Josu Jon Imaz, consejero delegado de Repsol, protagoniza el Foro Empresarial de Gipuzkoa. #economy

Mr. President, Lehendakari, representative of the government, Mr. Vergareche, Mr. President, authorities, ladies and gentlemen, good morning everyone. I am truly impressed to see this forum from here. David, I don't know if it's good or bad to play at home, as a Gipuzkoan from Zumárraga, although after 44 years in Donostia, I can start to say I am from Donostia with the mayor's permission, because I saw this newspaper in the kitchen at home since I was born and I learned to see before reading, because you could see it before reading it, and I still read it 60 years later. So from here, I can only hinder it because I don't know if playing at home is good or bad, and I refer to the football simile of recent weeks. But I want to say that I am comfortable here. And today I would like to start by reflecting on something that Pablo has already put the ball almost in the area, with the football simile, which is the need to have a competitive society with more opportunities for people. And when I say more opportunities for people, I am thinking especially of the young, the next generation. And I would also like to analyze the importance of industry and energy in achieving this goal. And speaking about this in Gipuzkoa gives me a bit of shame because one can talk about this elsewhere, but if this territory has had something all its life, it has been a very competitive territory historically for centuries and with the ability to adapt to very changing environments. And some may think that what we are experiencing now is unprecedented, that we are in a time of volatile change, we always tend to maximize the times we live in. And my point on this is that times have always been difficult, changing, and unprecedented. And without leaving this territory, we can think, for example, of the situation in the second half of the 17th century. The forges of Gipuzkoa were the main sector of activity. They exported iron products to Europe, Asia, the Far East, and America. And suddenly, a new technology emerged in Europe, the technology of blast furnaces, and the costs of the forges became unsustainable. They began to lose competitiveness. There was no alternative for the young, only the farmhouse, which could only support the eldest. The land could not be divided, and the only economic alternative at that time was for the young to emigrate, specifically to America.

What was the first reaction of this territory at that time? Not even these original smokes. Ask for tariffs. Ask for tariffs so that the product of the blast furnaces could not enter the foral territories. Obviously, that failed immediately because these things never work, and they had to start looking for new alternatives. And the response at that time, at the end of the 17th century in the times of the Enlightenment, was to bet on competitiveness. The forges of Rentería and Iraeta in Cestona incorporated the technology of the 'afandería'. The 'fandería' was a kind of second process, lamination, which gave a steel of higher added value and lighter. Munibe, Xavier de Munibe, with Narros and others, created the Royal Society of the Friends of the Country, they thought about what could be done at that time. They went out, brought in Proust. Adolfo, you can ask at home. The law of Proust, chemistry came. By the way, I also married chemistry. I mean, it happened to me like your parents. I also married a chemist, and the same thing happened to me as to your parents: none of my children followed that path. And they brought Proust from the lines of chemistry in Vergara. He began to research, to teach, they began to bring talent from outside. They brought the Elhuyar brothers, among others, who were from La Rioja and came to Vergara. In Vergara they discovered tungsten, they sought the best metallurgist in Europe at that time, who was Chabanneau, and brought him from Paris. Chabanneau, with a group of researchers in Vergara, developed the technologies for the purification of platinum for the first time. They prepared the young people to continue this work. Munibe himself sent his son Ramón to Paris, where he studied with Lavoisier, the master of all the laws of chemistry. He went to Freiberg, Germany, to Sweden. From there he sent plans and ideas on how to transform the forges. And I dare say that the world that these people faced at the end of the 18th century was much more inhospitable than ours. It was as changing as it is now. They had far fewer tools to deal with this situation. And what was the response that generation gave in the 18th century? Three words: competitiveness, competitiveness, competitiveness. Effort and work, training and a bet on talent, learning languages, going out without complexes to train, being attractive, making a territory attractive so that Proust and Lavoisier and these people could come from Paris to Vergara. When one reads Proust's letters from Vergara, there were also difficulties in having talent then. The things they said about the somewhat liberal customs of Proust and the things they said about him, that is another chapter. But having an open society to attract talent, being able to bet on technology and innovation. And I believe that the response we must give today in 2025 does not differ qualitatively from the response our enlightened thinkers gave in the 18th century. And I also believe that we do not need to go back to the 18th century to find references. I vindicate that industrial and technological environment, especially in Gipuzkoa, that we have known for decades and that has had the value of effort, work, integrity, entrepreneurship, risk-taking, innovation, and technology as its main objectives. And all this made Euskadi and Gipuzkoa a particularly competitive territory. And I vindicate that generation of entrepreneurs, that generation who, in particularly difficult circumstances, carried out all this action under threat, knowing that what they were doing exposed them at all times, and yet they always bet on entrepreneurship, on ensuring that their workers could continue to have a project to live on. They bet on competitiveness and on the social value of the company. A commitment without giving up, which could have been the easiest thing for many at that time. And convinced that to compete in a global world they had to continue making that bet.

And I believe that the response we must give today in 2025 does not differ qualitatively from the response our enlightened thinkers gave in the 18th century. And I also believe that we do not need to go back to the 18th century to find references. I vindicate that industrial and technological environment, especially in Gipuzkoa, that we have known for decades and that has had the value of effort, work, integrity, entrepreneurship, risk-taking, innovation, and technology as its main objectives. And all this made Euskadi and Gipuzkoa a particularly competitive territory. And I vindicate that generation of entrepreneurs, that generation who, in particularly difficult circumstances, carried out all this action under threat, knowing that what they were doing exposed them at all times, and yet they always bet on entrepreneurship, on ensuring that their workers could continue to have a project to live on. They bet on competitiveness and on the social value of the company. A commitment without giving up, which could have been the easiest thing for many at that time. And convinced that to compete in a global world they had to continue making that bet. A few weeks ago I accompanied, María Luisa, I saw you there, I accompanied your brother José Mari at the presentation of the book 'La Caverna' about the kidnapping of your father Jesús Gibert, and we had an interesting reflection, a dialogue between José Mari as the author and me as the presenter. And I believe that Gibert, José Mari Corta, José Alberdi who took the presidency of Adegi in that fateful August of 2000, where accepting the presidency of Adegi at that time was accepting a death sentence. Miguel Azpiur, José Mari Vizcaino, José Mari Rizchegui, Jesús Alberdi, and I could go on, but I am very unfair because I am forgetting many more, they bet on a competitive country in the most difficult circumstances we can imagine. I believe they must be our model in these times as well. And I have the feeling that we have been unfair to them. We have not sufficiently recognized what they have done as a generation, and that they have allowed us to get here, and some of them are still alive, so I leave the message because I think we still have time for this recognition. And being at home, I also don't want to forget Santiago Oleaga, who was also committed to a business project in difficult circumstances, in this case the defense of freedom of expression of a newspaper, the Diario Vasco, which was also taken from us. Therefore, we also live in complex times.

We live in complex times. We live in times when in Europe we are losing competitiveness and I think we have to be very clear in the diagnosis. If not, we can make mistakes in the remedies. And I honestly believe we have to react. Losing competitiveness means exactly the same as it meant in the 18th century. It means that young people do not have opportunities, that some or many have to migrate, and our alternative must be to develop a competitive economy, as you said a moment ago, Pablo, that offers opportunities for young people, allows them to have stable jobs, high salaries, and develop a life project here without having to emigrate. It is okay if some emigrate and then we bring in others. This has to be a zero-sum or positive-sum flow, but we have to give opportunities to young people, and this allows us to have a competitive industry with high-value-added services. The Draghi report, which you have all heard of, leaves no doubt. We need a radical change, says Draghi. My fear with the Draghi report is that it will end up like the Bible in an American hotel nightstand: something we all have on the table, maybe 5 or 6% read it, and practically no one applies the precepts. That is a risk we cannot afford because Draghi starts from a reality we cannot ignore. 15 years ago, not in prehistory or the 18th century, the European economy and the US economy had the same size, about 21-22% of global GDP. 15 years have passed. Today the US economy accounts for 26% of global GDP. It's not that China overtook us. The US economy has risen to 26% and the European economy is 17% of global GDP. We have fallen behind, and I think this must be part of the analysis. Therefore, we must focus all policies, all public policies at all levels of the European Union, on the competitiveness of the economy. It must be the absolute focus of all policies of the institutions within the European Union. And there are no excuses. I am sure that at this moment some are thinking that Imaz is giving a very economistic view of what a society should be, when others might say that priorities should be social welfare, sustainability, or strategic autonomy. Well, I could start to refute this argument personally, but it is simpler to rely on Draghi again. The Draghi report makes it very clear that without competitiveness and without an economy focused on growth, there will be no quality public services. Without competitiveness we will not improve sustainability. And if anyone has doubts, look at where the great environmental disasters of recent decades have been: on the other side of the Iron Curtain, in those countries that promised a social paradise. There have been the environmental disasters of the last century in countries without resources, the so-called Third World countries. The best path for social inclusion is also to have a competitive economy, and geopolitical relevance, which is also very important, whether we talk about Europe, Spain, or Euskadi, also depends on a competitive economy. And betting on competitiveness today requires betting on the company and industry. And employment is created by companies. And companies are created by entrepreneurs, they are not born by spontaneous generation. And I believe we need to reinforce and vindicate the social recognition of the entrepreneur and the executive. In our environment, we are seeing too many discourses that put the entrepreneur and the generation of wealth in the social crosshairs. Too many discourses, and we already lived through this in the past in this country. We already know what it means to put the entrepreneur and the generation of wealth in the crosshairs. And we already know the legacy and the pain that this leaves at the end of the road, in addition to the damage it caused to our economy in the long term. This is a path that slows investment, discourages the entrepreneur, and hinders competitiveness. Therefore, we cannot accept discourses that put the entrepreneur and the generation of wealth in the social crosshairs. We have to react to these types of discourses because the social damage they cause will inflict severe damage on the competitiveness of our economy. And growth and competitiveness must be a national objective that involves us all. Industry, as I said before, generates jobs, quality jobs, stable jobs, well-paid jobs. Industry is what feeds a science and technology environment, and it is in these ecosystems where innovation occurs. Industry and technology can allow an entire generation of young people in this country to have a promising future project of well-being, to be able to build their life project with their partner and children. This country has known how to do it in the past and must know how to do it in the future.

And betting on competitiveness today requires betting on the company and industry. And employment is created by companies. And companies are created by entrepreneurs, they are not born by spontaneous generation. And I believe we need to reinforce and vindicate the social recognition of the entrepreneur and the executive. In our environment, we are seeing too many discourses that put the entrepreneur and the generation of wealth in the social crosshairs. Too many discourses, and we already lived through this in the past in this country. We already know what it means to put the entrepreneur and the generation of wealth in the crosshairs. And we already know the legacy and the pain that this leaves at the end of the road, in addition to the damage it caused to our economy in the long term. This is a path that slows investment, discourages the entrepreneur, and hinders competitiveness. Therefore, we cannot accept discourses that put the entrepreneur and the generation of wealth in the social crosshairs. We have to react to these types of discourses because the social damage they cause will inflict severe damage on the competitiveness of our economy. And growth and competitiveness must be a national objective that involves us all. Industry, as I said before, generates jobs, quality jobs, stable jobs, well-paid jobs. Industry is what feeds a science and technology environment, and it is in these ecosystems where innovation occurs. Industry and technology can allow an entire generation of young people in this country to have a promising future project of well-being, to be able to build their life project with their partner and children. This country has known how to do it in the past and must know how to do it in the future. Therefore, we need policies focused on the competitiveness of European industry. Do you remember that goal in Europe of maintaining a European GDP above 20%? We quickly forgot it because we never fulfilled it. Draghi has put it back on the table and has revived this debate. Allow me to continue drawing from the Draghi report, because that is what it was written for, so that we use it, but above all so that it is applied, so that it does not remain on the nightstand. And I share some of Draghi's recipes absolutely. The first: we must continue to deepen the European single market. We need fewer technical barriers, fewer restrictions on free competition, less local regulation that breaks and divides the market. If we want to have a competitive economy like the US, we need a European market, and for that we need a market of 450 million people, because that will allow us to have competitiveness in the system, to have large European companies, to have European leaders, which has always been an objective of all administrations: to encourage companies to grow, to have larger companies. Here in Euskadi it has been a goal for decades, and efforts have been made in that direction, but it remains one of the weaknesses of the Basque economy. Second, analysis of the Draghi report: we must reduce the regulatory burden on companies. For 60% of European companies, the enormous regulation is the main obstacle to investment, for 60% of European companies. We need fewer laws, fewer regulations, fewer ordinances, fewer directives. We need, in short, a lower regulatory cost for companies. Note that in the same weeks that Draghi presented the report, around the summer, the European Commission approved the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Some of you know it and some have suffered it. This directive, approved at the same time Draghi was saying this, has multiplied the sustainability reporting costs for the company I represent by four. A growing number of people dedicated simply to reporting, more advisors, more consultants, all with cost for the company, reducing competitiveness and ultimately the investment capacity of a company. But I do not want to fall into pessimism, first because it is not good, and second because it would be unfair. I believe that the new European Commission is starting to turn the ship around, it is starting to change. It listens to companies in recent months, which is very important. It has even launched the so-called 'omnibus' initiative for the reduction of the intensity and dimension of corporate reporting. This is good. My

Do you remember that goal in Europe of maintaining a European GDP above 20%? We quickly forgot it because we never fulfilled it. Draghi has put it back on the table and has revived this debate. Allow me to continue drawing from the Draghi report, because that is what it was written for, so that we use it, but above all so that it is applied, so that it does not remain on the nightstand. And I share some of Draghi's recipes absolutely. The first: we must continue to deepen the European single market. We need fewer technical barriers, fewer restrictions on free competition, less local regulation that breaks and divides the market. If we want to have a competitive economy like the US, we need a European market, and for that we need a market of 450 million people, because that will allow us to have competitiveness in the system, to have large European companies, to have European leaders, which has always been an objective of all administrations: to encourage companies to grow, to have larger companies. Here in Euskadi it has been a goal for decades, and efforts have been made in that direction, but it remains one of the weaknesses of the Basque economy. Second, analysis of the Draghi report: we must reduce the regulatory burden on companies. For 60% of European companies, the enormous regulation is the main obstacle to investment, for 60% of European companies. We need fewer laws, fewer regulations, fewer ordinances, fewer directives. We need, in short, a lower regulatory cost for companies. Note that in the same weeks that Draghi presented the report, around the summer, the European Commission approved the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Some of you know it and some have suffered it. This directive, approved at the same time Draghi was saying this, has multiplied the sustainability reporting costs for the company I represent by four. A growing number of people dedicated simply to reporting, more advisors, more consultants, all with cost for the company, reducing competitiveness and ultimately the investment capacity of a company. But I do not want to fall into pessimism, first because it is not good, and second because it would be unfair. I believe that the new European Commission is starting to turn the ship around, it is starting to change. It listens to companies in recent months, which is very important. It has even launched the so-called 'omnibus' initiative for the reduction of the intensity and dimension of corporate reporting. This is good.

Our message is that we need much more speed at all levels, because this happens to us at all levels of the administration. Regulatory cost increases occur every day. A law, a regulation is approved suddenly, but then reversing it and reducing those brutal costs for companies takes a lot of time and affects competitiveness and our social model. The third and last aspect I want to highlight from the report, and David, that's why you invited me, although maybe not many clues, is the part related to energy. And here the analysis is also clear, and if anyone has any doubts, open the nightstand, take the Draghi report page 31 and read that high energy costs are an obstacle to growth. We need a Europe where we focus much more on energy policy to improve the competitiveness of companies. Draghi's analysis is also a pyre. In the last 6 years we have lost 12% of highly energy-intensive companies in Europe. 12%. This means that in the steel sector, the aluminum sector, the paper sector, the chemical sector or the cement sector, one in eight companies closed in the last 6 years. And the first reason is the high European energy costs compared to our competitors. Gas in Europe costs three times more than our American competitors. Electricity twice as much. In the heat of the Ukraine war crisis, we have paid 10 and at times up to 15 times more for gas than our North American competitors. We need energy policies.

Now we have in all areas ecological transition policies, as Ángel Erchundi says in his book... We need energy policies that are called that, with a focus on energy and not subordinated to ecology, because an energy policy must be subordinated to a triple objective, the so-called trilemma. First, guarantee security of supply. In Europe we forgot this priority and threw ourselves into the arms of Russia instead of betting on our own energy generation, including natural gas. We declared natural gas outlawed, we even have a law passed by the Congress of Deputies in July 2021 that prohibits exploring and producing natural gas in our territory. Yes, US gas saved Europe in the Ukraine crisis. We have no shame in importing gas from the United States all day to shower, to feed our industries, to heat our homes. When the CO2 we emit is actually much higher because it is emitted there in extraction, it is emitted here when we consume it, and it is also emitted in transport. In the end, emissions are clearly higher than if we produced it ourselves. The second objective that an energy policy must have is affordability. We have to move forward on this path. For a long time we have had unbearable energy costs for industries and families. They are improving. Again, I subscribe to a non-defeatist message, they are improving and we have started to focus on them and we are beginning to talk about the priority of lowering the cost of energy. And I think this is a positive thing and it is good news. And as Draghi says, we need speed on this path. Our industry needs energy at a competitive price and we must use all available resources for that. And the third objective must be a sustainable, decarbonized economy and energy. It cannot be the only objective, it cannot be the central objective, but it must be an essential axis of the energy trilemma. And we have to carry out decarbonization intelligently. Do you remember? We used to talk about sustainable development. We have forgotten the noun development and we are left only with the adjective, right? No. No. Sustainable development. Without the noun development there is no adjective, there is no sustainable, and there is no sustainable development without development. And this requires betting on competitiveness, that is, decarbonizing based on our technological and industrial capabilities.

And the first principle that we have broken in Europe and here in our administrations is the principle of technological neutrality. What does this mean? Draghi also denounces this in his report precisely, that we must be agnostic with technologies. We must use all technologies that serve to reduce emissions without ideological biases. We cannot put ideology ahead of technology, and this ideological approach is continuously imposed under that umbrella of ecological transition in energy and mobility policies, causing serious damage to our industrial fabric. And I will give you, to not stay in theory, some very graphic examples. The first, a deeply erroneous decision was approved, such as banning the sale of combustion engine cars in 2035 in Europe. There is no technical justification, I am willing to discuss it in any forum with anyone, that justifies this approach. It is purely ideological, but the damage it is causing to our automotive sector is enormous. And in a territory like the Basque Country, where 20% of the GDP is associated with the automotive sector, the risk of the damage that this decision can cause is very serious. The combustion engine was 15 years ago the jewel of European industry. Only the Japanese could look us eye to eye. We have thrown ourselves into the arms of a technology dominated by the Chinese. We do not have the raw materials for its development, and all of this is based on a false assumption. We measure CO2 emissions in the exhaust pipe, and CO2 that is emitted in Donosti, in Shanghai, in Mostoles is exactly the same because it has no local effect, and we forget to measure CO2 emissions from Chinese mining, we forget to measure CO2 emissions from the battery manufactured with electricity produced with coal. And we don't account for all of this because there is no doubt. That is, today a car with renewable diesel fuel and a combustion engine emits less CO2 in its life cycle than an electric car. This is true. And if we take... there is no technical data that supports that an electric car in Germany today emits, with the German electricity mix, less CO2 than a hybrid gasoline car in Germany. Therefore, what are we doing? What we are doing is not measuring them, and our own administrations are fiscally favoring the purchase of a certain type of mobility, generating damage, so to speak, to our industrial fabric, when, for example, today a renewable diesel pays 100% of the hydrocarbon tax, when there is no logic with what this should be in terms of CO2 emissions. Anyway, some good news. The Basque Government, I also have good news for it. The Basque Government, with the industry department at the forefront, and I want to publicly congratulate them because you have to be brave in these times. To do this, it has made a decision in which the aid it is giving for the renewal of the car fleet is technologically agnostic. That is, it is about renewing the fleet, whether with a diesel car, a gasoline, a gas or an electric, whatever the consumer wants. And we have to reverse this decision at the European level because the damage is beginning to be very evident in the automotive sector, also in the vehicle fleet and also in CO2. I will give a couple of examples. In the end, what are we generating? By the way, today there is a beautiful page in the Diario Vasco on this topic, regarding the aging of the vehicle fleet. What are we generating? People don't know what car to buy, and because people don't know what car to buy, they delay the decision to buy. We had an average car life of 8 years in 2008. That is, the average life of a car was 8 years. Today it is 14.9, the data from the team. 14.7 is the data I had, but I'm sure yours is more current. Because for the report you have updated it, we have brought the average life of the fleet to almost 15 years. What does this mean? That we have older and older cars, cars that could emit much less CO2 simply by renewing them, simply by renewing a diesel with today's engine or a gasoline with a Euro 1 from the year 2000 would reduce CO2 emissions by 28-30%. But if we go to the problem separating what is CO2 from what can be NOX pollution or particles, simply a new car today would generate 92% fewer particles than a car from the year 2000 and 84% less nitrogen oxides. We have an increasingly older fleet and the emission problem is not technology, it is the old fleet, and also less safety on the roads, more damage to our industrial fabric and also more CO2 emissions because we have technologies, whether electric, gas, diesel, gasoline, that are at our disposal and we are not taking advantage of them. Why? Because we have an ideological barrier above technology when making these decisions. Furthermore, what signals have we given to car manufacturers? Imagine you are a car manufacturer and they tell you, 'Hey, in 2035 this ends.' What have you done in the last years? Not invest anything in engine efficiency, obviously, because this is ending. Consequently, cars used to decrease consumption, 11 L per 100 km, 10, 9, 8, 7, and they have stayed there. They haven't decreased for years and they won't decrease anymore. And half, if what the Diario Vasco says today is true and it is, and the average life is 15 years, that means that if this survives the year 2035, half of the vehicle fleet in 2050 will still be combustion engine, and in the next three decades we will not reduce emissions. But what are we doing? What are we doing by putting ideology ahead of technology? Fortunately, some lights are beginning to turn on in this direction. The European Commission has already started to ask for papers, as these things are done in Europe, technical papers. Maybe we should measure, we could approximate the measurement of the entire CO2 footprint of a car, not just in the exhaust pipe. I think they are preparing the decision, fortunately, and then there are governments like Germany, Italy and others that are pushing strongly for this decision to reverse the ban on the combustion engine. The problem is not that it will be reversed, I am convinced that combustion engines will not be banned in 2050. The problem is that every year that passes without making this decision, we are causing irreparable damage to the automotive sector.

Another aspect that the report also focuses on is the payment of CO2 rights by European industry under the promise of CO2 adjustment mechanisms that will make imported products pay a border adjustment mechanism and therefore we can be competitive. These adjustment mechanisms, we will see when they arrive, we will see how they are implemented in this context, we will see what deadlines they have, and we will see if there is any CO2-emitting and energy-consuming industry left when this is implemented. That is, we have a plant in, I don't know, Pasauri, Olaverría, it emits CO2, we tax it heavily. Many European industrial projects, as I said before, cease to be competitive, close, plants are set up in other parts of the world, we import those products, we have exported plants and we have exported industrial jobs. Of course, plants in Turkey, China, with all due respect to those countries, are usually less efficient than ours. They emit more CO2 and we also import it. Consequently, the product we consume has a higher CO2 footprint along the entire path, but we are happy because we are sustainable. Yes, we have exported industry, we have exported industrial jobs and we have exported CO2 emissions. And some sectors like the chemical industry, Adolfo, have been going through a very complicated situation for 3 years in Europe, and there are announcements, for example, in Germany, in the Benelux, of closure of chemical plants. The chemical sector has been systematically losing money for 3 years in Europe and these CO2 costs are to a certain extent a death blow to this industrial activity. Therefore, we need a radical turnaround here too, as Draghi says, to implement a moratorium on the payment of CO2 rights for high energy-consuming industrial sectors that suffer a double penalty. On the one hand, the high cost of energy, and on the other hand, CO2 rights. And if we don't do it, in the coming years we will have more plant closures and more loss of industrial jobs, and then we will lament. We have to act. The direction is not bad, but we need speed.

We have to speak clearly. We are living through an industrial emergency in Europe and we have to react, and the European institutions have already started to turn the ship around, and the radical ecological policies, which have permeated everything, and hyperregulation are beginning to change slightly in the right direction. But the speed of this change is key. Why? If we want our industrial sectors to be competitive and Europe to be able to achieve that path of competitiveness that allows us to maintain a social model, our social welfare, the quality of public services, we need to react and we want to follow the path of competitiveness of our partners and our American friends. And this is what would allow us to maintain levels of social welfare, a truly sustainable society in environmental terms, and also achieve strategic autonomy for essential sectors, because strategic autonomy also requires being competitive in the industrial sectors in which you need to have that autonomy. And we all have to contribute to this path, not only the administrations, but also the companies. And the company I run, I would say has a double moral responsibility. On the one hand, we have the moral responsibility to continue producing oil and gas. It is our moral responsibility. Because, for example, that day, David, that you commented on the big blackout of April 28, what saved this country was diesel, the reviled diesel. And therefore, it is our moral responsibility to continue producing diesel. It is our moral responsibility to continue producing diesel so that products reach supermarkets every morning, because otherwise they couldn't arrive. It is our moral responsibility to continue producing gas for industrial activity. It is our moral responsibility to continue producing kerosene so that even those who revile us can continue flying on vacation, for work, or so that tourist areas can have activity that people can travel to. But this is not the only moral responsibility we have. We have another moral responsibility. We also have the moral responsibility to do this increasingly sustainably. In the last 7 years we have reduced 75% of our CO2 and methane emissions in our exploration and production activity using the best technologies. We have now, because we also have to decarbonize products, not only industrial activities, we already have more than 1,000 service stations with 100% renewable diesel, a diesel that we manufacture with raw materials that come from vegetable oils, recycled oils, animal fats, pyrolysis of plastics that generate economic activity and added income in the so-called emptied Spain or rural Spain, where these complementary incomes are the basis for being able to maintain population activity, and we have before the end of the year we already have 15 service stations with 100% renewable diesel and we have to continue growing also in renewable electricity above any debate that exists today. We are already a medium operator in this segment, but we already have 4,600 MW of renewables in operation. We are building 15. We have a portfolio, the so-called pipeline of 40,000 MW for the coming years and we already supply electricity to more than 1.6 million homes. I'll finish. Transition is a journey. Transition is not a destination. As its name says, transition is a journey, and it is a journey in which we have to commit, but it is a journey in which we have to guarantee three things to society along the way. And this is the difficult part, because when things are monofocal, they are very easy. Security of supply. Second, affordability, that is, that families can pay for energy, that we don't have what happened in 2021, 2022 and 2023, and that industries can pay for energy and compete with their North American, Middle Eastern or other competitors, and of course, to make this energy and produce this energy in an increasingly decarbonized way, without forgetting any of the three objectives, but not unbalancing these objectives so that one of them makes the other two impossible. It is a complex journey, it is an exciting journey, it is a journey that I like, but it is a journey for which we need more technology and less ideology. Thank you very much.

But I have no idea about cars, I'm not an expert on cars, there are people who ask me that question on the street and something is failing when people are asking that. I link this to the uncertainty I referred to earlier. People don't know what car to buy because all the signals we are launching at the European level make this a complex decision. And of course, what is happening is that we have an older fleet, a negative impact on industrial activity, and on top of that we don't reduce emissions. Of course. And someone might think, surely someone has thought in the conference, don't tell me no. Of course, what is this guy going to say if he is Repsol? No, no, no, no. Let's not fool ourselves, and I don't want to be cynical because it's obviously not a topic to be cynical about, and besides, the director of communication of Repsol is already looking at me with a bad face when he intuits what I'm going to say, which is that this doesn't hurt Repsol, right? No, not at all, because of course, if we replace the car fleet and cars consume 30% less, our sales drop 30%. If car manufacturers are told that the ban on the combustion engine will last until 2050, until 2050 there are years left and they start to reduce and invest in engine efficiency, sales drop. So, this is damage to the automotive industry, it is social damage, and it is damage to CO2 emissions. Therefore, we close the parenthesis. In any case, what I have said does not benefit us. And let's go now to the question.

I would say what we have to do, and in that sense, I think that this aid project of the Basque government, if it is well articulated and if moreover it has the complements in all administrations, and I have seen it there at the entrance, Ancha Tapia, who also fought hard to defend this agnostic vision of energy and the commitment to industry. What we have to do is that people buy the car they want and the car they need. Well, I am not suspect. I was the one who put into operation in 2010, if I remember correctly, while I was in charge of New Energies at Repsol, together with the EV, the first electric charging service with Xavier Garmendia, who was the deputy counselor of environment at that time, the first electric car charging service in the country. This is also part of the solution. What we have to achieve is that I, since I often have to travel by car to Madrid too many times, for that my best option, mine, is a diesel because it gives me a lot of autonomy. And from there, one can legitimately opt for an efficient gasoline car, a hybrid gasoline car. Others may have the vocation to buy an electric car because it is convenient for them to move around the cities. I prefer to bet, but this is already a bit of chauvinism for the country's technology and so on. That's why I like combustion engines more, but this is already a subjective opinion of mine. But I would say, we have to ensure that everyone buys the car they want and that aid is linked to decarbonization, not to technology, and that we remove uncertainty, so that people know what to buy, because the first ones who are, with all due respect to them, I understand them, the first ones who are absolutely bewildered are the car manufacturers, because of course, they are not being led to the path of total electrification and they cannot maintain investments in two systems, so they are taking a step in a direction that they may find difficult in the future. But as soon as possible, remove David. Note down diesel then.

No, no, no, don't buy. Hey, an example, when my son asked me recently, for the needs he had, what car he should buy, if he should buy a diesel, I told him that from that point of view, the car for you is a diesel. It depends, it depends on the kilometers you do, it depends on you, each one has to buy a car adapted to their needs. And if you want an electric for the city or a plug-in electric, perfect. A plug-in hybrid. Do you want a mild hybrid, a gasoline? Let it be a personal choice of the people and that we logically help the renewal of the fleet. That nobody knows what car to buy with money. We live in a comfortable society with high income. It describes perfectly the disorientation of Europe and describes the big problem that companies have that have created two lines of automotive, one for electrification, another for combustion, and now they don't know what to do. Well, we have a comfortable society in some sectors, we have sectors in this society, in all European societies, that some obviously are just getting by, others moderately, and others poorly. So, in that sense also a social reflection, and I speak at the European level because we have here a person that I appreciate very much, who is the deputy of Finance of Guipuzcoa, I say, I speak of European fiscal policy, not of fiscal policy at our level overall, it is that we have a perfect system of income transfer from the poor to the rich, because the people who can normally buy those cars that we are promoting are the people who have more income in society, and so we are giving all the aid so that they buy the cars with the taxes of the people who have fewer resources, so that those who have more resources have aid. And yet, and that's why I have spoken, I have congratulated the initiative from the Basque Government of Vicente Cari, who is here, for betting on the line of that technological agnosticism. The good news in this sense is that also the person who enters from a disadvantaged area with his car into a city, and I say cities have their policies, and with the mayor here, much respect. Cities logically have their mobility policies, absolutely legitimate, acceptable, and each one has its own, but the key is not, from my point of view, to refute those low emission zones. What we have to do is that that person who enters with that 20-year-old diesel into a city can renew that diesel, which normally, moreover, fiscally is fairer, from a point of view more progressive, can buy a diesel car that normally, due to the type of car, will be manufactured in a nearby environment, activates industry, possibly that money is recovered by the administrations in a short time. We reduce emissions, as I said before, approximately, if it is a Euro 1 from the year 2000, 91-92% of particles and 84% of nitrogen oxides, which is easy to say, and CO2, therefore energy consumption, around 28%. For me, that is what should be done, and that is what that measure that the Basque Government has just adopted points to.

Let's see, no, first, first, no. I am not the one, there are many European cities that have that model, and I think that what we need to do is first respect the decision, and I am not the one to, besides, it would be an audacity, I don't know it well enough to be able to comment. I think that what we have to do is dissect, and it's not the case I speak of administrations in general, the problem we want to solve, because sometimes we talk, isn't it? This is to solve climate change. Excuse me, but this has nothing to do with climate change, because I don't say, what we have to do is separate CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant, CO2 is the gas of life. CO2 is what I am emitting continuously now. But it has many risks because when CO2 is concentrated in the atmosphere at a certain level of concentration, what it causes is that the solar radiation that reflects off the Earth, its infrared component, is absorbed by that layer and it heats up. I think that today this is, let's say, in the scientific field. I studied this here at the Faculty of Chemistry with a professor who at that time was quite innovative. In 1985, Iñigo Legosbur already explained it to us in 1985. Therefore, this is not new. This is scientific knowledge. Of course, CO2 emitted in the center of Donosti, or in Shanghai, or in Gaviria, or in Mostoles, is exactly the same. That's why I made the reflection earlier that we have to take the complete footprint of the car, including mining, including everything. And then there is another problem, which is the polluting elements, nitrogen oxides and particles. And in that sense, it is totally respectable that a city council chooses to reduce those levels in certain areas of a city. The city council has to do that and has to decide whether to do it or not. It is not my function to debate it, but it seems a reasonable and legitimate position. But as important or more than that is what I said before, if we renew the vehicle fleet, we will achieve an equal or similar effect. And of course, it is not incompatible with the other. Not at all.

Well, let's see. Being 61 years old helps. I mean, when you have more past than future, you can afford the luxury of speaking more. Of course. I understand that in life, there are other situations where you can't do it. Publishing that article was not easy for me. I try to explain it, it was not easy. Well, it was very easy, but I wrote it in one afternoon, I simply put the ideas in order, started writing, and then a couple of tweaks and the article was ready. But even my own environment told me, 'Don't get into that mess. There is no company that criticizes a government measure. Those things are not done.' Let's see. First, I speak with great respect for that government and for governments. Second, I have a moral obligation, not with my company, I have a moral obligation also from the economic and social sphere with society. We can destroy industrial investment in many sectors of this country for the following years. I think it was a measure, and it's past, so I close the page, but it was a measure that aimed directly, mistakenly, I believe, moreover, disguised as the energy sector, at the industrial activity we have, energy companies, refining sector, chemical sector, which is curious because we are not like the electric companies, the electric companies operate in our market. We compete in the open world. That is, the price of diesel and gasoline is set by the ship that enters the port of Bilbao and comes from Turkey, from anywhere, and that is what sets the price. So, of course, by favoring the one who doesn't generate jobs here, the one who manufactures products abroad that you import, and making the industrial transformation of companies here impossible, well, I think it was a mistaken idea. Alone? Evidently we were not, because there was a majority in the Congress of Deputies that voted in favor of this, and here I enter into speculative and subjective territory. I think it was a relief for everyone, even for many of those who had proposed it, because it was reaching a point where it was beginning to be seen that it was going to generate damage to investment, and well, the political agreements that some and others might have, reversing it was difficult, and yet here I think it was a relief for the vast majority of the Congress of Deputies, I dare say even for quite a few people in the government that proposed it, but this is already subjective.

Let's see. I have always said this in Madrid, and people listen with respect. I think that this debate, here I am, this debate is also, that is, the debate between an industrial Europe and environmental policies and how to make them compatible, I think it is a debate that is also within governments. And this is not black and white, this is not about good and bad. And I think that possibly in Europe in general, because after all, much of the policies that we have transferred here in all administrations, there has been a certain mimicry with respect to European policies in recent years. And I do believe that in Europe, in the last 10, 12 years, and I am critical, without mincing words, in Europe we had absolutely forgotten two of the three objectives of energy policies. We forgot about security of supply, we threw ourselves, as I said before, into the hands of Russian gas. We threw ourselves into the hands of Chinese raw materials, we made a bet on a technology that we did not have in our hands, and we are flooding our market with cars manufactured abroad, moreover with public aid. We also forgot that energy had a price and it affected competitiveness, and we forgot that equation, and we entered a crazy path of decarbonization that some might think, 'But decarbonization is very important, how can you use those adjectives?' But the effect we have had is the opposite. Let me explain. For example, if one analyzes emissions, it is the opposite. One might say, well, in Europe we have reduced CO2 emissions, it's true, but how much have we caused an increase in CO2 emissions in the rest of the world through European policies? For example, when you take the years 2022 and 2023, public data from Carbon Track or any of these, CO2 emissions in the world. What sector increased CO2 emissions the most in the world in 2022 and 2023? It is electricity generation and heat generation, fundamentally in emerging countries, produced with coal. Why did everyone migrate to coal in 2022 and 2023 in the world? Because the Europeans, Russia cuts off the gas, we depend absolutely on gas, we start to buy, necessarily and crazily, LNG in the rest of the world. We multiply the price of gas by three or four in the world. The global south cannot buy that gas, it has to migrate brutally to coal. 1 kWh generated with coal emits more than double the CO2 of one generated with gas, and CO2 emissions in the world increase strongly. And then, moreover, we send our prescriptors to these countries to tell them, 'You are emitting a lot of CO2.' And of course, they rebel, they say, 'Enough of the hypocrisy of you Europeans, because we are emitting a lot of CO2 because you are preventing us from buying gas. Because when we have a company here that wants to invest in our country in a gas product, due to your sustainable finance regulations, your banks and your investors are negatively impacting them and they do not allow these companies to invest in a gas project in my country, and I have to migrate to coal. And this is what is happening. This is what we have to analyze in a way.

Absolutamente transparente. Hace 4 o 5 años decía estas cosas y te decían de todo. No voy a utilizar adjetivos que los habéis visto algunos de ellos en la prensa. Creo que ahora estamos empezando a escuchar estas reflexiones, porque al final las personas, para bien o para mal, tenemos alguna credibilidad por lo que representamos como empresa. Yo lidero y dirijo a la empresa que en el año 2019 fue la primera empresa en el mundo en el sector de Oil and Gas que se comprometió con los objetivos de net zero para el año 2050. Y eso también da una credibilidad cuando te vas a sentar con el comisario europeo de energía. Y además ponemos, como dicen los anglosajones, ponemos la boca donde tenemos la palabra. El 35% de toda la inversión de nuestra empresa, año tras año, lo estamos ejecutando en proyectos bajos en carbono. No hay ninguna otra empresa del sector oil and gas en el mundo que tenga estos porcentajes. Y la huella de carbono de la compañía la reportamos y la estamos bajando año tras año. Con lo cual, lecciones, con todo respeto, pocas. Lo que tenemos que hacer es equilibrar y tener políticas sostenibles que sean absolutamente compatibles con las políticas industriales. Porque esto no es importante solo desde el punto de vista industrial, también es importante políticamente, porque ¿qué pasa en Europa? Que si no somos capaces de combinar las políticas ambientales con las políticas industriales y destruimos tejido industrial, estamos dejando un daño social en las personas vinculadas al sector industrial que luego son pasto de cualquier populismo. Y esto es malo porque al final va a tener sus consecuencias políticas, pero también va a tener sus consecuencias en términos medioambientales, porque podemos vivir una regresión del péndulo en la dirección contraria, que es lo que tampoco nadie quiere, porque lo que hemos ganado en materia medioambiental en esta sociedad es muy importante y tenemos que mantenerlo. Por eso, cuando a mí me preguntan, 'Ah, tú lo que quieres es una transición para ir más despacio.' No, yo no quiero una transición para ir más despacio. Yo quiero una transición más inteligente, porque posiblemente si produjésemos y si ayudásemos a que los bancos financiasen proyectos de gas junto con las renovables en el sur global, iríamos más rápido. Yo no quiero ir más lento. Lo que tenemos que hacer es más medidas y menos ideológicas y más analizadas.

Antes se ha comentado que el diésel salvó a España durante el apagón. Me gustaría saber dónde le cogió y qué pensó. No digo dónde me cogió porque tendría que empezar a dar muchas explicaciones. Me cogió, no, luego era un tema sin importancia, pero me cogió camino de un hospital donde tenía que tener una pequeña intervención. Fíjate esas cosas. Primero no podía llegar porque estaba todo atascado. Lo primero que hice fue intentar conectar con la empresa. Hubo momentos que tuvimos conexión, otros no. Estaba en Madrid, era imposible desplazarse por la calle, así que me puse unas deportivas, un jersey y unos vaqueros, y con una mochila al hombro intenté llegar a un hospital. Llamé por teléfono y todo se mantenía igual. Llegué allí, me encontré el mundo medianamente normal. Fue una pequeña cosa y luego salí, y con lo cual pude ver que el diésel y los generadores estaban trabajando. Seguro que hubo sitios donde hubo problemas, no tengo duda, y sitios donde se aplazaron intervenciones. Entonces me pilló así, como todos tenemos nuestra pequeña historia de aquel día que nos quedarán las memorias. Luego, como Repsol, en los momentos que podía tener conexión para hablar por teléfono, estaba preocupado por nuestras plantas industriales. En ese apagón fuimos, en el mejor sentido del término, víctimas, porque se nos cayeron las cinco refinerías. Instantáneamente se fueron a cero. Levantar una refinería te lleva entre tres y seis días según las unidades. El daño provocado es de bastantes decenas de millones de euros en nuestro sistema de refino. Y no solo eso, esa tarde tenía mensajes de empresas, algunas grandes, pidiéndonos que les hiciéramos llegar diésel porque podían parar. Por supuesto, encantados, pero preocupados porque no sabíamos cómo íbamos a poder responder al mercado los siguientes tres o cuatro días. Empezamos a llamar, intentando importar gasoil como fuese. Hablamos con la administración central y con CORES, la Corporación de Reservas Estratégicas, y el Ministerio de Transición, que actuó magníficamente escuchándonos cuando les pedimos que se liberasen siete días de las reservas estratégicas de gasolina y diésel, porque si no nos podríamos encontrar con un problema de desabastecimiento del país. Luego, poner en marcha todo aquello. Así como muchas industrias que estáis aquí, a algunos se os cayeron todos los procesos productivos, y levantarlos, y sobre todo cuando llevan ese tipo de productos por un tubo que a veces se enfrían, coquifican, solidifican, hay que romper el tubo, cambiarlo... no son procesos fáciles.

¿De quién? ¿Cuál cree que es la causa? ¿Qué pensó en su momento y qué piensa ahora? Primero, lo que yo piense es irrelevante, porque como ha dicho antes Adolfo, yo soy químico, sería por mi parte un atrevimiento absoluto. Creo que hay una investigación en curso, y lo que hay que esperar, y estoy seguro de que llegará a buen puerto, esa investigación determinará unas causas que son las que han provocado que ese accidente o apagón haya sucedido. Luego, creo que a veces también es bueno escuchar no solo lo que se dice, sino lo que se hace. En ese sentido, son datos públicos cuando uno mira la operación del sistema de red eléctrica. Cuando uno mira todos los días anteriores y a partir del 29 de abril, se ve una operativa con algunos matices diferenciales. Por ejemplo, el nivel de conexiones acopladas de centrales de ciclo combinado de gas 24 horas: hasta el día 28 era de 7, 6, 5, y a partir del día 29 es de 18, 20, 16, 21. Es decir, alguien ha decidido, con buen criterio, llevar el coche a un poco menos de velocidad. Operativamente me parece razonable. ¿Quiere esto decir, como se ha planteado, que este es un debate de que tiene que haber menos renovables? Creo que las renovables son un bien en esta sociedad, son un bien en el sistema eléctrico y una ventaja competitiva del país. Creo que el debate hay que escuchar las conclusiones y ver por qué pasó esto, pero en ningún caso debería ser que tenga que haber menos renovables. El debate es qué tenemos que acoplar técnicamente al sistema. No soy un experto, pero quizás sea más ciclo combinado con restricciones técnicas soportando el sistema, o quizás más batería. No sé cuál es la solución, pero no creo que sea bueno entrar en un debate sobre las renovables, porque me parece que son un activo importante, no solo para descarbonizar, sino que también nos puede servir para tener un sistema eléctrico más competitivo.

Preguntan si considera que la energía nuclear debería tener un papel más relevante en esta situación. El problema de esta respuesta es que con lo que diga mañana voy a ser titular en un par de sitios. Además, todo el mundo sabe lo que pienso, y soy bastante neutro porque no tenemos plantas nucleares. Siempre digo que la primera vez que me zarandearon en la vida fue en la Asamblea de la Facultad por defender... Mon. O sea, ¿qué voy a decir, en el año 81-82? No quiero entrar en un debate muy polarizado. Pero lo que sí creo es lo que decía antes: seamos agnósticos tecnológicamente. Necesitamos todas las energías en nuestra sociedad para descarbonizar. Luego, que los responsables técnicos del sistema vayan decidiendo en cada momento cuál es el mix adecuado para combinar seguridad de suministro, precio (tener un sistema competitivo) y descarbonización. Creo que hay una tendencia en Europa. Los alemanes tomaron una decisión de la cual espero que la canciller Merkel se haya arrepentido ya unas cuantas veces: el cierre de las nucleares en Alemania, que les entregó en términos económicos y geopolíticos en manos de Rusia. Creo que este es un tema que en Europa empieza a tomar una dirección diferente, incluida la vicepresidenta de la Comisión Europea para energía, clima y competencia. Creo que la propia Comisión Europea está llevando una visión en esa dirección. Por tanto, tenemos que abordar este debate desapasionadamente. No entremos todos en el pin-pam unos con otros, no tiene sentido. Tenemos que buscar el equilibrio, no poner a las renovables en el punto de mira, sino analizar con las conclusiones cuáles son los elementos que necesitamos para que el sistema funcione de forma segura.

¿Qué tiene que hacer Euskadi ante esa dependencia energética? El otro día dábamos unos datos: solo el 4.6% de la electricidad que genera Euskadi es a través de la eólica, frente al 50% en Navarra. ¿Qué tenemos que hacer? Nadie quiere poner un molino en su pueblo, solo hay un proyecto para poner en Euskadi. Me perdona Arancha, porque ha vivido estas dificultades muchos años, pero si no me falla la memoria, hay cinco parques eólicos en Euskadi: Elgea 1, Elgea 2, Badalla, Oiz y el del puerto de Bilbao. Los cinco me tocó a mí, como consejero de industria y presidente del EVE, promoverlos. Salí del gobierno a finales de 2003, alguno se culminó en 2004-2005, los pusimos en marcha en aquel periodo. Desde 2003, en 22 años, no hemos puesto un aerogenerador en marcha en Euskadi. Esto, si me permiten la broma, es la solución... No voy a hacer la broma. Pero leía en vuestro medio al lehendakari hoy, y creo que decía aquello de que cada vez que hay un proyecto energético en Euskadi, hay una pancarta. Creo que tenemos que decidir qué queremos hacer y qué queremos ser. Siendo conscientes de que tenemos un territorio complicado para esto. No soy un experto, pero la energía solar fotovoltaica: tenemos 100-1250 horas de sol, posiblemente un parque en Jerez tiene 2000 prácticamente, en términos de rentabilidad son muy diferentes. En temas eólicos tenemos un régimen de viento complicado: si no me falla la memoria, se exigían sierras de orientación este-oeste, entre 800 y 1100 metros de altura, sin riscos calizos. El mapa de Euskadi... a ver cuántos os salen. Pues poquitos. Los emplazamientos, si pones un aerogenerador en la llanada o en un valle guipuzcoano, no tiene viento suficiente. La energía es la velocidad del viento elevada al cubo, cualquier reducción genera que no chute. No es fácil el debate, pero como sociedad tenemos que plantearnos qué queremos de verdad. Sabiendo que vamos a necesitar una dependencia, quizás la apuesta de Euskadi tiene que ser, por un lado, ser capaces de tener conexiones e infraestructuras suficientes que permitan, en un entorno con menos ciclo combinado de gas y más generación renovable, no quedarnos con poca generación cercana. No soy un experto eléctrico, pero entiendo que para la estabilidad del sistema tampoco es bueno. Posiblemente necesitamos más líneas, pero eso nos mete en un debate social y medioambiental muy complejo. Nuevamente, la pancarta que decía el lehendakari. Luego, hay una apuesta que no tiene duda: la eficiencia energética. Como solía decir el EVE, el mejor kilovatio producido es aquel que no se consume. Creo que tenemos que intentar buscar nuestro papel en este mundo; quizás el papel de Euskadi no va a poder ser generar no sé cuántos megavatios de renovable, porque el territorio no da. Miramos a Madrid, que puede tener circunstancias similares, la Comunidad de Madrid está junto a la vasca en última fila de generación renovable, y tiene su razón de ser: son territorios de alta densidad. Quizás la apuesta tiene que ser por la tecnología y la investigación para desarrollar más energía renovable. Dicho lo cual, también hay que hacer un pequeño esfuerzo en esta dirección, y como sociedad tenemos debates complicados. Soy poco sospechoso: el primer parque eólico que hicimos en Euskadi, Elgea 1, año 99. A José Zudaire le tocó la responsabilidad de la viceconsejería de energía; nos quemaban los camiones literalmente cuando íbamos a subir los aerogeneradores de Gamesa a la Sierra de Elgea. Así se construyó el primer parque eólico en Euskadi, entre el 99 y el 2001-2002.

Vamos a ver, como tendemos a polarizarlo todo, creo que hemos llevado lo que está pasando a un pulso. Me gustaría, por mi parte, tratar de poner un punto de moderación en toda esta reflexión. Creo que nos une mucho a los norteamericanos y a Estados Unidos. Estados Unidos no es nuestro adversario. En términos geopolíticos, es el país que en 100 años nos ha salvado dos veces a Europa del totalitarismo, dejando miles de vidas de sus jóvenes aquí para defender la libertad. Creo que una visión atlántica del mundo —defensa de los derechos humanos, de la democracia, de la separación de poderes, de la libertad de mercado, de la seguridad jurídica— es algo que dices, 'pero si esto son lugares comunes'. No, mirad cómo está el mundo. En cuántos países estos principios con sus debilidades... al final no llegamos al 25% del mundo los que nos movemos en torno a estos valores. Europa y Estados Unidos somos los elementos nucleares en esto. Una relación de 100 años con este nivel de compromiso hay que hacer todo lo posible por mantenerla y reforzarla. Además, es un tema económico. El primer inversor en España, creo que son los Estados Unidos. El décimo u undécimo inversor en Estados Unidos es España. La vinculación económica es muy fuerte. Las empresas vascas, las más internacionalizadas, muchas tienen plantas en Estados Unidos, son empresas americanas. Todo esto es un bien que hay que preservar, el conflicto y la confrontación no nos favorece a nadie. Y yo estoy viendo responsabilidad tanto por parte de la Comisión Europea como del Gobierno de España. Estoy viendo una calma, defensa activa de los intereses europeos. Mi sensación es que al final habrá una solución. No lo sé, no tengo información privilegiada, pero tengo la sensación de que la Unión Europea está ya hablando con los norteamericanos. Posiblemente haya un marco con un cierto ámbito de razonabilidad para todas las partes. También tenemos que pensar que a veces no toda la razón está de nuestra parte. Cuando llevas muchos años hablando con los americanos y te dicen, 'Oye, estamos pagando vuestra defensa, vivís en un barrio muy complejo y no estáis dispuestos a pagar la seguridad de vuestra casa', todos los europeos hemos escuchado esto durante dos décadas y no hemos reaccionado. Llega un punto en que la otra parte aprieta y tensiona. Tenemos que llegar a un entendimiento. Creo que llegaremos, o me gustaría que llegásemos, porque es demasiado lo que hay en juego para las dos partes. Volvemos a lo de los coches y la primera pregunta, David: la decisión de compra, ¿qué está pasando? ¿Cuántas empresas de las aquí presentes han parado decisiones de inversión? Sobre todo aquellas que tienen plantas o filiales en Estados Unidos. Nosotros somos una empresa que invierte mucho en Estados Unidos, estamos muy contentos de estar ahí, casi el 35% de lo que invertimos lo hacemos allí, y lo vamos a seguir haciendo porque es un país confiable. Pero en estos momentos dices, 'Oye, tenemos aquí una planta de gas o fotovoltaica, pero no sé a qué precio voy a poder importar los paneles, los módulos'. Lo que está pasando, como escuchaba en la radio al presidente de AFM, es una ralentización de decisiones de inversión en el sector de bienes de equipo. En primera instancia, las empresas están ralentizando decisiones. Todavía no veo un impacto claro en el consumidor doméstico, pero si la incertidumbre dura mucho, puede tener riesgo de perdurar. Espero que no pase. Habrá unos meses con algún pequeño impacto en los PIBs, pero espero que la incertidumbre no dure mucho para que haya un marco estable, la gente sepa lo que tiene que pagar por importar. Siempre hay barreras. He empezado hablando de las barreras comerciales en Europa. Que la economía vuelva cuanto antes a la normalidad y evitar conflictos innecesarios. Europeos y norteamericanos estamos comprometidos en trabajar juntos para preservar el crecimiento económico y mantener el modelo de bienestar social.

Vamos a ver, yo antes hablaba de los jóvenes en el ámbito europeo. No voy a convertir un debate particular en algo con un foco más amplio. Hace poco escuchaba al primer ministro de Nueva Zelanda decir que los inversores extranjeros pueden vivir sin Nueva Zelanda, pero Nueva Zelanda no puede vivir sin los inversores extranjeros. Vivimos en un mundo en el que el mundo puede vivir sin Euskadi, pero Euskadi no puede vivir sin el mundo y sin los inversores. Hay que ser atractivo. Ser atractivo significa que estás compitiendo para cualquier inversión: una empresa de nueva localización, o una empresa que tiene plantas en Euskadi y viene un fondo o inversor industrial extranjero que tiene que decidir entre varias plantas. ¿Qué decisiones se valoran? Las mismas que valora Repsol cuando decide dónde hacer algo. Miras el atractivo: niveles de formación de la gente, seguridad jurídica —si me van a cambiar las reglas de juego a mitad de partido, el daño es brutal—, qué fiscalidad tiene para las empresas. No me meto en la fiscalidad personal, eso son otros debates. Pero cómo se trata fiscalmente a las empresas es importante, porque eso va vía dividendos a los accionistas y a la renta del trabajo. Los inversores miran la seguridad en las calles, si pueden llevar a sus directivos a colegios internacionales, cómo está el sistema sanitario. Creo que hay que cuidar todo eso para tener un país atractivo donde las empresas puedan invertir, crecer y venir. Tenemos que quitar el foco en este debate: la demonización de la empresa, del empresario, del directivo y de la generación de riqueza. Hay que quitarlo del debate político. No puede haber un responsable político que demonice a un empresario en un discurso, porque provoca un daño brutal a largo plazo en el atractivo del país. Este es el camino que tenemos que trabajar. Si hay empresas y actividad económica, no tengo ninguna duda de que los jóvenes vascos tendrán oportunidades y buenos salarios. Los debates de la vivienda serían diferentes si el joven ganase 3.500 o 4.000 euros al mes, y no 1.000 o 1.500. Hay un tema de puestos de trabajo estables y salarios. Determinadas actividades no pueden pagar esos salarios porque no pueden competir. La gran ventaja de la industria es que puede pagar 3.500, 4.000, 4.500 euros al mes. Eso es lo que tenemos que conseguir: actividades de esa naturaleza. Tenemos que ser atractivos. Cuando miren, que digan: 'Qué bien cuidan aquí a las empresas'. Ese debe ser el objetivo.

Eso nos mete en otro debate, David, María Luisa, que lo comentábamos el mes pasado con tu hermano en la presentación del libro 'La Caverna' sobre el secuestro de tu padre. Creo que en la sociedad vasca, ETA ha provocado un daño humano brutal. Coincidimos casi todos: prácticamente 1000 muertos, daño a muchas familias, heridos, un daño personal horroroso. Pero hay otra parte de la que se ha hablado menos: el daño económico que ETA ha provocado. Ese daño son muchas decenas de miles de personas que se fueron por la extorsión, que crearon actividad económica en otros sitios, tomando una decisión legítima que tengo que respetar. Algunos optaron por sufrir con su familia, guardarse las cartas en silencio, exponerse a un secuestro, el dilema moral de pagar o no pagar, horroroso para proteger a los tuyos. Otros no pudieron más o no estaban dispuestos a soportar aquello y se fueron. Esa actividad económica se perdió. La empresa quedó aquí, pero el hijo invirtió en otro sitio. Luego hay otro daño oculto: han pasado 14 años desde que ETA desapareció (2011), y sigue ahí. Va a durar toda una generación, si no dos: la herencia asociada al odio social que ETA generó al empresario, a la generación de riqueza, a la apuesta por el emprendimiento. ¿Qué tiene que pasar por la cabeza de una persona de 50 años que hereda un taller o pequeña empresa y vio a su padre sufrir, tragarse las cartas de amenaza en silencio? ¿Qué incentivo le queda? ¿Qué herencia asociada al riesgo de asumir la dirección de una empresa? Esta ecuación está ahí, la herida mal cerrada todavía. Eso también está jugando. Luego, factores puramente económicos: dificultades regulatorias, fiscalidad, absentismo, relaciones laborales... pero tenemos un factor diferencial: la herencia de ETA, que todavía está ahí. Hay académicos, incluso artículos en revistas internacionales, de investigadores vascos y extranjeros, que empiezan a analizar el daño social y económico a largo plazo del terrorismo. Esto también está afectando a la economía. Lo peor fue el daño humano, pero esta herida no podemos olvidarla y también está jugando en esas decisiones.

Yo soy de Zumárraga. Vamos a ver, no me puedo meter. Soy de Zumárraga, y sabéis que la estación de Skrio, luego no es el tiempo... De hecho, era estación de Zumárraga. Lo que pasa es que el tren de alta velocidad tiene unos máximos de radio y pendiente, y Zumárraga está a 360 metros. La diputada foral de Hacienda me está mirando: me estaba olvidando de la estación de Urrechu y Zumárraga. Como Urrechu y Zumárraga están a 360 metros de altura, tenía que pasar con un túnel: o se hacía una estación subterránea (bajar 70 o 100 metros) o no... Soy muy subjetivo para esa pregunta, no la puedo contestar, David. Hay que decir... para contestar estas cosas corremos el riesgo de jugar a tertulianos. Hace falta conocimiento, profundidad, conocer los estudios. El hecho de ser de Zarautz solamente no me puede llevar a una decisión. Como diría mi hija, en esta pregunta vamos a poner carita triste.

Estuve hace 15 días o tres semanas en Getaria pasando un fin de semana, con los tíos que todavía viven allí. Creo que todos hemos tenido experiencias buenas en la vida. Para mí aquella fue fantástica durante muchos veranos en el restaurante de Miamona, de donde era mi padre, en el puerto de Getaria. Has dicho antes tiempo guipuzcoano, pero de la muga con Navarra. Hacían más la vida en Alsasua que en... porque había que bajar el puerto hacia Beasain. En aquella época era más complicado. Hay una componente navarra oculta también, de la muga. Creo que la vida, desde mi punto de vista, el trato con las personas en el servicio de un bar, restaurante u hotel enseña mucho: conocer a la gente, tratarla, entenderla. Me quedó una experiencia muy positiva. Aparte, aprendí francés. Siempre estudié francés en la escuela desde los 9-10 años, pero a partir de los 14 años, en verano, casi la mitad de los que venían hablaban francés, porque era el flujo de la N1, cuando venían camino de Portugal, Marruecos o Argelia. Todavía, cuando estoy por trabajo en Francia o Bruselas, en la Comisión Europea, la carta de un restaurante en francés te la puedo leer mejor que un camarero, los platos, los pescados... siempre quedan esas cosas.