Capitalism has as its primary objective to generate wealth for some, and for that there are no limits. In addition, as social needs arise, often not real, this wheel increases its speed. Because it seems that only the continuous “advances” reflect the development of society, progress and continued growth. All to satisfy the hunger for consumption of the human population. But in an advanced and civilized world, this hunger doesn't just respond to the abdomen.

How has this wealth evolved if measured beyond the human navel? For half a century, when industrialization accelerated technological development, two-thirds of all species in the world and three-quarters of the forests have disappeared. If climate change is an invention, and considering that ecosystems have a great capacity to suffer disturbances (called resilience), then calm. Perhaps we would change the distribution of some sort of monoculture of pine and eucalyptus, but, well, we will also feed some business to overcome the plagues that result from it. The same is true of land exploitation, because human rights are above the rest of world life, of course. We need electricity and, on the road to energy sovereignty, what our people need and if we can create a little more, better. And if, thanks to the wind farms that we want to install on the green corridors, we generate renewable energy, the impact that we will have on birds will at least be green collateral damage. We may not find it so interesting if you put the fans higher than the Iberdrola tower at our height, so that the clothes laid dry, but if you don't touch around us there is no problem. "How bad luck the people affected have had," as in the case of the incinerator. "That's life," and "what we're going to do to you," we'll accept that "we all want electricity and the internet at home."

Many times the concern is put on people’s backs: to respond to society’s demand for consumption, a lot of raw materials is needed. And if, by the way, you do business, you will create jobs, therefore, beautifully. What's the problem? That the system cannot be maintained without society maintaining such demands, and that throughout this march nature will hardly be able to overcome all these system disturbances. Of course, approaches are needed to reduce pollution, reduce plastic consumption, recycle to the maximum or save on water and energy consumption, but administrations also have to shoulder their responsibilities. And if there's an institutional agent that's betting on the real awareness of society towards changing the consumption model, that's really going on. Because we talk about different scales. Although we citizens can contribute in our daily lives with small decisions, the real challenge is to make sound political decisions that compromise the profits of the strongest companies. And for this we have to do a different job, without getting a material wealth.

Concepts such as food sovereignty and energy sovereignty are less attractive to the capitalist system, but to the people, yes, but look, not to do business! It is important to promote the change in the consumption model, as well as the generation of renewable energies, but adapted to the needs of the country and the corresponding scale, not completely transforming an environment without the consent of the citizens. And it is not worth fooling the public, with what scientific reports say about possible ecological impacts of macro-projects, or with green propaganda, because scientific results are considered very scientific and reliable, but only when they are of interest to project promoters. Science must be taken into account, even when the current political dynamic can lead to a collapse.

It remains to be seen what decisions or measures will be taken to ensure nature conservation, if they are taken. It is also possible here to touch on issues of great controversy, either the macro-projects mentioned above, or the sustainable management of hunting, which will only be achieved if properly managed, fisheries, bearing in mind that there are currently a third of over-exploited species in the world, or macro-farms, are they necessary for food sovereignty? Even in these cases, people who work in the primary sector are frequent and not so much those who make decisions and measures that condition their actions.

We consider it normal for the population affected by the macro-projects to become angry, as the effect enters through the window of the house. But we find it hard to realize the influence these projects will have on all of us. Although vigilance is well seen, it seems that we are not able to understand human care and the protection of the nature of the hand. Environmentalism is something that goes beyond propaganda and the laundering of faces and that has a common interest. In other words, preventive measures to silence claims are currently not enough. Scientists have already said that, let's go late. It is time to take strong measures and decisions that have political consequences and losses for companies, remember. And these are not left to the citizens, in most cases. In order to reduce damage to nature (and therefore to all), our administrations must be prepared to lose something, or at least not to win in money, but for the benefit of all. And if the authorities work for the benefit of the people, they will discuss with the citizens what to create, how to create and for what purpose for common development. Listening to local realities, making and executing decisions based on them and understanding development from a popular perspective. Conservation and restoration plans and other growth should be implemented (or de-growth?) policy making. Beyond photography and appearance, we have to force administrations to take real action, because the benefits are going to be for everyone, and because we will have no other solution than to be sustainable. And because nature is not at the service of anyone, because it must not be understood as a resource of exploitation, but as something that belongs to everyone and that we must take care of each other, because it is essential for our survival.

Those of us in Azpeitia are clear. And many more citizens too. It must now be tightened up and more and more convinced. Strengthening local neighborhood work, with or without windmills up to the point and assuming as the responsibility of all that affects us all. Faced with recent episodes of heat, flood, drought or invasive species, see if we can promote measures to contribute to the resilience of nature.

Here you can see the Iker Apraiz conference: