 Buenas tardes a todos y a todas los que estáis al otro lado de la pantalla. Buenas tardes, este es el segundo día y hay aún otro que me quedará que hablaré de ti en el final de esta sesión. Quiero comenzar diciendo a ustedes que cuando, 20 años atrás, hablábamos de las clases. Podríamos pensar que se iba a rellenar o que se iba a rellenar o no. Pero ahora, infortunadamente, tenemos menos clases que 20 años atrás, pero hay una clases de teoría que está creciendo y creciendo en non-stop. Y no se ha hecho de drogas, pero, más o menos, es un problema que es la tensa de mil millones de datos que vienen de los dispositivos, cables, infraestructuras que consumen un gran número de recursos, hablando de minerales, agua y energía, muchas energía. Y hoy, para todos nosotros, es muy difícil imaginar un mundo donde no tenemos estas tecnologías, estas tecnologías digitales que humanos son bastante dependientes. En las últimas semanas de la conferencia, hablábamos de la consumción de minerales y agua que este cloud invisible requiere. Estamos hablando de lo que es la consumción de energía, de lo que estas nuevas tecnologías requieren. Y, infortunadamente, en el mundo, están principalmente los fósiles. Y, en realidad, están tratando de transformar el clima de planetas en eso de todo el sistema de la Earth. Estas tecnologías consumen alrededor de 5%-10% de la consumción del mundo de la electricidad. Y tenemos aquí hoy tres expertos a nivel alto, expertos internacionales, que estarán hablando de este tema. Quiero recordar que hay una interpretación disponible. Siempre puedes acceder a ese sistema, un pequeño tab en el que dice Translación. Y también quiero que te déis saber que tienes una chat donde puedes escribir tus preguntas para todos los tres participantes. Y nuestro primer speaker, y, en realidad, el primer de ellos es Joseph Tainter, un antropólogista y historiante de los Estados Unidos. Él es profesor en la Universidad de Utah. Y, hace unos años, él ha publicado un libro, que es una referencia fundamental, que es el colapso de las sociedades complexas, porque él estudia colapsos que han dado lugar en el pasado, en la historia, como la civilización de Maya o la civilización de Traco. Y es siempre muy interesante aprender lo que sucedió en el pasado para tratar y aprender lo que es lo que vamos a hacer en el futuro. Y él ahora va a hablar de ese tema, la complejidad de las sociedades y el futuro en innovación. También tenemos aquí, Antonio Arezabala, un geólogista y un investigador y un consultor, un consultador independiente, y él también colaboró con la Universidad de Zaragoza. Antonio participa en una forma activa en todas las debates científicos que están tomando lugar en la entropocina, que es lo que estamos causando en el planeta, el hecho de que estamos muriendo de recursos de energía y minerales, y también los impactos de tecnologías y los impactos de ciudades. Y luego tenemos Maria Lerde, un expert en transición de energía y cambio climático. Y él es muy concentrado en la decarbonización del sistema eléctrico y, más específicamente, en el sistema de datos. Es el clout que nos lleva aquí. Está trabajando en la coalición para el gobierno y pensar en tanques sobre estos temas, y él se graduó en la Universidad de Quatuvitella y en la escuela de economia de Londres. Y él ha sido el mestres en la Universidad de Colombia. Él fueowne y estuvo en Argentina, pero ella se conecta de Londres, porque es donde ella vive si no estoy ronca. Muchas gracias por estar aquí hoy. tainter, because we're all looking forward to listening to his presentation, which I'm sure will be shorter than we would like it to be in this new day dedicated to the dark side of the cloud. Thank you very much. First of all, I wish everyone a good afternoon and I thank the organizers of this conference for inviting me to speak today. If you'll give me just a moment, I will get my presentation. Here we are, I will get it on the screen. All right. Thank you. And I'm going to talk today about what I consider the fundamental question of sustainability. And I'll begin by. Okay, my keyboard is not working. Okay. I'm going to contrast two different concepts of our future. In the first concept, I'll read a couple of quotations that exemplify this concept. To begin, no society can escape the general limits of its resources, but no innovative society need except Malthusian diminishing returns. Malthusian, by allocation of resources to research and development, we may deny the Malthusian hypothesis and prevent the conclusion of the doomsday models. In other words, innovation will bail us out. The alternative concept was voice has been voiced by many writers. Jared Diamond, who wrote that a modern societal collapse would be quote, triggered ultimately by scarcity of environmental resources. So we have here in the first perspective, the perspective of what are called technological optimists. Technological optimists believe in what's called the principle of infinite substitutability. This principle is that resources are never scarce, they're just price-wrong. As resources do become scarce and rise in price, the market signals that there are rewards to innovation. And new resources are technologies will therefore emerge. And because of this argument, sustainability is considered not to be an issue. Let's me to what I consider the fundamental question of sustainability. Will we always be able to offset natural resource depletion by innovation and increasing technological efficiency. Now we have largely done so until now. And one would say that up until now the technological optimists have been largely correct. The question is, will they always be correct, will they be correct indefinitely into the future. So the objectives in my talk, the first is to explore the origins of our system of innovation and why it's possible and address secondly to address constraints to how long it might continue. Now we have to acknowledge that we have certain biases in our perspective of innovation. The reason is that since we live in a period of institutionalized innovation, we assume unconsciously that high frequency innovation is normal. And secondly, we have developed ideologies to legitimate, legitimize our current way of life exemplified in terms like progress and opportunity. My main points are firstly that human history has not been characterized by high rates of innovation. Secondly, today's institutionalized innovation is controlled by specific external conditions. Third, our system of innovation is self perpetuating under those conditions. And fourth, the continuity of today's system depends on the continuity of those conditions. So firstly, history is not characterized by high rates of innovation. Our ancestors have been traced as long ago as 4 million years in Africa. And among these people, these societies are ancestors, there have been periods of hundreds of thousands of years with little technological change. Our own species homo sapiens has been traced to about 300,000 years ago. And even during, even in our own species, there have been periods of tens of thousands of years with little technological change. In more recent history, there have been periods of hundreds to thousands of years with little technological change in many areas of life. First of all, 90% of subsistence economies involved production of energy, mainly through agriculture. There was little wealth to support innovators or even for very much education. Part of the reason for this is that land transport costs were high. Another reason was that peasants had little money to buy manufactured items. And there is a notable exception is that often there were salient innovations in the military sphere. Secondly, innovation increases complexity. People had found relatively simple technological solutions that worked. And thirdly, under conditions of low population and much land, there was a little need to innovate. So, a lot of the population states actually had to encourage cultivation and population growth. High frequency innovation, as we can see in this chart is a recent phenomenon. The chart shows patents issued in Great Britain. And you can see that it, it really starts to take off only about the mid 18th century and that's with the Industrial Revolution. This is a very interesting emergence of the coal based economy. And, and these were the conditions that made it possible for innovation to increase. So important points from this first set of slides is that high frequency innovation is not an innate characteristic of human societies. It's a characteristic only of our time. So, what are the specific conditions of innovation? First of all, we need inexpensive energy, permitting high societal complexity and discretionary consumption. Secondly, profit seeking by firms and third competition forcing continual innovation among firms. But, is this system self perpetuating forever? The continuity of our system requires, first of all, continued inexpensive energy, energy being a small part of the economy, allowing for discretionary spending and high complexity in our way of life. And this is a topic that I would like to go into, but because I'm constrained by time, I will not talk much about energy in this talk. I'll talk more about the second point is that our system requires constant or increasing returns to innovation. And this is a point that the technological optimists have failed to ask. Innovación has evolved from the area of what are called lone wolf geniuses in the 18th and 19th centuries. The picture here is Charles Darwin, such people with Gregor Mendel, various other lone wolf scientists. This is how science was conducted in the past by lone wolf geniuses. This science is conducted by complex interdisciplinary teams. I did a Google search once on the term research team, and it returned over 61,000 images. And this search was done a number of years ago. So, I teamed with some economists and some other scholars to investigate the productivity of innovation over time. What we find is that the productivity or system of innovation is declining. What we see here in the solid black line is that it takes more and more individual contributors to achieve a patent today. The chart begins in 1974, and goes up to the year 2012. And during this time we see the size of research teams growing and growing and growing. Lastly, and this is our measure of productivity, the number of patents per inventor has been declining. It has been declining continually over a period of in excess of 30 years. And there is every indication that this trend will continue because it relies on increasing complexity in the research process. Now, I will mention that our measure of productivity is the same as the measure of productivity in the economy as a whole. It's output per worker. Okay, in this case the output is innovations that merit a patent, and we can see that that output has been declining over time. Now we've broken this down to look at a variety of technical fields. I'm going to skip a couple of the older fields. We can see here that the productivity of innovation in the energy sector has generally been declining. There is a short term exception in solar energy in the United States, I think solar energy innovation solar energy increased as a result of changes in the tax law. You can see that even here the productivity rose for a while and is going down again. Here is the productivity of information technology. This is the most dynamic part of our economies, it's the part that we have always assumed would see us into the future and would provide the basis for increased for continuing an increase in innovation. What we can see here is that in communications, computer hardware and computer software, the productivity of innovation is actually decreasing, and it has beginning in 1974. The technical sectors in the United States patent office are nanotechnology and biotechnology. One would think that if any field so increasing productivity of innovation as new field should, but here we see just the opposite, even the newest fields are showing declining productivity of innovation. This is also the case in the academic sector, where it's been shown that diverse interdisciplinary teams have come increasingly the manner by which academic learning takes place, the manner by which new ideas are formulated and tested. Here as in the commercial patent system, we see the complexity increases through time. Now, a colleague of mine named Roderick Egert gave testimony once before Congress, the United States Congress. This was back in 2014. Dr. Egert is a specialist in minerals. He points out that in the 1980s cell phones used about 30 elements from the periodic table. At the time of his testimony in 2014, the contemporary smartphones used as much as 60 to 70 mineral derived elements. In the 1980s, a typical American household use about 30 elements from the periodic table. In 2014, general, the company General Electric used 70 of the first 83 mineral elements of the periodic table. This is obviously a trend that cannot continue. There are only so many elements on the periodic table. We've all heard of Moore's law. It is not really a law, it's an empirical observation. The observation is that the number of transistors on a chip doubles about every two years, while the cost of a computer is cut in half. That's why we can all afford laptops and smartphones, except that it now takes 18 times as many researchers to continue Moore's law, as it did in the 1970s. Moore's law suggests a constant exponential growth of about 35% per year. This is based on research productivity that declines by 7% per year, year after year after year. So what are the implications of the research that we've done? Well, firstly, barring on foreseen developments, our system of innovation is heading in the direction of becoming either on productive or on affordable. Secondly, we have plucked much of the low line fruit in the area of knowledge production. Fundamental discoveries like electricity and penicillin no longer wait to be made. We can no longer discover these things, these simple things. As research problems grow increasingly intractable, the complexity of the research enterprise increases, leading to diminuishing returns to research investments, as we've seen in the various charts that I've shown you. Also, we have the impression of continued progress, because the scale of the research enterprise has grown so large, and it has been proposed to grow larger still. So we come back to what I consider the fundamental question of sustainability. It is, are the technological optimists correct? Can we always innovate to overcome resource depletion and other problems? Or is our system of innovation vulnerable to its own decline, mirroring the decline of the factors that make it possible? And finally, can we sustain our way of life if our system of innovation declines? Thank you so much, Joseph. That was very interesting. You have actually asked some questions. I don't know if we will have an answer to those questions, because they're quite complex. And we will now give the floor to Antonio. So tell us. Well, okay, thank you. Thank you so much. And actually that was, I'm going to follow the line of what Joseph has been saying, because I'm going to be sharing my screen, first of all, and let's start with it. Okay. If you don't mind, I'm going to use my stopwatch because I want to be fast about it. I'm sorry for the interpreter, but I'm going to go fast about it. I wanted to look at the different revolution data centers, the role of energy and 5G, obviously, because I, why am I going to talk about this? Well, when we look at real data such as the data that Joseph has showed, we talk about denialism and I talked to politicians and normal people. There are two sorts of denialism, the theoretical denialism. And they consider that the demand of competition does not have well clashes against the efficiency that Joseph has talked about. So we have to, they always think about new business opportunities, but there are some limitations of the physical world that I think that big data centers and technologies don't think about because we think, we always talk about gigatons in a computer and the grams can, we can jump from bite to kilobyte from what to gigawatt. And we think that the same thing can be done in the physical world as though that was normal. But let's look at the limitations of the physical world that has to consider weight and space and how that has impacted our lives. Well, really, this is not new. This thing about the fact that we were going to have a new revolution thanks to new technologies and information and knowledge. I don't know if you'll remember in 2008 as the markets crashed when we had the Lehman Brothers collapse quite quickly, Angela Merkel, as well as Nicolas Sarkozy were talking about the fact that they were going to refund capitalism. And that was going to be done thanks to a new green economy in a digital world that was going to be inclusive and so on. And that's when we have the Smart 2020 report where they were designing the horizon for 2020. And this obviously appeared once again when the pandemic finished and the president of the Spanish government actually talked about a new economy a new green economy digital and inclusive economy. Since 2008 till 2020, many things have happened and we will see that almost none of the promises made, none of the things that were promised with Smart 2020 that was mainly championed by Telefonica in Spain, nothing was fulfilled. And why did all of this come about? Well, because I was actually looking at the social networks and I was looking at many different media, communication media and so on, they were talking about 5G, which was another vulnerable thing, which was going to happen and that was going to save the world. Well, actually all of the technology without energy is just a sculpture, a computer, if it doesn't have an electrical source, it will not work. And that's when I started using all the data that signing and others presented to us. But what they said was actually that there were going to be big capital expenses and energy expenses in order for that transition to be made. We were going to multiply the base station to introduce 5G and the new technologies, new information and new technologies. And then we were going to have to create cables, wireings and so on. So there was a metallic infrastructure that was needed and a little talked about that the other day. We needed lots of devices that would require new materials as we saw. Now they have the whole periodic table in them, new combinations of semiconductors, wireless infrastructures with artificial intelligence that was going to make them more complex, but also more efficient. And everyone was in agreement that this was going to bring new opportunities, big opportunities. And if we look at the productivity, obviously, and in what terms it is expressed, if we look at them, at our story since 1950s till today, we see that there is a first industrial revolution. We see that there is a great rise, I'm sorry, 1850. And then it is maintained with a second industrial revolution with combustion engines. And then when information technologies this goes down, as Joseph told us. So the ups and downs are actually more felt. They last, they don't last as long. And then we have all patents behind it. So when data centers were built, this has to be taken into account. So architects and designers and thinkers and so on talk about energy efficiency, the use of green energy, the use of renewable energies. The fact that we needed to create data center buildings that are ecological, that are where designed so that they can keep all of this inside them very well. We had to choose the places for those buildings to be built that are adequate where there are no earthquakes, where they're protected from hurricanes and floods, a good climatization management, which is very important because you have to cool them down. And most of the energy is dedicated to that, protection against the fires and so on, protection of the infrastructures, that big technological companies need to be protected and you need to use national networks that care for sustainability and the environment. But in the end, what we have ended up using is the surveillance capitalism, a constant creation of profiles, users, etc. Everything has to do with the distribution of publicity and programmed obsolescence. And we see that the forecast that they had in 2014, I'm sorry, no, in 2010, and then there was a revision in 2015 and then in 2020, the Huawei technicians said that in the worst case scenario, which is this scenario from 2022 onward, there would be an exponential increase of energy consumption and in 2030, all information technologies and knowledge technologies would end up using 51% of the world's electricity, so that represents 23% of CO2 emissions. That has been reviewed in a number of occasions and the more law that Joseph was referring to takes us to actually this year from 2020 to 2023, this would no longer work. So if we use this principle, then we see that Andrea's forecast would go up. But if we introduce these problems, then we would maintain that trend, that growth, exponential growth of energy consumption. And if we include the fact that people were going to be starting using Internet of Things and more law would no longer work, then we would go beyond what was expected. So we could think that 40% of the energy consumption of smartphones, for instance, could actually be avoided. If we had blockers, if we had blockers and we prohibited electronic advertising, which is one of the proposals that is really being defended right now. And what do designers and builders say? Well, the same thing really. They say that at the moment would be rich, where over 20% in 2030 of the energy consumed would be dedicated to these sorts of consumption. And they say that obviously, green is good for business and we have a problem, the problem that we have with efficiencies that 35% of the energy consumed at the centres is used to cool them down. So many of them, although they're set in very cold areas, they have to be cooled. And we see that Google, for instance, Google, if you open Google, you would say that it says CO2 emissions in 2007. And this obviously means that Google is clearly saying that they know that they are buying CO2 quotas. I mean, this has been purchased, this has been paid for with money. And then let's talk about all of these things that I have seen amongst the politicians when I appeared before the governments. For instance, a year ago, I was before the politicians and they thought that the increase of demand of computation would not have a problem with efficiency. But if we look at this paper that was published in December 2021, we see that ever since 1972 the limits of growth were published until 2022, that is nowadays. We see that the consumption of energy, in this case oil, has reached a plateau. And then when in the 70s we introduced oil and then deeper oil and fracking and so on, all of that is included with new technologies for the extraction of hydrocarbons. And what I like is really this yellow part on top, which is the energy that it takes to extract all of the things below. So in 73, with a barrel, we would get a 100 barrels. So we had a lot of quantity for data centers, for museums, universities, hospitals. So that was the great acceleration. That's how it was called. Now we are around 15% to 20% of the energy that we spend is for energy procurement. But in 2040, we will need a barrel to extract another barrel. And this was known since 2014. That was known by the big companies of the sector. And well, from now onward, what we are doing is changing with the next generation funds in Europe and the resilience and recovery funds we are going to pay for that business change. This, which is not profitable anymore. But this phenomenon, using more energy to get energy is called the energy return rate. And you all know it. And this is our society. We're here. We see the CO2 emissions, which is what makes economy grow for now. It is still going up. It increased in 2016 with small drops in GDP. When we come back to the previous year, then in 2020 it went down due to the pandemic. The economy went down. And in 2021 we saw the economy going upward. But we see that the energy return rate is making our society to be very inefficient. We are now more or less here. We have gone through the best moment, which was after the Second World War, where return rates were very high. But now we are at around 1 to 5, 1 to 6. So what's important here is how to maintain a technological industrial society, a thermal industrial society with energy return rates as low as this. So what would be the limit from which we would no longer be able to continue? And if we look, for instance, at the renewable energies, in this case PV, photovoltaic, and the work that was presented to us by Capellán and others, and Carlos de Castro and so on from the University of Valladolid, our case systems, we see that the trend would be 1 to 2 in Spain with PV. So if we don't take into account many of the... where you don't count what gets to the user in the end, which is 1 to 9, but it's very, very low. And what does the mining sector say? Well, they were involved in this problem in 2015, and they reached the conclusion that if... that with the data they had at the time for computers, for instance, and the average devices for 2015, we would have to... to have an energy consumption that would be very, very high. And if we were to imagine that we could reach 1,000 times higher efficiency than the one that we had in 2015 and so that we could get to the principle of end-hour, which is impossible, so that moving an electron would require no energy, then in 2050 we would have used all the energy that was consumed in 2010, and in 2070 we would be using all the energy that was consumed from 2010 to 2070, and the planet would be fried by then. So all of these things were not... all of these things were not being considered in the new economic models. We had a reduction of diesel, and now the problem that we have, which is the diesel, which is the blood of the system, has gone down from 2018 till 2021. Now it's recovered a bit, but still we have that problem. So that is a consumption of Spain, for instance. Primary energy consumption in Spain. Here we see that in electricity we have gas in 2008, as in every country that fell and there is less energy consumption, but it was important to look at the picture of what was happening during the maximum energy consumption in 2007, 2008, when Spain was consuming almost 100... they were consuming equivalents in oil. And here you have the gigawatts. It was almost 120,000 gigawatts per hour. This picture that we have from 2008 had a vision, which was this vision, where we see what the big cities look like, Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao. They are the ones receiving most of the energy. This is the change between generation demand. And this is also interesting for the consumption of other resources and we can also see the other part, the other side of the coin, which is waste generated. And this is due to the fact that Spain went from 1900s three people living three people living in cities and seven living in rural areas and now we are mostly urban dwellers. We have most of us in cities and then two in rural areas and so eight cities two in rural areas. So the sector of technologies and energy is completely corrupted in Spain. We have the problem of revolving doors, people coming out of politics to get into big big commodities companies and another denialism that I have seen is that we could grow we could have a GDP growth worldwide from 2020 by reducing energy consumption and reducing CO2 emissions. This is what Dario Espanyol presented in Europe and he was a commissioner for the European Union. He actually was the one who coined that because we also had commissioners saying that the GDP would be unlinked from the use of resources, we could dematerialize the economy but NATO actually reached a conclusion that that was not possible and the European agency for the environment reached the conclusion that that was not possible and they published articles using these five articles seeing whether it would be possible to dematerialize the economy thanks to IT information technologies and digital resources and they reached a conclusion that it was not going to be easy. So how have we managed to do that because some economists did say that if GDP is to grow and here we see an increase in energy here we have 228 when there was a collapse of markets in 228 the US and Europe increased their GDP by reducing energy consumption so clearly the miracle was possible but here there was a trick the trick here was China or India they were the ones doing the dirty work the emissions took place far away from our borders and we were growing because we could grow so in the end this led us to finishing where the middle class we killed the middle class of the wealthiest people the multimillionaires so we went in the opposite direction of what we had wanted to establish in 2015 with our 2030 agenda which was ending the quality so the other denialism is the denialism of minerals extractions if it's more and more expensive to extract these minerals due to geological reasons the international energy agency was telling us that the price of energy would go up three examples copper for instance it has increased the demand here we have the red line lithium we're going to require all of this if we want to have the transition that has been proposed from Germany and then from the rest of countries and here for instance cobalt so this is what we know we have and this is what we intend to do smart 2020 remember that smart 2020 was already saying that in the end the transportation sector was very bad so we needed to substitute things this is paradoxical instead of coming to Madrid and then go back we were going to do these conferences online conferences and so on so at the time the 2020 was presented in universities we were actually we were actually hopeful that if only could present these things in all provinces and all capital cities and we reached the conclusion that data servers and data centres had been multiplied in 2020 and now they consume almost 10% we have seen it a few moments ago of energy consumption and for all of these things that we intend to do this digitization we will require around 360 360,000 tons of lithium and then cobalt and nickel and so on so in the end if we have these trends then the geological services in Finland which are very good they say that electrifying all the economy will require lots of copper but right now we are seeing what is the consumption what is the important energy consumption and we are eating up mountains because that is what we can extract and red you see copper what we could get a few years ago by using rocks in mountains we would get a lot of copper but now we have to go through much more rock and when it's over 205% we consume less energy but from here onward we have a problem and energy consumption goes up just to get that copper for our digital transition so obviously the price of things goes up just as lithium which has multiplied by 10 in 2021 so there are some physical limitations limitations in the physical world only engineers are aware of this are aware of this problem that we have and really the physical world as we have seen shows that minerals are the ones supporting this digital transition behind this problem we have the high energy costs that we would have to invest in in order to reach this point and I will finish with one example just one example, the example of Germany Angela Merkel was a woman who did what she called de Bente the transition the energy transition where citizens participated in the whole world participated so that they could have a renewable energy system that was interesting and sustainable so they had up to 16% of their energy and renewables out of which 3.5% was wind and how did they do that world by having all of these wind farms in their country and that's how they got 3.5% for 2020 and how does this take place because if we use a wind as a unit we see that the space that it occupies has to be multiplied by 1100 in order to have gas or by 1000 with regards to coal and with PV we already know what the situation is so that's the case and that is it and I was going to talk about Jacobson that was presented in my city in Pamplona saying that it was going to be very easy to have this transition but then the US Academy went against him, I'm sure that our colleague Tainted knows about this he actually had to pay the cost in certain trials and he asked me to do a report for a foundation in Navarra to talk about mining sector in this transition and and that was something that politicians were championing but now they have not been able to continue but I was going to talk about the evolution about our planet in certain points but I will not have the time, I will leave it for some other day because I'm taking too much of your time so I just wanted to thank you for your attention but I see that I've already talked for 21 minutes so I went over the time that was given to me well thank you thank you Antonio so much for being so respectful of time and I was actually going to give you a few minutes but you didn't realise that, I'm sure that during the questions that I hope people will be asking I actually encourage the audience to ask questions on the chat I'm sure you will be able to give us more information and for the third intervention we will have an expert as I was telling you previously, Maria Lérez she is an expert in cryptocurrency which is one of the sectors of the digital world that really consumes big amounts of energy as a matter of fact the European Commission yesterday considering this energy crisis that we are facing this winter they said that we need to limit the consumption of this sector and let's see Maria can tell us a bit more about this and how it works and what it consists of and what are the challenges and the risks that we face thank you so much thank you so much Rosa thank you everyone thank you to the organisers for their invitation I am Maria Lérez and my intervention today is about electrical consumption of greater currency as a matter of fact what is a cryptocurrency just to begin with a cryptocurrency is a digital currency a virtual currency that is protected by cryptography so that it is almost impossible to falsify it or spend it twice a final characteristic of cryptocurrencies that they are not issued by any central authority so that prevents from a bad management or manipulation by the government through a central bank that would coin them or that could have monetary policies with them an example of cryptocurrency I am sure you have heard talk about Bitcoin obviously but there are many others Ethereum is the second one with regards to importance and then there is touchcoin, cardano late coin binance etc etc etc etc there are many different cryptocurrencies that appear cryptocurrency is generated through crypto mining an activity that has two purposes on the one hand it generates new cryptocurrency as I said but it also verifies the legitimacy of transactions that take place with this cryptocurrency so that they can then be added to a centralized accounting book which is called blockchain a term that I am sure you already know so this is a process a dual process that generates more cryptocurrency and that allows for the ones in circulation to be used in a safe way because if anyone validates their transactions then the decentralized nature of blockchain, this accounting book could allow falsifiers to use one currency over and over but this crypto mining is used to verify transactions and that avoids fraud and reinforce the trust of users in cryptocurrency cryptocurrency requires something called a consensus mechanism to guarantee that all the interested parties who want to be crypto miners are in agreement with regards to legitimate transactions and they avoid the possibility of a person spending the same currency twice and committing fraud and in order for those verifications to take place, bitcoin as any other cryptocurrency would use a mechanism a consensus mechanism between the parties which is called proof of work and once the proof of transactions is completed, crypto miners will compete against each other to be the first one to solve mathematical problems that are extremely complex and when one solves the equation they will validate the transaction and that will allow miners to generate cryptocurrency on their own as a reward for their work and this competition between crypto miners requires very special and sophisticated equipment with great computational power with great power and with specialized software so you cannot do it with any home device or laptop and as a consequence this activity consumes lots of electricity and waste lots of electricity and it adds up as new miners will be part of the network so this proof of work, this process doesn't only waste electricity it also generates electronic waste because the servers, these specialized servers that are used for crypto mining often are obsolete after one and a half years and will end up in land fields, we already know that our societies are not characterized by being especially effective or efficient with regards to recycling and reusing but in order to have a context of what electrical consumption is for a crypto crypto mining, Cambridge University through the Cambridge Bitcoin electricity index has developed an index that is specific for Bitcoin and it became a very important tool to visualize the impacts of this industry in green house gas effect gas emission so this index considers the global consumption per year will be 100 terawatt per hours in 2022 if Bitcoin were a country it would be number 34 in the electrical consumption ranking below Pakistan and the Netherlands and above Kazakhstan, Belgium, Philippines and Chile so Bitcoin mining represents 0.145% of the world consumption of electricity other example so that we set the frame the context of Bitcoin's electrical consumption globally, data centers consume 200 terawatts per hour world in production represents 1200 terawatts per hour and cement 384 paper 586 terawatts per hour and these are the industries that use more electricity in the world all the television sets in the US consume per year 60 terawatts per hour and the electrical consumption of Bitcoin per year is like the demand of electricity of the Cambridge University for 728 años and could feed all the kettles used to boil water for tea in the UK for 22 years so these are statistics that Cambridge University publishes that are quite explanatory so that we see what the electrical consumption for crypto mining is just for Bitcoin ok what are other specificities of crypto mining because it usually concentrates in places where the electricity tariffs are lower and where temperatures are lower so that the equipments can be cooled without needing air conditioning or ventilation the thing is that most of the countries that have these characteristics that have low electricity tariffs and low temperatures usually generates electricity by using fossil fuels in 2019 China concentrated 50% of crypto mining activities y en China as well over 50% of the electricity that is being produced is produced in coal centrals which is the fuel that is most polluting and the one that produces most CO2 and that contributes most to greenhouse gases that cause climate change so crypto mining has a great footprint and we consider that the activity this year will generate around 50 million tonnes CO2 which represent 0.1% of world emissions if bitcoin no, yes actually if bitcoin were a country it would be number 88 in greenhouse gas emission ranking out of 129 countries so it would be in the top 50% of the emitting countries and crypto mining not only is there green house gas emissions but it also has disproportionate impact on the distribution networks so that obviously has an impact on the stability of the network and it causes blackouts and with all the consequences that that entails and I'm going to give you two examples of negative impact of crypto mining some of you I'm sure already know that the US is actively working to decarbonize electrical production they have the second greatest capacity for electricity production with coal after China but they are making much progress with energy and electrical transition with the decarbonization of the sector but in an agreement that was signed at the end of 2020 Marathon a mining, a bitcoin mining company became the only client of the coal central in the state of Montana that was about to close because they didn't have any clients they weren't producing for anyone the company established a data center in 8 hectares that are close to the coal center with over 30,000 units of a computer that specializes in bitcoin the emissions of that those facilities in the fourth quarter increased 5,000 5,000 because they were simply dedicated to providing electricity to this to these crypto mining facilities another example with regards to the impact in infrastructures China in 2019 concentrated 50% of crypto mining activities but since it is such a decentralized and a tar take activity that Chinese government decided to forbid it completely in may last year 2021 so what happened well many of those centers of that activity went to Kazakhstan which caused well this is actually a neighboring country so 20% of the crypto mining activities are now in Kazakhstan in November last year the financial times published that 80,000 machines had migrated in a few weeks from China to Kazakhstan and thus the electrical demand at the end of the year in Kazakhstan had increased 8% when during that time a year usually there is no increase increases 1% to 2% and that destabilize the electrical grid and caused blackout in six different regions since October 2021 the three main electrical centers in the north of the country had too close as an emergency reaction so imagine what that impact had for industries, hospitals schools and homes in that region and the government notified that they were cutting the supply to all the miners registered in the country and here we have another problem most of the crypto mining activities are outside of of the registries they are not registered so just a few of them are registered and are included in the government regulations but the good thing about this is that the industry is trying to improve itself and with the same agility that they have become disruptive they are also reacting to their environmental impact and I am going to talk about Ethereum which is the second biggest cryptocurrency after Bitcoin which in September just a month ago completely is a plan to reduce their carbon emissions in over 99% what they did was change the way in which they manage transactions in their blockchain in this accounting book, this ledger which is public and centralized and we talked about it at the beginning and this is the one that supports cryptocurrency and that creates more cryptocurrency so this change means that Ethereum is no longer being produced with proof of work which is the process that I described at the beginning of my intervention where computers compete against each other to validate the transactions and generate new cryptocurrency so now what they do is a new system which is proof of participation and this is betting somehow their own cryptocurrency as a way of guarantee to get more cryptocurrency and this protocol, this participation protocol designates in a random way and following pre-established criteria these validators of transactions so there is no longer this fierce competition between miners that requires such power so mining power gets so much electricity consumed so their electrical footprint should go from 8.5 gigawatts to less than 85 megawatts from one day to the next so 99% reduction and we understand that this change could represent 0.2% of the world consumption of the world to disappear from one day to the next but this is just for Ethereum right now so Bitcoin is still an individual contributor to the CO2 footprint in the world of cryptocurrency this change that many consider is the most important event in the world of blockchain and cryptocurrency was received positively in the markets because Ethereum has made this public and its stock went up 2% and it is considered that it's $200 billion if we consider the value of this cryptocurrency and there is also an initiative called Crypto Climate Accord where 200 signatories who are participant in the crypto market commit to achieving zero net emissions of electricity consumption linked to all their operations for 2030 and to inform on the progress objective of having net emissions using the best practices in the industry and they consider that since the roots of cryptocurrency is open code, agility and technological innovation this industry is ideal to manage something that the world hasn't yet not seen which is the quick decarbonization of a whole industry so the idea as I told you is to have zero emissions to implement for 2030 and to develop standards and tools and technologies to accelerate the adoption and to verify the progress towards a 100% renewable blockchain for the next meeting the next COP meeting for 2030 so there are 200 individuals and companies that have already signed it it's a very small number but there is at least a concrete initiative to decarbonize the industry advising and innovating and escalating these actions and these initiatives the crypto mining has its roots in open source and as I said that requires agility and technological innovation and that is basic to build on this progress that is taking place in the decarbonization of electrical systems renewable energies are not competitive in costs in the electrical markets the world over so they are now very present in the grid and now the grids are more clean and there is a possibility for synergies and to finish my presentation the idea of decarbonizing the electrical system worldwide is a great challenge with regards to home consumption so cryptocurrency has an associated consumption that has been quite disruptive amount of time and what's interesting and unheard of is that part of the industry has been able to identify, recognize and react quickly with regards to this negative impact that their electrical consumption had in emissions and infrastructure and to correct with agility this part of its way of functioning so that they could reduce their emissions and this is actually very good news and unheard of it would consider the resistance and the time has taken to traditional energies to stop using fossil fuels and to recognize their responsibility and to decide to act with regards to climate action but it's all in development everything has to be done to be monitored, everything has to be followed up so we'll see what happens and those were my final words, thank you very much thank you so much Maria to be honest at least we end our presentations with a positive example of a sector where it seems that if we want things can work and to to be honest I think it's not only been interesting I think it has been quite explanatory with regards to the situation currently and I also wanted to ask all three speakers one question because up till now we've been told the whole society has been told to all of us who are not specialists in the sector that the technological world was going to help us overcome climate crisis and that's where the solution needed to come from technology and renewable energies and Professor Tainter was telling us a few minutes ago during his intervention that productivity is going down although production is going up it seems that the production goes up but productivity goes down and Antonio was telling us that energy is going to be less efficient in considering the the trend and I wanted to ask you what should be the road to follow to avoid potential collapse or a potential deep crisis because we're already in a crisis but this crisis is becoming even more acute so could you maybe tell us what could be the exit from the solution Professor Tainter Professor Joseph Tainter could you maybe give us there is no simple answer to this now I don't want my talk to be misinterpreted innovation is not just going to go away but this is already affecting several technical sectors like the pharmaceutical industry the defense industry with its reliance now I'm very high technology very complex technologies they now have these remarkable shells that can artillery shells that can pick out an individual target but they cost something like $40,000 a piece in terms of the future of innovation I don't suggest anything is going to happen immediately innovation consists primarily of taking things that already exist and putting them together in new ways as we've been doing with information technology but in the future and a lot of so many individual things have been invented that we can continue on that course for I think a fairly long time but what's going to happen is that individual technical sectors are going to begin to have problems in getting satisfactory returns on their investments in innovation and funding bodies such as let's say the United States Congress are going to start continuing support for individual certain technical sectors and certain lines of research and this has been happening already it's a normal thing that legislative bodies do I do think that by the end of this century, keep in mind I'm a historian and archeologist I think long term by the end of the century I think our system of innovation will be very different Antonio Well, many different interesting things have been said here there is no economic activity no activity whatsoever that by being more efficient has managed to reduce the consumption of something and that makes this thing doesn't it because somebody asked here on the chat and we're saying well we're going to keep on growing and growing and growing as you were saying Rosa it's not bad we are less efficient it's just that our society and the energy sources especially the non-renewable ones which are mainly well 90% or 80 something percent of all energy sources are more difficult to extract and actually I was just giving the example of of irrigation in Spain the irrigation in Spain when we tried to modernize it at the end of the 90's beginning of the 2000's we said well we actually I actually have data from the ministry saying the consumption of water will be reduced 30% well what happened was that irrigation was modernized you changed the irrigation system and now people said ok then I consume less and that way what I can do is increase the number of hectares that I'm going to be irrigating not just the legal ones but also the illegal ones so we went from we went to a very serious drought period and 75% to 80% of the water that is consumed in Spain is for irrigation we have had very good examples this year where the supposed drought so in a context in a situation where there is a constant growth when we are constantly looking for growth infinite growth well what efficiency does in the case of 5G for instance or technologies, information technologies and digitization is that you become more efficient so you consume more energy so if we used to have cell phones that were very very expensive well now we have 4 devices and that then the consumption increases and that is what's happening if the objective is always infinite growth so we should start thinking do we really need that growth that infinite growth and Maria I don't know if you want to add something to this no I think actually that Antonio as well as Joseph have actually answered that question very well so if I understand correctly what you're saying is that an option a possible option or the one that we should be considering is that of non growth I don't know what you think is that possibility of non growth or de growth that is very much on vogue right now how could it be possible in this digital world where it seems that we are constantly growing that dark cloud that won't stop growing can we start thinking about that now that it seems that this is an expansion could we think about stopping things stopping growth and I'm not even mentioning de growing what are the possibilities of that happening I don't know I don't know who wants to take the floor Joseph Maria I think actually it's very difficult to stop this fast paced advance of the virtual world because everything I mean all the industries are completely invested in virtual solutions to be able to grow to automatize to improve efficiency but we need to do it in a sustainable way and and as efficient as possible as efficiently as possible we need to be aware of the resources consumption that is taking place and how how we are going to grow what the electrical and energy consumption will be in industries so that they can sustain that growth it's going to be very difficult to stop the growth of the cloud because it's a very fast it's a very fast paced growth but we have to do it in sync with the changes that we're seeing in the way in which energy is being produced and also considering all the different implications and how we're generating energy and electricity as Anthony was saying a moment ago all of this renewable energies revolution is going to cause new geopolitical pressures on mining resources so there isn't a bullet a silver bullet to solve this we have to do it with responsibility and being aware of what the situation is so that we don't repeat the problems that we have caused with energy consumption up till now I think that just like there has been a transfer of resources energy resources in this case from transportation to what we're doing now for instance there will be other cases we also see on the other hand that many of the papers that have been published many authors actually say that if we block ads, digital ads then we could save up to 40% of the energy and that's quite interesting and going back to what Maria was saying I really think that we are in a we're very well positioned it's amazing but we have a great position to have a lab and we can see what happened with SMART 2020 SMART 2020 proposed in that refunding of capitalism thanks to digital technologies they saw a diminution of 20% in CO2 emissions 15-20% in CO2 emissions saying that precisely technologies, information technologies in 2020 would represent 3% of the CO2 emissions and greenhouse gas emissions and that's the only thing that they knew because actually they have increased 15% but we were going to have a GDP growth I don't know how much and they were going to introduce in strategic sectors such as transportation so that the automatization and the management of the goods transportation would cost for the sector that is usually the devil in every report this transportation would be managed in a different way in a wonderful way and in all the processes all industrial processes the automatization and digitization was going to cause great savings in energy consumption but 2020 has come about nothing happened so we don't have a very good example so I'm sorry for being such a pessimistic person we are now in the second turn of this capitalism refunding again with technologies but now we have an energy problem we have an energy problem so talking about infinite growth is going to be impossible I just have to be clear it's impossible, are there solutions? obviously there are lots of solutions but we cannot think that we will be able to grow in an infinite way talking about places such as the British islands where they are talking about blackouts we are talking about other countries where they will have standard cuts to be able to better manage their energy Joseph, I would like to know what you think about this as an expert in civilization collapses complex civilizations collapses what happened in the past looking towards the future do you think that there will be a collapse due to this explosion of consumption on use of energy and digitization and use of mineral resources and so on I often find myself wondering if we are heading for what's called a steady state economy a no growth economy it's a steady state economy now understand that I'm not advocating this but I think it is a real possibility I'm not advocating it because there are some serious problems with the no growth economy but when I pose to my students the question about are we heading for a no growth economy ask them to consider what the implications are they are completely baffled by it they simply don't know how to answer they can't concede with it yes I guess that especially for generations who were born this time it's very complicated because it's true that the cloud and the digital side of things and this development has not come about at the same time everywhere in the world because there are societies and the planet who are very much at the margins of all of this that we are mentioning of these problems they do feel the impact but indirectly they are not the use of resources but they are not part of this they are not directly impacted yes Antonio yes that's your students will imagine politicians the politicians when we talk to them ok so I think there are many interventions on the chat I see that there is actually a debate going on on the chat with regards to the topics that we are mentioning here and one of the participants at the meeting, instead of being digital instead of being in the cloud had been face to face how much emissions would have been how many emissions would have been generated what the impact would have been how much of an impact so I am actually reading that question about teleworking and tele-teaching remote teaching I have been considered as alternative ¿Cómo deberíamos llevarlo? ¿Qué debería ser su proyección? Por ejemplo, Antonio. Bueno, depende. Podríamos ver cada caso separado. Si Joseph tiene que viajar desde el U.S., obviamente, su tribu estaría cubierto. Puede cubrir 100 eventos, como esta. Pero con tiempo, es probable que haya una transferencia de recursos de energía desde, por ejemplo, la carroscina que se ha convertido en planes a la mantenimiento de la grida. Creo que eso va a suceder. Pero, sí, es cierto que vamos a digitizar la economía más, vamos a digitizarlo más, pero no debemos esperar milagros. Y alguien ha propuesto algo muy interesante en la chat. Es decir, ¿cuál es el problema? Podemos compartir aquí 1,000 o 2,000 soldados, 1 o 1, 1, 1, 1 o 1 soldados, etcétera. Pero tenemos que comer. Es decir, en el final tenemos que comer. Y es lo que dije durante mi presentación. No explicé muy bien sobre el mindset que todavía teníamos. En muchos sectores económicos, pensando que ahora clicamos con el mouse y eso es todo. Y dices, aquí, en vez de nuestro programa, tenemos un tono. Y aquí, hacemos estructuras, construcciones, estructuras, transferimos grandes centros de electricidad por clicnarnos en el mouse. Pero cuando llegamos al mundo real, las cosas esperan mucho. Hay cambio climático. Hay ataques atmosféicos. Hay ataques químicos. Y tenemos que comer las maneras y los vegetales y las frutas. Y eso no puede ser hecho con un clic en el mouse. Tenemos que tener un apoyo estratégico para organizar cosas y para automatizar cosas como la transportación de las cosas que necesitan. Y para mí, esa es la pregunta principal. ¿Cómo se consume esto comparado a esto? Si yo vivo en Mostales y estás haciendo esto en Madrid, quizás debería ir, debería estar ahí físicamente. Pero si yo vivo en la U.S. y tengo que viajar todo el camino de la U.S., entonces no lo voy a hacer porque representaría 20 meetings como esta, con respecto a mis misiones. No sé si quieres agregar algo. En el caso de la criptocurrencia, María, bueno, la criptocurrencia y su posición. Hasta ahora, esto no es el sistema de monitoría que se utiliza el mundo. ¿Tienes que, en el final, replicar el otro sistema que tenemos, el otro sistema de transportación económico que tenemos? ¿Por qué? ¿Tienes que ser mejor? Si las empresas deciden, como Ethereum, creo que fue para seguir a una ruta más sustentable. ¿Sería más sustentable que el sistema que también utiliza mucho energía y electricidad? Bueno, según lo que he dicho, es muy difícil para Bitcoin debido a su diseño de esta criptocurrencia específica. Es muy difícil para Bitcoin poder transitar a un sistema que Ethereum propone para reducir la consumción de electricidad, pero tienen que hacer algo, obviamente, porque la escritinidad en esta industria es excelente y en todas las industrias está actualmente creciendo. Y los consumidores y los gobiernos son mucho más vigiles con respecto al impacto que tienen, no solo estas industrias, pero todas las industrias como he dicho, por suerte. Entonces, no sé, no creo que la criptocurrencia replicará las acciones tradicionales de los gobiernos. Pero, claramente, en muchos países en el mundo no usamos dinero y todo es transacciones, transacciones digitales y pagamentos digitales. Y obviamente, eso tiene muchas advertencias con respecto a la democratización de acceso financiero en muchos sectores donde no habrá acceso, pero las criptocurrencias replican la solidaridad y la transparencia y la estabilidad que un sistema centralizado controlado por un instituto gobierno creo que eso será muy difícil. Bitcoin fue muerto tanto como el año pasado, así que lo cambia. Es solo un tool financiero para la especulación. No sé si puede ser considerado solo o robusto como una criptocurrencia basada en una autoridad central. Voy a ver si tuvimos otras preguntas en la chat que podría preguntarte. Pero si no, me gustaría decir porque un nuevo summit, un nuevo summit climático va a comenzar en unos días en Egipto. No sé estas cosas. He estado en algunos summits y digitales y topics electrónicos no protagonistas de las reuniones hasta ahora. Me gustaría decir después de 26 summits climáticos que tuvimos en nuestra historia. ¿Qué piensas sobre estas unidades de reuniones que tocan en un mes y ¿qué piensas sobre estas reuniones que tocan en Egipto? Joseph, por ejemplo, porque él es muy quieto. Él ha estado quieto durante un tiempo. No tengo nada que decir sobre eso. Me pregunto qué piensas sobre estas conferencias internacionales. Si pensamos sobre qué podría suceder y si acciones concretas estarán tomadas de una vez y de otra vez, creo que es el tren general. El reporte de la UN sobre las contribuciones nacionales ha sido muy firma diciendo que no hay ahora un patrón y un patrón believable por la reducción de emisiones que necesitan evitar la inclinación de 1.5 grados. Lo que tiene es que no hay nada. Si pensamos sobre las primeras conversaciones en 1992 en Rio de Janeiro 30 años cuando hablamos sobre el clima por el primer tiempo y las perspectivas son, infortunadamente, no muy promesas. Antonio, no sé si gustaría algo. Lo que hay dentro de estas conversaciones es una pala para la transición. Tiene prolifé dance de la innovación y desarrollo de la investigación, que es algo que todos queremos. Y todos pagamos, felizmente, nuestros taxas, porque queremos para las empresas que nos digan con R&D y N.I. El problema es que lo que muchos de ellos han hecho hasta ahora, muchos de ellos, no digo que todos de ellos, es usar esos fondos, esos R&D y N.I., que son la fruta de nuestro trabajo, para crear objetos que nos matan dos años abajo de la ruta. Así que estamos investiendo el trabajo de las personas en crear máquinas, tu máquina de mirar o tu microwave, para morir dos años más tarde. Así que uno de los propósitos que hicimos aquí en la ruta, yo creo que el estadista que está diciendo esto, fue que ellos deberían ser responsables, y la EU ha estado trabajando en eso, por no saber cuánto tiempo. No sabemos cuánto tiempo han estado trabajando en eso, en ese tema y intentando hacer algo sobre eso y que las empresas sean responsables para el replacimiento y mantenimiento de tus máquinas. Y alguien dice que un dispositivo, un dispositivo de 10 años atrás, no podría permitirlo hacer esto o eso. Bueno, pero eso no es cierto. Yo currently have an iMac, que pido en 2011, y Apple es el rey de obsolescence, de programas de obsolescence. Y lo que hago es usar Free Software con Linux, y hay algunos desarrolladores en el mundo que, con la plataforma OpenCora, permiten usar los nuevos sistemas de operación. Entonces, ¿qué he tenido que hacer? He tenido que usar mi screwdriver, abrir mi Mac, y en vez de tener el HDD disc, he de usar un solo, y he aumentado mi memoria RAM. Y ahora, también he hecho con un solo, y puedo hacerlo. Y no puede ser hecho. Obviamente, me gusta hacer estas cosas, me gusta hacerlo, y lo hago con mi familia y amigos. Y me instalé muchos diferentes sistemas de Free Software. Pero, algunas personas me han olvidado pintar con Linux, que puedo hacer casi todo. Obviamente, puede. Perfectamente bien, pero luego hay publicidad, como decimos, y programas de obsolescence. Así que eso es uno de los pilaros, uno de los pilaros de este problema. Es básico. Ok, y para terminar, tengo una última pregunta para Joseph Tainter, que dice, en la sociedad con energías renewables, ¿no es más complejo? ¿Es más cercano al colapso? Sí, la pregunta es, sí, para energías renewables, producirán sistemas de mayor complejo. No sé que necesariamente, el colapso. ¿Qué me preocupa más sobre nuestro futuro inmediato? Aparte del cambio climático, es la conjunción de globalización con un delivery en tiempo. Y si esos sistemas falten, no hay productos comerciales circulados. No hay comida en las escuelas. Y con las consecuencias del coronavirus y las disrupciones en las cadenas de supply, vemos un reto de noticias de lo que puede suceder cuando las cadenas de supply están disrupciones. No es solo la globalización y las cadenas de supply, es eso combinado con lo que se llama el delivery en tiempo de tiempo, para que las empresas no sigan tomando más cosas, excepto de Amazonas, todo se toman todo. Pero por la más parte, esto es lo que me preocupa más para el futuro inmediato. Bueno, muchas gracias. Bueno, muchas gracias, Joseph. Muchas gracias. Creo que, por lo menos, hemos salido de tiempo. Obviamente, podremos pasar horas y horas aprendiendo de todos los 3 de vosotros, María, Antonio y Joseph. Y muchas gracias. Me gustaría agradecer como San Cienlida. Me gustaría agradecer a la Fundación Europea y la Fundación Transición Verde para organizar esta semena. Y me gustaría recordar que en noviembre 3 tendremos la tercera semena que se llama Luminosa de la Cloud. Tal vez, será más en la luz, y nos dará soluciones porque es una digitización que queremos. Es, al menos, lo que queremos, para que esta Cloud sea un poco menos larga que lo que parece. Y tenemos Coral Calero, Julieta, Arancio, quien es de la Universidad de Bresel en Estados Unidos y la Europea Green Quim van Spandach, moderado por Raúl Gómez, quien es el director de la Fundación Transición Verde. Muchas gracias por haber estado aquí durante este día. Tenemos muchas interesantes noticias aquí, en el lado de su mano, esa noticia que tenemos que probar y reutilizar lo que podemos, porque la energía va a ser muy difícil de obtener. Y también tenemos una mayor eficiencia, si es posible, sin esa eficiencia, significa que tenemos que usar más energía para que no tomemos más energía. Tenemos que tener una eficiencia que va en el opposito sentido. Y la productividad de nuestro sistema de innovación va a ser reducida, aparentemente, pero nosotros intentamos encontrar ese balance que nos permitirá tener una sociedad fairer y un futuro más esperado. Así que muchas gracias a todos. Muchas gracias a todos por estar aquí. Y nos vemos en el 3 de noviembre con Transición Verde y Lacas Encelidad. Muchas gracias a todos.