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.
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.
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”.
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 🤷
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.
Fucking assholes
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.
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.
