As a fundamental criticism, the head of the Meeting points out that those who oppose the expansion of renewable energies do not propose alternatives. He said that at the time the opposition to nuclear energy advocated the alternative to renewable energies and that if they are now rejected, without any other prospect, two undesirable scenarios are opened up: the reappearance of nuclear energy or the continuation of things as they are. To address the issue of alternatives, it is first necessary to dismantle the binary dogma behind this analysis. If renewable energies were the alternative that the antinuclear movement was proposing at the time, today we know that the alternative cannot be nuclear or another "technology" that replaces oil, because it does not exist. But as Antonio Aretxabala says, "the solution is not technical, it is social". The solution may possibly include wind and photovoltaic technology, but what is at issue is not the type of technology, but the underlying energy and social model.

Renewable energies are qualitatively different from conventional energies due to their intensity, fluctuation, storage, transport and many other elements. For this reason, those skilled in the art have pointed out that their massive entry into the electrical grid without adequate maintenance may be associated with power outages. But the problem is not solar or photovoltaic technology, the problem is the macro scale, the territorial and financial centralization, the commercial dynamic that moves energy and the speculative dynamic. Here is a first answer to the alternatives: it is not worth changing the technology, it is necessary to change the system. Some will say it's not realistic, but we're saying we need to make a transition, right?, which means "change." There is no transition if the only thing we want to change is the technology to generate electricity: we will reduce the remaining natural spaces and then realize that we are still in the same thing, but even worse.

The need for an energy transition is framed in the civilizational crisis created by capital, so there are no charted paths or recipes, but yes, we must be courageous in the analysis and proposals, and, as Otegi says, a "quiet debate" is needed in determining "where we want to go", the type of society". However, it is curious that we are now talking about a quiet debate, avoiding a "quiet debate" when so far they have been putting the process in a hurry.

To define the points of this debate, Otegi asks a series of questions. First: Do we want to be an industrial country? From the point of view of a real energy and ecological transition, the firm affirmative response of the leader of the Gathering should be determined. We ask: Why industry? Do we need energy for the war industry? Or for industries like the CAF that are so Basque that they work with and benefit from genocidal regimes? Our answer is clearly no. But what’s more, do we need energy for the luxury goods industry? Or for the plastic packaging industry and thousands of
disposable items?

Among the biophysical limits of the planet that most concern those who study the ecological crisis is the "introduction of new entities", that is, substances, objects, waste, as well as organisms of human production that have a serious impact on the conservation of the biosphere. The mass of these "new entities" has surpassed the entire biomass of the planet, that is, we are sinking into our own waste and trash. In the face of this emergency, being realistic means choosing which industries deserve to thrive and which are to be ignored, while at the same time proposing mechanisms for discussion so that the price of this choice is not on the workers, but on the capital accumulated by these industrial activities. It is really urgent to decide, through a "calm debate", what and how much we can produce and consume, and to organise production accordingly. Not the other way around, as it is today.

The second question that Otegi poses is whether we want to be a country with energy sovereignty, that is, a people capable of producing the energy that it needs. Here, too, it is necessary to determine the answer given by the leader of the Gathering. If we want to move towards an ecologically sustainable society, energy sovereignty cannot be considered in terms of the current concept of "state". States homogenize territories in the service of the market, an area in which the "sovereignty" of some is inevitably based on the looting of others. Faced with this model, we propose a sovereignty based on mutual respect for the peculiarities of each people, which will generate equal relations with the most disadvantaged people. Putting this claim into practice is a lever that would ensure the necessary sovereignty, not only energetic, but also one that responds universally to the peculiarities of each person, according to the degree of need of each one, without interrupting the relationship that exists between territory and life.

A fundamental good such as energy cannot be the tool used by private corporations to dominate and speculate. In this we agree with Otegi’s words, although they have nothing to do with his partisan practice. But we also do not believe that energy management should be the exclusive domain of a centralised public authority. Building sovereignty requires strengthening the role of the local community through the establishment of effective systems of participation and direct democracy. In some cases, it is a question of recovering, strengthening or updating the traditional management systems of the territory that still survive in rural environments, that is, the Commune.

At the same time, sovereignty must be built in solidarity with other peoples, overcoming the north-south exploitation dynamics of the current energy system. Otegi denounces these inequalities, but forgets that the macro-renewable industry does not reduce them and, in addition, delves into them by extracting the resources it needs and channeling the waste it generates. We propose sovereignty in internationalist terms. Contrary to the current model based on capitalist competition, what we propose is to be able to create relations of equality between all the peoples of the world while respecting the peculiarities of each territory.

There is no definitive recipe or plan to get out of this energy, ecological and social crisis in which we are immersed. The macro-renewable industry is not an alternative, it is trying to follow the same path, adapting wind and solar technologies to an intensive, centralized and unsustainable system. The reflections we have just outlined indicate possible paths. These are not reflections invented by us, but the learning of the struggle of these years; people who are experts and academics in engineering, physics, geology, sociology, political sciences, etc. have also joined us to this learning. These dressed people, who have probably been known, heard or read by Otegi, can make a fundamental contribution to the process of imagining and experiencing real alternatives to the ecological and energy crisis, and they are already doing so.

There are many possible solutions, but they need to be built and imagined first of all. In the face of the rhetoric that the “macro-renewable or brutality” electorate wants to impose as if it really means overcoming the current model, we answer that the only possible alternative is inseparable from the survival of the territory. After all, it is absolutely linked to the maintenance of our life.