing that you have. Every other thing has disappeared. So this is that just in some areas of the Mediterranean or a lot of areas. It is happening, maybe in some coastal areas across Spain, across Italy, and across Greece.

So are you chained to your office doing papers and presentations and science, or have you actually been able to scuba dive and go in to look at some of these reefs and actually in the ocean? No, because the problem, you know, I have too many things already. to be that. No, my problem is that I specialize it a lot in remote sensing and in the wood sensing, you see, they always send, but from a distance, you know. And even if I travel a lot because I'm forced to, because I have a lot of meetings, for instance, with the European Space Agency for these kind of things, I am not doing campaigns. I am not performing campaigns myself.

My colleagues here are performing. Sometimes they have invited me. But the problem is that you cannot a right to everything because it's very hard. It's very hard to do everything. Yeah, no, I understand that. So acidification is going to affect aragonite and calcifying organisms, but it's another hit against coral, but also, as you say, not only coral,

but other calcifying plankton and organisms. So I assume that this will, because of the heat and maybe the oxygen, I'm not sure. I assume that this will initially be in the shallow waters, but how fast will ocean mixing make this a full ocean thing? This is hard to say because, you know, we're observing that we have experience changes in the way the ocean is missed.

Because something which is quite interesting, actually, it has to do also with the problem of taking profit of winter energy is that wings are becoming more intense in open ocean and less intense on the continents and on coastal areas. And some places, the change has been traumatic. Why is that? We are not completely sure. We think that it has to do with the most rapid pace of ocean in order to absorb and release heat. But anyway, there is something that we are measuring, so we know for sure this is happening.

And as I said in some places, this is quite dramatic. So the question is that the wind is the main force for mixing. It's not the only one, but it's the main one for the mixing of water. So we are changing the way in which water is mixing, but again, this is not homogeneous. There are some places at the ocean at which the mixing rate is increased and the mixing rates at all the places is decreased. Sir, you are commenting on temperature, on water temperature, and this is true that this is affecting in general all the life. Because temperature affects in many different ways. One important way is that as you increase the temperature, you are reducing the sulfur.

ability of oxygen. So it means that the amount of oxygen that is contained inside the water is diminished. So for organisms that rely on having this oxygen to live, for instance, fish, because they have taken the oxygen from dissolving water, they have less and less at that. And even at a point that combined with the presence of some algae, there are death of the zones in the ocean, which there is no oxygen at all. So no living species there is there. And this is one of the effects for, but for sure the increase in temperature also what is increasing is the solvability of the carbonates on water. And this is also one of the reasons why the reefs, the coral reefs are suffering and other organisms are hard struggling because the carbonates, the substance at the end. The carbonate will be understood.

I mean, it's like the concrete from which the organisms. are done. So at the end, you have not this. It is to get this often water, you have a brand because anything is, it's been ruined, it's been destroyed. So last year I had a podcast with British Columbia scientist Daniel Pauley, who's studying something called the Gill Oxygen Limit Theory that fish are actually moving towards the poles because they have to get, they can't breathe. They have to go to where the water is cooler and there's more oxygen. So fish, don't care about the climate debate in the world they're already moving towards the polls they are moving actually and yes so I mean but the question is that at this

point trying to deny that there is a change you know on the climate of the earth is a completely absurd because it's something that we can measure from many many different ways I will explain you something that if you don't know probably you're going to find amazing actually some years ago one friend of mine went to Antarctica and he commented me that it was absolutely important because he has been a lot of times there, the amount of blue ice bears that he saw. Why blue iceberg are so special?

Because the ice becomes blue only when it is very, very, very compressed. So typically when you have blue ice, it means that it has been really very deep inside a thick layer of ice probably for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. So these icebergs made for blue eyes that he has been, so probably represented the ice that was there since, I don't know, maybe 20,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, something like that. And now the problem is that everything gets desistabilized there.

They are running into the sea. And this is not normal. I mean, prior to that, I mean, 30 years ago, you almost never saw one of these blue ice ice, ice, but this is one among many, many other evidences. of the things that are taking place. And in particular regarding physics, we are mentioning this. We are observing that as decades past, several spaces are moving, are moving, going away from equator.

So I get into the North Pole, the South Pole, because otherwise they cannot live. There are some species that simply cannot resist some temperatures, and also for breathing, they need specific conditions. Not only that, but there are some specific species of fishes in which the rate of the gender changes depending on temperature. So we are observing that because of these changes in temperature, they have, for instance, an excess of female specimens in front of the male specimens,

and these are sometimes sometimes make cause some problems. So there are, as I say, there are many evidences, and even not only on the sea. We are also being observing the displacement of some insects. For instance, in Spain is quite evident right now. We have some species of insects that are used to live in the tropics that are arriving now to Spain, just because the conditions are allowing it.

You also have those dedicated plantations that show there are trees in Spain, but they're basically dead monocultures that don't have a lot of biodiversity and insects and life the way that they used to do. There's that. So let me ask you this. I don't know if you know much about this, but since we're talking about the oceans and wind, And there has been news that the AMOC, the Atlantic meridional ocean current, has slowed something like 15%, which is a massive amount in the last 30 or 40 years. And living in Spain and northwest Europe, that has implications for future climate. And in fact, if you look at the climate models worldwide, that area doesn't look to be heating up that much relative to the rest of the,

the world. Is that because of this AMOC? And what can you say about your research and what the AMOC is and the implications? Yes. So the AMOC is what you call Gulf Stream. So it is the, let's say, surface arm of AMOC. AMOC is a part of the global circulation of water that is essentially transferring heat and moisture from the equator to the poles. So there is one. of these arms that goes on the surface, what is called the Gulf of Sting, it is running from North Brazil, enter the Gulf of Mexico, then turning around Florida Peninsula, and then following all the East Coast of the United States, and then turning more or less a bit below Cape Teras, very close to New York.

It is turning down to east. And this is arriving, it follows more or less constant latitudes, so it's like a horizontal than when you're seeing a map. And this is already in Europe, and this is supposed to be one of the main reasons for which the climate in Europe is warmer and moisture. I mean, we have more humidity thanks to that. And this also helps in order to have better harvest here and so on.

It is very important from the agriculture point of view. So what you say is right. One of the implications of the slowing down of AMOC is that, that the climate in Europe is going to be, by comparison, not as warm as the rest of the world. I wouldn't say cooler because it's not cooler because the driver for increasing temperatures is also present in Europe.

But here the temperature, I mean, central Europe is different in the case of Spain. Doesn't increase at the same pace that in the rest of the world because of that, because the lack of this, but also it becomes drier. And this drying part is on right now, for instance. We have a problem, important droughts in Europe that were unseen since five years ago,

like 500 years ago. It may be a coincidence or maybe it's an effect of the cumulative effect of the climate sense, for sure. Okay, three more questions on oceans and then we can move on. Number one, on AMOC, why is it slowing and how much further slowing is already built in because of the inertia of the climate system. Yes. As I have said, AMOC is part of this thermohaline circulation. So it is mainly driving by the difference in temperature and sanity.

Precisely the thing I am working around this, because now we are able to measure sea surface sanity, we are able to measure sea surface temperatures from some years ago, and also sea surface currents. We're combining all together. We can identify at which, which water subsides down wells at a specific places. So the question with AMOC is that you need to close the loop associated to the thermohalan

current because at the end it must make a circulation. So what is coming on surface, but at the end it needs to go down in the ocean, running by the bottom of the ocean, then coming up in Antarctica or in the Pacific Ocean, and then coming back from several ways, and then finally arriving again to Gulf of Mexico and then completing the circuit, okay? So the problem that is probably one of the causes of this slowing down of AMOC

is the problem that we are observing in the south of Greenland that was one of the specific places at which this current which society was done well in. Probably it's associated to different things, like a wind for one thing, also the accumulation of fresh water because of the melting of water from Greenland and also from continental Canada.

This is, for instance, something that was observed in past times in the geological history, the fact that you have a great amount of fresh water coming. Fresh water is harder to be sunk. So the problem at the end is that this water normally, what happens normally, south of Linden is the combination of wind and other factors, makes that some salt is released and this water is getting saltier and cooler,

and then it starts to sink, and this is the way it completes. But now, because of the presence of this fresh water in surface, this warming surface, it tends to be buoyant. It tends to be at this surface, it is very hard to sink. And it's one of the reasons it is slowing down. We have other two points at which the EMOC goes down, which are south of Iceland. And probably there are also some efforts there, maybe not as intentional in the case of Greenland.

So this is the reason. The main reason is this one, I mean because the changes associated to the melting, especially coming from Greenland and from Canada. And how much more of that is already built in? Well, you know, this is a very slow current. When you make a change on it, it takes a lot of time to reinitiate it. Okay. So for rebooting it, it's very hard.

No, the main concert right now is if this current could be completely stopped because of this. Or diverted more to the South that it could also happen. There was a Hollywood movie about that. I think it was called the day after tomorrow.

I mean exaggerated. Yeah, I know. I know. But it's very exaggerated actually because of things are much slower in reality. Yeah, let's say that the things that happen several days there typically will happen in several thousand years actually. But anyway, the question is that it could arrive to a complete stop.

If it stops, it means that the European will become very dry. Actually, this is what happens. And probably it would imply that the east coast of the United States will become much hotter and warmer, even atlattie to fly in New York. Well, and among other things, it would eventually then lead to stratified oceans and lots of very bad effects for, oceans. So.

And for hurricanes. Why? For hurricanes, because you have a warm, yes, because, you know, the main fuel for hurricanes is the temperature of sea surface. Yes. So you know that above 28 degrees Celsius of sea surface temperature, you have energy to fuel the hurricane. And it is more implied that hurricanes could go farther north.

with all the implications that fast. Okay. Here's a hard question for you. Maybe. Some people, especially with what's going on, not too many countries too far to the east of you, humans are afraid of that we're headed for a thermonuclear, strategic exchange between NATO and Russia.

what would the effect of a multi-year nuclear winter have on the oceans and their ecosystems? Have you looked into that? And the problem is that if we do this, well, apart from the implications, the direct implications from radiation and all the fallout from the nuclear weapons and so on, that is absolutely devastating. is taking into account that now the conditions the, let's say, astrophysical conditions of the earth, astrophysical cycles associated to the slow changes in the notation and the eccentricity of the orbit of the sun around the earth around the sun. Earth is now in a situation in which if it was not for climate change,

it would be favored to go to frozen, to becoming a glacial state because normally what has happened the last millions of years with this configuration of continental masses, with this configuration of chemical composition of the atmosphere and so on. We typically have periods of, let's say, 110,000 years in which the earth is frozen, is in glacial state. And we have some metastable states, not so long of interglacial, which is temperate, which is the period in which we are right now,

that typically lasts around 10,000 years. So the truth is that climate warming and climate change, the fact that we have concentrated CO2 in the atmosphere, now it is making impossible that the Earth to be frozen. Okay, so this is the only good effect associated to the release of CO2, the price that we have gone too far away in this direction. But in case you make a nuclear winter, you are forcing the Earth from this classical state because it is what is favored just because the core. configuration of the orbit of the Earth. So for sure, the Earth, the Earth probably, well, probably the Earth will enter in,

let's say, 100,000 years of Blassian State. And also, the blocking out of the sun would kill a lot of the plankton. Yeah, it will kill everything. I mean, no, no, this is clear. I mean,

you have the, you have a, let's say, a amount of aerosols and other particles has been dispersed in the atmosphere that typically lasts for five years in the case of a total nuclear world. I mean, I hope we are not coming to this scenario, actually, but in this case, yes, the time for all the dust to really start allowing the having the rates of light of the sun to come to the surface will be last typically five years.

So in five years, almost everything will be lost. Not everything, but almost everything will be lost. So this will be a total, it would dispel a total disaster for plants and for Algae for sure. No, I mean, the majority of the life on Earth will be exterminated. This is clear. And then we'll fall in this hundred and thousand years of glass election. Jellyfish and urchins? Yes, some crocoteches maybe.

Okay. So segueing into your other specialty, and by the way, let me pause here. You are truly a polymath. I know that because I've followed your writing for a long time. And you have a strong Spanish accent. And I just want to call out and respect you that you are able to articulate these incredibly complex scientific topics in Spanish, obviously, but also in English, which is not your language. and it's just deep gratitude for people like you that are just so multi-talented

and care about these things. So much thanks a lot. Also in France if you're interested. Zutalore. Okay. So segueing into energy. So you understand peak oil and other limits to growth. So given that we are now or close to peaking

and that oil is the master resource, course, how worried are you then about the future of life in Earth's oceans, given that, you know, the amount of emissions are likely to go down in the not too distant future? They're not going to go away. They're still going to be a lot, but they're going to be not increasing. So that's question part one. And then part two of all the ocean risks, given your knowledge about energy, the depletion, what is the biggest ocean risk that you're worried about? Well, this is a complicated question, convoluted ones, actually. So regarding the first one is that you should take into account that even if we are forced

to reduce our oil consumption just because the production of oil starts decreasing, that is a process that is since it is starting by now, the rate of descent, the rate at which the production of oil decays is not a process. fast enough in order to, let's say, spell out the possibility of a catastrophic climate change. If we wanted to avoid the worst scenarios of climate change, we should be reducing our consumption of fossil fuels in general, not only oil, by, let's say, 5% per year. Excuse me, 7, 8% per year. And this is not the way at which the production of oil is going to determine.

Not to save for instance coal. Coal is not going to fall so fast. The overall decline rate of legacy wells might be 7%, but we're going to still drill and that new drilling is going to offset that. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, the question is that if we were to stop completely, oil will be more or less around the rate that we need,

but we have still coal and you have still gas. So this is not enough. So this is quite clear. Plus, you can see that. if what happened in Germany the last six months, that's one of the greenest political environments in the world and they're rebooting old cold towns because of the Russia situation. As expected, this is the other question.

So what happens in a situation of energy crisis is that you may resort to resources that are worse from the point of view of CO2 emissions. So even it may be in terms of energy, you are reducing your energy consumption because you are using something which is worse, which is not giving you as much energy as you have before, probably in times of CO2, you could have an worsening of the situation. So you will have the worst of the world.

So to have less energy and more CO2. Well, and... And probably this is the thing we're going to do. I, sadly, I agree with you. And one part that's not talked about, by the way, there is not a single integrated assessment model in the IPCC that's been. specifically projects a decline in growth. And not only that, there's none that do the nuclear winter scenario in the climate models.

And there's also none that include a deforestation as a response to negative economic growth. Because, yeah, the burning of the trees wouldn't be as bad as coal maybe, but we were losing the sink. What if we lose half of our forest sink capacity? Yes. at the question at the end is taking account that in the forest biomass. So you have CO2 that has been stored there with some changes, some renewal, but has been stored there typically for centuries. So at the end, you are releasing CO2 that was accumulated there. Yeah, yeah, this is clear. I mean, but it's not only that. I mean, it's also fracking, it's also tar sands. This is the kind of

resources that are so bad that they release a lot of CO2 just to obtain a meager amount of energy. So the question at the end is that most likely we are going to follow this path. And as you have said, this is exactly what Germany has done. While the situation has become dying off, they have started burning more cold. So I think which is quite paradoxical the past summer is that in a situation which we have heat waves in Europe, in central Europe, in Germany, France and so on, and we have droughts. They have problems to carry the cold across the river just because the level of water. wrote that the boat couldn't pass.

So, and they just wanted the cold to pass in order to burn it to aggravate the situation. So, but unfortunately, we are so blinded to the energy question. We are so blinded to the climate question that we are trying to do our best. I mean, as a society, as a community, as whatever civilization, in order to burn more and more disregarding the effort, the long-term effect. So regarding this first question, my. intuition is that even if CO2 emissions are going probably down in the next years to decay, just because of depletion, it's something that we cannot avoid.

Probably the rate of decay is not going to be enough in order to really avoid a very sharp climate change, even a catastrophic climate change. This is for one. Regarding to your second question, can you remind me because I have a... Second question is you're an ocean marine expert of all. the possible ocean risks, given what you just said about climate, what is the biggest risk that you are worried about in the oceans in the next 100 years? Well, we have the problem for sure.

I mean, it depends if you're thinking about marine life or you are thinking about the importance of oceans for humans. There are many things that are very massive. Yeah, this is the problem. There are many things that are massive risk, risk in both senses. So we have the problem with the placement of fish. It's for sure. This is important because by 500 million persons depend on the protein,

they can get from fishes. And we have a lot of overfills fisheries. This is a problem. We have the serious, very serious problem with the accumulation of plastics, which is entering all the traffic chains. And, you know, plastic is the main problem that they represent is that when they arrive to our food, whatever dish, is that they,

they are what is called endocrine endocrine disruptors. Endocrine disruptors. So it's altering all your hormonal functions and this is not pretty good. So there's two plastic problems, right? There's the big chunks of plastic and then there's the minuscule ones we can't see

that are in the ocean food chain. Yeah, this is the product. Even some algae are able to assimilate so disassimulated and fishes and it's more and more assimilated thing, greater predators and so on. So we have the problem with plastics. We have the problem with heavy metals,

which are very intense in some in San Jose and San Francisco, for instance in the Mediterranean, the presence of heavy metals is quite important. We have in general the releases of dioxins and other chemicals, organic chemicals that have a lot of dangers, a lot of dangers for life in general because they are very toxic.

We have the problem of sanitification. One of the problems that we have, for instance, very close to the coast all over the, all over the earth, but for instance, in the Mediterranean, is that as we are expensive, every droughts, and all the water table is getting down because also we are over-exploiting it. And then the sea enters from below the ground. You don't see it, but the sea is entering, and it is solidification, this part. So it is ruining this water table. It is not ever going to be able to be used because the content of salt like the presence of the water. happening in Bangladesh. There are so many, many things that for me will be hard to say, which is the greatest risk.

For me, one of the important risks that for sure the ocean is going to have, at least for the following, I hope, a few years, is the pressure for exploiting natural resources in the sea in order to compensate for the lack of resources on Earth or land. Right. Right. You mean the undersea mining of not. modules of copper and things like that. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. I knew that this conversation would go six hours. So we're going to keep it to 90 minutes per our agreement. So let's switch to energy. Again, you know a lot about this topic. Let's just start here. Can you explain what the second law of thermodynamics tells us about what types of energy

we should be using and what types of tasks and how it relates to the ability and the desirability of electrification of our economy. Yeah, well, it's also a very complicated question, actually. Well, let's start by the beginning, the loss of thermal dynamics. So we know, everyone knows about the first load of the thermal dynamics, so the energy is never destroyed, it's only transformed. So you cannot win energy, nor loss energy, it's only transformed all the time along. This is quite, I understand that for many people, this is a little strange,

because what you know is that you are putting gas in your car and at the end of the day you have less gas so you need to refill so you are losing energy but the question that this energy which is concentrated organized energy is getting disorder it's been converting heat because something that most people don't know is that doesn't know excuse me is that heat is actually the energy

the kinetic energy associated to the movement of the molecules of the authentic body. So what you are doing at the end is you have this orderly movement of your car that by friction, by the fact that it is, I mean, passing my other surfaces by the air and so on, you are losing,

you are converting in a disorder movement or that of fatons and molecules or any substance. I explain in this because this has a lot of a lot to do with the second principle of thermodynamics. When you say when you're applying the second principle of thermodynamics says, then when you

you are doing any transformation regarding energy no matter what, you are going to lose a part of the energy in the transformation because it is going to be converted in this disorder movement of the things. And this is what typically we call entropy. So when you are, for instance, converting the energy from your gas in the engine, in your car, even in the process that is taking place in your engine, this process is not 100% efficient. It couldn't be. And one part of the thing is just being dispersed as heat, and you cannot avoid that. So the question is that when you are transforming energy from one time to the other, you are going always to pay a toll, an energy pole.

You are going to lose some part of the energy. And the amount of energy you are going to lose is larger as the types of energy, the original type of energy and the final type of energy, are more different. For instance, if you want, for instance, you have a water bill, and what you want is to convert the mechanical energy of the flow of the river and you want to convert this linear movement in a circular movement of the wheel so this is mechanical to mechanical this is very efficient and typically you are going to lose very low amounts of energy because of this

from all the incidents energy coming to the wheel probably are going to take in profit of 90% of even more which is the most inefficient way the kind of transformation for which you pay the largest amount of energy in the transformation, for instance, photovoltaics. Because you are converting, let's say, solar energy, which is the energy of the photons coming from the sun, that's a light, which is a kind of very order,

but also very dispersed energy. Because of this specific quantum effect on the atoms, you are able to convert this to electricity. There are two very different types of energy. You are taking essentially one of the most disordered types of energy, more dispersed, which is light. And converting to one of the most ordered ones, which is electricity, the efficiency is typically quite low. So for typically PV panels installed today, I mean the commercial ones, it is around, the thesis is around 20, 21 person. on a lap, on a specific conditions, very well-devices, PV panels with very expensive materials and so maybe you can attain 30, 40, I think the largest possible amount, theoretically is about 50s, but under very, very, very, very controlled situations, which is I'm not going to happen ever in reality.

So this question regarding the thesis is quite important because sometimes when you are making plans for all, the transformations of the different types of energy, as we are passing through several steps of transformation every step in plus a loss of energy. So we are energating energy from the sun, which is light on electricity on the PV panel. So we are losing around, let's say, 80% in a commercial panel. Then you are taking this electricity. And for instance, you want to convert this to hydrogen, because hydrogen is more convenient, let's say, to be stored, to be I'm not completely sure because I think it's quite bad actually, but anyway. So you are going to lose another 50% of these 20% that you have forgotten.

So you are losing, you are going to have just 10% remaining. And maybe this hydrogen you want to use in a car or in a track. And then you need to do other many processes in between. You need to compress the hydrogen. You need to first reduce the temperature because otherwise it is going to be, get very warm, but in the hot and it could explode. And then you are going to take this advantage of this in a fuel cell. So you are going to lose incredible amount of energy because of any one of this transformation.

So all the idea regarding the energy transition, the way in which we are going to apply these different steps, are relying on the fact that at some time we are going to increase the efficiencies so that everything is going to run smooth and we are not going to lose incredibly huge amounts of energy. But if the sun is, if the sun is so ubiquitous and huge and the photons hitting the earth are abundant, then who cares if it's only 20% efficient on the solar panels? I mean, that's, right?

Well, this is a good point because typically this is a kind of argument that was used for a long amount of years sometime ago. So they say, okay, the amount of energy. coming every year from the sun equals, let's say, 8,000, 9,000 times the amount of energy being consumed on the earth using all the different sources of energy.

So it is so large that who cares? The problem with this is that first of all, well, let's recall that it is this energy arise, dispersed over all the air surface, which is huge and the quarters of this surface is

the ocean. It is not easy to gather the energy there. Other parts are there. other parts of mountains. I mean, it's not that easy to cover it. But the question also is that from time since some time ago, we know that at the end, the Earth is already used the energy from the sun for doing things which are important. For instance, I mean, to create winds, rain, to make the plants grow,

you know, these kind of things that are important at the end for the functioning, the normal functioning of the Earth. So at this point, this has been analyzed by the... at the Zurich Technology Institute, I direct to the conclusion that in the best of the cases, the amount of energy that we can intercept from the sun without altering all the normal functioning of the Earth, in a catastrophic way, even worse than the climate change,

will be to gather around 0.0.0. I don't remember the percentage, but it will be equivalent to four times of the energy that we are consumed right now, which is a huge amount, actually. But it is not 8,000, 10,000 times. It's just four times. So this first implies that, okay, it is not as abundant as many think.

It is abundant, but it is not incredibly, no, luxuriously abundant. This is not true. And then if it is a large amount, but it's not so large, then the way in which you are using it is very important. And the efficiency of all the transformations are crucial if you want to make something which is functional. And this is just one of the many problems that we have with all the systems devoted to gathering the gathering real energy. So if you want, I mean, it's a typical, when I'm making my talks, I typically explain why this model of renewable energy is not necessarily the best one, the best fitted one. And this is just one of the four main problems that we have with it. So the first one is this one.

The second one is that it relies on materials that are not so abundant on Earth because the systems for harnessing this energy, maybe the kind of energy they are harnessing is renewable, but they are done from not renewable materials. And the point is that some of these materials are actually scarce on Earth. And they have also the own depression curves so you can obtain a given rate, so it's not that easy to make the substitution. And even the non-rare ones, if we were to scale them, you know,

two orders of magnitude like copper will have their own depletion curves and it will take more energy to get them. Yeah. Exactly. Well, in fact, in the case of copper, you'll see what is happening in Chile right now. It is quite clear that we are arriving very close to the peak of copper production. In principle, it was intended to be around 2035, but it's something that probably we're going to accelerate it. And then if we do mine all that additional copper, then we have another shortage, which is water

in Chile because you need a lot of water to mine the copper. Okay, keep going. What are the third and fourth? Let me say something about this because it is interesting because some months ago I was contacted by a mining industry in Chile because they wanted a system to predict the presence of jellyfishes because they have also a lot of jellyfishes there, coincidentally. And the problem that they have is they need to get, in order to operate the salinization plant, they need to keep the main duct taking the seawater free for jellyfish because it blocks

and every time it blocks it, it makes a breakdown for several million dollars. And they wanted to have a system to predict this. So you know, everything at the end is connected in a way. Yeah, it is. I mean, the late Albert Bartlett said that the greatest, inability of humans was to understand the exponential function. I would append that by the ability of humans to think in systems, to think, and then what? Because we're so reductionist looking at one thing.

But now we know the jellyfish impact copper, impact, solar, impact energy. Okay, what are the third and fourth challenges? Yes. So the third and this one is quite crucial right now. is so far when you consider all the steps on the lifecycle of any renewable gathering system, it depends on fossil fuels. So for each one of the steps on the lifecycle from the extraction of the materials that you need in order to make the different pieces, the different components of the systems,

the energy devoted for this making of these components, all the phases of transportation, all the phases regarding the deployment, the installation, and the maintenance of the systems at the end of the commission in the phlegic because sometimes they are not the commission. In all those phases, you are using fossil fuels. It's very hard to avoid using fossil fuels.

And up to date, nobody has ever gathered, managed to be able to do all the steps on the life cycle of our renewal system in which fossil fuels were not appearing. So, for instance, this makes people like Gail Berber to say that, in fact, the global systems are fossil fuel standards, something that you can get around. You have some fossil fuels by the hands, otherwise you cannot, because they need fossil fuels to operate. And I think this is a quite serious concern right now, because something that we are observed, is in the current situation in which, for instance, we are struggling to keep on the level of diesel production

because diesel is the thing that is decreasing the fastest regarding all the fuels derived from oil. We are observing that in general all mining on the earth, transportation on the earth, has become much more expensive during the last years. And this is affecting, for instance, companies that are working, manufacturing windmills, manufacturing wind power, turbines and systems and so on. To the point that they have incredible losses. I was gathering the information quite recently from the losses accumulated during the last year, just last year.

And I see that, for instance, the three greatest wind manufacturers on Earth, they have very incredible losses. For instance, Festas has losses for $1.5 billion dollars past year, just 2022. And Ganesa, which is now part of Siemens, it was a former Spanish company and it's now part of Siemens. They have two billion losses past year. And General Electric, the wind power division, they have two. Two billion losses. So it's absolutely amazing.

Yeah, I'm much more sanguine about solar than wind as a potential resource. But keep going on because I have like 19 more questions for you. So what is the number, what is? And by the way, real quickly on this, I totally agree with you that all the renewable advocates in government and an industry kind of neglect the fact that we, that they think that we just keep everything the way it is and we build out all this other stuff without understanding that this huge subsidy of fossil helpers, 500 billion strong in terms of human labor equivalent, are going to be retiring and declining. and that is what is supporting the buildout of renewables right now. But keep going, Antonio. What is your fourth? My fourth question is something that I find also quite interesting

that nobody wants to discuss about this. And it's the fact that those systems are by design, designed to produce electricity. And electricity is something which is cool, I think. It's something that is very nice. It's a high value kind of, kind of energy. It's not a source of energy. You need to produce consuming energy. But at the end of the day, in the context of the world, it represents 20, 21% of all the final energy consume on the

world. And in advanced economies, it's a bit more, but you are typically moving on the range of 20-something person. And the question at the end is you have a 70-something percent of the energy, which is not electricity currently. And we're assuming that it's going to be easy to convert this to electricity usage. And it is not clear because some of the things that we know that are hard to become electric. And even more interesting than that, is that when you analyze the consumption curves of electricity,

for instance in Spain, in the European Union and in the ensemble of all advanced economies, we have said that this stagnation or decrease of the electricity consumption since the year 2008. So we have 15 years in a row. with oscillation. I mean, it's not that simple decline, but you have a clear trend of decreasing electricity consumption when the previous years would have a very steep increase of electricity consumption. So it seems that it is very hard to increase the amount of electricity that are

consuming. This is normal because electricity is not the preferred way to consume energy. Still, the preferred way to consume energy because of the flexibility, all the possibilities that it gives is from a fossil derived from oil. This is the main source of final energy in the world. And when you say, for instance, in the case of Spain, that now they are pushing very strongly on also in Europe, that we may just make this substitution because it's going to be simple in some sense.

And I say, okay, but at the end, the consumption of electricity has been reduced from 15 years. It's not something which is accidental. The last year, I mean, the COVID pandemic. No, no, no, no, no. It's something that actually, is happening for 15 years in a row. So something is happening here.

Of course, it has a lot to do with the loss of industries in general. The industrial reaction is something that in Europe now is getting very intense because of the situation in Europe. And it's not easy to say that this is going to change. So why do you want to increase the amount of systems able to produce electricity when you have no actual market for it? This is an interesting question. Well, you and I have never actually spoken about that, but your four categories there are exactly what I say in my presentation.

So either we're reading each other's work or this is a robust finding. So you've said before, Antonio, that based on analysis of various studies, that the world would likely be able to sustain around 40% of the current energy that we consume in kind of the, intermediate to longish term. You've also said that if planned for and managed well, that this doesn't have to result in a drop of standards of living for most people, but rather a change in lifestyle. Can you unpack what you mean by this? And what is the difference between standard of living and lifestyle, in your opinion? I think this is quite different in Europe than in the United States, because here we have not the super urban sprawl. and it is easier because we need less, let's say, private transportation systems.

So, for instance, in my case, I live in a town outside of Barcelona, and I commute by train to my work here in Barcelona and back. Well, for me, this is not quite complicated, not to have a car, but for the United States is quite complicated. So the question, for instance, the discussions here are in Europe, as you know, the European Commission has said that in principle the selling of cars working on gas or diesel could be forbidding starting in 2035. And this is because they start to realize that it's going to be very hard to keep all the amount of cars that we have here.

So how you can manage to make these changes in the consumption without affecting your life standard. So maybe not owning a car, but selling a car with other people that are going in the same direction of you. Probably this is much easier to be done in places like Spain or in places like in Europe in general that in the United States because you live in a quite different way. Okay. We know also that 30% of all the food produces globally is wasted even without anyone touching it. And so that when we are talking about the problem that we have in the food system, that we have a problem, I see this problem in the global food system. But this problem is mainly a distribution problem.

It's not a production problem. I mean, we have also production, for sure. But the main contributor is a distribution problem. We have in a huge waste of, for instance, clothes. There is this, I don't know, you know, that in Atacama dessert in Chile, there is vast extensive terrain at which there are a lot of clothing being dropped there. Some of them are still wrapping the plastic they were producing. Because nobody has ever touched them. Just because now are out of fashion and they are not interested.

And then, well, this of course is a very huge waste of energy, resources, water, whatever you want. And in general, these methods of car sharing, something that, for instance, in Spain, it's quite common, that you have a washing machine inside your house. This is not typical in the United States, but here is quite common. I mean, the blocks of apartments. people has a washing machine for each apartment at each apartment. So you can serve them, for instance. This has done a lot of the United States.

You can share them. You can share other electrical appliances. I mean, at the end, it's a question of reorganizing the way in which things are done. And in the case of Spain, for instance, it will be relatively easy to reduce our energy consumption by two-thirds. But also because Yes, relatively easy. Really? Yeah, but the problem is that this will have a huge economical impact.

Right. And financial on stocks and bonds and things. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the question is, I am just discussing here the technical part. The problem is that, of course, what it implies in terms of economics and financial is devastating because you are really cutting up, cutting of sharp, a lot of industrial activities, for sure.

The problem at the end is that probably this is going to happen anyway. Also, if you want the people to live, they need to have jobs. They need to do something for a living. So at the end, they need to work in something. So it's not that easy. I say, okay, we are going to shut up all the factories. I mean, it's not a decision. But from the technical point of view,

what we need to live is not as much as it puts in. The problem is how we pass from this oversized economic system, oversized production systems to something that can be encompassed with the limits of the planet. And this for sure is the hardest part. But it's something that I usually insist in my talks that typically the problem regarding energy is posed as a question, which is a technical question. This is the reason why a physicist like myself is asking, well, how can't solve this? And I didn't say, from the technical point of view, this is not a real problem.

The main problem is a society problem. It's a cultural problem. We need to change the way in which we consume and we make relationships between, among each other and with the planet. It's a cultural thing, mainly. It's not really a technical question. But I'm pretty sure making such a huge transformation of the economic system is not an easy task. And I understand that many people got the spirit when you see that. because it's okay this is almost it's probably more difficult to do that the

transulter looking for a magic and there is also capable of to eat everything but at least we're now talking about it I think the Ukraine situation has at least made the words that you just said sounds somewhat plausible so moving on to another topic related to what you just said that I know you have researched and thought about why is the idea of rationing, something that is generally associated with scarcity, something that economics and economic theory, which is supposedly the science of scarcity, is not good at thinking about or handling. And how have the minimal and temporary rationing systems in Europe because of the

Russia-Ukraine situation been received so far? This is the thing also for many avenues. actually. So, first of all, something that should be said about rationing. Of course, rationing implies that you have not enough resources in order to keep the things the same way you were doing previously. So this meaning that in some sense you have scarcity, but the question is that economic theory, of course, is not able to cope with rationing by a simple fact. It's because in a standard economic theory, you have a principle which is coined the infinite substitutability principle that says any factor, any production factor can be substituted by another one.

The market will be fined the invisible hand of the market. Except for energy. They get that totally wrong. Well, I think it's not only, it is not the only case, but it is probably the main case right now. So, and at the end, this is just a hypothesis. It's not a law of the nature. It's something that, well, it is hypothesized to be there like that.

But it's not true. This is what happened. It isn't not true. The idea is that in prison. is you put price tag large enough, you are going to, the market is going to find a substitute. Well, at the end, it will be, okay, provided the physical reality allows it that sometimes it's not the case, because for instance, in the case of energy, you have energy that you have. But even in the case of materials, it happens that you have not really appropriate substitutes.

And if it is something that is essential as energy is, then you have a problem for sure. So this is a reason why a standard economic theory does not contemplate rationing. always is seen as a failure of the market, because the market should be able, by definition, to provide a substitute. So if it is not doing this well, because someone is interfering with the market and creating this situation. And this is not truly. I mean, it's just because the physical reality with this interference is physics at the end.

Okay. So at the end, the question is, well, how do you deal with ration? And ration at the end implies, okay, you can, you have not enough for what you were your expectations because at the end is that. I mean, you are expecting to spend as much in all the things you are doing, but you have not enough. So you need to decide how do you assign this? In the case of rationing, you cannot use the typical market laws because what is going to happen is that the one who is able to pay the most is the one who is going the largest portion. But sometimes you have some essential activities, let's say, for instance, agriculture, food production, food distribution.

I mean, all the things are related to water, bringing water, to have thin water, linkable water. I mean, all these things in place, a lot of energy and other things. And, well, in general, they're putting all the essential goods to the reach of all the cities. So those things for sure should have a priority in the years of energy. So at the end, the question is that when you're thinking of a rationing, the way in which you are rationing is a political decision. I'm pretty sure that it is going to be presented, as it has happened in the case of Europe, as a technical issue,

but it is not. It is always a political issue because it is the idea that you have a how society should work that makes you to decide, okay, how I am going to assign. For instance, you can say, okay, we are giving to everyone the proportional amount of things. So you have, let's say, 10% less, so everyone has 10% less. Okay? But this is a way of saying that everything is equally important to you, but it is not. Or you say, okay, these activities are more important than others.

But then the others that are going to be reduced the most, you are taking a decision on that. And this has to do with your ideas, principles, ideology, whatever. It's a political thing. And in the case of Europe, what has happened is that, of course, we have not enough gas for all the things. that we wanted to do. So we have passed by several rounds of rationing in Europe even maybe, well, you are probably aware, but it's something that even people in Europe has not been aware of this. But first we have a resonant of gas. So we were told in the past summer that we should reduce our gas consumption by 15% in the case of Spain because it was a bit different. It was just

7%. But later in September October, we were told that we will have to reduce electricity the conjunction by 10%, which is a significant amount. And at the end, we have been able to cope with this. We have been able, I mean, we have met the goals. The two reasons for which we have met the goals first, in the case of this particular winter, is because the winter in Europe this year has not been really cold. It's amazing, because, for instance, in Central Europe, we have observed temperatures with more 15 Celsius above the average.

I mean, I don't know how many Fahrenheit, just multiply by 1.48. But it is really, it is really, it is really very warm. So this has favored that the typical needs for energy, for heating, has been much more reduced during this year. The other thing is that we are experiencing a massive closer of factories, enterprises, and industries in Europe. It are at a really massive, massive rate. something that people don't want to speak out aloud,

but it is exactly what is happening, and for instance, Germany is taking a great hit for with this. So, altogether has allowed us to significantly reduce duration, but what is interesting is that it has been done almost not taking any specific measure because the stated measurements were quite weak, quite uncongrete but at the end taking account what had happened

that the winter was mild that the dusts are closing so actually they have not need to implement anything on place even so even so the European Commission has announced

that from here to year 2030 we should reduce our total consumption of energy another 12% or total consumption of and I see. Taking into account that we are starting from where we are starting there,

with the reduction of electricity. Not only that, but for instance, in the specific case of France, they have a very complicated situation. What they call it, sovriety, sovereignty plan, I mean, an austerity plan for energy consumption. They say that they are going to reduce the total energy consumption by 10% from now, to 2025, so in years, and they are going to reduce the total of the compensation by 40% from now to 2050, which is a huge amount.

I mean, this for sure is going to imply a huge economic transformation. At the end, the problem is how they're going to do. And you are, for instance, the situation in France right now, it is quite heated. I mean, they have massive strikes. Nice. I just can't imagine. I mean, given your knowledge that, the linkage between the energy and GDP, if you reduce your energy by 40%, your GDP is going

to go down, which what about all the debt, the trillions of dollars of debt by the European central bank? How is that going to be paid back? That spells the end of the euro and all kinds of other issues. A comment and a question. First of all, the fact that European governments are actually stating these things is hard for me to imagine the same statements be made in my country. I just cannot

imagine it, even though you're at least facing reality. Well, but we are facing a different reality than yours. That's true, because we still have 80% of our own energy. Yes, this is the key point. You have resources, we have not. Yeah. This is the reason. So do you think

in the near future, in the next decade that we, Europe and the U.S., or anywhere globally, are going to need to, as part of this rationing discussion, are we going to nationalize essential industries such as energy to ensure that everyone who needs access to resources gets them? Is that on the horizon? Well, it's not in the horizon. It's already happening in the case of Europe. I mean, France has nationalized, well, they have a part which was non-nationalized with which is private of the main electricity utility they have in the country, Electricity de France. So 16% of this was in private hands and they decided to nationalize by year. But at the same time, Germany

decided to nationalize the three largest distributors of natural gas in Germany, but at the same time Belgium privatized the electricity utility of Brussels, and the same time Austria privatized, the same the main utility on Vienna. I mean, this is happening all over Europe, but it is being done in such a, I don't know how to qualify this, but let's say, silent way that nobody is actually talking about this. And for me, this is very funny because the European Union has specific regulations against that. against doing exactly that.

But as all the countries are doing, nobody's saying anything. It is quite funny. So it is already happening. But probably this is not enough because the key point for us is that we have not the resources. We have not the resources. So we need to get the resources from somewhere.

In the case of the United States, you have resources. You have plenty of resources. I mean, they are not infinite. You are going to run out of them. You are going to, and before that, you are going to run low on them in the amount. of resources is going to be depleted and this is going to cause problems there

but it's not the same as in Europe. We have really nothing. So I wonder who's going to be better off. Spain because we don't have the resources and you're going to be faced with a hardship now and figure out how to navigate it at a lower

throughput or the United States which has another decade or two of resources and will continue to living in an unsustainable way and not prepare. You know, there is a sentence by John Michael Greer, which is quite good. So collapse now and I'm going to rest. Yeah.

So I think maybe this is going to be good for us, even if it is going to be harder right now. We'll see. We'll see. Yeah. So many people, Antonio, moralize capitalism as either a savior of the world or the root of all our problems. What is your stance on this? and given energy depletion and climate and ocean risk, which you are fluent in,

do you see capitalism as having a place in future societies? Well, I need that we need to go to the next step. I mean, capitalism is just one step in the evolution of economical thinking. So before that, we have what is called, I don't know how to say in English, sorry, I know the term in the Spanish, but we have what is called physiocrisy, another term that I know how to translate.

So we have passed by several different economic systems. Capitalism, as we understand it now, typically when you look for a definition, for instance, at the Wikipedia or whatever, it's a system which is characterized by private property, free market, and so on. And this isn't right. I mean, in capitalism, you have that,

but you have also in other systems, in previous systems, we have also private property and free market. This is not what makes the essence of capital. capitalism. We make the essence of capitalism right now, I mean at the beginning of 21st century, and the thing that in fact puts everything in compromise is the necessity of growth. This is the key point. So the question that the capital, the money has right to have an interest rate. So this interest rate is what makes the need for this exponential increase on wealth, this exponential increase on production and consumption and everything. And for sure,

this is completely incompatible with a finite planet. This is the key point of deal. So we need to overcome the limitations of the current system and to go to a different system, which is just another one in a section, historical succession of systems, in which you can have private property, you can have free market,

but you cannot have infinite growth. Because, of course, if it is impossible in a field planet, this is the key point. So some people, when I am discussing these things, some people here in Europe, you know, in Europe, the political thinking is different than the United States. But they like to pose themselves as anti-capitalism. I think that this is, from my point of view, is a wrong way to post the thing. It's not a question of going against because capitalism with these lights and saddles is just a, for me, it's just a step in the evolution. so the question is not going to be anti-capitalistic, but be post-capitalism,

go to a system that is going to be created after this one. And this is something which is natural. I mean, all living things as civilizations, for instance, progress, change along the time to adapt to the situation. So we need to adapt to the current situation. And these adaptations implies an evolution in our way in which we relate, which each other and also with the planet. And something that should have been obvious from several decades now, but now that's impossible to avoid it, is that we cannot grow forever in the future plans.

I mean, it's so simple statement, very, very clear statement. All the statement, all the price that we have is from one hand, we have run with the inputs because we cannot keep the pace, the rhythm and the width inputs are entering the system. We are not running out. We are running short. So, and we have a problem with the inputs, and we have a problem with the outputs, because we can't. All the waste we're generating, are changing the climate, but are contaminating ourselves. I mean, they're poisoning ourselves all the end. So at the end, and all these things because we have had intent of growing forever in a fifth planet.

And this future cannot work. And this force should, one point of others should break at some place. It is breaking at several places at the same time. Okay, it doesn't matter. We have arrived to this point. as I used to say that I am not looking for, how do you say, ah, sorry, I am not interested in finding the guilty persons. I interested in finding the solutions.

So forget about how we are here. It doesn't imply that for sure people, some people have more responsibility than others. But for the time being, the chat is concentrating the solutions, which is the thing that we need. And as you have said, we are going to run. probably very different pathways, for instance in Spain, in Europe, in the United States, in China, in Russia. The situation is going to be quite different from the different regions

and so on. But in the long run, we need all of us to become really sustainable in some sense. So Europe, for me, is already in the fast track to that. And we need to figure out how to do this in this way. And the problem from now is that they are completely blind to the real, to the real death of the progress that we have. Yes, I see. I want to be respectful of your time. I'm not getting to all the questions I want to ask you, so you might have to come back in six months or so.

In six months, we may live in a totally different world. So, Antonio, society in the planet, as you're well aware, face many risks and challenges. What are you most worried about now, like in the near term? Well, for sure, the risk of nuclear war can not be ruled out, unfortunately. I don't, for me, this is not the main scenario, but unfortunately it's an scenario that cannot be ruled out. And this for sure will be overwhelmingly the main risk. But putting this apart, for me, the main problem is that probably we're going to observe a proliferation of wars and revolts on the, it is already happening.

The problem is that this is already happening. We have many countries that are becoming failed states, failed states. For instance, Sri Lanka is only keeping more or less insane because India is investing a lot, because India is very worried about the situation of Sri Lanka, also because they have this Tamil minority there that can be influenced with what happens in Sri Lanka. And India is ejecting a lot of resources on Sri Lanka just to keep it afloat. But Sri Lanka is completely collapsed. We have Pakistan, which is a country, which is also.

in a very delicate situation, and we are talking about a country having 220 million person and atomic bombs, so this is a country that should be taken care. And they can't buy natural gas because Europeans are buying it. Exactly. Absolutely, absolutely correct. We have a nice situation now in South Africa, which is, in principle, the richest country in all Africa, at least in terms of GDP for sure. And they have a very delicate situation.

right now, a lot of instability and so on. But we have many, many countries having quite died situations in Africa, Latin America, I mean, Asia, at this moment, at this exact moment. So the main risk right now is that we can observe a real breakdown of a lot of conflicts

inside the countries, among the different countries, wars, all this kind of stuff. We can go to a global desistabilization process. And this in turn could severely affect those United States because United States, some of the resources they are obtaining, you are obtaining from other countries. And if these countries get very destabilized, this is going to create problems also for you. Even if you can run much more self-sufficient than that's for sure. For me, this is the main risk right now.

I mean, in the social terms, because this can be, the question for me is that the reason why you think this is the worst risk right now. now is because probably this is going to claim at all in terms of human lives, which is going to be available. So do you have any personal advice to listeners who understand what you're talking about at this time of global economic crisis? Kind of the John Michael Greer's variations, simplify first and beat the rush? What do you tell people? Yeah.

Again, it's different in United States and in Europe. So in Europe The people Listen to this podcast In all countries of the world It's a global audience The problem is that probably The response depends on the place you are living in

For instance you live in Latin America Now but it needs to explain you Because probably you are living in this Sleep maybe slow motion Or not as a slow motion as you would like So they already know The situation is becoming very dire In many parts in Latin America

In the case of Europe I think that yes So simplifying your lifestyle is something which is important. And also to gain, something which is important, very important, is to gain psychological resilience. Because if you have a life expectation, you know, all the other expectations

and how the things should rule out, and now all your worldview is being saddered by the reality, this is very hard. This is really very, very hard. So I think that it's quite important to gain this psychological resilience, to gain this adaptability, that here in Europe,

people are not so used as in the United States. People tend to have a lifelong work. This is the usual thing. So people work in the same thing for all their lives at the same place, everything, all the same. Probably now the thing is going to be quite different, so we need to adapt, and we need to face this with an appropriate dose of optimism. Understanding that we can improve, but we need to put the means to improve. this is completely different from the American mentality. I mean, it's a different, completely different way thinking things.

And in Europe, I think these are things which are important. Also, trying not to get debt because service in debt is going to be very hard. I am very happy because just yesterday I cancel the loan on my house. I am very happy right now. And I think that this other part is important. and also trying to work locally to gain resilience at community level, working community are things that are important. So in the case of the States, I think that these prescriptions are useful anyway. The problem is that it's not going to be so evident in probably 10 years.

During the next 10 years, probably you are going to be in a completely different situation because also you are going to lose our, let's say, dead weight, the dead weight of Europe, because Europe is going to get in some sense, disconnected. And this will allow you, without your own means, probably to be more or less okay, more or less in a word that has become smaller, suddenly, for maybe 10 years more. It is going to depend on a lot of factors that for me as well to evaluate precisely, for instance, how the situation with oil production is going to keep in the United States, because even if we know that fracking as it is going right now with this decrease of the drill and compete the wells and so on probably is going to get a sever drop in the next month, but at the end it depends if you restart a new cycle of investment, the involvement of the government, because you have the resources

at the end. So even if they're expensive, you can exploit. So this point implied that maybe you are reducing social welfare in order to produce this thing. Okay, this is going to be hard to be sure how Salda is going to be deployed in the United States, but most likely you have, for saying something, 10 years more to adapt. So taking drastic measurement right now, probably is going to be seen as a weirdness, something which is not fit for normal social standards. But something that could be useful for you is to observe what happens in Europe and to try to learn the lessons from what is going to happen to us. Would you change your advice on what to do, to young humans, teenagers or college-age students.

What do you tell them about the future, Antonio? Well, I have my own teenagers at home. Do they understand all this about the energy and climate? Yes, yes. My daughter usually says that we have a skewed up of the situation. She blames us. In fact, I need to accept that it is true. I mean, she's also participating.

in the same part right now, I mean, because you cannot avoid it. Okay, but yeah, this is true that we need to do more on that. My recommendation for people who are for the downstairs, well, I think that even in the United States, the life they are going to live is very different from the one that their parents have lived, and this is clear. They need to understand that getting resilient to be adaptable, to not be very dependent on supply chains that need to arrive to isolated places.

This is important. We need to avoid that. It is better to love in communities which are more or less self-sufficient that can be supplied easily, this kind of stuff. And also regarding the choices for career, for instance, if you are going to college or whatever, I think that it is better I cannot avoid that because I am a physicist myself

but I think I think that in general stems are better choices than others unfortunately I mean taking into account the the dynes of the predicament that we have so if you could go for stems I think it's preferable sincerely taking it back on if you could I mean not not anyone has

the skills or the natural inclination to this and also other other skills are useful, for sure, but stems are going to be massively, massively needed. Yeah, no, I agree with that. What do you care most about in the world, Antonio? My kids, not about. No, no, I mean, sometimes there are always people that,

because as I make a lot of inconvenience statements, some people look for some hidden motivation in myself and looking for some economic motivation, but it's very hard. I've been sometimes blamed for working for supposedly industry, all industry, nuclear, whatever. And I always give the same answer when I ask my motivation. I have two motivations by life.

And what is 16 years old? and the other is 12 years old. These are my real motivations. And this is the reason why I'm doing with everything. If you could wave a magic wand and there was no personal recourse to your decision, what is one thing you would do to improve human and planetary futures? And since you are a polymath, I will give you up to three things with the magic wand. I actually will just need one.

Okay. Because the problem is, as I have said, is a culture. we will have, we will need, how do you say, a collective, a collective attack of common sense. This is what we need the most. We need to have a lot of common sense that we are actually lacking of it. We are putting short-term interests, completely skewed views of the world, and something that for me is quite annoying actually. It's disturbing that many times you observe that people are giving up on their personal responsibility on the public affairs. So you need to get involved. And this concerns you. And you cannot say the typical saying that is, okay, well, someone is taking

care. Someone is in charge. This is what kids say. Adults take care of their own business. adults know that they need to take responsibility. We cannot act as children. We need to act as adults. So if we all act as adults, I think it will be enough. With education, though, to understand our biophysical reality as a key component, are you active politically in Spain with sustainability issues and getting these ideas scaled so that common sense has a better chance of,

manifesting? Well, you know, when you say political sometimes, it's important, I don't know if the connotation is the same in the case of the United States, but it's different to distinguish between political and partisan. So, of course, everything, what I do is political

because by definition, political comes from the word, the Greek word police between city, and it's the things that are interesting for the citizens. So for sure, what I'm discussing is important for the citizenship. So something, By the way, you don't know, the word idiot was applied in the, it's also a Greek one,

and it was a place for the people that were not aware about the affairs of the city. So the people that didn't want, yes, the word idiot is coming from that design is a Greek word. So it's quite funny. So should we, should we title this episode, Antonio Turiel, Common Sense versus Idiots? Exactly. This is a strange thing. So, but anyway, regarding my engagement, with public authorities, administration, and so on,

I actually try to convince them. I am talking to them frequently. They are frequently asking me to me. It is very funny because they don't really trust everything what I say, but they fear that I am right. And for this reason, they keep on coming and asking me, even if they don't like what they say, because, of course, what they're saying is not totally likelihood.

Yeah. Excellent. So I want to keep my word to you so you can catch your train to get back to your children. Final question. This was an introductory overview of your expertise, your work, your worldview on the climate, ocean, a little bit on energy. If you were to come back on this podcast six months from now or something, what is one question, one topic that you feel passionate about that speaks loudly to you, that you would like to take a deep dive and just speculate? the real energy transition that we need to do I mean there are many things that we need to discuss on that but something that probably we are going to be in urgent need

a massive need to be discussed in six months from now is about food because food is going to become a very big issue globally so probably see we'll discuss again in six months from now we are going to talk about food a lot okay it's a deal much much thanks Yes, me and ego. Thank you so much for your time and your work. And let's stay in touch

and let me know if I can help you, Antonio. Thanks a lot. You are doing enough. Thanks for giving me voice. If you enjoyed or learned from this episode of The Great Simplification, please subscribe to us on your favorite podcast platform and visit the great simplification.com for more information on future releases.