"The exponential development is unsustainable on a finite planet."

Gabriel Blanco is a researcher and university professor specializing in climate change. He believes that the energy transition should focus on diversifying sources and decentralizing production. However, he also urges reflection on why we are consuming so much energy.

Gabriel Blanco is a professor and researcher at the National University of the Center of Buenos Aires Province (Unicen), specializing in renewable energies, climate change, and sustainability. With nearly 30 years of studies in these areas, he has always questioned the root of the problem behind the climate crisis, which is now a real threat.

In this context, he believes that the energy transition must be guided by principles such as source diversification and decentralization of production. But it is also necessary to reflect on why we are consuming so much energy.

Blanco has advised both Argentine and international organizations and is a coordinating author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

- In what context should we think about and carry out the energy transition needed to stop climate change?

- Before thinking about how the energy transition should be, we need to think about why we want to do it. Why do we need lithium, for example? That’s where we start to get to the root of the problem. If the energy transition is just a technological change, then it seems to me that we don’t understand what the real issue is. If the goal is just to stop climate change, then we still don’t understand the problem. We all know what is behind all of this: a model and a development paradigm that is clearly unsustainable. Exponential development is unsustainable on a finite planet.

- Don’t you think that the energy transition is addressing that root problem?

- It’s clear that the current energy system is unsustainable on our planet. But this transition must include a couple of key principles: diversifying and decentralizing resources and analyzing why we are really consuming energy. Diversifying and decentralizing go hand in hand. This means using different energy sources located in different regions. This reduces the stress on various natural resources. In Argentina, 86% of energy comes from oil and gas. That doesn’t seem very smart, especially when you can’t produce those fuels. If diversification doesn’t happen, the country becomes very vulnerable. Meanwhile, decentralization means scaling down technology so that we don’t rely on large companies for energy. The clearest example of decentralization is installing solar water heaters in homes. Diversification and decentralization would also involve more actors in the production chain and promote territorial development. Moreover, when people know how and where energy is produced, they become more aware and take better care of it. This happens with water and food as well.

- You also suggest analyzing how we consume energy. Are you talking about being more efficient?

- Not only that. We need to reconsider whether some consumption is really necessary. We should think about more efficient use, but also more rational use. It’s not just solved with technology, but mainly through individual and collective behaviors. One example: we still build homes completely unaware of how the world works. So in Argentina, we build our houses with windows facing south, instead of north. And we don’t plant trees on the sidewalk. Just by doing these two things, we could save a lot of energy on heating and lighting. So, I don’t know if it makes sense to create a solar park to feed irrational consumption.

- How should Argentina capitalize on its lithium resource?

- The fear is that history will repeat itself in Latin America with other resources. It was the silver mines of Potosí, the quebracho wood from La Forestal, and now soy. From here, there’s always the idea that some natural resource will save us. There’s another mistaken concept that this wealth will spill over to the rest of society. My fear is that we’ll think the same way about lithium.

- The difference now is that lithium is seen as a key resource to stop a climate crisis.

- Lithium is very important for achieving more sustainable transportation and thus contributing to mitigating climate change. But it’s still just another contribution to solving this global problem. There’s also pollution, water sources, etc. So, I return to my original idea: do we want lithium to replace the millions of cars that circulate? In reality, we should start by changing transportation and promoting the use of bicycles and other forms of micromobility. If after all that, we see that it’s necessary to change vehicle technology, then we can think about producing lithium batteries, with all the impact that entails.

- Climate change experts understand that the urgent energy transition should be supported by these technological changes.

- We’re at a crossroads because it seems like we don’t have time to think about the initial problem. So we need to embark on anything. But I would take some time to think carefully. It’s true that time is pressing, but I wouldn’t embark on anything just because of the urgency of climate change. I wouldn’t get involved in carbon capture and storage or other technological solutions. My feeling is that if we rush into anything because of urgency, it’s going to lead us to even worse situations.

- As a researcher, you’ve developed various energy scenarios to mitigate climate change. What role do lithium batteries and electromobility play in those scenarios?

- The energy scenarios we’ve developed demand massive transformations if the goal is to reach zero emissions. In that framework, to achieve zero emissions, the transportation sector must have zero emissions. We project a transportation system that gradually transforms into electric over the years until reaching full electrification by 2050. But we warn that this scenario could have other environmental impacts, such as water use in the lithium supply chain and socio-environmental conflicts. Another scenario, compatible with electromobility, is achieving a modal shift—moving from private vehicles to public transport and other more sustainable forms of mobility. What is observed in other countries trying this is that it’s very difficult to achieve.

- This global climate crisis represents an enormous challenge for our civilization. How optimistic are you that we, as a civilization, will solve it?

- I’ve been researching this topic for almost 30 years, and the diagnosis is complex. As a scientist, I try to get to the heart of the problem because that’s where the solutions may lie. That’s when you realize that these are centuries of development based on a series of natural resources like oil, coal, and gas, with the illusion that we could free ourselves from the natural cycles of the planet and that the planet was infinite. But now the problems that we never considered are starting to emerge. That said, if I were pessimistic, I wouldn’t be spending 15 hours a day studying this. The more we understand the problem, the more chances we have of finding substantial solutions.