Las verdades de Josu Jon Imaz, CEO de Repsol. Declaraciones exclusivas para el RACVN

Without a doubt. I have the good fortune to know Juan Mari Mañero, here present, who has been linked to this magazine for decades. It's a pleasure. We are both from Guipúzcoa and have shared different stages of our lives. Now, you asked about politics. I believe in the permeability between the professional and political worlds. I have spent 27 years in the private sector and 13 in the public sector, from 1994 to 2007. I fulfilled my public service stage with successes and errors, but that chapter is closed. I think it's good for experience to transfer between sectors. However, politics today in Western societies is very polarized and harsh, which discourages young professionals from entering. I am glad I contributed during a difficult time associated with violence and terrorism, but I have closed that folder.

Yes, I am aware. I think it's a characteristic, whether virtue or defect. I tend to say what I think, with filters, because if everyone said everything, society would be a jungle. I try to be transparent and loyal. I value institutions and I am loyal to them, but I am also very frank. I think open debate helps society make better decisions. In a world where many people make safe, standard statements, I tend to be very clear.

Mobility and transport have several facets. First, the car is a means of freedom. I belong to a generation for which the car meant being able to go to the beach, to parties. It was access to the middle class. Second, the automobile is a crucial industry. Spain is the second vehicle manufacturer in Europe, and in the Basque Country, the automotive sector represents about 20% of GDP. Our industrial fabric is deeply dependent on it. Third, there is the environmental aspect. In Europe, we have forgotten the first two and demonized the car. We have also made a grave error by putting in threat the European automotive sector. I am not against electric vehicles; I helped create the first EV charging company in Spain in 2011. But the electric car cannot be the only solution. The EU's 2035 ban was a mistake. Fortunately, that wall has been broken, but the measures are still insufficient. The industry needs a clear signal of growth. Moreover, the idea that electric cars have zero CO2 is false. In the full life cycle, considering the coal used in Chinese mining, an electric car can emit more CO2 than a modern combustion engine running on renewable fuels. We need to let people choose and support fleet renewal, not force one technology.

No, it wasn't a 5000. There are even songs about the 5000, but I won't sing them. Yes, it's very difficult to do some things in a Sinca 1000. It's true.

I respect cyclists a lot; it's a lifestyle choice and perfectly compatible. Many of my friends bike and own cars. We must not divide society. The vehicle is freedom, within rules. The car was a symbol of the middle class, and that same aspiration is happening in emerging countries like China, India, Indonesia. Hundreds of millions have escaped poverty thanks to development. For them, the car, the washing machine, the television are milestones. We should aim for people to live better, not condemn them to a lower standard of living, while respecting the environment.

Totally agreed. I said it myself. But it's true. Let's disentangle the problem. There are two distinct issues: local pollution and global CO2. Local pollution from particles and NOx is a health problem. But modern diesel engines (Euro 6) emit 93-94% fewer particles and 84% fewer NOx than old ones. So simply renewing the fleet with modern combustion engines drastically reduces local pollution. The real problem is CO2 and climate change. But we must measure correctly. The electric car's life-cycle CO2 can be higher, depending on the electricity mix. In Germany, it's even more evident. So we should not force one technology. Instead, we should support fleet renewal, letting people choose electric, hybrid, or efficient combustion. That would reduce emissions, revitalize the automotive industry, and generate tax revenue. The current policy of only subsidizing electric cars creates uncertainty and reduces car sales, making the fleet older and dirtier. We need a realistic approach.

I'll dissect the answer. The technological answer is already available today: renewable fuel. At our plant in Cartagena, we produce a diesel from vegetable oils, used oils, animal fats, and plastic pyrolysis that is indistinguishable from mineral diesel. We have over 450 stations in Spain offering 100% renewable diesel, about 40-45% of our network. It costs 9-12 cents more per liter, but that's because it pays the same tax as fossil diesel. If it had a tax break similar to electric vehicles, it would be very competitive. And here is the key fact: a vehicle using renewable diesel emits less CO2 over its life cycle than an electric car. That is factual. If anyone wants to debate, let's do a deep technical study. In Germany, the advantage is even clearer due to the coal-heavy grid. So, renewable fuel is ready now. What objection is there to allowing a combustion engine in 2035 if it runs on renewable fuel? It would be a purely ideological war against the combustion engine.

It is not a war against CO2, because you do not admit this and this is the current technological bet. We also have future bets. I recently visited a plant we are building in Musquiz, in Petronor, which is a European pioneer for synthetic fuels. How is synthetic fuel made? It is a future bet. We will start producing a few thousand tons per year now. If we can advance its technological development, it can scale in a decade. We take a CO2 stream, combine it with renewable hydrogen from water electrolysis, and through the Fischer-Tropsch process we obtain a diesel that is exactly the same molecule but absolutely CO2 neutral. When burned, it emits the same CO2 that was previously captured, so it is neutral. Hydrogen is part of this. We also have hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen stations. These are technological bets we need to invest in. The great advantage is that the infrastructure and cars are the same; you can reduce CO2 if you want and if prices support it.

Hybridization is a form of efficiency, capturing movement and generating electricity to complement the combustion engine. A hybrid gasoline car is a reasonable offer. Technologies are usually a bit more expensive, but fuel consumption is lower. Everyone has to do their own math. I myself drive a lot, over 50,000 km per year. I have always driven diesel, starting with a Volkswagen Golf GTD in 1992. The key is to consider the initial investment, fuel cost, and make a decision. We will continue to have combustion engines with their hybrid forms. I wish diesel hybridization had advanced more, but manufacturers are no longer investing in combustion engine efficiency because of regulatory uncertainty. As a result, fuel consumption has stagnated at 6-8 liters per 100 km for a decade. Consumers have paid more and more CO2 has been emitted due to these regulatory signals. Plug-in hybrids are a good technology for many, but they are more expensive. We should give consumers freedom to choose.

No, what I am saying applies to Repsol too. We must be responsible. Consumers have paid more because manufacturers stopped investing in engine efficiency. Plug-in hybrids are a good option for many. For example, in Madrid, people use them to travel to Santander or Bilbao. It is more expensive but gives freedom. Regarding autonomy, the advice is to read magazines, talk to owners, and test the car. Air conditioning and heating affect range. I have personal experience with the Alto de Chegaray restaurant, which was a family business. Since the highway was built, fewer people stop. Habits have changed. It is recommended to stop every two hours to stretch legs, but long stops have decreased socially.

It's the age, Juan Mari. Yes, it must be the age. And then the city councils invent low-emission zones. Bilbao, half the city is a low-emission zone. San Sebastian, in the area of the beautiful beaches, the low-emission zone restricts certain cars, the cars of the poor, because the rich can afford a car that passes through those zones.

Let's see. I have a diesel car, I drive a lot between Madrid and San Sebastian. Regarding regulations, each town must regulate its mobility. The problem needs to be dissected. Are we talking about local pollution or CO2? If it's CO2, low-emission zones make no sense because CO2 has no local impact. Electric vehicles produced with batteries from China emit the same or more CO2. For local pollutants like NOx and particles, it makes sense to regulate in cities. But a more socially just solution would be to help drivers of old diesels upgrade to new diesels, rather than restricting access. The current system transfers wealth from the poor to the rich. The most dynamic market in Spain is second-hand old diesels. We need to renew the fleet. The best solution is support for drivers to change their cars, not restrictions.

I respect that. I am not an expert on the urban planning of Vitoria, Bilbao, or Donostia. But if I were a political decision-maker, my priority would be fleet renewal over restrictions. It is socially fairer and has the same or better impact on emissions. Low-emission zones in small cities raise questions. For example, in Donostia, the topography and wind patterns mean that emissions from surrounding areas enter the city. The most effective solution is to renew the fleet.

Yes, I understand the reflection of the Real Automóvil Club. I would bet on fleet renewal, which is also what industry needs. France has already backtracked on low-emission zones. They introduced labels and then said 'we made a mistake, we go back to the starting point.' I followed that debate. It also had to do with the debate on tourism. Restricting accessibility affects tourism, which caused the backtrack. We need to dissect the problem. Emissions are a concern, but the best way to address them is through fleet renewal, not restrictions. The Basque Government has taken a positive step with a renewal plan that includes aid for gasoline and diesel cars. The Minister Jaigui has been brave. Now we need the provincial treasuries to support this with tax incentives, consistent with industrial policy.

I don't know who to get into political debates. But each person has their own model. In the face of municipal elections, citizens should ask all parties and candidates: what will be your mobility policy? What are your proposals? Let the citizens analyze and choose. It is good that we debate this, because for many years in the Basque-Navarrese environment we discussed less edifying things. Hopefully the municipal campaigns will focus on policies that impact citizens, drivers, and merchants. I remember the first pedestrianizations that horrified me as a driver, but many have been successful when done in a balanced way, seeking coexistence between vehicles and pedestrians. Politicians should be clear and then comply, which doesn't always happen.

Well, thank you very much. I hope that this club not only be centenary but bicentenary, because the vehicle continues to play an important role in people's lives. As I said, it is comfort, freedom, and it must be regulated, but regulated wisely, combining this freedom with the industrial impact and the environment that all drivers want.