1. Introduction

The current paper reflects on what we call the Anthropocene and its political and epistemological consequences. The central idea is to address the Anthropocene as an unprecedented ethical-political event, in which human action becomes a geological force that has the power to reshape the planet. This phenomenon is revealing itself through climate change and ecological collapse, and is claiming a political process of its own.

Therefore, assuming the Anthropocene as an event implies acknowledging that the impact of some current facts such as extreme climate events, which we and the other beings with whom we share the earth are enduring, although not unprecedented in the history of the planet, it is certainly new from the point of view of civilisation. As the current crisis becomes visibly more and more severe, the vision of a stable planet is gradually being replaced by the prospect of a future without human presence. Thus, apocalyptic scenes are become increasingly common, such as the flames that devoured Athens in August 2021, or the devastating Pedrógão Grande forest fire in 2017, deemed the largest in Portugal’s history, which ended in 60 fatalities and many injured.

We believe we stand before a new conflict area. On one side, there are those who deny or block all policies to tackle climate change and, on the other, those who are fighting to preserve a liveable planet. In this scenario, climate activism is more urgent than ever in view of the global challenges, which the strong voices and actions of young people are raising awareness of. Young climate activists around the world play an important part in challenging the inertia of the international system and demanding concrete measures to combat the climate emergency. Movements such as Fridays for Future, led by Greta Thunberg, and Extinction Rebellion are known for their interesting approaches and mobilising a generation that is actively seeking to shape its own future. They have also inspired several other climate movements, such as End Fossil Occupy, the Student Climate Strike and Climáximo in Portugal.

In this article, we briefly look into how Portuguese youth is responding to the climate crisis, exploring their approaches to understanding the problem, implementing actions and engaging with the government. Our hypothesis is that this movement is a fundamental part of what we call the politics of the Anthropocene. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of the war metaphor that lends urgency to the situation, establishing a duality between “us” (society) and “them” (states, companies), in a narrative similar to Bruno ^{Latour’s (2002}/ 2020a/ 2020b) conception of the war of the worlds. The paper is divided into four parts, in addition to the introduction and concluding remarks. We begin by analysing the concept of the Anthropocene and Latour’s views on this reality, commonly referred to as a war of the worlds. Then we briefly address climate activism in recent decades, followed by an introduction of the research methodology. Finally, we share the field experience and our dialogue with climate-related youth movements, namely End Fossil Occupy, the Climate Strike and Climáximo in Lisbon.

2. The Anthropocene and the War of the Worlds

In this research, we begin with a critical analysis of the Anthropocene, explaining the reasons for this choice and providing a theoretical framework for the concept. The Anthropocene argument emerged in the 2000s, based on the argument by chemist Paul Crutzen and biologist Eugene Stoermer that we are living in a new geological era, in which humanity has been “a major [acting] geological force for many millennia, maybe millions of years” (^{Crutzen & Stoermer, 2000}, p. 18). In other words, the human being acquires the status of a force of nature. Ever since, the timeline of this era and the anthropos responsible for so many changes have been broadly discussed.

There are many clear arguments supporting the transition to a new era, while the scientific community itself explores a range of terminology. Since 2009, researchers have identified the “planetary boundaries”, outlining biophysical processes which, if crossed, could trigger non-linear, sometimes abrupt and sensitive changes in environmental systems (^{Rockström et al., 2009}). Climate change, loss of biodiversity, interference in the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, destruction of stratospheric ozone, acidification of the oceans, global use of fresh water, changes in land use and chemical pollution are critical factors that separate a liveable life from a catastrophic scenario for humanity.

However, recently, after almost 15 years of debate, the International Union of Geological Sciences voted against adding the Anthropocene to the official timeline of Earth’s history. According to geologists, one of the obstacles to its approval is the difficulty in establishing an official starting date, since they still have to figure out how and where to set it.

The choice of starting date is not a mere scientific formality, it is intrinsically linked to profound political and moral implications. In other words, “the more remote the date, the less the current forms of capitalism are an issue and thus the more responsibilities are diluted” (^{Latour, 2015/2020a}, p. 183). Therefore, deciding on the beginning of the Anthropocene can reconfigure geopolitical dynamics, accentuating vast inequalities or enabling a new configuration in which more vulnerable groups can develop new strategies of struggle. However, regardless of the decision of the Working Group on the Anthropocene, as ^{Lorimer (2017}) points out, “the genie is out of the bottle” (p. 7). The concept of the Anthropocene has spread across the academic, political, media and artistic spheres, giving it meaning for a significant portion of society.

Ever since, various debates have also ensued about the nature of this anthropos responsible for so many changes, particularly since the climate emergency was not created, nor is it maintained, by humanity in general. Due to such remarks several intellectuals (for example, ^{Latour, 2015/2020a}; ^{Malm & Hornborg, 2014}; ^{Tsing et al., 2019}) question the use of anthropos in the narrative of the Anthropocene and note its analytical fragility, and its capacity to drive collective action. There was therefore an academicpolitical endeavour to demonstrate such a chasm between humans and non-humans, which triggered many other formulations on how to name this new, post-Holocene era. According to Franciszek ^{Chwałczyk (2020}), at least 80 to 90 alternative nomenclatures have been put forward. In a disputed political-semantic arena, the Capitalocene (^{Moore, 2016/2022}), Necrocene (^{McBrien, 2016/2022}), Plantationocene (^{Haraway, 2016}) come up, among others.

The heart of the matter is the excessive emphasis on humanity’s impact on the Earth, rooted in an alleged unity of the anthropos as a subjective and material community (^{Yusoff, 2018}). However, this indivisible and inseparable humanity can overshadow the dynamics of racial capitalism (^{Robinson, 2018}), climate colonialism (^{Sultana, 2022}), climate apartheid (^{Tuana, 2019}) and the many social inequalities caused by fossil fuels. In our view, this idea of the inseparable “human” is also one way of concealing the role of struggles in the larger field of - epistemological and political - disputes that is the Anthropocene. Such different histories of responsibilities can be erased by establishing a standardised ‘we’. Certainly one of the greatest challenges of the Anthropocene is its abstraction, which may also be why activism and movements generally speaking, do not use it.

That is why we are involved in a critical engagement with the Anthropocene, because we see some paths that it may open up. On the one hand, the term allows for an interdisciplinary dialogue between natural scientists and humanists, and beyond. On the other hand, the concept hints at the universality of a homogeneous “Human being”, whose universal basis for creation was the white, Christian and heterosexual man. ^{Haraway (2016}) and ^{Tsing et al. (2019}) teach us that by paying attention to this legacy we can discover what is happening on the planet, especially concerning the unevenness of climate and environmental issues. But also because there are other humanities - and their non-human alliances - that are involved in maintaining the planet liveable for all of us.

It is in this context that Bruno Latour, among many other authors, discusses the political and sociological implications of living in the Anthropocene era. Latour identifies this moment as the new climatic regime, with human beings as the geological agents, and nature, once considered mere scenery, as co-protagonist in the narrative. Under this regime, nature can no longer simply be exploited or protected; a wider range of agents and forms of life beyond the traditional dichotomy between nature and culture must be acknowledged.

In the book War of the Worlds: What About Peace, published in 2002, Latour discusses how a perceived unity of nature led modern people to the war of the worlds. They believed the clash could not be seen as a confrontation between worlds, as they defended the existence of a single world. There were two approaches to those who did not share this view: try to persuade them through colonisation, or regard them as others whose beliefs posed no threat to the ruling order.

However, the climate emergency has warned that it is no longer viable to continue with current development policies. Despite this, economic growth at all costs and the accumulation of resources persist as pillars of progress and the well-being of society. The seriousness of the situation takes the dispute between worlds to a new level. In this context, the Anthropocene can be interpreted as a scenario of widespread conflict where many battles will be fought over the configuration of space and climate (^{Costa, 2017}).

By no longer being subject to the unity provided by nature, both sides of the dispute can openly say who they are, what they are fighting for and what the world they want to build looks like, ultimately differentiating between friends and foes. Only after this war between worlds has been acknowledged - that is, when political disputes are no longer governed by the pacifying function of nature - can a truly lasting peace agreement be sought (^{Latour, 2002}).

The new climate regime therefore challenges us politically to abandon the idea of human beings as the epicentre of nature and to learn to coexist with beings that, until recently, we considered only as resources. As Latour points out, on the one hand, humans, the heirs of modernity, who do not find agency in “natural” beings; on the other, earthlings, those who recognise non-humans as political agents actively participating in the construction of the world. Both sides do not share the same territory and define belonging to the Earth differently.

Furthermore, the French philosopher (^{Latour, 2017/2020b}) points out that the perception of the future consequences of climate change, as early as the second half of the 20th century, revealed that there is not enough planet to house modernisation. The elites quickly realised this and embarked on their obscurantist mission to deny and mix up the growing evidence of global warming and its effects on the planet. This is the “they” of the current war of worlds.

The obscurantist elites, as he calls them, have understood all too well that the promises of modernity are not going to be fulfilled, that we are moving at a rapid pace towards a point of no return in environmental catastrophe and that modern utopias will occur in only a few places for a few people, to the detriment of everyone else. This understanding had them consolidate their sovereignty over the resources they needed to preserve their way of life. In other words, they have chosen to double down and continue investing in their political and economic projects, passing on the costs above all to the most vulnerable human and non-human populations.

In this context, political inertia vis-à-vis global warming is not just due to lack of awareness of businesses, government officials and a large part of the population. To assume this would mean believing that there is a humanity that could finally come to an agreement when it realises that nature is in danger. On the contrary, what climate change deniers and the mining industry lobbyists make very clear is that we are facing a project that instils doubt about the existence of climate change that inhibits social mobilisation around the issue and obstructs the implementation of policies aimed at preventing the problem from getting worse.

It is thus a real war of the worlds, or more precisely, a conflict between those who seek to discover the world - and fight for it - and those who seek to find refuge outside of it. The latter, however, transfers the burden of the “return of the Earth” to everyone else, making others accountable for the relevant costs and challenges.

In this context, according to ^{Latour (2015/2020a}), the current limit of the planet implies a fundamental transformation in our approach to “political action”, by establishing a new geosocial political arena in which we seek to combine social and environmental struggles. At the same time as the obscurantist elites, climate activists also readily spotted this new conflict zone. It is no coincidence that they adopt the narrative of war as a mobilisation strategy and as a means of interpreting the present moment.

In the field, we see how activists act and react in the same way as Latour’s provocative statements: “We’re not just facing a global emergency, we’re at war [emphasis added]. Every year, governments, companies and institutions created to maintain the appearance of peace kill thousands of people around the world in the pursuit of profit” (^{Climáximo, 2023}). “They” (governments, companies, institutions) have declared war on “us” (ordinary people and non-human beings).

So, recognising the warlike nature of the current situation, where the conflicting forces include not only human actors but also the elements of the Earth itself, it is imperative that we turn our gaze to contemporary battlefronts. In this context, new forms of climate activism are emerging that not only respond to imminent threats, but also seek to reset the groundwork for human coexistence with the environment.

3. Climate Activism and Politics in the Anthropocene

Climate change emerged as a global concern in the 1970s, when the international system began fostering conferences and agreements on the matter. International collaboration began with the 1972 Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm and reached its height two decades later at the 1992 Earth Summit (also known as ECO92) in Rio de Janeiro. During this period, international institutions and new platforms for political and ecological intervention emerged, including Green parties and many civil society organisations with diverse ideological orientations (^{Svampa, 2020}). In this context a consensus on human action in nature was consolidated and validated by the scientific community (^{Milani, 2008}).

The 1980s featured a growing trend in environmental movements across the globe. In the United States, environmental justice claims were raised in particular by the AfricanAmerican communities affected by industrial activities, in response to the environmental debate of May 1968. Benjamin Chavis coined the term “environmental racism” for the purposes of the relevant political-theoretical analysis (Chavis cited in ^{Bullard, 2019}). The concept “environmentalism of the poor” emerged in Latin America (^{Martínez-Alier, 2007}), and sought to connect environmental struggles on various scales (local, national and global) with social inequality and the reproduction of capital (^{Milani, 2008}; ^{Svampa, 2020}).

^{Svampa (2020}) reports that Corporate Watch in the US raised the concept of “climate justice” in 1999 to address the causes of global warming, demanding responsibility from companies, especially oil corporations, and commitment to the energy transition. Meanwhile, several movements, such as those of indigenous peoples, rubber tappers, ecologists, green parties, the Movement of People Affected by Dams and the World Social Forum, organised themselves in different ways against global warming, neoliberal globalisation and the impacts of capitalism in Latin America (^{Milani, 2008}).

In 2012, two decades after the 1992 Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro hosted the Conference on Sustainable Development, also known as Rio+20, which aimed at upgrading global environmental governance. All the while, the People’s Summit, organised by a broad coalition of civil society organisations, social movements and activists, was taking place. Several topics, including social justice, environmental rights, gender equality and criticism of the prevailing economic model, were addressed throughout the parallel event.

In the last decade, the climate issue has gained further momentum as extreme weather events have become more frequent, social media have provided space for public debate and the phenomenon of climate denial has grown since Donald Trump came to power in 2016 as the president of a global power. Trump’s announcement of withdrawal from the Paris Agreement spread further frustration. The agreement, which came out of the “21st UN Climate Conference” - COP21 - in Paris in 2015, was a milestone in tackling climate change, as major powers, such as the US, committed to taking concrete action from 2020 onwards, with the aim of keeping global warming below 2 ºC.

^{Svampa (2020}) highlights the 2014 People’s Climate March in New York as a new stage in ecological-environmental-climate movements around the world. Such “new” movements became the “children of the ecological movements of the 1980s” (p. 286). At the time, slogans such as “there is no planet B”, “forests are not for sale”, “climate change cannot be stopped without stopping the US war machine”, among others, emerged (^{Svampa, 2020}, p. 115). In 2018, Greta Thunberg and Fridays For Future came to the world’s attention, as she stopped going to school on Fridays to protest in front of the Swedish parliament. The “Greta effect”, as ^{Svampa (2020}) calls it, materialises in several “climate strikes”, known as the Global Climate Strike, and many other crossborder movements arise, such as the Extinction Rebellion, Jóvenes por el Clima, among others, which demand that governments declare a climate emergency.

4. Method

In October 2023 we went into the field with activists from the Student Climate Strike, Climáximo and End Fossil Occupy in Portugal. Our goal was to understand the mobilisation strategies, the challenges faced and the government’s responses to these movements. We chose participant observation, because it offers an important insight into climate activism in Portugal (^{Duarte, 2002}). Firstly, our choice was inspired by the proximity between activism in Brazil and Portugal, which the language, and the historical and social relations between the two countries can explain. Furthermore, the organic relationship between the occupations in Portugal and the “occupiers” in Brazil in 2015 reinforced this affinity (^{Medeiros et al., 2019}). Secondly, the decision was reinforced by the intensity of European activism, with Lisbon setting the stage for a growing number of demonstrations. During the period of the field research, the movements engaged in calls for civil disobedience, meetings, talks and cultural activities almost daily, in various parts of the city.

During the process, the research faced challenges due to activists’ distrust in the beginning, because the government was intensifying persecution. Recently, the Portuguese government has endorsed criticism of climate activists. This was clearly the case when the education minister questioned the democratic content of occupying schools in Lisbon and the Algarve in May 2023 (^{CNN, 2023b}). During the period concerned, the public police force arrested four climate activists who were occupying the University of Lisbon, raising questions about the violence of police action (^{CNN, 2023a}). In May 2023, during the #MayWeOccupy occupations of schools and universities across Europe, Portuguese youth raised awareness for the actions of the movements studied here. These events were marked by significant online and offline mobilisation, reflecting the effervescence of youth activism in Portugal. Against this background researching climate activism in Lisbon is all the more significant. In addition, we seek to strengthen the relationship between movements on both sides of the Atlantic.

Despite the short period, the material gathered in the field includes experiences in training activities for acts of civil disobedience, in-depth interviews and conversations with active participants in social movements. The personal interviews were recorded with the consent of the activists and the questions revolved around the political objectives, visions, motivations and organising strategies of the movements. The other experiences were recorded daily in the field. To complement participant observation, we analysed public statements, social media and website posts, documents and interviews published in news outlets.

We used the technique of content analysis to process data (^{Bardin, 1977}). We developed categories/themes that capture the main aspects of the field research, such as political objectives, activists’ motivations, organising strategies, challenges faced by the movements, among others. After coding the data, we were able to perceive emerging patterns, trends and relationships between the movements and the activists.

5. “There will be no Peace Until the Last Winter of Gas”: Climate Activism in Lisbon (Portugal)

The youth climate movement in Portugal was sparked by the influential figure Greta Thunberg and leveraged by the 2019 demonstrations that gathered more than 20,000 people.

Our hypothesis is that they challenge the whole system and transcend the street demonstrations, while claiming deeper transformation of the social, political and economic structure (^{Bringel, 2021}). In addition to the dimension of the war of the worlds, which we have also analysed in part two of this article, we believe other four dimensions to these activisms are worth highlighting: a) the relationship between social and climate demands; b) a break with the fossil fuel imaginary (^{Vindel Gamonal, 2020}, p. 3); c) a debate about responsibility for the current crisis; and d) the changes in strategies over this period.

The Student Climate Strike, Climáximo and End Fossil Occupy are distinct but interconnected movements with significant roles in climate activism in Portugal. These movements work together, often collaborating to amplify their messages and raise public awareness of the climate issue. By joining forces, they seek to lobby, foster behavioural changes and hold those who contribute to climate problems accountable. Climate activism in Portugal, driven by these movements, reflects the growing concern of young people about the environment and the search for concrete solutions to global climate issues.

6. Concluding Remarks

The present article addresses the concept of the Anthropocene. As the crisis worsens, a wedge between those who deny and obstruct the climate crisis and those who are fighting for a liveable planet widens, a true war of the worlds. Climate activism, especially led by young people, stands out as a mobilising force.

In Portugal, the Student Climate Strike, Climáximo and End Fossil Occupy movements play a key role in raising public awareness and promoting change to tackle the challenges of climate change. Youth insurgence in climate action highlights not only the urgent actions required, but also the search for a fair and sustainable collective vision for the planet, breaking with the fossil fuel and neoliberal imaginary. Such efforts illustrate the vital role of young people in promoting discussions, awareness and concrete measures for tackling the climate emergency. Through their engagement young people not only claim to be heard and demand agency, but are also determined to actively shape their collective future. This engagement strengthens their political participation and underscores the importance of letting them offer effective solutions to the climate crisis.

Meanwhile, the resistance of some government sectors and the complexity of climate issues demonstrate the continuing need to press for significant changes. We conclude this study by emphasising the importance of continuing to monitor and support climate activism in Portugal. We acknowledge its role in building a more sustainable and resilient future and endeavouring to forge alliances between these movements and Brazilian activists.