2025 Elections: The symptom of a system against people and the planet
In 2025, we will once again be called to the polls by a new political crisis. This crisis is a new internal dispute to decide the speed, intensity, and form of the violence perpetrated against our lives. This violence manifests itself through evictions and deportations, new emissions projects, militarisation and fortification of borders, public policies protecting profits and the ruling classes, and catastrophes and events of unprecedented dimensions and frequency. It is a symptom of a system at war with people and the planet.
The political instability in Portugal is not a coincidence. It is embedded in a context of global and European instability, in which the elites, confronted with the beginning of a new climate order, no longer understand each other. As always, it is we, the ordinary people, who suffer the consequences. Just look at the imperialist agreement to divide Ukraine’s resources, Von der Leyen’s proposal to invest in weapons of war and militarisation while disinvesting in a just energy transition, or the rise of the far right in several countries, and the widespread support of elites for the genocidal Zionist government.
Let’s not fool ourselves: we can only curb the rise of fascism, authoritarianism, militarisation, and avoid collapse if we pull the emergency brake on the climate crisis. There will be no peace or stability of any kind without carbon neutrality and without ending the use of fossil fuels by 2030 in countries of the global north, such as Portugal.
Is it still possible to stop the climate crisis?
Yes, it is still possible to curb the climate crisis and stay below the 1.5ºC warming safety barrier defined by science.
Starting with the basics, it is necessary to curb the increase in emissions. This implies not proceeding with new projects that increase emissions – gas pipelines, airports, etc. – and ceasing to invest in and finance the fossil fuel industry with public money. There are also several measures that can be implemented immediately, without impacting people’s lives and without entailing a serious social transformation, but which allow us to put a brake on the increase in emissions: stopping luxury emissions, ending, among other things, the use of private jets, and ending emissions from consumption without social utility and with a large impact in terms of emissions, freshwater consumption, and destruction of territories and ecosystems, for example by banning cruises, useless “surprising gifts”, golf courses, and Lisbon-Porto flights. To make these cuts possible, we need to prioritize life over profit and have a political system, institutions, and public spaces free from fossil fuel interests, focusing all institutions on the pressing task of halting climate collapse.
We need not only to ensure that there is no increase in emissions, but also a substantial reduction (80% or more) in greenhouse gas emissions, so that we can achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 in Portugal. This implies a major transformation of the production model, industrial processes, how we produce and use energy, the transport system, and the agricultural production model, the food system, forest management, and waste management. For this change to happen, much of the work in society must have this purpose. We must create thousands of decent jobs, democratically managed for the climate and society – Climate Jobs. Beyond this, we must immediately abandon free trade and investment treaties that prevent people from making decisions in the best interests of life and people if these decisions go against the profits of the top 1% of the population.
To achieve this change resiliently, while already facing extreme weather events, we must ensure that everyone has a home, starting by immediately halting evictions and deportations, which exacerbate the effects of the climate crisis on people’s lives. Guaranteed access to healthy food, as well as energy autonomy and self-sufficiency, are equally necessary.
Furthermore, even if Portugal were to achieve carbon neutrality today, we would remain on track for climate collapse through the perpetuation of fossil fuel colonialism and investment in the military-industrial complex. There is no way to end this declared war on life without dismantling these systems of oppression.
The costs of this transition must, of course, be paid by those who were and are responsible for creating and perpetuating this crisis – CEOs, shareholders, etc. Decisions about this process should be in the hands of the people, not corporations.
These are the basic measures needed to halt the climate crisis from a perspective of climate and social justice. What do the parties’ platforms say?
In the face of climate collapse, what do electoral programmes have to offer?
In these legislative elections, which will take place 14 months after the previous ones, the political parties with parliamentary seats promise to present political programmes that are as, or even more, perpetuating of the climate and social crisis than the previous programs. We have once again analyzed the political programs of these parties. We conduct this analysis starting from the realism imposed on us by the collapse that is precipitating upon us.
What kind of realism is this? By recognizing the state of climate emergency in which we live, and realizing that governments and companies have consciously and deliberately brought us here, we arrive at a “realism” quite different from the one most frequently referenced.
Starting from “reality”, in this case, has two meanings, which become clearer if we resort to analogies to analyse what is at stake. On the one hand, we cannot defend public policies that contradict the law of gravity simply because we think that “the people don’t understand” (elitism disguised as realism), as this would lead to the collapse of the entire society. On the other hand, we also couldn’t reject the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic simply because we conducted a survey and people didn’t consider it a priority. This could lead to the contagion of entire populations, and particularly affect the most vulnerable sectors.
With the climate crisis, the situation is much more serious. We are living in a context of civilisational collapse, and the debate is whether this will become irreversible, or whether we will stop it in time. This anxiety and anguish are the “realism” from which we start.
In the electoral context, starting from reality instead of from the currently available options allows us to analyze the state we are in with much more clarity.
We analyzed the electoral programs, not in comparison to each other, but rather between what they propose and the minimum requirements for a habitable planet. The results are frightening, depressing, and alarming.
The Electoral Programmes
Assuming that the political parties would follow their electoral platform, the objective is to understand the level of compatibility of the programs with climate justice and with the goals established by science and the Earth’s limits.
To analyse each party’s plans, we looked at the following parameters:
Necessary measures: we analysed the capacity of the measures presented, if implemented, to guarantee the necessary emission cuts and/or social, political, and production transformations.
Implementation plans: everyone is tired of empty words. The transformation needed by 2030 implies the presentation of concrete plans. We analysed the plans presented in the programs, looking for everything from vague mentions of intentions of commitment or action to the presentation of clear implementation plans showing how the candidates propose to guarantee their commitments within the framework of social justice.
Timelines: Presenting plans to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 or 2040 when we know that between 2026 and 2035 Portugal will emit all the CO2 it is entitled to until 2100 is to guarantee climate collapse. We analysed the presented timelines based on the criterion of their climate realism and compatibility with the non-negotiable goal of carbon neutrality by 2030 in Portugal.
Therefore, we created the following spectrum:
Then, we analysed 5 big areas where we must act: Decarbonise; Fossil-free Society; Decisions made by the people for the people; Shelter for all people
Decarbonise – Carbon Neutrality until 2030
In Portugal, it is necessary to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030, meaning cutting at least 85% of national emissions by 2030. Currently, the technically most difficult emissions to cut are those from waste and industrial processes, such as steel and cement production. Even reducing emissions from these sectors by half, their sum is equivalent to about 11% of Portugal’s emissions. Thus, it is necessary to implement drastic cuts in the remaining sectors – particularly in transport and energy – by 2030.
To understand each party’s decarbonisation plans, we analysed the following areas:
New projects: ensuring that no more public money is invested, just as projects that will lead to increased emissions, such as a new airport, more gas pipelines, or more highways, are not advanced.
Luxury emissions: this includes emissions for which only a small part of society is responsible, but whose impact is immense, such as private jets, yachts, and luxury cars.
Transport: currently the sector with the greatest impact. We separated the analysis into land, sea, and air transport. In land transport, we analysed measures focused on public and electric transport, light mobility, and a reduction in individual car use; and on reducing transport chains. In maritime transport, we examined measures concerning cruises and the maritime fleet. In aviation, we presented measures for a significant reduction in flight volume, with a decrease in commercial aviation.
Electricity: ending the use of gas and any other fossil fuels, and converting all electricity production in Portugal to renewable energies, making the necessary adaptations to the grid and ceasing imports of electricity produced from fossil fuels from other countries.
Energy Sufficiency: measures that allow for managing the production of goods and services focusing on what is truly necessary for society, excluding all unnecessary expenses (namely, in Artificial Intelligence).
Buildings: measures related to energy efficiency in public buildings and people’s homes, such as energy autonomy; and the recovery of the existing building stock and a reduction in new constructions.
Industry: Measures that enable industrial transformation towards decarbonization, whether in high-temperature furnaces or chemical processes.
Agriculture and livestock: Measures to reduce livestock farming, increase the resilience of agroecosystems and food systems to shocks and extreme events, and increase resource use efficiency.
Food System: Measures that enable a zero-emission food system and food accessible to all people.
Waste: Measures related to waste management and reduction (e.g., curbing planned obsolescence and disposable consumption, investing in repair and reuse).
Forests and firefighting: Measures to curb deforestation, increase forest resilience, and reduce fires in forest areas and forest plantations.
Fossil colonialism: When colonialist armies and bureaucrats left the countries of the Global South, their companies remained to continue the extractive economic model and the flow of resources from the Global South to the Global North. We have a responsibility that is not only historical but also current, with GALP extracting and producing fossil fuels in Mozambique, Angola, and Brazil. Sending our emissions to other countries is unacceptable. Consenting to current colonialism is unacceptable.
Eis o resultado:
Programmes from all candidates have different proposals, but none have the intention, even less a plan, to reach carbon neutrality by 2030.
Fossil-free Society
To achieve emissions cuts and implement the necessary transformations, the power of the fossil fuel industry must no longer be in decision-making rooms, education, culture, and sports, and we must be able to make decisions for the people. For this, we need a fossil-free society.
Fossil-free politics, institutions, and public spaces: It has proven impossible to make decisions for life and not for profit while the companies, CEOs, and shareholders who profit from social crises are seated at the table in political processes, courts, and other institutions. It is equally necessary to stop all advertising and sponsorships that legitimise the fossil fuel market and transmit misinformation in all public spaces, such as television, radio, social media, schools and universities, streets and roads, concerts, theatres, museums, and football stadiums. This is an immediate step we must take to allow life to be prioritised over profit.
Stopping public investments in fossil fuels: Currently, the Portuguese state spends €3.3 million per day on subsidies for fossil fuels. This investment must be stopped immediately and reallocated to halt the climate crisis, ending all public investment in fossil fuels.
Withdrawing from free trade and investment agreements: To make decisions that prioritise the interests of the people over the profits of a few companies, we need to liberate ourselves and reject anti-democratic mechanisms such as ISDS (Integrated Trade and Investment Settlement) for resolving trade disputes and treaties that serve exclusively the interests of multinational corporations against the population. Measures are needed to reject future agreements and to reject current agreements.
Here is the result:
Decisions by the people, to the people
Stopping the climate crisis is only possible if decisions are made with a focus on life and people instead of profit. Given that companies aim to maximise profit for their shareholders and remain competitive, they will not prioritise life over profit. Thus, the decisions, management, and implementation to curb the climate crisis must be made by people and for people.
Climate Jobs: To implement the necessary transformations in the required timeframe, it is essential to create thousands of new public sector jobs in key sectors for the transition. At this point, we analyse whether there are plans for the creation of Climate Jobs, the proposed timelines, and the sectors involved.
Purposeful Jobs: All people must be actively involved in tackling the climate crisis and have time to participate in political decisions and local implementations. Therefore, we analyse whether there are measures to ensure that jobs have a purpose, are dignified, and whether there is a reduction in working hours to allow people to be active outside the workplace.
Managing the transition by and for the people: GALP cannot manage the energy transition because its interest will always be profit, an interest opposed to the end of fossil fuels and reparations for workers and communities. Therefore, the coordination and management of the transition must be done by and for the people. There are several ways to do this. Here we analyse whether the candidates present measures in this direction, particularly for the energy, transport, and industry sectors.
The 1% pays: If oil companies and the ultra-rich have profited from the climate collapse so far, then they must pay the costs of a just transition. We analyse the situation and there are measures that allow for this redistribution.
Here is the result:
The parties do not take it as their responsibility to ensure that the transition happens.
Shelter for all people
Everyone has an undeniable right to housing and land – these are a basic condition for survival. Removing people from where they live and leaving them at the mercy of climate change is an act against life and implies consciously condemning people to death and suffering.
Stop deportations & freedom of movement for all: At a time when there are tens of millions of climate refugees, and knowing that this number will increase to one billion before 2050, it is necessary to stop deportations. Most migrants do not see themselves as climate refugees, but many are escaping the consequences of the collapse: lack of water and food, increased repression and physical and sexual violence, political and social conflicts, among others. We cannot condemn them to the social, economic, political or climate conditions from which they were escaping. We analyse whether measures to stop deportations and measures regarding migration are being considered.
Stop evictions & guarantee housing for all: Living in a climate crisis means living in the face of environmental, political and social upheavals. Evicting people from their homes, communities, or wherever they live exposes them to floods, heat waves, social conflict, and precarious living conditions. Here we analyse measures to immediately stop evictions in Portugal, as well as whether there are measures to guarantee safe and dignified shelter for all people that do not involve uncontrolled construction expansion.
Stopping the violence of the military-industrial complex: This is an industry whose objective is to subjugate and impose forms of oppression such as colonialist and racist exploitation, both in our communities and at our borders – being responsible for a considerable share of global emissions. In the midst of the climate crisis, projects like Frontex send thousands of people to their deaths. We analyse the support given or not given and measures to address the challenges presented by the climate crisis differently.
Here are the results:
Despite some measures presented, these fall short of what is currently needed in the face of the climate crisis.
What says each political party
AD proposes, without specifying, "achieving carbon neutrality by 2050," twenty years later than necessary, reiterating the "mantra" of competitiveness and the voluntary carbon market. So disconnected from reality is it that, in its "20 emblematic measures”, the climate crisis is not mentioned in any of them.
It focuses on infrastructure investment and fossil gas markets, aiming for only 51% of gross final energy consumption to be renewable by 2030 – leaving the remaining 49% to be reached. This measure demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of Portugal's carbon budget, namely the need to begin emission cuts as quickly as possible, gradually but decisively, in order to achieve at least 80% reductions by 2030. The target for reducing fossil gas is equally ridiculous: using biomethane, it proposes replacing only 10% of fossil gas consumption in Portugal by 2030. In a country where more than half of electricity needs are met by renewable energy, this target falls far short. Furthermore, they propose promoting gas transport and distribution infrastructure "necessary for the evolution of supply and demand" – therefore, increasing emissions and further burying the current economy in the domain of fossil fuels.
They want to increase aviation and are proud of having taken a step forward in the new airport project, a carbon bomb that goes in the opposite direction to where we need to go. They also support lithium prospecting.
The measures for energy efficiency and sufficiency are very vague, mentioning support and "entrepreneurship" in Artificial Intelligence. Regarding the reduction of building emissions and the fight against energy poverty, the stated measures are nothing more than brief and vague mentions whose logic leans towards "energy literacy for the Portuguese" and "promotion", rather than guaranteeing it.
In relation to industry, they support the acquisition of CO2 emission allowances by companies – something we have known for decades does not yield any results in reducing emissions.
They affirm the need to improve the public transport network but present no concrete measures in this regard, being ridiculously vague.
In the agricultural sector, they defend the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy, and in the forestry sector, they want to invest in biomass (i.e., burning more forest and increasing greenhouse gas emissions) on an industrial scale.
They advocate for increased investment in the military-industrial complex, fossil fuel colonialism, and the building of borders, including the construction of new detention centres for migrants, increased participation in NATO and FRONTEX international missions, and support for free trade agreements such as Mercosur, among others.
They make an extremely vague mention of the need for a just energy transition and the creation of climate-related jobs, always from the perspective of the market and what is advantageous to companies. Measures regarding the improvement of working conditions are minimal (they do not advocate for reduced hours, the increase in the minimum wage is incredibly unambitious, etc.). They advocate for reducing corporate tax rates for companies, in the opposite direction to the need for the top 1% to pay for the just energy transition.
Their solutions to the housing crisis are vague and based on "trust" in the market and rampant construction.
In short, their measures are proposed only for those companies and capital that fuel injustice, misery, and the collapse of the planet – a continuation and aggravation of the war against people and the planet that governments and corporations have declared.
We haven't changed our analysis of the Bloco de Esquerda's program, as it remains the same since the last legislative elections.
The Bloco de Esquerda proposes abandoning the carbon trading model and imposing mandatory emission cuts for countries, for each sector of activity, and for polluting companies. However, it does not define the level of cuts to be made in Portugal. It proposes creating a general inspectorate to monitor the 50% reduction in emissions from the industrial sectors with the highest emissions. However, it does not present deadlines for these cuts (should we assume it will be in 2028?). It presents measures for fire prevention, including controlled burns, decarbonisation of the maritime fleet, and a reduction in cruises, but does not provide implementation deadlines. It proposes expanding and electrifying the railway by 2040 and increasing its use for passengers and cargo by up to 40%, restricting car traffic in central areas of large cities, increasing solar capacity, banning private jets, and electrifying cruise ships. It does not present a plan for phasing out fossil fuels from electricity production and supports the construction of a new airport in Alcochete, a railway bridge over the Tagus River (to ensure accessibility to this new airport), and the construction of more roads to complete the national road network.
It is noteworthy that it proposes "job creation in sectors that reduce emissions”, and the creation of a "National Program for a Just Transition, with social support and training so that workers in polluting industries that have to be closed can use their knowledge and experience in low-carbon companies" and recover public sovereignty over the energy sector. However, it does not present plans or deadlines for these. At the same time, it presents measures to tax the excessive profits of oil companies, as well as taxing ill-got profits and imposing a solidarity tax on large fortunes. Finally, it advocates for an end to forced evictions and demolitions for discriminated communities in Portugal and combating evictions in general if the person has no other home to go to.
It is important to note that this analysis was based on the program of the Partido Comunista Português (PCP), since this appears to be the central document of the CDU candidacy.
The PCP program does not prioritise tackling the climate crisis or a just energy transition for this term. Its emissions reduction targets are vague (not even defining a specific goal), it supports the construction of new emitting projects, including a new airport (a project that will greatly increase greenhouse gas emissions in the country and, therefore, a step in the opposite direction to where we need to go), and it also mentions the need to prospect for energy “resources” off the coast of Portugal, dangerously opening the door to the revival of plans for fossil fuel exploration – after they were defeated and buried by the climate justice movement.
It presents several measures to strengthen the supply of public transport, democratically managed and free throughout the territory, lacking only more concrete plans for the implementation of measures such as the electrification of the railway network. However, there are measures aimed at increasing road infrastructure that would contribute to increased emissions.
There is no mention of creating a climate jobs plan or reorienting work to address the climate crisis, the historic task that falls to today's society. However, there are concrete and extensive plans to combat precarious employment and improve working conditions for workers, aiming for decent and purposeful jobs, valuing professionals in the public and essential sectors, and advocating for reduced working hours and increased days off.
In the industrial sector, there is no mention of concrete steps towards decarbonising industrial sectors. In the agriculture and food sectors, despite the defence of family farming, there is no perspective on reducing greenhouse gas emissions or adapting to climate disasters. In the forestry sector, although the minimum necessary measures are mentioned, concrete, ambitious plans with implementation plans are lacking.
The program advocates divestment from the violent military-industrial complex and an approach to foreign relations that prioritises the sovereignty of peoples over their territories, with a strong and concrete anti-militarist component that defends, like the Disarmament Plan, not a single cent more for imperialist wars. It is difficult to understand what cooperative and just relations between peoples would be under the aegis of the fossil fuel empire and, as such, the PCP's program lacks measures to remove GALP and other Portuguese fossil fuel companies from countries of the Global South, respecting the free self-determination of peoples' resources within the limits imposed by science and climate justice – which, in less developed countries, has longer deadlines than in more developed countries. They do, however, present a measure that advocates debt cancellation.
The program also presents several concrete measures within deadlines for public housing, but it lacks any concrete plan to guarantee ambitious energy efficiency standards in homes that simultaneously combat energy poverty and the climate crisis. It is not very clear what the measure to repeal the Evictions Act would mean, but there seems to be no indication of a policy that would immediately and completely halt all evictions.
Finally, it presents measures to nationalise strategic energy companies and regain public control over key sectors, but without any plan regarding the need to stop using fossil fuels – particularly fossil gas – by 2030.
The IL (Iniciativa Liberal) incorporates the language of green capitalism and the absolute market without subterfuge, proposing that the production and consumption of electricity in the country double by 2050, through a "highway" for private investment in the creation of energy infrastructure.
It intends to achieve carbon neutrality 20 years too late, in 2050, through carbon capture, synthetic fuels, pretending that fossil gas is a green gas, wanting to bet on lithium mining and deep-sea exploration, and opening doors for investment in nuclear energy. The need for cuts will thus be solved, it seems, in a magic trick through the voluntary carbon market and the Environmental Fund to invent technologies that do not exist.
It proposes payment for ecosystem services, the creation of public irrigation, and the privatisation of water and forests. It also proposes incentives for monoculture/large-scale agriculture and New Genomic Techniques, and encourages luxury goods.
IL supports Free Trade and Investment Treaties, stating that “a trade agreement with MERCOSUR is a priority for Portugal, as is the creation of ties with the recently established African Continental Free Trade Area”, and also wants to establish agreements with the United States, which were cancelled after years of pressure from citizens and local communities who opposed them.
Finally, it wants to increase militarisation, reinforce borders with violence, and rejects “populist or arbitrary interventions in corporate profits”, while also wanting GALP and other companies contributing to the climate crisis to be exempt from taxes.
The Livre party proposes that all budget proposals include a climate assessment and that electricity be 100% renewable by 2030.
It proposes a ban on the sale of internal combustion engine cars from 2030 onwards, focusing on railways and light mobility. It sets a target of reducing national emissions by 65% by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2040, proposing a study of nuclear options to achieve this. However, it does not clearly oppose the construction of the gas pipeline nor does it mention when the use of fossil fuels will cease. It proposes a reduction in energy consumption and the creation of a "public company focused on promoting renewable energies and managing a national sustainable public transport network". Its position regarding the construction of a new airport in Lisbon is not entirely clear, proposing, without specifying, limitations on air transport and taxation of private jets. It presents measures to suspend evictions and improve access to housing.
They advocate for increased spending and more flexible budgetary rules for security and defence.
Finally, they intend to combat environmental or social "dumping" in other countries, and "humanise the common European asylum system" by ending illegal returns, among other measures.
The Partido Socialista programme maintains the language used in previous mandates, proposing, without quantification, an insufficient revision of the PNEC 2030 (National Energy and Climate Plan 2030), the implementation of the Framework Law on Climate, and the creation of a national emissions inventory.
It promises to reduce energy intensity by 2% by 2030 but bets heavily on Artificial Intelligence (AI); promotes enormous private investment in renewables, but without real targets for cuts in fossil fuel emissions, pointing towards expansion instead of energy transition.
It does not indicate the fate of fossil gas infrastructure, which is encouraged without subterfuge through the promotion of "renewable gases" (where fossil gas is included, despite not being renewable) and hydrogen.
It proposes increasing emissions with the construction of a new airport in Lisbon, airport expansions, and a third crossing of the Tagus River. It maintains the proposal for aviation expansion, also proposing the construction of more roads and highways, the promotion of the voluntary carbon market, and the construction of a new gas pipeline.
It presents interesting measures regarding worker training and job creation, but fails to guarantee Climate Jobs, from the perspective of emissions reduction and public services, by allocating funds to companies that are killing us and that have already demonstrated, in various ways – such as the closure of coal-fired power plants – that they will not carry out socially just energy transitions.
Finally, it intends to invest in the military industry, especially in prioritising resources to guarantee supply chains and energy availability, ignoring the colonialism and violence occurring in those locations.
The PAN (Pessoas-Animais-Natureza party) has brought forward its carbon neutrality target to 2040, still ten years too late; and proposes that electricity be 100% renewable by 2035, also 10 years too late.
Regarding buildings and energy poverty, it proposes eradicating energy poverty by 2030 – a target within the deadlines, but lacking concrete implementation plans based on the public sector.
It proposes an earlier reduction in livestock emissions to 50% by 2030, as well as some key measures for reducing emissions in the food sector. It focuses on agroecology and various measures to adapt agriculture to the climate crisis, but lacks clearer implementation plans and a guarantee of public canteens for all people.
It presents several measures for reducing and managing resources, particularly in waste management and from the perspective of forest regeneration and fire prevention, but does not establish many deadlines or concrete objectives.
The party proposes free monthly public transport passes by 2029 and an unquantified expansion of public transport and rail, as well as the electrification of the entire rail network and incentives for light mobility.
Despite measures to reduce night flights, PAN agrees with the construction of the new airport.
When it comes to a just energy transition for the economy, PAN's measures seem to be based on faith in the voluntary carbon market and businesses, lacking concrete plans that place social justice at the centre.
It has several measures aimed at making the top 1% pay, but they are still unambitious in scope and timelines.
Finally, it presents measures to curb evictions in certain situations (but not all); it has a vague migration policy and proposes guaranteeing the non-deportation of people in certain situations (although non-deportation should be guaranteed in all situations); and it also proposes redirecting part of the defence investment to essential public infrastructure.
Chega is a neo-fascist and racist party that makes no secret of its aspirations for policies that promote war, the construction of walls and borders, the defence of private property at the expense of collective needs and rights such as housing, and, of course, accelerating the climate crisis.
They propose the use of nuclear energy, biomass, fossil gas, and, of course, have no target or deadline for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. They want to move forward with new projects that increase emissions, namely the new airport, lithium mining, and the creation of a "lithium industrial cluster" in Sines. They aim to expand aviation, as well as the "competitiveness" of ports. They also propose the development of projects for the use of Artificial Intelligence.
Their political proposals run counter to respect for life: they want to increase militarisation and the budget for the military-industrial complex and the police, hinder the entry of people seeking a better life in the country, eliminate rent freezes, simplify evictions, and guarantee the defence of private property.
Chega's language regarding sovereignty and energy transition is a farce that runs counter to the energy sovereignty they claim to value by investing directly in more fossil fuels, such as gas.
Despite proclaiming themselves "anti-establishment”, Chega and the far-right are the worst reflection of the capitalist system. With the worsening climate crisis and material scarcity, fascism is finding fertile ground to grow. Only by curbing the climate crisis within the timeframes of science and anchored in a perspective of global climate justice can we stop the rise of the far-right.
IN THE MIDST OF A CLIMATE CRISIS, NO POLITICAL PARTY OPPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW AIRPORT.
When we say that “only popular climate resistance can stop climate collapse”, this is not a slogan or a soundbyte. It is a sober conclusion from the analysis of the current, factual, and observable situation we are experiencing.
The reality is that no political party has a program that aims to halt climate collapse, guaranteeing the end of the fossil fuel economy by 2030. In fact, all of them – for better or worse – are accelerating the path to the climate abyss.
There is a frightening parliamentary consensus on wanting to build new mega-radiation projects, with the construction of a new airport being a glaring example. This consensus is frightening but symptomatic of the structural incapacity of parliament and current institutions to halt the collapse.
Investing in the construction of a new airport is an act of violence that steals human capacity, resources, and investment from the energy transition and the implementation of a free, renewable public transport network that truly serves the people.
A new airport coming into operation over the next decade represents a substantial obstacle to the necessary effort to cut emissions that climate science demands of Portugal. A project like the new airport represents a programmatic denial of the climate emergency, even by parties that claim to be concerned about and acknowledge the climate crisis. And the parliamentary agreement on a project like the new airport is a clear demonstration of the willingness of all parties to fail at international agreements and commitments to emissions cuts (which were already quite insufficient), and to take the helm in perpetuating the climate war.
How much longer will we watch the collapse, occasionally putting a vote in the ballot box?
In 2024, curbing the climate crisis wasn’t on the ballot. In 2025, it won’t be either. How much longer will we wait? How much longer will we watch the collapse unfold, occasionally casting a vote?
With 5 years to change everything, entrusting our lives to the ballot box is suicide. We, ordinary people, must be the ones to achieve the transformations we know are urgent and activate the emergency brake.
The Disarmament and Peace Plan is the only plan we know of so far that is anchored in climate reality and proposes to transform society on the necessary scale, always within the perspective of climate and social justice.
We have a Plan, we know what the alternative to collapse is and how to get out of this crisis. Now, we need to fight for it.
June 1st: popular sit-in at the airport!
Faced with the collapse of this system and the failure of electoral politics to address the climate crisis, we need to build the power and strength of truly popular democracy to guarantee a just and habitable planet.
Lisbon Airport is Portugal’s most polluting infrastructure. Amidst the climate crisis, no political party opposes the expansion of aviation through the construction of a new airport.
On June 1st, we will demonstrate that democracy must be practiced in the streets, not just at the ballot box.
Regardless of who forms a government, one thing is certain: stopping the climate crisis is not part of their electoral program. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.
Join us on June 1st, meeting at 3 pm at Alameda D. Afonso Henriques for a popular uprising at the airport to halt the climate crisis, stop the planes, and provide more public transportation for the people.