In this case, making an unfounded link attempts to delegitimize the approach that is gaining a growing consensus in social areas, an approach that defies the discourse of parliamentary parties that promote the dissemination of macro projects, showing that these parties approve of the fact that the main executors of macro installations are transnationals in the energy field.

Thus, corporations driven by investment funds, under the pretext of decarbonisation, operate in two areas – both in the field of fossils and in the field of green transition – giving priority to capital that needs growing growth in order to achieve maximum accumulation of profits. On the part of some parties, despite a diagnosis that accepts the current ecosocial crisis, they do not offer alternatives outside the dominant model that has caused the crisis. For this reason, it is difficult to distinguish between the practical proposals of these parties and the arguments of those who join the economic elites. Given this contradictory situation, it is clear that there are incompatible differences in the solution they propose. And they don't like that.

This position is also clear in the case of Mr Ochandiano. Being the head of a corporate company, he uses an eco-social discourse to convince citizens that we need to expand macro-projects, without taking into account, however, that this causes us a lot of terrible consequences:

-Ecological, because it involves the destruction of natural spaces that have managed to maintain and barely survive the aggressive model of capitalism. Since the social movement, as we have denounced that the renewable industry has established “sacrifice zones”, they have had to change their discourse to claim that macro projects are compatible with environmental protection. However, they continue with the same mantra and assure us that we must sacrifice part of the territory that sustains us in order to allow these companies to save us all from disaster.

-Social, in terms of local decision-making, because they want to transform the forms and decentralized spaces that have been used so far, excluding those who live there and establishing a more rigid centralization model. As a result, tensions within vulnerable communities weaken the network of relationships and make it more fragile. Thus, without solidarity among the neighbors, the community is left defenseless and cannot cope with this type of aggression.

-Cultural, because the support of the community and the groups is eliminated. Through these supports, we are subjects linked to the territory and our responses and survival force are deeply rooted in the land itself.

-Because the economic, once again, leads us to a situation that despises the rural area that is the basis of everything. In the rural area, which is the basis for survival, nature itself and the organization of access to essential energy – food – are combined. But the function of maintaining the ecological conditions necessary for the advancement of the human species is taken away from the rural area. In this way, they install solar panels and wind turbines on these lands used for food production and other public services, and paradoxically, they claim the general interest to justify it. This dynamic worsens, deteriorates and loses the necessary conditions to be able to live in towns and villages. And if this happens, the rural areas of the Basque Country would be left without population and without protection. On the contrary, we would inevitably suffer the colonization of the urban lifestyle model.

-Political, because they organize the public stage according to corporate interests, which also motivate us to make ourselves our own.

The solution they propose is contradictory. How can one defend the anti-capitalist discourse, which seems to be in favour of degrowth, while at the same time supporting a conception that has other sources of original energy, but in the end reproduces the same energy model of the big industry and fossil fuels?

To make this contradiction acceptable, it is intended to delegitimize those who say that “the king is naked.” It's pure manipulation. This time, however, instead of using intellectual arguments, the violent event is used to influence through emotions.

In addition to this, in the brief statements of Aritz Ochandiano, a second manipulation can be found, which we must point out and denounce. In fact, it takes advantage of the situation to proclaim the expansion of renewables of all scales in the face of “Trump’s fossil capitalism.” It seems that those of us who oppose the expansion of renewables in the Basque Country have not yet understood that we have starting points against the premises of the rising extreme right. In articles in the press, in interviews, in statements, in manifestos and in all the ways that we have had access to it, we have explained it this way. Today we insist that the replacement of fossil fuel capitalism cannot be a capitalist and speculative industry that devours the environment and social rights. We do not believe in this green transition, which is neither a change to another energy model nor an ecological one, because it does not respect the limits of the planet and does not prioritize the defense of the environment.

To equate the social movement formed to defend the territory with Trump’s capitalism that promotes fossil fuels implies the exclusion of any other possibility and favors a false dichotomy, according to which those who are not in favor of the macro-renewable industry must be in favor of climate denialism and the interests of oil companies.

As we have clarified in these lines, we do not accept this dichotomy. We will continue to explain as many times as necessary that the real solution to the crisis we are experiencing will not come from Trump or from macro-renewables. In fact, there is no contradiction between these extremes because they share the same patterns and interests. The solution is somewhere else, so it’s time to be brave. We must stop manipulating and delegitimizing the social movement that carries out actions aimed at looking at reality in person and humbly accepting the need to transform today’s model.

This is our constant denunciation, resistance and proposal. For this reason, we are in the spotlight of the agents that represent industrial corporations, whose interests are related to the politico-partisan discourse. This is where the debate about finding a solution arises. Instead of being an exclusive area of organizations, we are betting on an alternative that will be a collective construction. This is how we can imagine our contribution.

The attempt to criminalize us for an event that has nothing to do with our activity is intended to cover up the manipulation to achieve our social exclusion. Several sectors with this objective are effectively losing the strength of their arguments in sterile contradictions. We are not fascists, as they call us. While some have tried to link our arguments to Trump’s speech, it is clear that it is not credible. We mobilize the collective force to question the socio-economic model that does not take into account the biophysical limits of the planet. Our initiative aims to generate social debate by providing scenarios and meeting points that can represent the change of direction we need.