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.
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)
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.
they mostly target SUVs. Also people of higher income are way more likely to have SUVs and use them more often.
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.
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.
lmao wait who gave feminists a bad rep? what is this altright strawperson?
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 ~~if~~ when 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
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 :/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
