Bernardo Álvarez-Villar: How, when, and why did you become an environmental activist? Was there a particular experience or revelation that pushed you to do so?

Pedro Costa: I was a young and promising engineer, as my bosses used to say. My company was based at the nuclear power plant in Lemóniz [in the Basque Country], and I went there every week. But then a nuclear power plant project came up for my own town [Águilas, Murcia]. It was December 1973, and I didn’t know what to do. I was 26 years old and I decided to put up a fight: I studied the project and I mobilised people against it. The Communist Party helped me, although I was still very conservative at the time.

That struggle, which was stirred up in early 1974, was successful. I revealed myself to be a good strategist, and I began to think that we had to fight all the nuclear projects in Spain – there were 20 at the time. I started writing against these projects in newspapers, and realised that I was not bad at it. I travelled all over Spain, going to all the places where there was a nuclear project, and this opposition worked. Anti-Francoist magazines published my articles, and I could make a living from this. In October 1974, I left my company and did not return to engineering until 2002, when I became a lecturer at the Polytechnic University of Madrid.

Irene Rubiera: I belong to a generation for which revelations were not necessary. People my age grew up knowing that climate change is a problem and that the environment has to be taken care of, because it was written in our textbooks. It’s not so much that you need an epiphany as a moment to take notice. For me, that moment came when Greta Thunberg started her climate strikes, and my grandmother left a comment on my Facebook profile saying, “Why aren’t you doing this?”

I was in my first or second year of law school, and I already wanted to do environmental or human rights work. So I joined the movement.

What was the social perception of environmentalism in your surroundings – was it seen as an extravagance or a fashion?

Pedro Costa: In the 1970s, Spain had a few conservationist organisations, and the documentary television series by Félix Rodríguez de la Fuente [a naturalist and broadcaster who is regarded as the “father of environmentalism” in Spain] were quite popular. But environmentalism was not used as a concept. Moreover, being an anti-nuclear activist meant being against Francoism and the electricity companies, which were the apple of the dictatorship’s eye.

With time, we realised that the problem went beyond nuclear. In 1977, when I was sure that there would not be a nuclear power plant in my town, I created the Mediterranean Ecologist Group to defend the coast of Murcia and Andalusia against development and tourism projects. Environmentalism was reaching Spain from France and, as I had studied politics, I knew something about it.

The period following Franco’s death in 1975 was a time of discovery in which politics became the priority. During the dictatorship, everything was poorly done, and there was no freedom of expression. In that sense, times have changed little, because I have suffered more censorship now than in Franco’s time.

Times have changed little, because I have suffered more censorship now than in Franco’s time.

Irene Rubiera: In 2019, when Fridays for Future started, there was a moment when everyone was listening to us, at least in the media, and we had the wind in our backs. That moment lasted for a year. When COVID-19 hit the following year, that broad support for climate action revealed itself to be rather superficial. Otherwise, I think a lot of things would have been done differently during the pandemic.

It seems to me that your generation, Pedro, could achieve a clear victory with the anti-nuclear struggle: you managed to stop the construction of nuclear power plants, and now we are all anti-nuclear. But today there are many battles to fight at the same time:  the climate emergency, biodiversity loss, the ecosocial crisis. It’s much harder to feel like we are winning.

Pedro Costa: There are similar wars today, for example against biogas plants. The objective of the struggle is the same, and it consists of getting town councils to commit to saying no. To achieve this, we have to be politicised. But I have the impression that the younger generation of activists is not sufficiently politicised.

I also believe that environmentalism needs to have an encompassing vision, because no one problem is more serious than another. The socio-economic system is close to a breaking point.

Irene Rubiera: I agree. Those in my generation who are involved in the environmental movement are very much influenced by the fear of the climate crisis. Perhaps you didn’t have the same sense of urgency in the 1970s. Now it’s no longer just a battle for future generations: we are heading towards a global warming scenario of two degrees Celsius or more in the next decades.

Today there are many battles to fight at the same time:  the climate emergency, biodiversity loss, the ecosocial crisis. It’s much harder to feel like we are winning.

Pedro Costa: The anti-nuclear struggle had a sense of urgency too, as there was the nuclear threat. In 1979, the Three Mile Island accident happened in the US; in 1986, there was the Chernobyl disaster.

In any case, despite the urgency, I don’t subscribe to the fear of environmental collapse. Although it is a reality, and it can cause distress, I don’t think fear should guide our approach. The climate is getting worse and will continue to get worse, but environmentalism should not be anxious. I am critical of the concept of climate anxiety. Young people shouldn’t live in anxiety, and what they have to do is get involved in the fight. It cures a lot of things, it distracts you, and it makes you useful. We human beings find purpose in action.

For the same reason, I am also critical of the excessive judicialisation of environmentalism. We have reached a point where some people think that environmental activism consists of denouncing and pleading. This is what happens when environmentalism is too closely linked to power. Anyone who believes that the environmental struggle can be confined to a courtroom is mistaken.

Irene Rubiera: I am a lawyer, and that means that I must have at least some faith in the system to do my job with conviction. An ethics professor of mine told us that wherever there are power structures, lawyers are needed to organise that power. Therefore, jurists are morally bound to judge the integrity of the system to which they are subject. I have many criticisms of the system, but being a lawyer means having a minimum of trust in it, because you keep working with it in spite of everything. To a certain extent, I trust the rule of law.

Pedro Costa: In my case, a point came where I didn’t trust science and technology, which were the direct culprits for 80-90 per cent of environmental problems. I had to give up engineering and change professions. Law is still a social product, and we have to try to change it to the extent that it is the product of an unjust society. You are right to say that we have to trust the rule of law, but we need to do it intelligently.

Irene Rubiera: We all have a problem with the excessive judicialisation of conflicts, but it’s also true that we can’t just fight in the streets, because I don’t think it’s working. The two approaches are complementary.

The struggle to protect the Madrid Central low-emission zone is an example of how citizen mobilisation is key. The legal measures obtained against the abolition of Madrid Central would not have been possible without the thousands of people who demonstrated in front of the town hall. The case of the Isla de Valdecañas [a residential golf resort and hotel on an artificial island in Extremadura] proves a similar point. A fourteen-year legal procedure has led to a demolition order, but it is not being carried out because there is no citizen mobilisation around it.

Legal action and citizen mobilisation also went hand in hand in the case of the Mar Menor, a large saltwater basin in southeastern Spain that faced severe contamination from pesticide runoff.

Pedro Costa: I have not been involved in the most recent phase of that conflict, except by writing. I was more active on that front years ago, when the main problem was linked to pollution from urban development. I was sued by the local feudal lord because I came into conflict with the economic powers.

Now there are several groups mobilising around the Mar Menor, organising protest actions like human chains. But I’m not in favour of hugs, I’m in favour of sticks. If you don’t have clear ideas and you don’t point your finger at intensive agriculture, the companies in the countryside, the irrigation system, and the Segura Confederation [the body that manages, regulates and maintains the waters, irrigation, and actions of the Segura basin], nothing is going to change.

Irene Rubiera: I agree. But I also think that environmentalism has always had an image of people who complain about everything, and it seems to me that it would be more productive to try to create hope, desirable futures, and highlight the good things that environmental action brings.

The climate is getting worse and will continue to get worse, but environmentalism should not be anxious.

Does this mean focusing on making proposals to improve the quality of life rather than on banning and limiting?

Irene Rubiera: We would be much better off if the environmental movement followed a coherent strategy. We are many different people, there are hundreds of organisations, and there is no strategy. In my view, we would get further if we convinced people that a greener world is a better, happier, and healthier place to live.  Like in the case of Madrid Central, we should talk about creating cities that are more walkable, where children can play in the street, instead of focusing on the fact that cars should be banned.

Pedro Costa: The environmental movement is very heterogeneous and increasingly lacks cohesion. As an expert and an engineer, I had the opportunity to propose energy plans, until I became convinced that environmentalism’s social function is to grumble and say no. We shouldn’t be required to provide alternatives. That should be the job of those who receive a salary from the administrations and those who are elected to do so. But saying no is a very dignified and effective function.

What should be the relationship between environmental actors and political parties and institutions?

Pedro Costa: There was a time when Green parties were created in Spain following the German model, but they never really worked. Right now, there are none. We have to educate, sow hope, and do politics, which is a science, an art, and an ethic. But that doesn’t necessarily mean running for elections or holding office. The most important victories have been achieved outside the institutions and against them. The anti-nuclear struggle was a struggle against the institutions of Francoism. Environmentalism must use politics, law, culture… it encompasses everything. We have to know how to discern what tool is in our interest in each case, which route to take in each conflict.

Irene Rubiera: There is a time for everything. Sometimes you have to collaborate with people who enter institutional politics and deserve a vote of confidence. In many instances, the environmental movement is still at odds with political institutions.

What’s your take on the repression of activists we observe all over Europe?

Irene Rubiera: There is a strong wave of criminalisation of environmental activism at the moment. What they refer to as “radical environmentalism” and even “eco-terrorism” is now the target of a repression that was previously directed to other social movements.

Pedro Costa: I have had several issues with repression. In 2006, the chief prosecutor of Lorca sued me and claimed compensation of 18,000 euros for an article in which I accused him of not tackling corruption in Águilas and Lorca. He won in Lorca and in Murcia, but the Supreme Court sided with me. That experience taught me that you always come out on top if you don’t give up. You may suffer, but something positive always comes out when you fight against power with intelligence and resilience. I always say that you can beat a tank with spears. The enemy is not always stronger than you, despite appearances. You need to find their weaknesses.

We should talk about creating cities that are more walkable, where children can play in the street, instead of focusing on the fact that cars should be banned.

Irene Rubiera: The problem is also that the rules of the game are changing. At some point in your history as a militant, Pedro, it must have been a serious thing to accuse someone of being a fascist. Now, there are people and powers who take pride in everything they do wrong.

Pedro Costa: Paradoxically, democracy has been partly responsible for this dynamic. When democracy arrived, mayors and regional leaders began to be elected. Before, they used to be appointed by the regime, and when they were in a hurry for a project, they consulted the boss. But they were more sensitive to popular pressure, because their task was to avoid conflict in the streets.

With democracy, mayors started responding to popular pressure by saying, “What do you want? I was elected and you were not. Here we do what I say.” That’s how they think, and then they harden up and it’s more difficult to deal with them. Francoism was a dictatorship, but it had loopholes.

Is the growth of the far right and climate denialism accelerating that dynamic?

Irene Rubiera: I would say that denialism is not a factor. Delayism is a different thing. The far right has managed to shift the Overton window in its favour, and their cynicism and arrogance are winning in the cultural battlefield.

Pedro Costa: The far right is a production of the capitalist system, and the capitalist system necessarily exploits people and nature, using the increasingly sophisticated tools offered by science and technology. In the capitalist productivist dynamic, nature is at the service of humans. The far right is an exacerbation of capitalism. No wonder it is against caring for nature.

Irene Rubiera: But, at the same time, it tries to win over farmers by casting itself as the defender of the countryside.

Pedro Costa: Many farmers have not been environmentally conscious for a long time. They have betrayed their tradition and values. Murcian farmers, including those in my own family, have betrayed their parents and grandparents. They crush the countryside and don’t care.

There was a time when we used to make a common front with farmers against nuclear power stations or housing estates that ate up fertile soil. There was a common cause, but industrial agriculture put an end to all that. Certain things have changed for the worse.

You seem very pessimistic, Pedro, when you say everything is changing for the worse.

Pedro Costa: I defend ecopessimism: everything that has to do with the environment is getting worse. However, it should not be a pessimism that paralyses us, but a stimulus to fight harder. It is an optimistic pessimism. The reality is that the system is unbeatable.

Do you share this view, Irene?

Irene Rubiera: We should not forget that the history of humanity is also a history of progress. Sometimes it doesn’t seem like it, but in the grand scheme of history, people end up living better than they did before.

Sometimes it doesn’t seem like it, but in the grand scheme of history, people end up living better than they did before.

Pedro Costa: The issue of progress is very important. As an idea, it comes from the Enlightenment, a time of optimism but also of arrogance. Ecologists are among the critics of the Enlightenment, because it is the intellectual movement that generated the modern world, colonialism, imperialism, and the destruction of the planet. We should not use it as an intellectual or ethical reference, because it is an arrogant and imprudent production of the West.

According to Condorcet [an 18th-century French Enlightenment philosopher], progress is the belief that the evolution of society is indefinite, cumulative, and irreversible. Ecologists, who have encountered such serious problems as climate change or the nuclear threat, cannot believe this. Science and technology advance, yes, but in the human sphere, we have to be wary of progress. As Ernesto Sábato, an Argentine nuclear physicist turned novelist, said in an interview in 1996, “There is no progress in history”.