From the article: *Large SUVs were particularly affected. According to the police, notes were attached to the cars indicating that they were harmful to the climate. The tyres were not punctured, but merely deflated. The cars were parked in the area between the S-Bahn line and Elbchaussee around Kanzleistraße. *
Personally, I like this protest way more than glueing themselves to the streets, causing traffic jams where cars burn gasoline for hours and ambulances / firefighters / police gets stuck, putting innocent life in danger.
The article is in German. Warning: this link leads to google translate.
I wish this form of protest would catch on elsewhere as well. Every day I’m struck by the number of huge gas-guzzling pick up trucks parked around the city, and seemingly every bed completely empty. Letting out the air to their tires would certainly be slower and more work than the old method of puncturing their tires, but has the dual benefit of not necessitating replacement (which has a carbon cost of its own) and not enabling the vehicle owner to file an insurance claim.
This is a horrible form of protest because it is likely to cause property damage as most people are completely blind and oblivious and will drive on their now deflated tires for a bit before realizing something is wrong.
That will likely ruin the tire and possibly also damage the rim.
Second, you have no idea who you hurt and the repercussions of it.
There’s no immediate “big car = bad person” logic that’s valid.
If you want to protest in a meaningful manner you should support politicians who want to increase taxes for fossil fuels.
There’s a reason the average engine size (and thus vehicle size) is lower in Europe, and it’s not small streets and parking spaces.
Obviously since giant cars never took off here we didn’t scale things to fit, but that’s a chicken and egg thing.
The situation you are describing where a car owner returns to their vehicle, fails to see their four flat tires, fails to notice the note on their windscreen explaining that their tires have been deflated in protest, fails to notice their car’s tire pressure warnings, and drives any way, and drive enough to ruin their tires AND wheels seems unlikely enough to qualify as catastrophizing. The far more likely outcome is that the owner returns to their car and then spends some time, perhaps an hour or two, figuring out how to reinflate their tires.
I’m sure the individuals taking part in these protests also support politicians who desire stricter regulations about the types of vehicles they are targetting. Participating in peaceful protest and participating in a political process are not mutually exclusive.
I wish this form of protest would catch on elsewhere as well. Every day I’m struck by the number of huge gas-guzzling pick up trucks parked around the city, and seemingly every bed completely empty. Letting out the air to their tires would certainly be slower and more work than the old method of puncturing their tires, but has the dual benefit of not necessitating replacement (which has a carbon cost of its own) and not enabling the vehicle owner to file an insurance claim.
You are still assuming a lot of things:
-
That deflated tires don’t get damaged either. Look up how tires are built.
-
That everyone gets a sticker under the window and all four tires deflated.
-
Apparently it has to be “catastrophical” to be bad.
-
The only thing you are taking away from society is someone’s time.
IMO as long as you are messing with someone else’s property you are not “protesting”, you are a vandal.
However good you might find their intentions it’s not much better than blowing up mailboxes or slashing tires.
And whether or not you want to see it I strongly believe that point four is the most important part.
What happens to the people who couldn’t be treated at the hospital in time because their surgeon was left stranded with flat tires?
Sure, he could have just called a cab/Uber, but what happens when everyone in the neighborhood does?
Someone else could step in? Sure, but again it suddenly might be more than one that’s affected.
I’m not trying to argue that everyone has a job that society will miss if they are stuck at home for a few hours, but do you think that the people running around deflating tires do any kind of legwork to figure out if they should?
There was a “protest” like this in Oslo, Norway, recently, targeted at fossil gas guzzlers. However the “protesters” failed to discern between electric SUV’s and fossil SUV’s even though most of the electric ones carry special license plates.
At the end of it I guess it all boils down to what kind of ethics you apply. While I can agree with the viewpoint I wholeheartedly disagree with the method and form.
At what point do you find it is ok to do bad things to random strangers in some weird hope to do something good?
It’s not a “trolley problem”, you’re not killing one person and saving five, you are simply putting unnecessary hardship into people’s lives because you don’t like what they drive.
Do you honestly expect someone to go “oh no, not again, well I better go buy a different car”?
On the EV point specifically- big EVs are bad, too. They’re still spraying tire particulate, and their high weight is more dangerous for pedestrians, small cars, bikes, kids, etc.
Never said they weren’t.
But when you put a flyer under someone’s windshield wiper saying you are purposely letting air out of their tires for driving a big gas guzzler, heating up the planet, and polluting the local environment with their exhaust - and it’s an EV, right?
Weight doesn’t matter so much to pedestrians btw. Front end design and hood design is much more important.
Lots of new cars now actually have a deployable hood that lifts (next to the windshield if you hit / are about to hit a pedestrian.
This allows for a more cushioned landing.
Doesn’t help if the vehicle is so tall you get smooshed in the grill, though.
Increases tire width also helps stopping quicker in many circumstances, but yes, definitely, added weight makes it harder to stop in conditions with reduced grip like rain and snow.
What we need is better safety systems - ie. automated driving as an end goal.
Kids and bicyclists will still be at risk due to their own behavior, but autonomous driving will still be able to perceive quicker and be more consistent in reducing speed around observable high risk “actors” in the environment.
Not saying any of this is an argument for unnecessarily big and heavy cars, but at the moment there is only two electric station wagons in the market. So if you want a bigger trunk than a sedan can offer, but not an SUV you can choose between the Porsche Taycan Cross Turismo or the MG 5.
Not much to choose from sadly.
The Audi A6 Avant is coming, so is the ID.7 wagon, but they’re still at least a year out, if not 1.5.
And the Nio ET5 wagon is coming out right about now as well.
And this will bring the total amount of electric wagons up to 5, three of which comes from VAG.
In the meantime there’s a boatload of huge electric SUV’s that offer no advantage over a wagon except maybe roof height since batteries eat up some underfloor space.
I read everything you wrote because you went through the effort to write it. I think the “agree to disagree” place is about as good as we’re gonna get.
Didn’t expect anything else, but thanks for the civil response :)
I appreciate you and I mean that
I appreciate that you guys can disagree in something highly connected with emotions and still have a civil conversation.
I appreciate that you guys can disagree in something highly connected with emotions and still have a civil conversation.
-
There’s no immediate “big car = bad person” logic that’s valid.
It’s very easy to tell the difference between a big car that’s big for a reason (7 seats for large families, van for a business) and a car that’s big just because (i.e. a large SUV).
So a single person driving a 7 seater Volvo XC90 passes muster, but a family of four with the five seater doesn’t?
Yeah, they should just slash their tires.
Breaking things that are bad is kinda the point of direct action
The problem is that even if 90% of people don’t need an SUV or truck, you can’t tell if someone is in that 10% that does need it. You can’t just look at an empty truck bed. Obviously nobody is gonna use their bed 100% of the time. They might have the truck for work purposes and also use it for personal use. They certainly shouldn’t own multiple cars, cause that’s even worse.
I’m sure the 90/10 ratio is simply a rhetorical device for the sake of argument, but since you brought it up, given that the protest does not destroy personal property but merely inflicts considerable inconvenience on the owner, what ratio would be permissible in your eyes? 95 and 5%? 99% and 1%? What if instead of deflating tires someone merely put some sticky jam under the drivers’ side door handle along with a note explaining why the owner has been “jammed”?
The sticky jam is probably a better idea than the flat tire, due to the lower risk of real damage. Issue would be to make it really uncomfortable while still being easily accessible for the protestors. It has to be as uncomfortable as the tire. But I guess the goo could easily produced at home from household supplies.
I wish this form of protest would catch on elsewhere as well.
I feel this would go over differently in the land of “fuck around and find out”. You’d have bored old dudes with rifles setting up watches. And
ifwhen something did happen, public opinion is not going to be on the air-letters side.not enabling the vehicle owner to file an insurance claim.
My insurance comes with road hazard that would cover this at no cost; and I’m a poor.
It seems misguided. The people doing the most climate damage aren’t parking their cars on the streets. Go pop some private jet tires.
This tastes the same as right wing efforts to convince people making $50k a year that their enemies are those making $100k a year when, in fact, the enemy of both those groups is billionaires.
If you’re a climate activist, your enemies aren’t those with a carbon footprint 2x or 5x what yours is. The enemy is those with 10000x the carbon footprint
The most dangerous people aren’t the rich, they’re the moderates who would rather continue the status quo than risk any sort of uncomfortable truths. You are not going to be able to live the standard of living you have now for the rest of your life. The moderate can either choose to catch on and willingly sacrifice some comfort now for the good of everyone, or everyone can suffer significantly more later.
The rich will always try to use their influence to exploit and extract. As long as there are Ways to become rich, there will be people who are incentivized to be bad people. That is unavoidable.
The real problem is that billions of people have collectively surrendered all of their sovereignty to these few individuals. The many who accept the status quo are class and species traitors, hell, planetary traitors, choosing Their own small comforts over the life of the entire planetary ecosystem, and actively fighting against those who aren’t cowards as they are.
Even though per individual the rich are the greatest polluters, in absolut numbers average people might have a stronger influence on the climate due to being so many more people.
Average people who don’t care about the environment did not get that way in accident but because of a concerted disinformation campaign that has lasted decades. You can’t change the culture without going after the perpetrators of that disinformation
I don’t think it is only because of disinformation. Our modern day consumption is desirable on its own. I don’t think you need disinformation to convince people that flying to a sunny and exotic location is desirable. Or the flexibility and mobility that driving thousands of kilometres per year in cars provides. Eating meat and drinking milk…
I agree and you’re forgetting old people. A lot of them have straight up told me, “I’ll be dead when the worst hits, so why should I care?” People need more cynicism for human behavior; it’s not entirely cartels and conspiracies.
Catalytic converter theft is at an all time high in the u.s. Those old farts ain’t doing shit.
I feel this would go over differently in the land of “fuck around and find out”. You’d have bored old dudes with rifles setting up watches. And if when something did happen, public opinion is not going to be on the air-letters side.
Bored old dudes with rifles watching over their parked vehicles in dense urban centers seems like a disproportionate response to having some tires deflated. I think your speculation about the public supporting someone being murdered over their participation in peaceful protest is pretty depressing. I hope you don’t actually think that.
My insurance comes with road hazard that would cover this at no cost; and I’m a poor.
This is a good point - I’m not very knowledgeable with respect to insurance, especially internationally. Thank you for your insight
Go pop some private jet tires.
I think this is something we can all get behind
Bored old dudes with rifles watching over their parked vehicles in dense urban centers seems like a disproportionate response to having some tires deflated.
As far as they’re concerned, they’re innocent victims and you’re a criminal.
And they’re not wrong. Property damage is a crime, and working-class people aren’t the ones obstructing the development of electric vehicles, solar power, etc.
The argument of climate activists is that everyone is factually the victim of SUV drivers, because SUVs unnecessarily but lawfully contribute to deaths statistically.
The problem with this argument is that it claims without evidence that an adequate alternative means of transportation was already known and available to the owners of all SUVs at the time those SUVs were purchased. That assertion that makes a lot of questionable assumptions about the circumstances of millions of people, the vast majority of whom the claimant has never even met, let alone interviewed.
Well, they say that SUVs never made sense in cities. Actually, also in villages, as this is happening in Germany. I’d say 99 ℅ of those SUVs are not used as an SUV. Not that I’m supporting manipulation on other people’s property, but I understand that part of their argument.
Maybe so, but I’d hate to be the one guy who actually needs it and finds it vandalized over something someone else did.
As far as they’re concerned, they’re innocent victims and you’re a criminal.
“They” meaning the bored old dudes with rifles watching over their parked vehicles and dense urban centers? “They” are a hypothetical group of people who don’t exist and don’t have concerns. Or are you also speaking hypothetically about how an imaginary group of individuals would respond to a potential form of protest?
Bored old dudes with rifles watching over their parked vehicles in dense urban centers seems like a disproportionate response to having some tires deflated. I think your speculation about the public supporting someone being murdered over their participation in peaceful protest is pretty depressing. I hope you don’t actually think that.
Oh, absolutely. I’m not advocating for it, just commenting on the local climate. All it would take is fox news saying “AnTEEfah is coming to cut your tires so you can’t go to church and worship jesus! Why do they hate baby jesus?” and there would be people willing, if not itching, to kill over it. It is very depressing, all that rage could be put to much better use.
I drive a large truck because I truly need and use the bed on a weekly basis. I wouldn’t be able to get by without it, being more than a convenience thing, as I have tried (and failed) for years to use my wife’s minivan. There are a lot of things that you straight up cannot do without a truck. I live on 7 acres of mostly heavily wooded land. That kind of property has a lot of maintenance needs that you really need a truck for.
But when I go to the city, I almost never go with anything in the bed. First, I think it can be unsightly to have my bed loaded up with rotting construction material or large bulky items that need to be taken to the transfer station.
Second, it can be dangerous, depending on what I’m hauling. The load needs to be secured. I’m more likely to get into an accident in the city, so if that happens, now in addition to whatever comes off from either vehicle, now whatever else that I was hauling is going to be all over the place, impeding traffic even further.
If my load is heavy, as it often is (think: maybe 1,000 lbs of cord wood), that has a pretty big impact on my gas mileage.
And if it rains? Whatever is in my bed is going to get wet and soggy and nasty.
And then there’s the winter. I live in New England. You may have heard about the snow we get here. My driveway is 1/4 mile long, and REALLY steep. I use my truck to keep it plowed. There’s no other way we’re leaving our property when the snow falls. But obviously I don’t have my plow attached in the off-season, so it wouldn’t be obvious to you that I also use it for that.
So for many reasons, I need a truck. It is almost never loaded when I have to go into the city. It’s not lifted, I don’t have obnoxious wheels, but it’s a big truck (they don’t seem to make them any other way these days). Now I have to also worry about people with attitudes like yours taking their misguided vigilante justice out on my vehicle because you’re not thinking beyond your nose? Do you really think that’s fair?
Yep, you do, sorry. Change doesn’t happen when you politely ask. Change happens when you’re a disruptive asshole for long enough. Look at the history of protests and activism that actually brought about change.
Except NOTHING is being accomplished by targeting individuals like this. You’re not winning people over, you’re not changing minds, you’re not effecting change. You’re protesting the wrong people. I, as an example, am a huge supporter of education and change regarding climate change. But I still have to live and work within the very system I am protesting. You’re not doing anything by attacking allies like me. Instead, you need to go after corporations, and politicians. Those are the entities that are responsible for and have the ability to influence real action.
Everyone is pointing at the others for the actual cause. The corporations that buy the stuff you move around in your truck should be targeted? Or the politicians that allow you to buy a gas gurgler (and ruin the environment) by driving it around without it being prohibitively expensive?
Or should you suffer because you bought the car and are driving it into city centers (where public transport is available, and most SUVs are not used for hauling goods)
Public transport in a LOT of US cities is poor, or non-existent. Even where it’s good, getting to the city, when you live outside of it, is often not an option without your own transportation.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, really, and in fact I share much of it. But you are oversimplifying and dismissing the reality for many people in the US.
Too many people buy big dumb cars. With 0 mass transit, you can do just about everything in a Civic, then rent a Home Depot truck once a year for that one big load of plywood. People buying pristine brodozer pickups that don’t fit in their garage and emotional support suv tanks need to be force fed more reasons to not be part of the problem.
Things ONLY get accomplished this way. Civil Rights, Labor, Women’s Suffrage, etc. It’s how it is, accept it.
You’re making a generalized argument to support terrorism.
even if you need your truck for work reasons, you should not be taking it into a dense urban area like Hamburg or London (where this group also operates.)
I live on 7 acres of mostly heavily wooded land
Well, the activists target SUVs in the middle of Hamburg. That’s not really a comparable situation. I agree it would suck if you visit a big city and get targeted there, but I would hope the activists can decide between a polished up city-only SUV and an actual working-vehicle and act accordingly.
but I would hope the activists can decide between a polished up city-only SUV and an actual working-vehicle and act accordingly.
People like the guy I replied to don’t, though. See the other reply to my comment as evidence.
They’re not leaking the air out while the car is driven. Modern European cars all have pressure sensors and will warn the driver when there isn’t enough air in the tires to drive safely. Saves you from walking around the vehicle to see if everything is tied and pumped up properly.
To be perfectly frank, I think it’s weird to write so much about your personal life in a reply to a stranger on the internet. How am I supposed to respond to any of your personal details without risking you taking it personally? Are you looking for my approval of your rugged individualist lifestyle? For whatever it’s worth, it sounds very romantic and if I knew you in real life I’m sure I would be polite enough to keep whatever opinions I have about your vehicle to myself.
So for many reasons, I need a truck. It is almost never loaded when I have to go into the city. It’s not lifted, I don’t have obnoxious wheels, but it’s a big truck (they don’t seem to make them any other way these days).
I suspect we both agree that vehicle sizes have gotten out of control, especially with respect to pick up trucks. Would you have bought a smaller truck if it were available? Would you support governmental regulation to bring pick up trucks back in line with where they were 30 years ago?
Now I have to also worry about people with attitudes like yours taking their misguided vigilante justice out on my vehicle because you’re not thinking beyond your nose? Do you really think that’s fair?
When I think of “vigilante justice” I think of violence, so it seems a little disconnected with the reality of letting the air out of someone’s tires along with posting a note on their windscreen. I think the protestors would agree that ‘thinking beyond your nose’ is very important, and that individual choices can have collective impacts.
Nppe, you don’t need a truck. We don’t need these things to survive.
Haul what you need on a bicycle or don’t haul those things because you don’t need them.
If you deflate the tires, doesn’t that reduce the mpg of the vehicle?
Not really that big of a factor, German car owners will not drive around with flat tires if they notice, which is likely rather soon.
Being a climate activist is important.
Being malicious to others is garbage behaviour and you’re doing nothing but making sure people actively want to hurt the environment out of spite.
These people also give genuine climate activists a bad name. Reminds me of when extremists ruined the word feminist. It’s hard to explain to people that you want women to be treated equal, but you don’t hate men and want them to die.
No form of protest is acceptable to liberals (let alone conservatives). When you peacefully protest, no one pays attention, when you damage private property, everybody screams, when you are disruptive while not damaging said private property, you’re still a dick. So who cares, keep on going.
The problem is protests like these hurt working class families. Folks just trying to get by. In my area, you can’t exist without a car. If you want to protest do something that affects the decision makers. People like me have no power.
In the areas of Hamburg that have been targeted not one single person needs an SUV. We have reliable public transport that’s easily accessible to wheelchairs or strollers as well. So yeah, it did target the right people.
To what end? Do SUV owners write bills? Will inconveniencing nonpolitical randos get anyone talking about the issues, let alone talking about them without souring the discussion for climate activists, who now look like vindictive assholes?
This reads like petty vengeance against people with marginally larger carbon footprints and with the wrong kind of social performance, not genuine activism. If you’re gonna slash tires, do it to the politicians ffs.
They didn’t slash the tires, they just let the air out. No damages.
I would rather they slashed politician’s tires than let out the air in random people’s tires.
I mean…here we all are…talking about it. Some people are being more civil than others, but some people are genuinely attempting to discuss the role of individual responsibility in the face of catastrophic climate change.
I’m pretty sure that Hamburg isn’t such an area, and that SUV’s are a totally unecessery folly there. This isn’t hurting working class families. (Also, people like you do have power, organize)
Yeah, they should’ve thought of that before being too poor to buy multiple vehicles for each situation.
You think poor people drive around SUVs in Hamburg because they use them for work?
I’m going to assume that you don’t know this so I’m gonna let you know: the targeted area is one of the most expensive to live in in Hamburg. And I’m going to repeat myself. Almost nobody in Hamburg needs an SUV.
deleted by creator
this “but the working class need to move around” tend to also be the first that complain when a bike or bus lane are made.
I wonder how many people on the receiving end even change their mind. I feel like if anything they’d completely reject the cause that is trying to be pushed, and the end result is a circle jerk between people who were already in agreement.
deleted by creator
Well, if they want to go shopping right now, chances are for this one trip they’ll take their spouses smaller car, public transport or maybe even walk. If SUVs become generally unreliable (because you never know if you have air in your tires when you need it), people will look for something more reliable. They’ll bitch about it, they won’t act out of conviction or so, but who cares.
These type of actions do have an effect in SUV sales though.
they mostly target SUVs. Also people of higher income are way more likely to have SUVs and use them more often.
They target SUVs and alike. In what area do you live that a much more affordable and less gasoline consuming car wouldn’t work for you?
SUVs are justified in rural communities where there either the weather or terrain make small vehicles unviable at best and outright dangerous at worst. I have family in rural Spain who have an SUV because they live halfway up a mountain and a car that can tackle driving along a dried up riverbed was essential. It’s less wasteful to keep an SUV for 10 years than buy a small car and have it destroyed by unforgiving terrain in less than 6 months.
I live in rural Michigan where we get several feet of snow each year. I drive a 10 year old used Jeep that was bought in cash with money we saved up so we could have a car that would handle the weather, our family, and the long distances we have to travel to work or shop.
I’m a liberal, I can field this one. The form of protest I find acceptable is destruction of government and corporate property, but not working-class peoples’ houses and mom-and-pop businesses. Is it really so much to ask to have rioting confined to productive activities, such as trashing city hall, looting Amazon DCs, destroying private jets and yachts, assaulting corrupt politicians, tarring and feathering billionaires, and burning down police stations? The establishment has successfully recuperated progressive protest by tricking people into associating it with low-level domestic terrorism, “we get what we want or maybe your houses burn down”; what we should be doing is repeatedly yanking the choke chain on the state and the 1% so hard their eyes pop out.
Trashing “city hall” isn’t productive.
Let me just skip the implications and address your real meta point: no I am not a January 6 apologist or sympathizer.
That’s not what I mean at all. My point is vaguely encouraging people to “trash city hall” is dumb.
There are always going to be a “protest/activism is good but this is unacceptable” for any act of disobedience.
It depends on what the goal of the protest is and an assessment of whether the act is going to actually be successful in bringing about the change they want.
If that isn’t taken into account it’ll just make people more ingrained in their beliefs, and possibly increase hatred towards the groups and the cause overall. Which can just lead to increased conflict and increase extremists on both spectrums.
Sometimes then the cause just devolves into people on both sides just reveling in getting to act out their primal desires.
If you own a SUV and you know there is a risk of your tires being deflated by taking it to the city center (or if it has happened to you already), you will probably avoid it.
Exactly. They’re clearly just asking for it. There is not a single legitimate need for vehicles like that or to take them places they are allowed to go and so we can accurately assess the culpability of the owner and punish them accordingly just based off of their vehicle type and where it is.
Climate activists have been trying peaceful, convenient protests for decades now yet humanity is fucking up the environment faster than ever.
If your example with feminism shows us something, it’s that no matter what you do your actions will be misconstrued by bad actors and your image will be tarnished in a counter-campaign regardless, so if you want to protest something, just skip the phase when you do polite convenient gentle reminders, and go straight to violence and terrorism, if that’s what you will be seen as anyway.
Considering they let the air out of the tires and left a polite finger-wagging note, I don’t think they skipped the gentle reminder phase.
Daily reminder that property damage is not violence, but random acts of property damage isn’t the same thing as genuine activism. We must be mindful of the purpose of a political act, and whether the act actually accomplishes that purpose. What is the purpose of inconveniencing random SUV owners? Will this affect any change, or will it merely entrench people’s existing attitudes?
Imo if you’re gonna slash tires, do it to the politicians. More news coverage, clearer message, and you don’t come off as petty against people for having the “wrong” kind of social performance (eg driving an SUV instead of an electric) and trivialize the issue.
I also advocate for the enlightened position of “murder people in bigger cars than me”
lmao wait who gave feminists a bad rep? what is this altright strawperson?
I think they’re talking about the post-GamerGate anti-SJW movement where atheist youtubers converted to debunking straw-feminists. Maybe they’ve gotten out of that pipeline but haven’t internalized that those “bad” feminists were caricatures of their actual positions or cherry-picked crazies?
yes, this is likely the case, the last sentence
That is why I like this targeted actions over the gluing themselves to the road ones. This is targeted to people destroying the climate. I don’t think there is any good reason to drive an SUV or a sports-car in a city, and it is actively harmful. To pick up your equivalence: Feminists fight misogyny and inconvenience those guys actively showing it without necessarily alienating average guys.
One reason to drive an SUV in a city is that it’s the only vehicle you own. I park my truck in a city often but I don’t live there.
A truck is not an SUV.
That’s not the point
There’s sides to this. On one hand, targeting poor workers isn’t a good look. On the other hand, if you can afford a massive new and clean SUV/pickup in Hamburg of all places, you’re probably not a poor worker.
I say go for it. It’s better than blocking traffic.
These comments are disgusting. I don’t understand thinking that this is ok for normal people :/
I agree with you… I am quite surprised to see how many people think that it is OK to vandalise someone else’s property they worked and paid for.
I worked and paid for my property too, what makes you think it’s ok to pollute it with your oversized car?
You mean, the SUV which sits in my driveway? The one that drives less than 500 miles a year?
The one that is parked in front of the house powered by solar energy?
Why don’t you think of who the real problem is. Cargo ships running on bunker oil (This is the nastiest fuel you can imagine). Did- you know, they will typically switch to low sulfur fuels before entering most countries, because burning bunker oil is illegal nearly everywhere.
How, about you target the rich people, who fly private jets everywhere. Let’s not even mention the mega yachts which are basically floating cities.
Instead, of the fellow who happens to own a large vehicle, in order to haul things, and move children between events, while being able to support the proper luggage/equipment.
Also, lastly, Would you prefer me drive around in my big SUV which gets pretty decent gas mileage (in the 20s, excellent for a large vehicle), has modern pollution systems, catalytic converters, etc…
Or… would you prefer I drive around in my tiny racecars, with a 1,000hp turbocharged LS, absolutely no emissions equipment, not even a muffler.
Both are completely legal.
Sorry to say this to you, since you seem to take it somewhat personal, but it’s evident we need to stop both SUV’s and bunker oil.
I agree industry needs to step to it’s game. But frankly, so do you. Battling climate change is a painful.
I don’t see any eco-pirates boarding cargo ships and confiscating their fuel, do you? Seems to me that only working-class people are targeted by these so-called “activists”, and not anyone who actually has the power to change anything.
Honestly, this smells like a false-flag operation meant to discredit environmental activism by painting activists as criminals.
Here’s an example of Greenpeace blocking a russian liquid natural gas tanker from reaching port in Finland from September of last year, and here’s an example of Greenpeace activists boarding a container ship containing paper to protest deforestation from November of last year, here’s another example of the same group boarding a heavy lift vessel to protest offshore oil drilling from January of this year, and here’s an example of some scamps vandalizing a wal-mart heiress’s yacht from earlier this month.
You’re absolutely right, that activists boarding ships or otherwise vandalizing them gets way less press and markedly less discussion than this protest has. Why do you think that is?
Because those actions affect people with power, not the powerless general public.
Besides, if one does not see certain actions, those actions might as well not be happening at all. If only there was a way people who cause the greatest harm to control what gets reported in mainstream media, effectively shifting people’s attention away from the harmful practices of their businesses…
Your talking to one of the extremely few people in my county who have managed to offset the majority of their carbon emissions via renewable resources.
Despite my utility and local government making that process a complete pain in my ass.
And Despite my utility and local government essentially ruining any hopes of an ROI by exorting me with extra fees. (To offset me not buying their energy)
My suv which has practical purposes here is not the problem.
Willing to be your average lawnmower pollutes more…
Don’t get me wrong: I seriously applaud your efforts. Like you say, we all need to do more like you.
But push comes to shove, you also need to change your SUV for an EV. All SUVs need to go. Especially since station wagons have the same utility, and are generally safer on the road.
Lots of people use specific types of vehicles for specific types of work.
There’s no one vehicle that will work for everyone.
I’m not the guy you were conversing with but in my line of work I need to haul lots of items often, and sometimes for long distances. That means I need cargo space, so either an SUV or a Truck.
I need to deliver those items or transfer those items across long distances, If I need to stop and recharge an electric vehicle 2-3 times that means my one day trip all of a sudden turns into an overnight stay in a hotel. I can’t get my work done if all of a sudden a one day job turns into a two day job.
I can’t afford to buy a new car. Public transportation in the US basically doesn’t exist, and riding a bike is a death sentence here. Buy me an EV and I’ll gladly drive it though :)
Edit: Also, I’d have nowhere to plug in the vehicle charger since I don’t have a garage where I live :/
What is generating the power for that EV. What about the materials mined to make that EV? What happens to the battery once it can no longer hold a sufficient charge?
EVs are not green until the at the very least the energy being produced to power them is green. Which in almost all cases it is not. IMO it’s much more productive to focus on transforming our energy grid to renewables than to worry about SUVs.
From MIT:
The researchers found that, on average, gasoline cars emit more than 350 grams of CO2 per mile driven over their lifetimes. The hybrid and plug-in hybrid versions, meanwhile, scored at around 260 grams per mile of carbon dioxide, while the fully battery-electric vehicle created just 200 grams.
Also this says “on average gasoline cars” now I’d have to look at the data to be sure but an “average” gas powered car is generally going to be a lot bigger (SUVs, pickup trucks) and less fuel efficient than the smaller cars that most EVs are.
So we’re comparing larger vehicles most likely, to smaller ones, and still EVs producer greater than 50% of the CO2 emissions that ICE cars do.
This blame the consumer game is old. It’s been the same playbook for decades. Shift the responsibility to the consumer instead of regulating corporations.
We need to stop falling for the bait and switch and instead of demanding that people stop buying fuel inefficient vehicles, maybe we should just regulate them out? (And in many ways the world already is with the MPG and other requirements for new vehicles.)
Don’t get me wrong: I seriously applaud your efforts. Like you say, we all need to do more like you.
But push comes to shove, you also need to change your SUV for an EV. All SUVs need to go. Especially since station wagons have the same utility, and are generally safer on the road.
Oh, I would love an EV.
Don’t get me wrong. But, for a EV with the room I need for the activities we perform, it’s extremely cost prohibitive.
Just now, the wife hauled two dog kennels with dogs. German Shepards. Those aren’t going to fit in a car… unless wagons make a comeback.
Also, Lithium batteries (process of obtaining Lithium) is pretty bad for the environment, and generally involves slave labor. As well, size, capacity, and cycle durability aren’t the best.
Lots of alternatives and prototypes are being worked on, and when that problem is solved by replacing Lithium with a cheap, affordable, durable replacement with enough energy density- EVs will be everywhere.
As is though, replacing the 30,000$ battery pack every decade or so is no Bueno.
Until then though, our daily driver is a small car. Suv is used to haul stuff and kids.
Do you realize these groups operates on places where SUVs are not required at all? no one is deflating tires in Texas. They operate in dense urban european areas which all have great public transport.
You mean, the SUV which sits in my driveway?
‘Driveways’ in Hamburg Harvestehude:
https://goo.gl/maps/Ti3yVmXxCfoGozoy9
https://goo.gl/maps/MBHi6tHAfMALoPH38The one that drives less than 500 miles a year?
That’s not as relevant as it might seem, as producing the car is about half of its lifetime emissions. And producing big cars results in more emissions than more reasonably-sized cars.
I am quite surprised to see how many people think that is is OK to pollute, hoard public space and make cities worst just because you had money to buy a SUV
For real, these people should be ashamed of themselves. Go protest someone who actually matters. I don’t even own a car and this makes me want to buy an SUV just out of spite.
They targeted only the most harmful cars (SUVs) and they did so in the most rich districts of the city, hitting the privileged upper class - which is responsible for most of the worlds pollution. In the face of climate change only car fetishistic troglodytes will criticize this reasonable and non-violent action.
car fetishistic troglodytes
You could have made your point without this little bit- you’re perhaps unintentionally pushing away people who aren’t as familiar with hamburg who saw this action and thought “why do this when car pollution is such a tiny contributor as compared to emissions by big companies”.
I agree with the approach of changing the industry first, because changing the consumer behavior first is impossible. There are simply too many car fetishistic troglodytes who simply don´t give a fuck about mother nature.
Setting aside the general disdain these communities have for people who drive large vehicles…
I don’t think vandalization of personal property is going to win anyone over to support your cause. Protests need to be disruptive to be effective, yes, but I would wager this either alienates people trying to do better, or further radicalizes people actively working against green energy measures.
Protests need to be disruptive to be effective, yes, but I would wager this either alienates people
What kind of disruptive protest that doesn’t alienate people would you suggest instead?
When they blocked roads, people were pissed.
When they blocked an airport, people were pissed.
When they planted trees on a golf course, people were pissed.I’m not totally sure to be honest. I don’t have a good solution. People need to be pissed for protests to work. But let’s say you convince someone to sell their SUV and get a smaller car That SUV already exists. Probably will sell it to afford the next thing, right? Someone is still driving the thing. There’s a carbon cost to The replacement car. My understanding is it’s usually best to drive your vehicle for as long as possible (buying an electric car when your current car is fine is worse than just waiting until your current car breaks down, then eventually replacing it). Targeting your protests or energy toward policy change for future vehicle production might be more effective? Again, I don’t know.
The golf course one is interrupting a leisure activity, rather than stopping someone’s ability to go to work and provide for their family.
But if people came out to go to work and their car has the air let out of the tires, it’s going to feel more personally malicious I think, which seems like it could alienate people. Being stuck in traffic because of a protest, well, at least you’re stuck as a group?
It is a fine line, to be sure, I’m just not sure where to draw it.
The attitude is odd.
For example I’d love to buy an electric car but they’re just far too expensive for me to be able to afford. I need something, so I get a cheap and 2nd hand car. Inevitably that is an ICE because even second-hand electrics are hugely expensive. Yet somehow I’m the one targeted?
Why are they not targeting the people who are actually the problem rather than irritating the general public who broadly agree with them in principle who but lack the ability to really do anything effective.
The consumer is a large part of the problem, though. People want these types of cars and not because they are better at what they are supposed to do.
Regardless of that I don’t think this is a good way to protest.
For example I’d love to buy an electric car but they’re just far too expensive for me to be able to afford. I need something, so I get a cheap and 2nd hand car. Inevitably that is an ICE because even second-hand electrics are hugely expensive. Yet somehow I’m the one targeted?
I think the goal is to target people with huge, luxury cars. Anything else doesn’t make sense at all.
Will they say they’re targeting SUVs
My problem with that is if you go and look up SUVs online you’ll find that everything from actual suvs right down to estate cars are considered to be SUVs these days.
They are not trying to win these idiots over they are stopping them from driving their useless vehicles. What other plans do you suggest?
Win people over, probably not. However, it might discourage people from driving/buying big cars.
I’m honestly not sure how attacking the working class is going to help anything. What is the desired outcome here? Because from where I stand I see members of the working class potentially being late to work and putting their jobs at risk. Not everyone can afford to trade in for a smaller car or afford an EV. As amazing as it would be to have good enough public transit to not need a car we don’t all have the privilege.
I’m all for some direct action but not against the working class.
The issue is that an SUV is probably never needed, therefore everyone can trade it in for a more reasonable car.
My wife drives a 12 year old SUV. She cleans homes and commercial properties for a living so she needs to carry around a bunch of cleaning supplies, vacuums, etc. Stuff not easily fit into a smaller car. If someone were to flatten her tires she would probably just be late to her client’s place.
If you want to say there are too many SUVs on the road then I agree with you. However right now, in this society, they can have a purpose. If we want to fight the real enemy and make some real changes to society then I’m all for it. However, by attacking the working class we are attacking ourselves.
If it’s a car that is used for it’s not supposed to be targeted, according to this website. Avoid: Cars clearly used for people with disabilities, traders’ cars (even if they’re large), minibuses and normal-sized cars. https://www.tyreextinguishers.com/how-to-deflate-an-suv-tyre
Got it, so if she happens to be using that vehicle for getting groceries and not happen to have her equipment loaded then it’s game on. Cool cool cool.
There will always be cases of collateral damage. You won’t be able to safe the climate in such a big and complex society without disadvantaging some people.
Maybe one possibility for your wife could be to measure the cleaning equipment and see if it might fit into a smaller car and potentially buy cleaning equipment that is more foldable that might fit. Usually even these small cars have a lot of space when using the back seat row. A big vacuum and mops should easily fit. If this is not possible then I completely understand your problem.
The bigger issue I see with this is that, when your wife would do everything to save gas, she would need to take some disadvantages, e.g., more uncomfortable to load the small vehicle. If there is no pressure for other people, she would be the only one doing it, making it unfair. That’s why it is so important to generate pressure on climate damaging behaviour on all fronts. And this action is one efficient and realistic way to achieve that. But of course you can make the movement more unpopular in the general population… It is really difficult to find and decide for a solution here…
I agree that there may potentially be some sort of solution to our situation. Believe me, we do talk about this sort of thing. However it also involves money we may or may not have. The best solution for her is probably to change careers (it’s very hard work and doesn’t want to do it forever anyway) but it’s going to take some time. In the meantime we are working with what we have.
None of this changes the fact that we are not the enemy. We can talk about collateral damage but this is just our situation. Many people are hurting right now, even if they drive a SUV or truck. And I do realize it is a double edged sword because we do need to move away from fossil fuels. The focus should be on those in power though. The systems involved with extraction of natural resources are more vulnerable than we think. Life for those in power can be made more difficult.
Practically noone in Germany uses an SUV as a commercial vehicle. That’s because they suck at being commercial vehicles, you want something like a VW Transporter, either as minivan or flatbed. If you need 4WD (which you generally don’t) may I interest you in an Unimog.
They’ll also have commercial markings on the side, in the sense of “Wifey’s cleaning service <website> <telephone>”. Easy to distinguish.
Now, I have to be honest, my sister drives a SUV, and even a 4WD one… though it’s small, definitely by American standards. That’s because she’s hauling horses around and doesn’t want to drive a Unimog when grocery shopping. It’s like the one instance where having a sports utility vehicle actually makes sense, most people driving them neither use them for sport or utility, only as a vehicle. And noone’s going to flatten her tires as she’s living in a village, not some posh neigbourhood where the other kind of cars are Porsches and S-Classes. If you see a Lamborghini there it’s a Tractor.
This, the intent would be a lot more clear if they eg did it to politicians who supported anti-climate bills. That sends a much more powerful message, whereas targeting random SUVs isn’t likely to get anyone talking or caring about the issues.
Removed by mod
Hahaha love it!
Removed by mod
Ok
To everyone who is against this, and call the people supporting it “disgusting”:
Here is a post on Beehaw about climate activists who spray-painted a yacht. Posted about 10 days ago but only has 68 upvotes, and 15 comments at this time; meanwhile this post sits at 182 votes and 151 comments just 1 day after. Off course, you could argue it’s because c/environment isn’t as big as c/news; although that could be said to be a demonstration of the problem itself. But the real questions are: why did it not spread further, and why did you almost certainly not hear about it?
Because no one gives a shit about that. It raises no eyebrows. Because it’s meaningless and doesn’t really inconvenience anyone. She probably just had her yacht cleaned, and it never bothered her for more than the 5 seconds she was made aware of the spray paint. It’s not going to stop any other rich people from buying yachts, and it’s not going to raise the awareness of the average person and cause them to reduce their consumption either. In the end, it accomplished absolutely nothing.
Climate activists have been trying peaceful protests for 50 years, do you need a reminder of how bad things are getting?
And before the arguments about how this affects “working class” people, but all of it is really the billionaire’s and companies fault and that governments need to act: What do companies stand to gain from ruining the planet? Money, which the people give to them while offering each other excuses to consume. What could a government do to stop it? Well, they could introduce carbon taxes, stop subsidizing meat, and invest in more bike lanes and public transport; which would all result in higher gas prices, higher prices for anything made of plastic (among other goods), more expensive energy, much more expensive meat, a lot more bike lanes with smaller roads, and more public transport. Are these all things you’re okay with? If yes, then there’s no reason to not get “ahead” (although we’re far behind) of the problem and start organizing; and if no… well, then you might have stumbled into the problem.
Finally, here is a picture from two posts on c/news that I think illustrates the problem quite well.
Personally I’m into less than peaceful protest aimed at the most powerful among us. But I hesitate to talk about such things anywhere with anyone. This kind of stuff just makes protestors feel like they are accomplishing stuff while pissing off all the wrong people. For example, I’d cheer them on if they sunk the yaght. But painting it just makes me roll my eyes.
Completely understandable. Not that I agree necessarily, but I understand.
My main issue is, would that really change much? At the end of the day, companies show up and survive by meeting people’s needs/wants, and politicians climb to the top and stay there by having people on their side and not doing things those people would disapprove of. This means that if all those powerful people just went poof one day and disappeared, they would be replaced by new companies and new politicians doing all the same things as before, as long as people want and do the same things.
This means the only way things can really change, is if the culture itself changes and people begin to want and do different things. One way or another, whether people believe it or not, people are in power. The question is in whether they organize and use it, or just sit back and give up control and let themselves be taken by the flow.
Off course, there’s a counter-argument to be made about how much influence those powerful people also have on everyone else’s way of thinking, but then that just makes it a closed loop, and someone needs to break it.
deleted by creator
This is an absolutely abhorrable mentality.
deleted by creator
I don’t think it is though, it’s just you being cynical and somehow trying to turn that into a movement.
deleted by creator
You’re saying the world is ending so it’s time to be a kind of unhelpful anarchist.
But that won’t achieve anything, no matter how sarcastic you are.
deleted by creator
driving SUVs through Hamburg? yes.
The only more reasonable position than this is to participate in efforts to eliminate by any means necessary the mongers and wielders of anti-democratic power in this country.
It seems like the protest is working because people are both pissed and talking about their carbon footprints like they and their “working class” brothers in humongous SUVs are and were perfect saints that are just innocent bystanders in the crossfire between climate activists and oligarchs. I think these people who bought those SUVs were happily brainwashed into believing they needed this meat bucket to be “Safe” and “Haul Things”.
I have no patience for folks who ignorantly decided to drink this climate koolaid, and I think these cars are not only a menace on the road, but a convenient way of telling the world “I don’t fucking care about you”. Oligarchs meanwhile are happy they made these vehicles accessible to the “working class” so that you can take personal offense on their behalf, really playing yourself there don’t you think?
I don’t fucking care about your tires, and I’m happy your pissed that someone is willing to do this to them 🤷
I really thought his community would be better than this.
You really haven’t contributed anything to the conversation so far other than repeating several times how disappointed you are, and how disgusted you are at people here. Do you want to perhaps expand on that?
For my view, here is a comment I essentially made addressing comments like yours.
Sounds like a great time for those tires that don’t need air to become popular
Don’t think any major maker is ready to sell those yet, last I checked. Would be much cheaper to get sth like these https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0965DBT57/
This post made me look into it again today. Michelin is claiming they are going to be selling to businesses in areas with rough roads by mid 2024, with business everywhere coming some time after that.
Yeah, I tried to find any that are actually available, but all I found were golf cart tires in non-pneumatic.
Removed by mod
The people driving SUVs? I agree
Yeah, fuck cars
No kink shaming intended but this is not a thread to discuss your personal sexual preferences in. There are several other communities for those kind of topics.
