The ICM researcher Antonio Turiel has participated in several projects on energy transition models and his blog “The Oil Crash”, with more than 13 million visits, is a reference in Spanish on the subject.
In 1998, geologists Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrère published their article "The end of cheap oil" in the Scientific American magazine. This article revitalised the work that another geologist, Marion King Hubbert, dir almost half a century earlier on the arrival of peak oil or the zenith of oil production. Since then, the ICM researcher Antonio Turiel has published several scientific articles, participated in the European MEDEAS project on energy transition models, published dozens of posts on his blog The Oil Crash, which, with more than 13 million visits, is a reference in Spanish on the subject, and given more than 200 informative talks.
Are the technological solutions that promise to save us from the post-oil abyss really solutions?
The solutions proposed to carry out the ecological transition are not theoretically designed to respond to the energy crisis (although they would be useful), but to the climate crisis. The problem with these solutions is that they are aimed at electricity production from renewable sources and, therefore, they have many limitations: efficiency losses, the need for scarce materials and, ultimately, the fact that they provide a type of energy -electricity- of which we are oversupplied (although it is hard to believe, seeing how the bill is rising) and not the type of energy we really need.
What energy production model does Spain need?
One that responds to its real needs, that does not depend on scarce materials that we do not even have here and that does not cause greater environmental damage than the one we want to combat. This means producing not only electricity, but also other types of energy in a more local and sustainable way. It involves harnessing renewable energy where it is found, and not trying to concentrate it with serious losses for distant use; locating small or medium-sized factories along rivers or where the wind blows to harness the mechanical force of those flows; producing hot water in homes by heating it directly on roofs with solar thermal; concentrating solar energy to melt metals and harnessing plant biomass to obtain textiles, plastics and chemical reagents. This is a real revolution!
What are the truths (and the lies) about the ecological transition in Spain?
It is true that it is urgent to stop CO2 emissions so as not to further aggravate climate change. And it is also true that we have to move towards a 100% renewable energy production model. From this point on, it's all lies. For example, it is said that we will be able to produce as much energy from renewable sources (currently 90% is obtained from fossil fuels) as we consume, when in fact we can only aspire to produce 30-40% of the energy we need from renewable sources; it is said that we need to produce more renewable electricity, when in fact there are difficulties in increasing the electrification of energy uses; and finally, the fact that renewable energy could be harnessed in a non-electric way with better performance, less impact and greater distribution of wealth in the territory is hidden maybe because this would go against the business model of large companies.
What other problems will we face as a society in the post-oil era?
We have many very serious problems. From an environmental point of view, climate change stands out, but nowadays we also face biodiversity loss, plastic pollution, heavy metal pollution, depletion of fisheries, drinking water scarcity, deforestation, desertification, widespread scarcity of raw materials and nuclear waste management, among others. Moreover, added to all this, there is the inequitable distribution of resources and the permanent economic crisis, which may lead us, along with the environmental problems, towards collapse.
Which economic sectors will be most affected by the oil shortage?
In Spain, there are two key sectors that will be hit hardest by the oil shortage: tourism, because it is based on discretionary spending that families will not do if we are in a serious economic crisis, and the automobile industry, because the electric car cannot be produced on a large scale, and without oil, there can be no private car. Each of these sectors accounts for more than 10% of employment, so the impact will be tremendous. n the end, however, all sectors will be significantly impacted.
Which role can the ocean play in the ecological transition?
The ocean has always been the ultimate source of resources of all kinds. More than 500 million people are sustained by the protein they get from the sea. From an energy point of view, there is some scope for wind and electricity harnessing, but it should be limited to certain areas with higher yields. Nevertheless, there is much greater potential in freight transport using sail; it sounds a bit quirky, but right now some large cargo ships carry sails to gain a couple of knots and save fuel. In a post-oil world, and with less freight transport, we can go back to the legendary clippers, which could travel at speeds of 15 knots and more. What I see as most inadvisable is ocean mining, since it is too costly and too environmentally damaging.
Are solar and wind energy synonymous of energy sustainability?
No, not at all, and we are seeing this in the renewable electricity model that they are trying to impose on us. This model is based on intense mineral extraction, which has a huge environmental impact and is also unsustainable because there are not enough materials for everyone to do the same. We would also not be able to replace these systems as they reach the end of their useful life. There is a sustainable way of harnessing renewable energy, and then there is this one that is not sustainable at all. Unfortunately, we only talk about the latter.
You have sometimes pointed out that the solution is to slow down, but how?
By consuming less and changing the model of production and consumption. I will use the example I always use: if I buy a washing machine, the manufacturer has every incentive to design a machine that lasts just as long as the law stipulates and that stops working the next day so that I buy another one. This model leads to an increased consumption of resources. However, if instead of buying the washing machine, I pay him a monthly rent, and the moment the washing machine fails, it is the manufacturer who has to pay me compensation for each day it does not work, you will see how he will design a washing machine that is much more resistant and easier to repair, reuse and recycle. The key is to change the consumer incentives.
However, what prevents us from making these changes (which have been known for decades) is our economic system, capitalism, which is based on the perpetual and accelerated growth of capital. For that reason, without a structural reform of the financial system, it is impossible to do anything, because the perverse incentives to production and consumption will continue. Capitalism must be overcome in order to have any chance of change.
Is it realistic to think that social and economic collapse are avoidable? Is a non-traumatic transition possible?
It is perfectly possible to avoid collapse. Even if we enter the early stages of collapse, it is always possible to stop and reverse it, as some civilisations before ours have shown us. Collapse is not inexorable, it is always a self-inflicted damage: societies collapse because they want to, because they are stubborn and unable to give up a certain idea, wrong and unsustainable, which may be religious, political, or out of sheer stubbornness.
If we were to collapse, we would only be the 27th human civilisation to collapse -that lowers the fumes of our arrogance a little, doesn't it?-. We wouldn't even be in the leading positions. But, as I say, there is always time to turn the tables.
In our case, what wrong and unsustainable idea are we talking about?
The problem is that we are obsessed with maintaining capitalism, which pursues the absurdity of infinite growth on a finite planet, despite the growing evidence that we are colliding with the biophysical limits of the planet. But we find it hard to criticise capitalism, hard to move beyond its mental framework. Talking about abandoning capitalism is taboo.
For most people, the end of capitalism means the end of the world, even though capitalism is not even two centuries old. And it is not a question of going back to what was before capitalism, but of overcoming it, of moving forward, of maturing. This is an absolutely necessary debate, although it is systematically ignored by so many policy makers and economists, indoctrinated -rather than trained- in the neoclassical view of economics. It is striking that when people like me confront them with the nonsense of their postulates, these economists appeal to techno-scientific progress, about which, objectively, they have no good knowledge: it is precisely people from the techno-scientific world who are telling them that it is not possible!
For all this, I see it as inevitable that we will suffer some degree of initial collapse and substantial degradation of living conditions for the majority over the next few years. Only when the growing general poverty and suffering caused by this destructive ideology is undisguisable can a change in the direction of society be envisaged and then, yes, effective measures can be taken to stop and reverse the collapse. May this happen as soon as possible!