1y ago

Hamburg: Climate activists let air out of tyres of 33 cars (mainly SUVs!) again

www.ndr.de Hamburg: Klimaaktivisten lassen erneut Luft aus Reifen von 33 Autos

Klimaaktivisten und -aktivistinnen haben in Hamburg wieder die Luft aus den Reifen von mehreren geparkten Autos gelassen. Die Polizei bestätigte 33 Fälle in Nienstedten, die von Anwohnerinnen und Anwohnern am frühen Morgen bemerkt worden sind.

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.

Klimawandel @feddit.de

Hamburg: Klimaaktivisten lassen erneut Luft aus Reifen von 33 Autos

www.ndr.de /nachrichten/hamburg/Hamburg-Klimaaktivisten-lassen-erneut-Luft-aus-Reifen-von-33-Autos,autoreifen196.html

54 23

213 comments

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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
- 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?
- 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.
  
  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).
  
  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"?
- 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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
- 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
  
  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
- 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.

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?
  
  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.

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.
- "The working class" hahhhah

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.
- 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.

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.

Hahaha love it!
- Try that in a small towm
  
  Ok

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.

Fucking assholes
- 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.

213 comments