The actions of the Last Generation group, based on civil disobedience, are attracting increasing attention from the media and society. In this article, I will present an analysis of their argumentation, which I call the escalation ladder, and compare it with reality. I will also show how the group measures its effectiveness and why their German prototype - Letzte Generation - has practically ceased to exist in its original form.

From Road Blocks to Philharmonic - Anatomy of Protest

Activists from the Last Generation group are known for various actions - from road blockades to sprinkling food dyes on monuments. One of their most notable actions was interrupting a symphony concert at the National Philharmonic celebrating Antoni Wit’s 80th birthday and 60 years of artistic work. Their actions, characteristically, are designed to be as controversial as possible and maximize media attention.

The group argues that the immediate cause of their actions is the crisis and lack of government action. However, the activists present only two surprisingly limited demands: immediate redirection of funds from highway construction to public transport and the introduction of a monthly ticket for 50 PLN. In their open letter to Prime Minister Tusk, they present an ultimatum: meet the demands by the local elections or face escalation of protests.

As we can read in LG’s manifesto published on their website:

We have a serious transportation problem. In the last 20 years, road transport emissions in Poland have increased by 77%. This is the sector with the fastest growing greenhouse gas emissions, when they should already be decreasing. We demand that the government seriously address this issue - both for the climate and, above all, for the people, as millions of Poles struggle with transport exclusion. The government is planning a gigantic highway expansion, while we should be going in exactly the opposite direction - toward public transport, not just in large cities. We demand that 100% of funds planned for new highways be transferred to public transport and a monthly ticket for 50 PLN for regional transport throughout the country (LG press release).

Following this line, LG employs a perverse tactic - they seemingly present minimalist demands (a 50 PLN ticket), but their implementation would require striking at a segment that, as they themselves point out, is developing very strongly. This is no coincidence - under the guise of a modest demand, they want to strike at one of the fundamentals of an economy based on road transport. Making such demands by a politician can therefore be either an act of great courage (because they understand the systemic consequences) or great naivety (if they believe it’s “just” a matter of shifting funds).

Open Letter to the Polish People - Anatomy of Inconsistency

The evolution of LG’s message is particularly visible in their online communication. As recently as early December, their website contained only two press quotes and a payment form. Only after a series of high-profile actions did an Open Letter to Fellow Citizens appear, which however reveals fundamental inconsistencies in their narrative archived version - Last Generation’s Letter to Fellow Citizens.

The most striking aspect of the letter is the disproportion between the dramatic diagnosis and the proposed solutions. On one hand, they speak of a catastrophe on the scale of war damage (invoking the Marshall Plan), on the other - their demands are limited to, among other things, a 50 PLN ticket. Instead of substantive discussion about climate change, they focus on justifying their methods of action. They declare a willingness for dialogue while simultaneously presenting an ultimatum and threatening to escalate protests.

What’s particularly disturbing is that the entire letter exudes a sense of higher awareness and conviction about the right to break rules in the name of higher necessity. They reduce a complex systemic problem (which I will discuss in detail in the context of a fossil fuel-based economy and GDP) to the issue of public transport, ignoring fundamental economic and social challenges. I will discuss the matter of their media presence and how they measure the effectiveness of their actions in a separate chapter.

Last Generation’s Argumentation - Escalation Ladder and Eristic Analysis

Analyzing the statements of Last Generation representatives, particularly Łukasz Stanek on TOKFM and in other interviews, one can clearly see a schematic structure in their argumentation. This “escalation ladder” serves to gradually justify increasingly radical forms of protest. Let’s examine its elements:

STEP 1 - Building the Foundation for Argumentation

1. Starting Point: Climate Crisis is a Real Threat:

• Activists emphasize that the climate crisis is not an abstract threat but a real phenomenon whose effects we are experiencing today.
• They point to extreme weather events, such as heat waves, hailstorms, and floods, that threaten human health and life.
• They argue that the lack of decisive action from those in power leads to crisis escalation and deepening of its effects.

2. Establishing the Ineffectiveness of Traditional Methods:

• Last Generation claims that traditional forms of protest, such as demonstrations, petitions, or appeals to politicians, have proven ineffective. They refer not to their own actions but to those of other activists and scientists.
• They cite the example of scientist James Hansen, who warned about climate change as early as the 1980s, but his appeals were ignored.
• They argue that those in power focus on maintaining power and pursuing their own interests rather than solving real problems of citizens.

After building this foundation, the activists move on to justify radical actions:

STEP 2 - Step 1 Forces Step 2

3. The Need for Radical Actions - Activists Argue That Nothing Else Works:

• In the face of government inaction and the ineffectiveness of traditional methods, Last Generation believes that radical forms of protest are necessary to create “social tension” and force action.
• Activists compare their actions to Solidarity protests, arguing that controversial methods were also used there, which ultimately led to system change.
• They claim that their goal is “destabilization of government policy” and forcing authorities to take real action in fighting the climate crisis.

4. Civil Disobedience as a Tool:

• Last Generation justifies their actions by invoking the concept of civil disobedience.
• They argue that when other democratic mechanisms fail, citizens have the right to use peaceful forms of protest, even if they are illegal.
• They emphasize the non-violent nature of their actions, distinguishing them from acts of vandalism or aggression.

Having justified their methods, LG moves on to interpret their own effectiveness:

STEP 3 - Imposing Interpretation: Effectiveness and Goals (Evaluation)

5. Effectiveness of Provocation:

• Activists are aware that their actions evoke negative emotions and are controversial, but they treat this as part of their strategy.
• They believe that provocation and creating a social crisis will force people to think about the problem of climate change and put pressure on those in power.
• They argue that media attention on their actions, even if negative, contributes to increasing social awareness about the climate crisis. I refer to the effectiveness assessment.

6. Long-term Goal: Changing Social Consciousness:

• Last Generation assumes that their radical actions, though initially meeting resistance, will in the long term lead to a change in social consciousness.
• They believe that when people experience the effects of the climate crisis firsthand, they will understand the gravity of the problem and start demanding real action from those in power.
• Their goal is to build a mass social movement that will put pressure on authorities and lead to wartime-scale mobilization in fighting the climate crisis.

This escalation ladder shows a thought-out strategy for building narrative - from problem diagnosis, through method justification, to effect interpretation. However, to fully understand its mechanism, we must look at the eristic devices being used.

Eristic Elements in LG’s Narrative

The following eristic devices not only support LG’s escalation ladder but also, in my opinion, reveal fundamental weaknesses in their strategy. Let’s examine the real limitations of this form of protest.

False Dichotomy: In their statements and constructed narratives, situations are presented as a simple choice - either radical protest actions and immediate change, or inevitable climate catastrophe. This ignores other possible courses of action and the complexity of the problem. Many climatologists point to adaptation possibilities and other scenarios.

Argumentum ad Populum: Frequent comparisons to Solidarity and other historical protest movements, intended to legitimize radical methods by referencing widely respected examples.

Argumentum ad Consequentiam: Intense fear-mongering with dramatic consequences - from floods and drought to mass extinction. Using highly emotional language to create a sense of inevitable catastrophe.

Shifting the Burden of Proof: Presenting ultimatums to authorities and transferring to them the responsibility for proving action. It’s the politicians who must demonstrate they’re doing enough, not the activists who must prove their demands are realistic.

Oversimplification and Generalizations: Reducing complex systemic problems (like energy transformation or changes in transport) to simple demands (like a 50 PLN ticket), ignoring economic and social realities.

These eristic devices support LG’s escalation ladder, allowing them to justify increasingly radical actions while simplifying real climate challenges.

Limits of Escalation?

However, the eristic devices used in their argumentation may raise doubts about their real intentions and the effectiveness of their chosen strategy. Why do I claim this?

As I pointed out in my last analysis COP29 or modifications to climate policy in the USA using Project 2025 as an example, the achievement of climate goals is far from complete, but it’s best to quote the excellent summary from Polityka’s article on climate policy:

The Emission Gap Report prepared annually by UNEP, the UN’s environmental agency, shows that we are heading toward a temperature increase of 3.1°C. And if all the climate action plans declared by countries were implemented, the temperature rise would reach 2.6°C by the end of the century. (Polityka Edition 49#2024)

Let’s also look at the costs:

As estimated by the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance in a report prepared for COP29, to achieve climate policy goals, the world should spend annually until 2030, $6.3-6.7 trillion, and after 2030, these expenditures should increase to $7-8.1 trillion annually. Developing countries need $2.4 trillion annually until 2030. Of this, $1.6 trillion for energy transformation, $250 billion for adaptation, $250 billion for loss and damage costs. Can such amounts be raised? Doubtful, considering it took years to force wealthy nations to fulfill the Copenhagen commitment from 2009, which called for an annual fund of $100 billion. (Polityka Edition 49#2024)

Finally, it’s clear that politicians are ready neither for such expenditures nor for honest discussion about limiting consumption. Maybe it will destroy some country with a hard-to-pronounce name, some island in the Pacific. Meanwhile, Edwin Bendyk writes honestly in his article:

Less radical critical voices against green transformation are being raised in many parts of the world. Prime Minister Donald Tusk has joined them, stating that the costs are too high and are killing the competitiveness of economies.

Slowing down transformation means a greater temperature increase, and thus more dangerous consequences of changes, which will translate into rising adaptation costs and damage removal. These will be too high for residents of the poorest countries, and with a temperature rise of more than 2°C, adaptation will be impossible for many of them (Polityka Edition 49#2024)

I would like to show you that LG’s reasoning is based on the assumption that their demands are feasible to implement - it’s just a matter of forcing politicians to make the right decisions. However, this is a deeply flawed assumption for two reasons. First, the current state of implementing climate goals shows how difficult (if not impossible) it is to achieve even basic assumptions. Second, we are dealing with the hypocrisy of developed countries, which seemingly meet emission standards mainly by moving ‘dirty’ production to third world countries. In this context, LG’s belief that it’s enough to force politicians to acknowledge the scale of the threat to automatically trigger the mechanism of moving funds from highways to ‘climate’ goals seems naive.

Anatomy of Letzte Generation’s Downfall - From Sympathy to Complete Failure

It’s worth examining the situation of the German Letzte Generation (LG), which serves as a model for the Polish Last Generation. What Polish media are reluctant to report is the practical cessation of LG’s activities at the end of last year. Moreover, their twin organization in Austria dissolved already in August.

The story of LG’s downfall is particularly instructive, and I heard about this in a podcast where a protest researcher spoke, and it can be read in an article in Gazeta Wyborcza (see sources). Initially, the activists garnered some public sympathy, but the patience of Germans heading to work had its limits. On social media, particularly on YouTube, Twitter, and TikTok, videos where frustrated drivers forcibly removed protesters from streets and physical altercations occurred gained increasing popularity. This was the first signal of losing public support.

The turning point came with the escalation of legal actions. This summer, a Berlin court issued an unprecedented verdict - 16 months of unconditional imprisonment for one of the activists. Significantly, prosecutors began charging activists with participation in an organized criminal group - charges previously reserved for criminal organizations. Many activists turned out to be unemployed individuals living on benefits, so due to dozens of pending cases, they completely withdrew from activity.

Following this trend further, we see that LG’s latest actions already showed clear signs of breakdown. This spring, activists didn’t even try to glue themselves to the asphalt. They limited themselves to walking in circles on streets. This symbolic descent from the “escalation ladder” best shows how the movement lost its momentum and faith in its own effectiveness. Interestingly, information about this process is very slowly penetrating Polish social consciousness.

This story shows us two key aspects: first, how quickly social support can be lost through radical actions, and second, how effectively the state can discourage this form of protest. However, the most important conclusion is different. A consumption-based society is not ready for radical change to its foundations, even in the face of climate catastrophe. The Polish branch of LG seems to not notice this lesson, repeating the same mistakes that led to the downfall of their German inspirers. This is surprising, as the activists themselves, coming from the middle class, seem not to notice that they are fighting not so much for the climate as for preserving their own lifestyle in the face of coming changes. Instead of stomping their feet, perhaps it’s worth honestly admitting that their demands and strategies are as superficial as the society they criticize?

Measuring LG’s Success, or Creative Accounting of Activism

Last Generation presents data on their website meant to demonstrate the effectiveness of their actions. They present three key indicators: 694 media articles since the beginning of the campaign, 17 “civil resistance” actions, and the media reach value estimated at 23.3 million złoty. These numbers might make a very good impression at first glance, but upon closer analysis, in my opinion, they reveal a fundamental problem in the approach to measuring the effectiveness of activist actions.

Firstly, the mere number of media publications says nothing about their tone or real impact on climate awareness. It’s like measuring a website’s success solely by the number of visits, ignoring whether users actually engaged with the content, understood it, and changed their attitudes. Paradoxically, negative publications criticizing LG’s actions are counted here as success.

Secondly, the media reach value of 23.3 million złoty is a classic example of confusing visibility with effectiveness. If such an approach were applied to the business world, it would be equivalent to judging a company’s success by the number of ad impressions rather than actual sales or changes in consumer behavior. In the case of climate activism, what should be key is real increase in ecological awareness and change in social attitudes, not mere media presence.

Symptomatically, the presented statistics lack any indicators concerning real impact on climate policy or society’s ecological awareness. This shows that the organization focuses more on generating media buzz than on actual effectiveness in achieving declared goals related to preventing climate catastrophe.

It’s also worth adding that journalists and activists themselves, when discussing road blockades, often commented on the authorities’ aggressive reaction to protests by comparing their protests to farmers’ protests. The problem is that farmers protest in a way that directly relates to their source of income and their industry (e.g., blocking food transport). They usually have concrete, measurable demands concerning their industry. I leave the legitimization of protests through reference to analogies with other groups or large movements like Solidarity to the reader’s judgment.

TVP3 Warsaw versus Last Generation - Censorship Attempt or Defense Against an “Event”?

I also can’t fail to mention an interesting case of the relationship between media and climate activism. It is outrageous but signals a broader trend. It occurred with the decision of TVP3 Warsaw’s director, Jakub Sito, who banned mentioning the name Last Generation in the station’s materials. According to the director, the station should only inform about the effects of protests, emphasizing their illegal nature.

It doesn’t take great expertise to assess that this decision is problematic for several reasons. First, it encroaches on the judiciary’s competence by arbitrarily determining the legality of activists’ actions. Second, it contradicts basic principles of access to information in a democratic state. This is particularly significant in the context of the court ruling referenced in the appendix below, which recognized LG’s actions as a form of civil disobedience.

Paradoxically, however, TVP3’s decision may unintentionally support the criticism of LG’s actions that I presented earlier. If the activists’ main goal is generating media buzz (as suggested by their own success metrics), then refusing to use the group’s name strikes exactly at this aspect of their strategy. This shows a certain dissonance - on one hand, LG needs media to build recognition, on the other hand, media may decide they don’t want to be used for this purpose. Nevertheless, we still have a discussion about law, limits of activism, and not the most important issue, which is climate.

In my opinion, regardless of motivation, TVP3’s action remains a form of censorship and selective information transmission, which undermines journalistic standards and trust in public media. This is an example of how attempting to counter ’event-based’ activism can lead to abuses by public institutions whose trust was being rebuilt after the Law and Justice government period.

Summary: What Are We Really Fighting For?

Looking at and analyzing Last Generation’s actions raises a fundamental question: is it really about saving the planet, or perhaps about preserving a comfortable, consumerist lifestyle? Activists invoke the good of future generations, but their demands (like a 50 PLN ticket) are disproportionate to the scale of threats they themselves talk about. It’s like suggesting a Band-Aid for a broken leg.

Tomasz Borejza aptly put it in his text “Last Generation Paves Hell with Good Intentions”:

The situation in Poland today is such that the environmental movement needs primarily two things. First, support from ordinary people. Second, self-reflection and listening to social moods. What Last Generation does undermines the last remnants of sympathy and shows a lack of capacity for self-reflection.

LG’s actions paradoxically harm the climate cause on several levels:

• They divert attention from real problems, focusing discussion on forms of protest and legal frameworks of protest
• They antagonize society against climate activism and ecology
• They fail to notice already implemented programs and actions (such as thermal modernization programs)
• They legitimize radicalization without evidence of its effectiveness

This is particularly evident in the statements of LG’s parent-activists. On one hand, they dramatically ask “What will you answer when asked what you did to stop the catastrophe?”, on the other hand, their demands are limited to a 50 PLN ticket. Łukasz Stanek, one of the movement’s leaders, talks about his son learning three languages, adding bitterly that it’s “probably just to communicate in a climate refugee camp.” This is telling - even in the vision of catastrophe, concern for maintaining a certain status (learning three languages) shows through more than a real attempt to change the system.

Everyone probably asks themselves the question: is it really about stopping climate catastrophe, or perhaps about preserving their own comfortable lifestyle in the face of coming changes? Because how else to explain that in a country where “the price of butter matters more than whether we’ll be destroyed by weather anomalies,” activists propose solutions that don’t disturb the foundations of the consumerist lifestyle model?

In the next part of the text, I will develop the theme of possible further radicalization of climate movements. Because if current radical methods are ineffective, then where is the limit of escalation? The history of social movements shows that such a spiral can lead in a very disturbing direction.

For now, however, the question remains - what are people really defending who, in the name of fighting climate catastrophe, propose a 50 złoty ticket? Their vision of a world where Netflix, Instagram, and annual vacations in trendy locations, learning three languages for children are more important than systemic changes? Or maybe simply their own comfort, skillfully dressing it in the garments of climate activism?

Supplement to the Article - Civil Disobedience

Originally, I didn’t want to include this supplement, but I believe many people are unaware of this form of protest, the consequences of denying basic rights, and the current court rulings. Therefore, for those interested, I decided to add this brief compilation to the article based on articles, radio broadcasts, and statements from parties that I analyzed over the last 2 weeks.

What is Civil Disobedience

I would like to share with you the essence of what I heard in an interesting TOK FM broadcast by Agnieszka Lichnerowicz, who conducted an interview with Dr. hab. Michał Roch Kaczmarczyk from the Institute of Sociology at the University of Gdańsk about civil disobedience. The discussion was prompted, of course, by the actions of the Last Generation group that I wrote about above. Dr. Kaczmarczyk, author of a book on civil disobedience, presented a detailed definition of this phenomenon, emphasizing that it is a conscious violation of law based on ethical grounds, which must be overt and non-violent. He emphasized that such actions cannot be motivated by self-interest but by the common good, citing historical examples of effective civil disobedience, such as the civil rights movement in the USA or Gandhi’s actions in India.

During the conversation, the expert paid particular attention to key aspects of current climate protests. He emphasized that activists are consciously ready to face legal consequences of their actions, and while the climate change problem is urgent, it remains “invisible” compared to other forms of pollution, like smog. Dr. Kaczmarczyk noted a clear generational difference in approaches to the climate crisis, pointing to greater engagement from younger generations in this issue. At the same time, he drew attention to the growing repressiveness of states towards climate activists and the lack of social understanding for this type of protest in Poland.

In the context of such actions’ effectiveness, the expert pointed out significant challenges and controversies, including the debate over whether protests actually achieve their intended goal or rather antagonize society. Dr. Kaczmarczyk suggested that to increase effectiveness and social acceptance, protests should be part of a broader strategy, including educational activities and other forms of activity. He emphasized that the discussion itself is valuable and can contribute to better understanding of the problem in society. At the end of the conversation, he indicated that new social movements, although operating differently than traditional protests, are necessary to represent interests that don’t find appropriate place in the political system.

Is Civil Disobedience Legal in a Democratic State?

It’s also worth adding something you won’t hear in the broadcast. Civil Disobedience as a form of protest stems from human rights and fundamental rights. Therefore, the legal basis for protests is the Right to Freedom of Assembly and Expression of Opinion (Articles 11 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights), the right to protest as an element of democratic society, and freedom of speech and expression of views.

Of course, the law also sets boundaries that Dr. Kaczmarczyk mentioned. Apart from the already mentioned peaceful form, it’s worth noting that they must maintain proportionality between protesters’ rights and the rights of others. However, an important context in climate protests (thanks here to the Watchdog Poland course on fundamental rights, among others) is the right to live in a clean environment, which is increasingly recognized as a human right. The European Court of Human Rights considers cases concerning climate change in the context of human rights. Climate activism can be seen, as evidenced, as defending the fundamental rights of future generations.

This results in specific obligations for the State consisting of protecting the right to protest as well as other people, ensuring safety for protesters, refraining from excessive repression. Therefore, at least in theory looking at the German case, special legal protection applies here. I think that in the case of civil disobedience, we often deal with a conflict of various fundamental rights - e.g., the right to protest with the right to free movement. Therefore, polarization will progress and the rapid escalation doesn’t surprise me.

Landmark Ruling: The Case of Civil Disobedience

An interesting legal precedent appeared on October 1, 2024, when the District Court for Warsaw Praga-Południe issued a landmark order in the case of Last Generation activists. The court, recognizing their actions as an act of civil disobedience motivated by fighting the climate crisis, imposed only a reprimand penalty. This is the first such case in Polish jurisprudence where the climate context was considered as a mitigating circumstance.

The case concerned protests from August 2, 2024, when activists blocked, among others, the Poniatowski Bridge. However, the landmark ruling didn’t last long - the police from Praga-Południe filed an objection, arguing that the reprimand penalty was disproportionate to the social harm of the act. As a result, the ruling lost its force, and the case will go to a full court trial.

This case perfectly illustrates the tension between the right to protest and its boundaries. On one hand, we have the court’s attempt to understand activists’ motivations and recognize their actions as a form of civil disobedience. On the other - the position of authorities and police emphasizing that too lenient penalties may encourage further law breaking, i.e., escalation of protests. The final resolution in the trial may become an important precedent for future activist actions in Poland, but most importantly, define the boundaries of freedom.

Interestingly, the organization itself emphasizes the historical significance of the original ruling’s justification, which legitimized their methods of action. This shows that even an overturned ruling can be used in the narrative about the rightness and legality of climate protests.

Post scriptum: On the Quality of Journalism

In conclusion, I would like to draw attention to a disturbing trend in reporting on Last Generation’s actions. Many journalists uncritically copy the organization’s official press releases, attributing them as individual statements to various LG representatives (TVN24, NGO.pl, and other services did this). This not only misleads readers by suggesting spontaneous, personal comments where we are dealing with standard PR communication, but also testifies to a lack of elementary journalistic inquisitiveness.

Such copy-paste practice without verifying sources and context of statements is particularly disturbing in the case of such a complex and controversial topic as climate activism. We should expect journalists not only to reliably distinguish between official communications and actual statements but above all to provide in-depth analysis of described phenomena.

Arguments Criticizing Last Generation (VOX POPULI from radio broadcast - quotes)

From the TOKFM broadcast where people called and commented on Last Generation’s activities, I selected quotes and key elements for you.

DO NOT BRING REAL EFFECTS

Many speakers emphasize, of course, that LG’s actions don’t bring real effects and don’t convince those in power to change climate policy.

“The atmosphere was increasingly aggressive and at some point last generation decided to change forms of protests, but not because of how the police reacted, how courts reacted, how politicians spoke out, but perhaps most important was the awareness that society as a whole is reacting increasingly negatively to last generation’s demands”

“No, I don’t know that, but I also don’t think I believe that these demonstrations, these blockades, blocking Wisłostrada or pouring paint on the mermaid will cause the government to think and change its mind because of it. That’s complete nonsense”

“And here they are unreliable in that firstly there are few of them, and people are so frustrated with politics that they might suspect, for example, that they’re doing this circus to draw attention to themselves personally, to get somewhere into power structures, to have an interest in it, because such cases have happened before.”

MAKE LIFE DIFFICULT FOR ORDINARY CITIZENS Road blocking is seen as burdensome for other citizens, making daily functioning difficult and potentially threatening safety.

“It’s harmful to other people because an ambulance can’t arrive because cars are standing and what is that?”

“Ambulances are let through during last gen protests Well I’ve heard about other situations, but maybe they are let through”

“are you a driver who has to stand in traffic. Do you ride the metro?” “Well it matters that I stand in traffic. Yes, when I’m in Warsaw, I stand in traffic, I get angry, I get angry at”

EVOKE NEGATIVE EMOTIONS AND POLARIZE

Instead of building support for the idea of climate protection, LG’s actions evoke frustration and aggression, hindering dialogue and deepening social divisions.

“The atmosphere was increasingly aggressive and at some point last generation decided to change forms of protests […]” (here referring to Letzte Generation)

“what have they done to our planet besides stirring up hostility in people who are stirred up.”

“It seems to me that the majority of society is against the green deal. Not as such green deal, but the consequences of where it might lead. What big changes will need to be introduced in every household”

ARGUMENTS DEFENDING LG’S RIGHT TO PROTEST

Right to protest: In a democratic state, everyone has the right to express their views, even if the form of protest is controversial.

“Well but long, second is still a question of whether we’re talking about freedom or license. Well, this should be distinguished. And when it comes to rightness to protest. Well, I have my own life experience in this matter.”

“Jarek writes this I disagree the prime minister actually calls for more ruthless action against peaceful and gives silent consent to aggressive driver behavior. Activists have strong scientific foundations and arguments. This is no joke. And methods simply adequate.”

ARGUMENT OF NEED TO HIGHLIGHT THE PROBLEM

The scale of the climate crisis requires radical actions, and LG tries to draw society’s and politicians’ attention to this problem, using methods that are difficult to ignore.

“It is of course such that is well interferes in everyday life and draws attention to you specifically. That might be one part of the answer […]”

“frustration arises because there are no consequences from these protests. For example, compared also with other social groups that protested, where politicians politicians immediately react very quickly come out to meet these groups or look for dialogue”

“Jarek writes this: ‘Activists don’t call for returning to caves and rejecting technological achievements. No, no, they weren’t raised in that. They weren’t given education tools to act differently. Everything around imposes on us an action pattern based on continuous growth development without balance.’”

METHODS FAILED, RADICALIZATION NEEDED

Other methods failed: LG argues that traditional forms of protest, such as petitions or demonstrations, haven’t brought expected results, so they reach for more radical measures.

“These are often people who started their activist career for example in the youth climate strike, which in Poland was a phenomenon because in Poland such large protests thematizing the climate situation don’t have a great tradition. larger, larger protests that were organized regularly and as activists themselves talk about it, frustration arises because there are no consequences from these protests”

“according to the last generation, yes, that all other methods didn’t give results.”

Abstract

The article analyzes the strategy and argumentation of the Last Generation group, comparing it with the experiences of German Letzte Generation. The author identifies key elements of the “escalation ladder” - from initial building of dramatic narrative, through justification of radical forms of protest, to measuring effectiveness solely by media presence. Detailed eristic analysis reveals inconsistencies in activists’ argumentation: the contrast between catastrophic rhetoric and minimalist demands, and the discrepancy between declared concern for the future and attachment to consumerist lifestyle. Using the example of the German movement’s downfall, the text shows how such a strategy leads to social alienation and ultimate failure.

Sources:

Thanks to Filip from Fediverse for enabling access to GW press materials and other colleagues actively helping by providing comments and sources.

KRYTYKA POLITYCZNA - Last Generation: What We Do Is Democratic Politics [interview]

BLOG Tomasz Borejza: Last Generation Paves Hell with Good Intentions - RECOMMENDED

PODCAST TOKFM: “Climate Catastrophe Is Already in Poland”

PODCAST TOKFM: Climate Protests, or Why Does the State Need Civil Rights Disobedience? - RECOMMENDED

Germany Cracks Down on ‘Last Generation’ Climate Activists in Nationwide Raids

Germany’s ‘Last Generation’: a successful campaign against climate change?

Last Generation Announces Biggest Blockade of Warsaw in History

WYBORCZA: Last Generation Activists. In Poland They Provoke Drivers’ Fury, in Germany They Face Charges

PDF, Last Generation, press release: They Interrupted a Concert at the National Philharmonic. “Our World Is Burning, The Show Cannot Go On”

• Last Generation
• Activism