“The movement have now deflated tyres on around 9,000 SUVs in cities across the world since March, striking continuously, and look set to surpass their goal of 10,000 SUVs deflated by Christmas,” the statement added.
The group has said its aim is “to make it impossible to own an SUV in the world’s urban areas”, condemning the vehicles as “unnecessary ‘luxury emissions’, flaunted by the wealthy, that are a climate disaster, cause air pollution and make our roads more dangerous”.
lol, lmao
“How to Blow Up a Pipeline” was literally last months book club recommendation on this site. Read it.
:read-theory:
That's the argument for this, but the argument against it is:
Focusing efforts on institutional polluters seems like a lot better use of energy.
Luckily the book has a lot more content than just the title, and advocates with a compelling argument for this exact same action.
Any anti-capitalist or anti-climate action has the risk of a criminal record, that’s baked into the cake of the system BY DESIGN.
Great, we can do both. Bad news though, both of your counter-arguments apply 100 fold to anyone who wants to blow up an oil pipeline.
I'm legit interested in hearing the argument for small-scale stuff like this. It seems like all risk and no reward.
A pipeline is at least big enough to make waves on a national or even international scale. Look at the impact of Russia taking Nord Stream 1 offline. That kind of impact justifies all the stuff in the second point, and makes the action itself more defensible.
Then read the book the title of which you used as a foundation of your argument. The basics are that when this action took place in 2019 it saw a very significant dip in SUV sales in Sweden as a response.
deleted by creator
If we throw enough people in prison for drugs, will that lower the incidence of drug use? General deterrence mostly doesn't work.
This has got to be a troll.
You’re now comparing using the police state against people with drug addiction to deflating tires of SUVs??
No, I'm saying "punish a few people for X and you'll lower the incidence of X" usually doesn't hold water if X is in any way desirable.
There's a wealth of literature that extremely harsh penalties for recreational drug use don't deter recreational drug use. So why would a relatively mild penalty for driving an SUV deter people from buying SUVs?
Because the things are so entirely different that your analogy makes 0 sense in the actual world.
Sorry man, this isn’t academic hypotheticals. It worked in Sweden in 2019 so idk what to tell you.
How well do speeding tickets keep people from speeding?
If something worked once but failed a million other times, "it worked once" isn't very convincing.
Cool, I listed the worked once now list a million other times it hasn’t. I’ll wait until you get to one million.
deleted by creator
Yes, we need more global action like the one that worked in Sweden in 2019. I agree.
deleted by creator
https://internationalfleetworld.com/european-car-market-drops-in-june-as-suv-sales-decline/
-25% in 2019 compared to the European market decline of 7%. Not saying all of that is due to this action, and nobody could, but an effective decrease of an additional 18% in sales is nothing to sneeze at.
Edit: Sorry, that was just June 2019. I will continue looking for further sources after I’m done eating dinner
deleted by creator
when was it tried a million other times, dipass?
See the article below about record SUV sales in 2021.
That’s global sales. Nice to try to use obviously unrelated statistics as a cudgel to stop climate action though. Very cool!
If this worked a million other times, you'd see some widespread effect.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I misread this:
As "when it was tried."
The original comment was still far away from getting the point, which is that there are tons of examples of similar strategies not working (see speeding tickets doing a poor job of getting people to drive the speed limit). You don't need to try this exact thing a million times to look at similar things and question its value.
those things are not similar and you should shut up and read the book that has been recommended to you dozens of times by now
If a bunch of people who've read the book can't come up with a convincing explanation of how deflating SUV tires is supposed to do anything, I'm not going to get that from the book, either.
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
it's been explained multiple times. did you lose the ability to read? i know american literacy is in the toilet but you're just ridiculous.
there's an audio version linked in the book club threads, go listen to the book, jackass. don't talk to me again until you have. generally adult books are not able to be compressed into 2 paragraph forum comments.
Fuuuuuuuuck off.
The explanation provided is dubious at best and meaningless correlation at worst. Others have pointed this out. People don't automatically agree with what you say just because you said it. Learn how to convince people instead of this online "I guess you can't READ" bullshit.
deleted by creator
Almost like deflating tires of SUVs as a means of climate action hasn’t been tried a million other times and is different than giving someone a speeding ticket. Weird.
Lol then what's the comment about "this has worked a million other times" supposed to even mean? This is Looney Tunes land
I’ve never said anything about this working a million times at all. As far as I know you are the only one who brought up “million other times” in reference to your theory on incentives and ticketing and putting people in jail for drugs or whatever. I’ve never made a claim that this has been “tried a million times”
And now I’d appreciate it if you’d stop engaging with me. At this point you aren’t even making sense and responding to me as if I claimed something that you brought into the conversation to begin with.
Also, newsflash driving an SUV might be slightly less addictive than heroine. Not sure though, might have to check the extensive literature.
We're talking about it right now -- can you give even a sentence or two on this point? I can't go and read a whole book immediately.
I just did.
I thought that was responding to something else, sorry. If that's the evidence for it generating a larger effect, I'm wondering why general deterrence seems to work with this and not work in so many other contexts.
Because having your car tires deflated leading to selecting a different vehicle is so entirely different than being thrown in jail for drug charges like you are running around this thread talking about.
It’s difficult for me to think of two things that are more different.
Fine, look at speeding tickets. How well do they keep people from speeding?
Why do you keep insisting on looking at different things. This thing has already been done and was effective, why would we disregard that and instead look at the migration habits of pigeons that have been given tickets for shoplifting corn at regional state fairs instead?
Idk what your real hang up is about this, but it’s getting weird.
Why am I searching for more tested comparisons for this hyper-specific and small scale action? Seriously?
You're intentionally missing a very simple point, so I'm done replying.
You’re intentionally comparing deflating a tire to being thrown in jail for drugs. So I should have been done 5 posts ago. Silly shit honestly.
Probably pretty well, considering the fact that I don't speed to avoid tickets, and if there were no chance of a ticket, I would speed all the time.
(Do you seriously not believe in incentives or enforcement of any kind lol?)
I do it =/= most people do it. Some people respond to incentives and enforcement, but the manner of enforcement for stuff like this usually doesn't work. Tons of people speed even if the possibility of a ticket causes you personally not to.
I'm going to call it no one worried about the criminality of vandalism is going to blow up a pipeline
They literally make stuff up, or continue talking about petty vandalism cases from decades ago. "Providing material" is meaningless, they're clutching their pearls about how we're violent superterrorists regardless of whether we've done anything at all. May as well meet their expectations at that point.
The people who buy whatever story is put in front of them are pretty far from being reachable anyway. I'm talking about people who don't buy "antifa terrorism" stuff as a matter of course, but who aren't on board enough to think it's kinda sorta alright if there's a real example.
It's really cool that we've developed a culture of reading not for knowledge but for vanity.
What?
You disagreed with someone just now. And you read a book so that you could tell them you read a book. Not to impart or distribute knowledge or actually argue back. You just showed them your merit badge and laughed at them for not having the same one as you. What's the point of reading books? What's the point of learning things?
Nah, I gave the general gist of the argument all over this post actually. I also gave some keywords for people to investigate similar actions in Sweden in 2019.
Sorry I’m cooking dinner and don’t have time to share my book report for people that don’t actually want to read anything about the topic.
If you’re interested in finding out more literally google the book title and read some reviews, or go dive into some of the book club threads from last month on this very website.
What else would you like me to do in order to pass your bar of “reading for vanity”?
Removed by mod
Here’s a wild fucking idea! Maybe me telling someone to read a book isn’t actually me arguing with them but is instead, idk, recommending that they read the book that I’m mentioning!
Hilarious accusing me of :reddit-logo: but then instantly assuming mentioning that someone should read a book related to the topic at hand is engaging in an argument.
I’ve relayed a point over and over again. This action helped reduce SUV sales in Sweden in 2019, if you’d like to know more read last months book club selection “how to blow up a pipeline”.
Fuck. Never though I’d get this kind of reaction from recommending a fucking book to read.
Consider; the book you're telling people to read actually tells people to take action (violent revolutionary action at that!) and that's scary, rather than just rehashing 100+ year old history in an academic circlejerk
Truth. The reaction to this is really opening my eyes about this site honestly. The tiniest bit of coordinated climate action has half the people in this thread bringing up every possible argument they can think of to put it down.
I’ve been here since the beginning, and this is honestly just depressing.
same, same. been involved in leftism a lot longer tho and i gotta be honest: get used to this :doomer:
Yeah this is bullshit. You weren't approaching them with that energy. You were telling them they were wrong and that they should correct themselves by reading a book. I made my point here. If all you want to argue about is rewriting your intentions in the first place you should be editing your original comments instead of replying here.
Cool glad you were able to divine my energy through the internet. I’m disengaging with you. Hope you have an amazing rest of your day.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Yes you do seem like an expert on self-masturbatory posts.
^