Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Locks podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe Wisn't and I'm Tracy Hallaway. Tracy, one of
Speaker 1: the themes that comes up on a lot of episodes
Speaker 1: is that you know, there's going to be a lot
Speaker 1: of demand for various metals and various minerals in the
Speaker 1: so called energy transition in order to electrify the economy,
Speaker 1: but that that process itself is fraught with its own
Speaker 1: environmental consequences and risk. Right, so this is the ultimate
Speaker 1: irony of um, I guess the green revolution. In order
Speaker 1: to save the world and bring down emissions, we have
Speaker 1: to move to new types of energy electrification, a lot
Speaker 1: of which requires certain types of minerals and metals, and
Speaker 1: getting those is actually environmentally destructive in many ways. Right. So,
Speaker 1: we recently had a conversation, for example, with Nick Snowden
Speaker 1: of Goldman Sex and of course over the long term
Speaker 1: he's extremely bullish on copper, for example, but as he noted,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the reasons for his like super
Speaker 1: bullish copper call is that they're just as not as
Speaker 1: much mining activity. And he pointed out, you know, around
Speaker 1: the world, it's not just in rich countries around the world.
Speaker 1: There's been much more concerned being raised about the environmental
Speaker 1: consequences of mining, the water consumption that happens in copper
Speaker 1: mining specifically, and he noted that Chile, which many people
Speaker 1: know is one of the biggest sources of copper in
Speaker 1: the world, it's become a much more difficult place to
Speaker 1: get a new mind built. Right, so, even if there
Speaker 1: is theoretically enough copper in the ground to satisfy the
Speaker 1: world's demands for electrification, it's becoming harder and more challenging
Speaker 1: to get it out because there are these additional environmental concerns,
Speaker 1: and in Chile in particular, they're even writing some of
Speaker 1: these environmental concerns into their new constitution, which is very
Speaker 1: different to the types of constitutional writing that we've seen historically. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so copper, of course, lithium is another big one
Speaker 1: for batteries because of copper the transmission and then you
Speaker 1: have you know, this boom and batteries. But again, lots
Speaker 1: of similar environmental issues raised. And so rather than just
Speaker 1: you know, talking about, yes, they're all these environmental issues
Speaker 1: that get that have to be addressed, we should probably
Speaker 1: talk more about what they are, what the opposition is
Speaker 1: what are the concerns, why our politics changing, and how
Speaker 1: do we resolve or think about resolving some of these tensions. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: and I'm also very interested in this from an E
Speaker 1: s G perspective because one of the fundamental questions over
Speaker 1: E s G has always been should you let the
Speaker 1: market decide this or should the government actually be making
Speaker 1: these restrictions? And Chile is really an interesting case example
Speaker 1: of all of this. Well, I'm very We really have
Speaker 1: I think the perfect guest for this episode. We're going
Speaker 1: to be speaking with Dr Christina Dorador. She is a
Speaker 1: microbiologist from Chile and she is a former member of
Speaker 1: the Constitutional Assembly of Chile. Just recently, just a few
Speaker 1: days ago. We're recording this July eight, but only four.
Speaker 1: This new proposed constitution that it codifies and shrines some
Speaker 1: of these environmental protections was put forward. It's going to
Speaker 1: be voted on later in the year. But she was
Speaker 1: involved in drafting, uh this new proposed constitution and for
Speaker 1: the first time which really gets at some of these
Speaker 1: tensions and puts it of of mining and protecting the
Speaker 1: environment right into the constitution itself. So Dr Dorador, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for coming on odd lots. Thanks to
Speaker 1: you for their invitation. So why don't you just give
Speaker 1: us a little bit of your background in bio. I'm
Speaker 1: mentioned that you're microbiologists, mentioned that you've been part of
Speaker 1: this new constitutional Assembly in Chile. But what where does
Speaker 1: your interest in this space and work in the space
Speaker 1: come from. I did my my undergrad in biology. Then
Speaker 1: I did my based in Germany where I focused the
Speaker 1: study of micro organisms in extreme environments. So then I
Speaker 1: come back to Chile to analyze the micro organisms that
Speaker 1: living in the desert that a Kama desert and also
Speaker 1: in other places such as Salatis. There are very special
Speaker 1: ecosystem of a Politic lakes that now are the source
Speaker 1: for lithium. So I'm working in this subjects more than
Speaker 1: I don't know twenty years ago. So um, we have
Speaker 1: a lot of experience about ecology and also the micro
Speaker 1: organisms that live in there. So you mentioned the unique
Speaker 1: ecosystem of Chile. Could you maybe give us a little
Speaker 1: bit more color on that, Like, what exactly is it
Speaker 1: about the geography of Chile that makes it so important
Speaker 1: to things like copper and lithia mining. Sure, well, Chile
Speaker 1: is it's a land of extremes. You know, in the
Speaker 1: north of Chile we have the driest desert in the
Speaker 1: world'ma desert in the south is Patagonia and but specifically
Speaker 1: not a Cama desert. Um there are a high concentration
Speaker 1: of minerals and also high diversity, so it's possible to
Speaker 1: find almost the whole predict table here. And and also
Speaker 1: it's in large reserves and in the special case of
Speaker 1: the of the water because it's a rist of course
Speaker 1: water is under the ground and and also the fresh
Speaker 1: water is coming from from raining during during the summer
Speaker 1: um and it's located in these special lakes that are
Speaker 1: called salades that already mentioned, and a couple of rivers.
Speaker 1: So the water is very scarce. And and actually for
Speaker 1: all the mining, the big mining that produced Chile is
Speaker 1: using discarce water from the desert. So yes, So there's
Speaker 1: something that came up on a recent episode, and we
Speaker 1: were talking to the chief metal strategist at Goldman Sax
Speaker 1: and he mentioned, you know, he said, you know, the
Speaker 1: copper mining is generally improved, it's sort of environmental sustainability,
Speaker 1: but for one thing, there is a huge water need
Speaker 1: in copper mining. Can you talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: from your perspective, what you see. You know, start with copper, right,
Speaker 1: we'll also talk a lot about lithium since I know
Speaker 1: you do a lot of work on that. But what
Speaker 1: do you see as sort of like the environmental costs
Speaker 1: or the price that Chile or people in Chile pay
Speaker 1: for have being such a big source of copper mining. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: the copper mining exploitation is happening here since I don't
Speaker 1: know about a hundred years, and so it's a long story.
Speaker 1: And in all this time, the water using for these
Speaker 1: processes have been have enough Chinese locally, so that means
Speaker 1: from underground water and also the lower river that is
Speaker 1: the only river that we have here in the attack
Speaker 1: Anti Fagasta region and the large copper mining in the
Speaker 1: last from from the nineties UH started big private minings
Speaker 1: and working they have been used water from salaries. So
Speaker 1: there are many cases than this big mining have drying
Speaker 1: out the whole ecosystem, producing the whole water extracting the
Speaker 1: water for more than twenty twenty five years day and night.
Speaker 1: So that's is a massive environmental damage. And also it's
Speaker 1: not only the damage is environmentally also social because they
Speaker 1: have practices that people were not used to, you know,
Speaker 1: to deal with, and so it's very complex. But now
Speaker 1: copper mining is start to to use the slainest water
Speaker 1: for the sea also either direxy water or through the
Speaker 1: salidinization plants. But also of course everything half a fun effect.
Speaker 1: So and then the main problem I think here is
Speaker 1: the it's the magnitude, because the magnitude of processing this
Speaker 1: copper it's immense. This is so big that people can
Speaker 1: see these holes from the from the space, you know,
Speaker 1: So that means also an equivalent amount of water that
Speaker 1: have to be used. So my understanding is that a
Speaker 1: lot of water is also used in lithium mining. Could
Speaker 1: you maybe describe that process as well, and also tell
Speaker 1: us what your own research says about quantifying the economic
Speaker 1: damage from these types of processes. Yeah. Um. In the
Speaker 1: case of lithium um, lithium is um concentrate here in
Speaker 1: this um evaporitic basins called salades. They were in the
Speaker 1: past large pale lakes through the I'm have been drawing
Speaker 1: out and the industry what they do is to pump
Speaker 1: out the brines that are actually water full of salts
Speaker 1: concentrated in salts and between the sols are slipium there
Speaker 1: and they evaporate the water. So this is a water mining,
Speaker 1: so it's not a mining from rocks, it's from the water.
Speaker 1: So they have to be free of the water, so
Speaker 1: evaporate the water and then concentrate in a very arid
Speaker 1: place produced major effects. So we have studied through using
Speaker 1: satellital images and also other parameters. The sladata comma where
Speaker 1: is the main extraction by now? Right now? Has been
Speaker 1: affected in different ways. For example, is less water in general,
Speaker 1: but also the population of flamingos have been migrated from here,
Speaker 1: this is less In the the last ten years, population
Speaker 1: of endemic flamingo have been decreases in a twelve person
Speaker 1: your scientific background is microbiology. Can you talk a little
Speaker 1: bit further about the microbiology of the region. And I
Speaker 1: mean this is going to sound crass, but I don't
Speaker 1: mean it at all in a in a crash way.
Speaker 1: But I guess the question is how why should people
Speaker 1: care more about this and what are you know in theory?
Speaker 1: I get why people worry about the loss of wildlife,
Speaker 1: the loss of biological diversity and so forth, but how
Speaker 1: do you especially like even in the drafting of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: How do you express the risks involved from damaging some
Speaker 1: of these ecosystems. This is very complicated because um first,
Speaker 1: all this eco system I'm talking about Atakama desert and saladdes,
Speaker 1: for a long time have been thinking that they were
Speaker 1: they were not life there because it's if you see
Speaker 1: pictures from the takamma is is nothing you cannot see
Speaker 1: in some part any plant. So but the life is
Speaker 1: just there is microbial. So if we take any example
Speaker 1: from from the dry soil of salt or whatever, we
Speaker 1: can't found bacteria and micro organizes and leave there and
Speaker 1: they are very important part of the traffic web. So
Speaker 1: flamingos for example that they are in this sama in
Speaker 1: oders they eat sediments and these sediments are full of
Speaker 1: bacteria and and that also been used as an energy
Speaker 1: as energy source of energy and and pigments and whatever.
Speaker 1: They are important for the source for the life. So
Speaker 1: everything is related. So and that's why they're very fragile
Speaker 1: because when the system changed at microbial level, also affect
Speaker 1: that major levels, so the impacts are even bigger. So
Speaker 1: as as been very complicated to explain this because it's
Speaker 1: different when there is a there is another sensibility when
Speaker 1: when when I'm environmentalist, for example, they claim to protect
Speaker 1: a native forests or Patagonia. You know, it's visible life
Speaker 1: there and also the landscape are amazing, so people really
Speaker 1: feel touchy about that. When you talk about priests protect
Speaker 1: the desert, it's like what the desert is there to
Speaker 1: be exploded more than a hundred years ago. I have
Speaker 1: been there the source of resources for Chili always, so
Speaker 1: nobody really talked about protection of the desert is something
Speaker 1: even sometimes uncomfortable because you know environmental is it's not
Speaker 1: seen something important for a long time about mining. So
Speaker 1: we have to put that information also on the table
Speaker 1: for discussion in the in the assembly, and and we
Speaker 1: we reached I think very important opjetics. First, we declare
Speaker 1: that the nature has rights and this is a major
Speaker 1: advance because change or ethics regarding ecology. So we recognize
Speaker 1: ourselves as a human as part of our ecosystem, and
Speaker 1: that also means that we need as a human of course,
Speaker 1: we have the responsibility to take care about the nature
Speaker 1: regarding certain relations of course. So yeah, this is what's
Speaker 1: very interesting challenge. How do people in Chill feel about
Speaker 1: the mining industry and I realized that it's difficult to generalize,
Speaker 1: and probably your opinion will be informed by how close
Speaker 1: you are to any mining operations. But my understanding is
Speaker 1: that it brings a lot of money into the country,
Speaker 1: but that money is not necessarily well distributed among the population,
Speaker 1: and that economic inequality is one of the reasons why
Speaker 1: the country embark on this new constitution process in the
Speaker 1: first place. There were big protests in twenty nineteen. So
Speaker 1: how do people feel, you know, broadly about the industry. Well,
Speaker 1: in general, there is the feeling that the system, the
Speaker 1: economical system that Chilen have mostly based on the abstraction
Speaker 1: of raw materials, even minerals or forests or someone whatever.
Speaker 1: It's not really helping people because of the political system
Speaker 1: that we have a legacy from the Constitution of nineteen eighties.
Speaker 1: So that's why I was important to change this constitution
Speaker 1: first to warrantee social rights. So now we advanced from
Speaker 1: a subsidiary state one based on democracy and social rights
Speaker 1: and regarding mining. So I'm coming from a this is
Speaker 1: the biggest region of mining, I was saying, Chilen and
Speaker 1: probably in the world for Coppa, and my family is
Speaker 1: from here, so we have a long history in this
Speaker 1: territory and the feeling of the people is that, of
Speaker 1: course it's important mining. They give a lot of job,
Speaker 1: but I haven't really improved life here. So for example,
Speaker 1: we're still doesn't have a good railways or or good
Speaker 1: um transportation system whatever, those the basic things for for
Speaker 1: living in a place. All the money goes to Santiago
Speaker 1: and especially to three well psychomonas, the most rich ones,
Speaker 1: and from there they distribute the money back to the territory.
Speaker 1: So that's very unfair. That's why one or the most
Speaker 1: important advances is the new proposal of constitution is that
Speaker 1: the state create a news a new political and regional system.
Speaker 1: It's called statarynal o regional states when every reason is
Speaker 1: half autonomy. And that's very important because we will take
Speaker 1: around decision and also we will have our own money
Speaker 1: we don't have we we don't have to depend anymore
Speaker 1: of the decision of Santiago. So that's is a major advance.
Speaker 1: And probably also that we have consequences that uh, you know,
Speaker 1: an environmental or other levels. So you mentioned enshrining the
Speaker 1: rights of nature in the Constitution, and again this is
Speaker 1: the first time that this has really been done done
Speaker 1: to my knowledge on a constitutional basis. But how far
Speaker 1: does the draft that was released this week actually go.
Speaker 1: Is it a complete ban on mining or something less
Speaker 1: than that? Nothing changed? Really we have in in and
Speaker 1: in a short place in the short term. Sorry, uh.
Speaker 1: The important thing is that for example, for water chill
Speaker 1: what they have been privatized. So now we we demand
Speaker 1: in the constitution that all these propriety rights are compared
Speaker 1: into authorization so people before people can freely obtain these
Speaker 1: property rights and having for forever, you know, for perpeture.
Speaker 1: So now will be focused on on on the humans
Speaker 1: and people instead of the different other uses. Because we also,
Speaker 1: um right and this proposed the human right for water
Speaker 1: that was not guarantee until it are people that don't
Speaker 1: have access to water at all, but next to them
Speaker 1: popular population, our companies using the water, you know, and
Speaker 1: and and and understate and focus on people. So this
Speaker 1: kind of inequalities we have already. So that's why it's
Speaker 1: important to advance in in this recognizement of the nature rights.
Speaker 1: So um it's not only just that, also there is
Speaker 1: a whole very robust body of articles that will help
Speaker 1: to put that in in you know, in movement all
Speaker 1: this right, especially the creation of the the we all
Speaker 1: the fensory of the environment, so people could they are
Speaker 1: present their demands or the requirements about nights of protection.
Speaker 1: And of course the environmental standards either for minding of
Speaker 1: other activities will increase. But that is how I have
Speaker 1: to I wanted to say that as it's not something bad,
Speaker 1: it's also necessary we as our country will be one
Speaker 1: of the most affective country by climate change, so we
Speaker 1: need to also take care about our future. I know
Speaker 1: it's a pub station of corperal lithum is very important
Speaker 1: now for v cars and everything, but also we need
Speaker 1: to take care about our own land, you know, and
Speaker 1: and some and that this is the portunity that we have,
Speaker 1: you know, to to write our own constitutions say that
Speaker 1: we want for the future of for people. I want
Speaker 1: to ask more about what the constitution actually does and
Speaker 1: how you see it working. But before we do, you
Speaker 1: mentioned the water system in Chile, and my understanding is
Speaker 1: that it's the only country in the world with a
Speaker 1: fully privatized water market. Can you explain how how that
Speaker 1: came to be? Mhm, Well, that was a whole ideological
Speaker 1: plan m preparing during the dictatorship of pinut Chet. So
Speaker 1: the constitutional anten eighties was written in a way that
Speaker 1: to think about the state is to have less power.
Speaker 1: And also very important elements like the water and other
Speaker 1: were privatized because in their ideology they think that this
Speaker 1: is the best way to to manage a country. But
Speaker 1: now after more than forty years, we know that this
Speaker 1: is not the way for us. That's why there was
Speaker 1: this m This is all the studies of social or
Speaker 1: no in in twenty nineteen and and it's not really working.
Speaker 1: You know, all the systems produce a large inequality in
Speaker 1: the country that it is immense and not not only
Speaker 1: regarding to money or access to buy things of consumer
Speaker 1: it's also cultural gender base, uh depends where you leave everything.
Speaker 1: So it's impossible to maintain a social equilibrium or social
Speaker 1: peace like that. That's why it's so important to change
Speaker 1: the constitution. And with this in mind. Um for example,
Speaker 1: that the water code was created in nineteen eighty one
Speaker 1: and in nineteen ninety two, already the big miners. Miners
Speaker 1: were already obtaining the water right that what explodes in
Speaker 1: the nineties, so there was a whole preparation for to
Speaker 1: to produce a large amounts of copper in after the dictatorship.
Speaker 1: So my, uh, the last time we talked about this,
Speaker 1: our guests said that already Chile has become a much
Speaker 1: harder place to launch a new copper mind so, even
Speaker 1: even setting aside the new constitution and whether it passes
Speaker 1: in a national referendum, that in two it's significantly more
Speaker 1: difficult to get started on a new mining project than
Speaker 1: it was twenty years ago in the early two thousand's
Speaker 1: when we had the last sort of commodity supercycle and
Speaker 1: those tons of demand from China for copper and other minerals,
Speaker 1: and it sent prices soaring. Can you talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about what's happened and what's changed over the last
Speaker 1: several years, uh, such that politics has changed, mining permitting
Speaker 1: has changed, and just I guess general awareness of environmental
Speaker 1: consequences has become more has become more top of mind.
Speaker 1: I'm not really agree with that, because we, uh, we
Speaker 1: just try to be fair, you know, one way all
Speaker 1: the in the economical point of view usually is not
Speaker 1: include the environmental damage. We don't know for example, amount
Speaker 1: of money I have been maybe paid by the state
Speaker 1: to solve problems related to big mining because as not insists,
Speaker 1: it's not in the equation. Also, it's not the in
Speaker 1: the equation the social cause. For example, the work that
Speaker 1: is not paid world by woman because women have all
Speaker 1: the task of care that thanks to that, men's especially
Speaker 1: can work in the minds does not including this equation.
Speaker 1: So probably we're not really seeing the whole pictures. That's
Speaker 1: why we just demand more control. You know, that people
Speaker 1: can also be part of the decision because also the
Speaker 1: constitution include that methods of the direct democracy and more
Speaker 1: participation in the decision that we that we affect their
Speaker 1: own lives. It's more democracy, and that's is that's is
Speaker 1: a very good news for the world because um also
Speaker 1: for the mind and that they will have if they
Speaker 1: do well. Stuff. Now regarding all these new you know,
Speaker 1: if it's a proof of course um new demands, they
Speaker 1: will have a higher consideration and local level because also
Speaker 1: for some people they are bad neighbors, you know, so
Speaker 1: it's as important to think about this front of you.
Speaker 1: So would you say that as of right now, like
Speaker 1: the current status quo, that there just hasn't been much
Speaker 1: change in that, you know, the extractive industries when we're talking, uh, copper, lithium,
Speaker 1: other minerals. That company is one of mine. The status
Speaker 1: quo right now is still pretty liberal in terms of
Speaker 1: what companies are able to do. Yeah, that's pretty liberal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that will of course the emvironmental relations, but they're not
Speaker 1: as strong as it should be. I think, for example,
Speaker 1: just a very short example here in Ada, Comma is
Speaker 1: a case of a gold mine that was actually everywhere
Speaker 1: in the world. Then what was the National Geographic magazine?
Speaker 1: Where to start to to dig the mining? They need
Speaker 1: to move a whole colony of tintilla that is an
Speaker 1: animal in are very cute, Yes, exactly as well. And
Speaker 1: they proposed a plan to move the cynteria from that
Speaker 1: this um mountain and to move to another one, and
Speaker 1: of course in the transportation then die and that's not
Speaker 1: good mining. It's complicated, but I think we need to
Speaker 1: face these problems in a in a in a wider way.
Speaker 1: We need to talk about it. Not just everything have
Speaker 1: to be you know, surrounded by market. We need to
Speaker 1: also think about the future. We cannot do the same
Speaker 1: thing forever because we have limits. The planet has limits.
Speaker 1: And if we put inside the climate change, if you're
Speaker 1: worsd so That's why it's so important to include different
Speaker 1: ways and include diversity, people that think differently. It lista
Speaker 1: and the big dialogues, or there was nothing would happen.
Speaker 1: I will be worst at the end of the Dame.
Speaker 1: So on the topic of paradoxes and looking at the
Speaker 1: planet as a whole. And I want to make it
Speaker 1: really clear that this is a devil's advocate question before
Speaker 1: I ask it. But what do you say to people
Speaker 1: who will look at the situation in Chile and they
Speaker 1: will say, well, we need that copper and we need
Speaker 1: that lithium so that we can shift to cleaner and
Speaker 1: greener technologies on a global basis, we need electric cars,
Speaker 1: We need more electricity in general in order to reduce
Speaker 1: a miss and save the entire planet. And what if
Speaker 1: it is necessary to sacrifice a desert in Chile in
Speaker 1: order to save the planet. More broadly, what would you
Speaker 1: say to those people, I think we need more elements
Speaker 1: in the conversation. First, if it's I think we all
Speaker 1: were agreed, then we need to decrease emission is some
Speaker 1: saying crucial. But the country that produced more um carbon dioxide,
Speaker 1: they're really doing their best, you know, they're really decreasing
Speaker 1: the amount of carbon that they produce. Because we Chile,
Speaker 1: we are very small country compared to others, we don't
Speaker 1: we don't produce much carbon. We produce very little in
Speaker 1: compared to the big no China or the US, and
Speaker 1: but we have the corbon on the left field. So
Speaker 1: and also the question is, of course we we it's
Speaker 1: important to make this just transitions for electricity did, but
Speaker 1: really will change the or destiny of global warming. That's
Speaker 1: that's the one question that we have to solve. You know,
Speaker 1: I think we need more research about that and and
Speaker 1: open research and research and include other views, not just uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a way too tour of replacement. And what
Speaker 1: we do is a replacement of things. We replace cars
Speaker 1: based on carbon two cars based on electricity, but it's
Speaker 1: still be in cars. And it's not also any incentive
Speaker 1: to decrease the number of cars is the opposite. So
Speaker 1: if I think that the conversation, you have to be
Speaker 1: more honest. It's not just we sacrifice ecosystem for the
Speaker 1: good of the of the planet, because I'm not sure
Speaker 1: that will is like that at the end if we
Speaker 1: put all together. So the current status quo seems to
Speaker 1: be you have a few extremely rich countries or very
Speaker 1: big countries in the case of China, that produce a
Speaker 1: massive amount of emissions, and then there are mining and
Speaker 1: it's in smaller countries. As you mentioned, Chile is not
Speaker 1: a very big contributor to emissions or global warming directly,
Speaker 1: and so the rich countries in the world want to
Speaker 1: electrify and need or want the minerals and metals of
Speaker 1: poor countries. Do you work with activists and scientists and
Speaker 1: politicians in other countries as well to think about a
Speaker 1: sort of global response to this, and more broadly, like,
Speaker 1: why do you think it's happening now, because my impression
Speaker 1: is that it's not just in Chile where people are
Speaker 1: sort of becoming more aware waking up to some of
Speaker 1: the costs associated with industrial scale money. Sure, sure, you know,
Speaker 1: science and a knowledge is a collective work. Um uh.
Speaker 1: My case also have been a personal way, personal road
Speaker 1: because I'm from very specific discipline that is microbiologist, and
Speaker 1: I have to and when how realizing, because I'm working salaries,
Speaker 1: So every time I've been there working you know, to
Speaker 1: study them biochemical mechanisms for act for adaptation to extreme conditions.
Speaker 1: We went there and we noticed of the lay that
Speaker 1: we're working. I say that it's also having a personal road.
Speaker 1: You know me as a microbiologists um scientists working in
Speaker 1: a very specific mechanism to understand the biology of microft.
Speaker 1: Then we work to the salaried working and every time
Speaker 1: we whether, we realize that it is what some saying
Speaker 1: different so that the place that we're used to work
Speaker 1: that doesn't exist anymore, that was completely drying out from example,
Speaker 1: So at some point we faced that personally. So okay,
Speaker 1: it's very important. The sign is very important to write
Speaker 1: papers to know, you know, to be in the system.
Speaker 1: But what we as a as a as a human,
Speaker 1: as a person living here, we can protect this ecosystem
Speaker 1: because we know that so important. They have a high
Speaker 1: value diversity. They're probably in terms of bioptic compounds, is
Speaker 1: a source of new medicine for the world, but they
Speaker 1: use that now existent and the ecosystem is is the
Speaker 1: destruction because lithium extraction is the destruction, means the destruction
Speaker 1: of the salaries. There's no other way until now, and
Speaker 1: and that's why I start to talk with other people
Speaker 1: with other countries, with other disciplines. I started to also
Speaker 1: create a network of people from anthropology that also works
Speaker 1: in economy and why and we are excusing this And
Speaker 1: I realized that was not crazy to think that, you know,
Speaker 1: as I could be another ways, another possibilities, and that
Speaker 1: we're trying to work now, can technology save us from
Speaker 1: having to make some of these hard decisions? I feel
Speaker 1: like that that's what people are often hoping, right that
Speaker 1: there will be more efficient ways to use water when
Speaker 1: it comes to copper or lathia mining and it won't
Speaker 1: have as big an environmental impact and we can keep
Speaker 1: doing it while electrifying the planet. Is that a possibility? Yeah,
Speaker 1: Technology is important. Science is very important Chili, especially as
Speaker 1: account to that invests very very few in in in
Speaker 1: science and technology. That's why something that we put a
Speaker 1: lot of attention in the new Constitution, we declare the
Speaker 1: rights of knowledge and we hope, I really hope that
Speaker 1: that would produce more alternatives, uh and also more technology.
Speaker 1: But there is no one solution for this, you know,
Speaker 1: It's that very very complex, and we also we have
Speaker 1: to face this complexity, and to face complexity, we need
Speaker 1: to include more people in the in the discussions. So
Speaker 1: July fourth, the new Constitution was unveiled. When what is
Speaker 1: the process now? Just for listeners, there's going to be
Speaker 1: a referendum later this year, like what happens between now
Speaker 1: and then and how does this work? Yeah, yeah, we'll
Speaker 1: be a referendum this for September the fourth, in two
Speaker 1: months more or less. Now already started the campaigns about
Speaker 1: that too. To decision just approval, approve or reject rotasso
Speaker 1: and the proposal that we did. So if it's work,
Speaker 1: the work, when the ratasso, we will stay as we
Speaker 1: are without changes. But also that's just it's a complicated
Speaker 1: situation because we will not give any any response to
Speaker 1: the social demands of people. So probably that also we
Speaker 1: produce a time on political instability in the country. And
Speaker 1: if you win the U provel, we need to also,
Speaker 1: I mean as as a country, we need to work
Speaker 1: on installed what the constitutions said. That of course would
Speaker 1: be a long term process. Probably will take tears to
Speaker 1: do that, but I think it's very necessary, um, considering
Speaker 1: that we need to advance in and wellness for the
Speaker 1: people and also to face they speak, challenge and we
Speaker 1: have as a small country that um also if we've
Speaker 1: been will be very effective by climate change. Do you
Speaker 1: think the new constitution will be approved. Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 1: It's complicated. There is a lot of fake news around
Speaker 1: that m mass media are are not really helping. But
Speaker 1: I think people is very interesting and they're really looking
Speaker 1: for So yeah, now we have to work a lot
Speaker 1: for that. How exportable do you think some of the
Speaker 1: principles enshrined in this new constitution would be to other countries?
Speaker 1: And you know, I've seen it described um well in
Speaker 1: all types of language. I think the economist called it
Speaker 1: a fiscally irresponsible left wing wish list, which seems quite harsh.
Speaker 1: I've seen people call it awoke constitution. I've seen other
Speaker 1: people just say it's more progressive in the sense that
Speaker 1: it pays attention to what people in Chile actually care about,
Speaker 1: which you know is gender and economic equality and environmental concerns.
Speaker 1: As you've been laying out, do you think the principles
Speaker 1: or just the idea of some of these principles could
Speaker 1: be used in other countries? Well, lu in the dictatorship
Speaker 1: till also live, I think one of the biggest experiments
Speaker 1: in the war. Oh no, we were the experiment for
Speaker 1: the new liberalism, and that's the consequences. So and now
Speaker 1: this is a hope for people, hope to live a
Speaker 1: half of our life to do. And also when when
Speaker 1: we explain that two people is um I have experience
Speaker 1: to live in Europe for example, and Sis, it's something
Speaker 1: you know normal that someone have right to go to
Speaker 1: the hospital and have good quality attention, or to go
Speaker 1: to the kids can go to the school and they
Speaker 1: will be accepted. Not because of the amount of money
Speaker 1: that we have. So there are basic things that's a
Speaker 1: human rights as we're looking for here. So and I
Speaker 1: think the analysts sometimes, especially when the look South America,
Speaker 1: they really reduce the complexity of politics to left or right.
Speaker 1: Here we're faces big challenges. I think, what is what
Speaker 1: is climate change? It's left or right, it's different, it's different.
Speaker 1: So I think that's also we need to do a
Speaker 1: more deep try to understand what's going on in in
Speaker 1: other countries. Think a little bit outside the box of
Speaker 1: the market. I think a little bit about the diversity,
Speaker 1: the contribution of the diversity and also the future. And
Speaker 1: that's one of the things that you can contribute. Especially
Speaker 1: for example, I will mention about this is the first
Speaker 1: time that we include um native you know, indigenous people
Speaker 1: in this conversation and that also produced for example, we
Speaker 1: we push an area called pistemic justice or knowledge justice,
Speaker 1: so we have to respect but the other thing and
Speaker 1: also what they know. That's why in our constitution regarding
Speaker 1: the right for science, we call right for knowledge. So
Speaker 1: it's the first time and it's also is a recommendation
Speaker 1: from on ESCO that we recognize the knowledge as a whole,
Speaker 1: so I mean science, technology, but also art, humanities, local
Speaker 1: knowledge and indigenous knowledge, and that I think it is
Speaker 1: a very important starting point to to deal with this
Speaker 1: complex problems that we are deal right now and of
Speaker 1: course we will deal in the future. Dr Door Door,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for coming on. We've been needing
Speaker 1: this perspective in the conversation for a while and I
Speaker 1: really appreciate you laying it out and talking about the
Speaker 1: work that you've done on the new constitution and the
Speaker 1: rethinking of the costs of mining. So I appreciate you
Speaker 1: coming out and outlasts. Okay, thank you very much. Again.
Speaker 1: I hope the ideas were understandable because it's the other
Speaker 1: another language, but thank you very much coverd this thing.
Speaker 1: I think it's important for the audience. Thanks Fristina yeah,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, Tracy. I thought that was a
Speaker 1: really good conversation. And I think that you know, whether
Speaker 1: you think, oh, electrification and decarbonization should be prioritized, whether
Speaker 1: you think you know, wherever you wait these various issues,
Speaker 1: like this tension is very real. And I don't know
Speaker 1: whether the new Chilean Constitution is going to pass or
Speaker 1: not in September, but I don't think that this sort
Speaker 1: of like growing awareness and maybe backlash towards some of
Speaker 1: the environmental costs of mining is something that's going to
Speaker 1: diminish any times. No, it feels like the tension is
Speaker 1: kind of inescapable at this point. I did think Christina's
Speaker 1: point about electric cars and the transition there this is
Speaker 1: something that came up before, although I can't remember who,
Speaker 1: but this idea that even if Western country reads shift
Speaker 1: to completely electrified modes of transport, it doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: suddenly the whole planet is saved, because a lot of
Speaker 1: those old vehicles just go to emerging markets and continue
Speaker 1: spewing emissions. So I think, I think what she's getting
Speaker 1: at is the need for a holistic planet wide plan.
Speaker 1: And then when I say that, I just feel very,
Speaker 1: very sad. Because it feels like that is so far
Speaker 1: off and it is really hard to sort of balance
Speaker 1: individual interests versus the whole. Yeah, and you know the
Speaker 1: other thing is like, look, I think it's not very
Speaker 1: hard to get corporate interests in wealthy countries or even
Speaker 1: the public necessarily behind the idea of like decarbonization. People
Speaker 1: like electric cars, even for non environmental reasons, and so
Speaker 1: if it's just about moving from gas electricity, that's pretty popular.
Speaker 1: I don't like any time the conversation shifts towards consuming less,
Speaker 1: fewer cars, less consumption overall, then I think like from
Speaker 1: a sort of like political standpoint, from a market standpoint,
Speaker 1: from a public in rich country standpoint, those solutions almost
Speaker 1: seem like completely off the table and unacceptable. So the
Speaker 1: idea like what about consuming what about having fewer cars?
Speaker 1: What about making cars more sustainable so that they don't
Speaker 1: need to be replaced all the time. Like that's when
Speaker 1: I think the conversation gets the rubber really meets the road,
Speaker 1: and you have real tension. But I think, look, if
Speaker 1: there's going to be a major slowdown, and she said,
Speaker 1: the new constitution doesn't propose a ban on mining, but
Speaker 1: if you're going to change the way how water rights
Speaker 1: are allocated. If you're going to change the way how
Speaker 1: who can be involved in the permitting process. It's going
Speaker 1: to slow down the trajectory of new mining, I would
Speaker 1: suspect at a minimum. And then you get like this
Speaker 1: real situation where like, Okay, there's at any given moment
Speaker 1: there is less available and people don't like the politics
Speaker 1: of consuming less are really tough. Yeah, I think that's right. Um.
Speaker 1: And economics, by the way, and not well equipped for
Speaker 1: a world where you're telling people that they basically just
Speaker 1: have to consume less, like the whole thing is about growing,
Speaker 1: growing more. Um. All right, well, shall we leave it there.
Speaker 1: Let's leave it there. This has been another episode of
Speaker 1: the All Thoughts podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow
Speaker 1: me on Twitter at Tracy Alloway and I'm Joe Why
Speaker 1: Isn't Though? You can follow me on Twitter at the Stalwart.
Speaker 1: Follow our guest Dr Christina Door on Twitter. She's at
Speaker 1: Ceo Door. Follow our producer Carmen Rodriguez at Kerman armand