The risk of devaluing Earth Sciences.

Throughout history, there have been several moments when various fields of knowledge have transcended academic relevance and become pillars of human civilization, revolutionizing the way we live, think, and envision the future. In the second quarter of the 21st century, the driving force behind the transformations we aspire to is rooted in Earth Sciences and their critical frontiers. There is no exaggeration in this statement, much less unfounded rhetoric. It is simply the observation that, in a rapidly changing world, the importance of understanding the dynamics of Earth systems and the nature of the resources they provide goes beyond "simple" scientific curiosity to become a condition for survival. Indeed, we live in times when extreme weather phenomena no longer surprise us, when natural physical hazards translate into high risks, when potable water is increasingly a contested resource, when technological advances demand more energy and mineral raw materials than we ever imagined producing and extracting, and when different land uses are planned and implemented according to short-term investment programs without considering the natural characteristics of the environment; mentioning only those with the greatest socioeconomic impact. And yet, we continue to treat Earth Sciences as a distant relative of the "noble" domains of Knowledge, forgetting that they are what underpin practically all the strategic decisions of our time.

Climate change has long ceased to be an ideological debate. It is a measurable physical reality that primarily translates into modifications of established energy flows between various natural reservoirs and manifests itself, among other examples, through heat waves, violent storms, prolonged droughts, and rising sea levels. And it is through Earth Sciences that we can identify and monitor these "signals," interpret trends, and project future scenarios. Climate policy (which is so often talked about but rarely implemented), risk management, and sustainable land use planning depend on the methodical collection of data and the systematic improvement of models that only Meteorology can provide. To ignore this is to choose blindness. To dare to think that these problems are not as serious in Portugal as in other regions of the world is to ignore the vulnerabilities of the national territory and to refuse to think proactively and preventively about solutions that increase resilience and the capacity to adapt to the inevitable changes in the meteorological patterns to which we were accustomed.

Portugal is well aware of the price of ignorance, often audacious, regarding the dynamics of Earth systems and the dangers associated with them. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, coastal erosion, mass movements, atmospheric turbulence that exacerbates large-scale fires—all these phenomena represent natural processes investigated from various perspectives in different disciplines of Earth Sciences. And all require monitoring, mapping, and warning systems. The truth is simple to formulate: every euro invested in knowledge generated by Earth Sciences saves, at a minimum, dozens of euros in reconstruction and, more importantly, will certainly save many lives.

Access to quality water resources will mark the second quarter of the 21st century. The pressure on aquifers, the contamination of drinking water, and climate variability make Hydrogeology a strategic discipline. Without it, there is no sustainable agriculture, no resilient cities, no social peace. In a country like Portugal, where the irregularity of weather patterns is increasingly evident, a proper understanding of the vicissitudes of the hydrological cycle in response to climate change should be a national imperative. Only in this way would it be possible to find the best solutions for the management, use, and protection of all water resources.

The last few decades have witnessed remarkable technological development, disruptively marking the various transitions underway, among which we highlight the energy and digital transitions.

All these advances involve innovations that fuel auspicious news about the future, but, except for the geopolitical circumstances that have prompted substantial changes in the foreign and trade policies of the US and China, little is said, with due propriety, about what makes them possible: critical raw materials. In fact, the ongoing technological (r)evolution seeks to support socioeconomic growth models with lower carbon intensity and greater emphasis on the paradigms that embody the set of transformations associated with the movement known as "Industry 4.0" and its transition to "Industry 5.0". This (r)evolution increases the need for access to mineral raw materials, as well as energy, generating a notable dependence on a large number of metals and metalloids, many of which are considered critical due to their increased economic importance and risk of supply disruption. The expected increase in demand for these materials in the coming decades places added pressure on the various components of mining cycles, which must also respond to the multiple challenges posed by demanding standards of eco-efficiency and greater social and environmental responsibility. Additionally, this increased demand requires a detailed assessment of the vulnerabilities in the production chains of different mineral raw materials and the identification of alternative ways to meet market needs. Therefore, the success of the ongoing technological transitions depends, first and foremost, on the solutions provided by Earth Sciences to many of the open questions. Without knowledge of the subsoil, without responsible mineral prospecting, without new extraction and processing techniques, it will be impossible to provide the metals and metalloids we will need in the medium to long term (in quantity, quality, and affordable cost), since many of them still have quite low recycling rates, and the successful and economically viable paths to their (partial or complete) replacement appear unpredictable. And it is here that Earth Sciences, along with other branches of scientific and technological knowledge, leave the sphere of academia or certain industrial sectors to become instruments of sovereignty and strategic autonomy.

In many regions, we are experiencing the era of mega/giga-projects: tunnels, dams, high-speed rail lines, airports, giga-power plants, mega-data centres, dense urban areas, and complex infrastructures. All of this demands in-depth knowledge of the mechanical behavior of soils and their bedrock, in addition to enhanced skills in the production and use of construction materials, as well as proficiency in land management and planning and in the administration of its natural resources. In this context, Earth Sciences once again play a decisive role, complementing projects and actions undertaken by various engineering disciplines. Simply put, although at the risk of being misinterpreted, we can say that Engineering Geology (in its multiple facets) and Geotechnics are as important as concrete and steel; to underestimate their contributions denotes, at best, naivety.

We aspire to build more sustainable futures, but to that end, we need to improve our understanding of the factors that regulate biogeochemical cycles and the services provided by ecosystems, soil dynamics and cumulative impacts, as well as the water, mineral and energy resources that we will be able to access. Sustainability is also, ultimately, a geoscientific issue. Without a solid foundation in Earth Sciences, it is not possible to implement: (i) models of economic sustainability, seeking the responsible use of natural resources in development pathways that consider the processes of decarbonization, dematerialization, eco-efficiency and circularity of the economy; (ii) models of technological sustainability, making use of technology and innovation to expand the limits of economic activities and substantially minimize problems related to the provision of energy and raw materials, mitigating the impacts associated with them; (iii) models of ecological sustainability, supported by advances in knowledge about ecosystems and environmental safeguarding that require better territorial planning and parsimonious use of natural resources; and (iv) models of social sustainability, claiming the active participation of society in development processes through environmentally responsible proposals that aim for intra- and intergenerational well-being and equity.

In short, Earth Sciences are not merely a set of academic disciplines. They are a lens through which to interpret the world; or, as G. Seddon so appropriately stated in 1996, they constitute a system of thought, a way of reflecting on the Earth. I dare add: a tool for anticipating risks; a foundation for public policy; a map for navigating the future. In a century marked by uncertainty, complexity, and urgency, we need geologists, geophysicists, and geographers as never before. We need to invest in, value, teach, and disseminate Earth Sciences. Because, in the end, everything we do—from the energy we consume to the water we drink, from the cities we build to the risks we face, from the resources we extract to the technological innovations that make us dream and anticipate better futures—depends on the Earth. And understanding the Earth is, inevitably, understanding our destiny.

Note: This topic was originally addressed by the author in a condensed version published in Visão magazine.