In recent times we have had in the media Aitor Uriarte, representative of the renewable energy company Solaria, to pay tribute to the benefits of the macro-projects they want to carry out. In the case of the appearance of Radio Euskadi on May 28, I felt a deep shame of the neighborhood. That's where everyone who wants to listen on the Internet. What we wanted to sell as a "two-party consultation" was basically a small publicreportage in favor of Solaria. It was an exercise in listening to the opinion of the Deputy General and the mayors of the peoples, and in shaping the representative of Solaria to address her arguments on what the former have said, with the help of the journalist Iñaki Espiga. I would like to know whether the honourable Member and the mayors were told what they were going to use the audios received when they received their opinions.

The role that the latter represented in this theatre, whether voluntary or involuntary, was that of the choir that asks questions for answers already prepared, that of the poor unhappy ignorant fearful that the sage has to reassure. And to structure it all, they used one of the fundamental ways of reaching predetermined conclusions: starting from false premises. So one of the ideas that was repeated to us over and over again was, "There's no other choice." Europe says that by 2030 30% of energy must come out of renewables, so the damage to the macro-worlds is justified. That the Basque Government has not carried out the domestic tasks sent from Europe and that Solaria, overcome the difficulties posed by the dumping of energy, is saving us. Imagine, for Solaria this is a strategic project as a country (the benefits seem to have nothing to do with it), so they would want the participation of the public sector (which has already been done years ago, since together with the Basque Energy Agency they have created the Indarberri association). And it gets to the paternalistic tone. That people hear complaining that they don't like the things they have to do, but that they don't hear solutions or commitments from anyone. And that consumers also have to be responsible, and so on.

We already have an advertising campaign in place and it seems that the public media are also part of the campaign. The fundamental objective is, basically, to integrate into the minds of listeners the existence of a single possible model of energy transition. That the only option is the macromuntas and that the inhabitants of the places where they are situated will complain, but they will have to be sacrificed for greater benefit.

But it's not true. There are other options, there are others. It is evident that in industrial sites and urban spaces, roofs are sufficient to take advantage of solar energy, and with wind farms there are also other possibilities of scale and location. And there are also enough models for its management, if you want to look for it. What happens is that, in general, these models show a tendency towards collecting and managing energy collectively, at smaller scales, and represent a decrease in the dependence of large energy companies like Solaria. Thus, things, in principle or ideally, a public institution, for the population that supports it to enjoy freedom rather than dependence, should opt for models of a smaller scale of production and consumption. But of course, if the institution itself starts to share the profits of big business ...

At smaller scales, moreover, the impact on the rural and natural environment is more sustainable. In the case of Zigoitia, in the area to be covered with plates we have clues, paths and natural environments that we share humans and animals (deer, wild boar, foxes, hares, birds...), combined with agricultural areas. Gb. If you put a cover the size of 110 soccer fields, enclosed, of course, we lost agricultural land, and our interaction with them and their natural spaces goes to our head. Well, you could also mention the damage to cultural, economic property, and also, of course, to health, etc. Let us not fool ourselves. Macro-projects mean "macro-projects". The question is whether the main leaders and the main media of the political parties that have so far participated in the silent progress of this assembly, to which we have now been asked to vote for the European Parliament, care about this damage ... "The show must go on!

Mikel Larrañaga Arrangi, Bachelor of Philosophy and Doctor of History