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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I also advocate for the enlightened position of “murder people in bigger cars than me”
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.
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?
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.
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’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”?
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.
Things ONLY get accomplished this way. Civil Rights, Labor, Women’s Suffrage, etc. It’s how it is, accept it.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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! 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.
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.
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).
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.
Yeah, they should just slash their tires.
Breaking things that are bad is kinda the point of direct action
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.
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…
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.
Hahaha love it!
Try that in a small towm
Ok
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.
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…
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.
Sounds like a great time for those tires that don’t need air to become popular
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.
Fucking assholes
The people driving SUVs? I agree
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.
