Interview with Antonio Quilis

Antonio Quilis has spent decades reporting on environmental issues in Spain, long before sustainability became a mainstream term. From print journalism and radio to leading digital platforms, his work has focused on making complex ecological, scientific, and economic connections accessible to the public. In this interview, Quilis reflects on how environmental journalism has evolved, why soil remains one of the least visible yet most critical elements of our ecosystems, and how informed, balanced, storytelling can help move the conversation from alarm toward understanding and solutions.

How did you first become interested in the environment, and what were your early steps in this field?

Thank you for inviting me. It’s difficult to pinpoint how someone “starts” in environmental issues, because you choose what you want to be - in my case, a journalist - and then life takes you down certain paths.

Before becoming a journalist, I had a lot of contact with nature through the scouts, and I think that’s where nature got into my bloodstream. Environmentalism came later because it’s a more modern concept; nature and ecology are older topics.

Even at university, and before that, I was cutting out newspaper articles about whales, expeditions to the North Pole, and similar stories, and saving them in folders. At home we received National Geographic and Reader’s Digest, and in Spain there was also Geo. I bought them every month at the kiosk. That’s where my interest in the environment really took root.

Professionally, at one point I became deputy editor of a national environmental magazine called La Tierra. I came from publishing, communications, and a news agency, and I think that’s where it truly began. From there I spent about ten years doing broad communications work related to health, wellbeing, and the environment.

Then radio came along. I began speaking weekly on Cadena SER in Madrid, and I believe we’ve been doing that for about 12 years, talking every week about the environment and ecology.

Later came El Mundo Ecológico, the first sustainable economy website in Spain. “Sustainable” was barely a concept then, people would say, “Sustai-what?” But El Mundo Ecológico is still there, continuing its work.

And now I’m at OKGREEN, the environment and sustainability portal at OKDIARIO. It’s been running for almost three years. I’m very satisfied because it’s a leap into one of Spain’s most important digital outlets, where I have complete autonomy in content decisions and freedom to publish. At the same time, there is the economic reality: companies are part of the environnemental picture, and you have to give space to what used to be CSR and is now ESG, sustainability reporting and so on, green awareness in business, and also at the institutional level.

I would like to add that I must thank everyone who placed their trust in me, every person who set me on this path towards sustainability – whether they realised it or not – and who has shaped my professional career. I think about this a great deal and feel infinitely grateful for it.

How do you see your role today in environmental journalism?

I’ve always thought you have to be a bit of a Robin Hood in life: use the big platforms so that smaller voices can be heard. That’s what I’ve tried to do when I’ve been able to.

Now I have a strong megaphone where big companies want to talk about their sustainability efforts, but I keep my heart and my eye on initiatives like agroecology, small farmers, and more disruptive or atypical projects that struggle for visibility.

In a way, it becomes a win-win: I benefit, others benefit, and big players benefit too. We live within an economy and that’s indisputable. The question is: do you do the best you can? Yes. When you can? Also. And if you’re not allowed, you have to think about what you do next. 

What are the biggest changes you’ve seen in how environmental and energy issues are reported?

We began by talking about animals, plants, and nature—“bugs,” so to speak. Then the field of vision expanded: we started seeing things globally, as “the environment,” including interaction and human impact.

There was also a framing where ecology was seen as a movement of struggle or protest. That has evolved. We started with ecology, moved to the environment, and science has always been present across those areas. Sustainability emerged there too.

Today, sustainability means corporate commitment, sustainable mobility, renewables, the human footprint, and also hope - initiatives that suggest we can get out of this climate emergency.

The way we treat information has changed. At first, reporting focused intensely on animals and plants. Then we began talking about the ozone layer and CO₂. The Paris Agreement came along. And then another dimension appeared: the politicization of ecology, and I think that’s a mistake. Ecology shouldn’t have political colors.

But we’re in a very polarized moment, and it’s difficult to present scientific, common-sense arguments against denialism, hoaxes, and myths. Science needs to be more didactic and open. We journalists are a channel to bring this to citizens, but it’s complicated because there’s always another report or claim that contradicts the previous one, and people say, “See? I told you so, this isn’t true.”

Science is also improving how it measures impact. Take electric cars: a study has come out saying that in the second year of an electric car’s life on the road, it is already more sustainable than a combustion car, looking at the whole life cycle - from cradle to grave. I believe the study was from a British university. It said that after two years, an electric car becomes much more sustainable than a combustion one. We still need to improve on batteries’  lifetime, but every kilowatt gained in a battery represents seven tons fewer emissions. That is enormous. That is science, though of course there are also trade-offs in relation to other natural resources that are being used.

You often connect ecosystems and attend interesting relationships. What examples stand out to you—on land and at sea?

First, the article “The astonishing journey of whale urine that fertilizes the seas” is by Daniel Jiménez, a contributor to OKGREEN. We agree on topics and develop them together, and we are very interested in microplastics, pollution, chemicals, and nature.

When there are hopeful stories, we place them in what we call the “green window,” where we want to offer a more positive view of the environment.

I’m fascinated by oceans and animals. The Iberian lynx, for example, is a totem animal—like the wolf—and it shows how, when part of the chain is missing, the whole system becomes unbalanced.

The wolf is reappearing in places where it wasn’t present for a time. Livestock farmers were very relaxed, and suddenly a competitor that once existed has returned. That balance has to be managed—through mastiff dogs, fencing, alert systems—so we can coexist between a species that has returned and livestock farming that must be extensive. And that grazing has its relationship with soil, fertilizing, helping soils recover, supporting pasture and biodiversity.

Daniel recently published another piece: “Animals that plant trees? These gardeners that fight climate change.” Sometimes we forget that animals in ecosystems play a crucial role not only in ecological balance, but also in enabling the absorption of greenhouse gas emissions.

I also remember an article from 2016 that was very important: “When the goat saves the wolf.” It was an article about a Mayor in the Sierra de Madrid who created a municipal herd of Guadarrama goats. The intention was that, when a shepherd lost a goat to a wolf or a feral dog attack, the town council would replace the goat from its own herd, and would also handle the administrative paperwork for subsidies or aid. That article had national impact.

A few months ago I met again with Javier de los Nietos, who was the Mayor of El Boalo, Mataelpino, and Cerceda. He’s a biologist, and now he’s taking goats through the Sierra de Madrid—he was in El Atazar clearing firebreaks and fertilizing scrubland.

That interconnection, returning to older ways of managing land, cleaning it with animals and traditional practices, and forest use, is coming back. I don’t know if it’s becoming “fashionable,” but it’s becoming necessary to protect mountain ranges, forests, and communities. 

Why does soil health remain so invisible, and how can journalism help?

Soil is not a visible actor in informational terms. You don’t see it like you see water, air, rain, or storms. It is the support system that gives us so much. We notice tomatoes, but we don’t notice that they come from soil.

There was recently a severe storm in Spain. There was so much talk about water, but very little about the thousands of tons of soil that swept through towns, lives, and property.

Soil is crucial in biodiversity and many other areas. People say, “We have to tame the soil,” and for that you need engineers, ecologists, and many specialists to manage it properly, either to prevent natural disasters as severe storms, or to provide healthy food.

We are also talking now about regenerative agriculture. I recently interviewed Montse Escutia, now director of BioCultura at the Vida Sana association. She said regenerative agriculture is great, but must be done with real care, and people shouldn’t exploit the term.

A few years ago, I saw a multinational using the term regenerative agriculture to make and sell ketchup. The farmer said it helped reduce water use and produced uniform and more attractive tomatoes, avoiding the “ugliness” of those units that grow uneven and that consumers often reject. He said he was practicing regenerative agriculture, and it was true, but at a scale and cost that is hard to evaluate.

At the same time, millions of tons of ketchup are packaged in plastic and shipped around the world. The brand may claim “local” agriculture, meaning within the Iberian Peninsula, but for a multinational, “local” is a country. For us, “local” is the neighborhood shop, or the strawberry growers by the Jarama River nearby.

So yes, soil goes unnoticed. And with wildfires, I read a very interesting opinion piece about how soil suffers. People say, “It will rain and it will grow back,” yes, but the temperatures the ground reaches will also kill many things beneath the surface.  

What’s your view on the EU Soil Monitoring Directive and what comes next?

What happens to journalists is that we receive an enormous amount of information. I can reach 150 emails a day, and you have to choose. Staying on top of everything that affects farmers, consumers, people who are ill, or those trying to recover—is very difficult.

Yes, I am aware of the directive, also thanks to you (meaning Save Soil movement) for bringing it to my attention. I think the directive is an important step. It’s estimated, and it’s true, that around 60% of soils are in poor condition, and we should take advantage of this directive.

The issue is the wording: “monitoring” in the spanish translation (vigilancia) can sound like a threat. Politicians chose the words. Of course we need oversight and attention, but it can make people think “Big Brother is watching me,” especially when farmers are already heavily burdened in many ways.

It’s true that things need to be done differently. We need to address Europe’s soil crisis politically. It’s good that it was approved.

Now the question is how it lands in practice: what timelines will be met, and how do we safeguard soils, food systems, and Europe’s climate resilience. We (Europe) have set an example in many ways, but it’s hard to convince people internally.

It does not introduce new legal obligations for landowners or land managers, and maybe we should look more closely at that, especially for large landowners and major operators. They should also be guided or taught other practices so soils can have the health we want.

How do you see the future of environmental information, and what themes feel most urgent?

I think environmental information has a future. I am part of APIA, the Association of Environmental Information Journalists, which has been around for decades and has grown.

But it is increasingly complex, because more factors enter environmental reporting. We used to talk about bugs or plants, and now we talk about electricity, wind, renewables, energy certificates - everything tied to sustainability and reducing emissions or pollution.

One major battle is plastics. It is a huge concern, and there is a strong lobby. Plastics are necessary, because so many things we touch every day are made of this essential but “eternal” material.

Every week we see news about “a worm that eats plastic,” or new biodegradable packaging made from natural materials. But to make millions of packages, you might have to harvest huge areas of certain fibers. Consumption complicates everything. Soy became a trend and it turns out it is devouring the Amazon when produced to feed livestock that, in turn, emits greenhouse gases. It is extremely complex, and you have to be constantly contrasting whether what you are being told is good information and whether or not it is actually scientific.

A curious example for this matter: on LinkedIn, a major sustainability content creator shared what seemed to be a project about artificial icebergs designed to save polar bears. We all thought it was real, but it turned out to be fake, AI. It got thousands of likes. We verified it, saw it was not real, and flipped it towards the positive view: the idea was good, even though it was not true.

So the future of environmental information has to include more positive messages. The disasters are real and the problems are real, but we have to offer hope and solutions too. Repeated catastrophism can cause people’s mental alarms to shut down. People get tired of negative news -though negative news also exist and have to be reported.

The coverage of a recent storm in Spain was enormous, but very little was said about climate change. There was too much pain: missing people, property loss. The images presented water and suffering, but little talk about the causes.

Later on, we focused more on side events than on the storm: the rising temperature of the Mediterranean, the lack of warning systems in river basins, and the shared responsibility. But then, this gets politicized, as always. We need to show there are ways to prevent the painful consequences of these type of disasters, and we need to communicate those ways in a positive manner.