“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
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.
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?
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.