-
My point is that even in a city where it is easy and convenient for many people (obvs not all) to live day to day without cars, the cultural desirability of cars remains a problem underlying their excessive use. I'm sure it could be done in different, more effective, less smelly hippies ways, but it's valid that that idea needs countering and deflating. And the oversized power car - even if it actually doesn't use that much fuel - is a particular display of excess.
I'm not disagreeing with your point at all, what I'm saying is that taking aim at aspirational cars for protest plays into the hands of those who wish to discount all and any such protest.
It's very easy for someone to say "you're just envious of others success" when you target large and expensive cars.
Depends on what your goals from the protest are, I suppose - if you want to change the mind of the person who doesn't believe in climate change but is inclined to easy narratives based around envy that are promoted by the Mail etc then I suggest that reinforcing them is not the best way of doing so.
If it's just to feel good about protesting, I guess it works.
Dammit-
Any ideas how to do this in more persuasive, less disagreeable ways? (This is not a shut up, but a genuine question.)
The target change is not about climate change in general, and not about improving other transport/mobility options, but specifically the car as aspirational possession. (Also, in case not obvious, I'm not defending the Glasgow actions which I haven't actually read about, rather riffing on the general theme. ) -
I totally get the point about apparently taking aim at "aspirational" cars. I wish the point could be clearly made that this is not about aspiration (if you want to gold-plate your Tesla I don't give a shit). It's about a basic minimum expectation of acting as part of a society when using a public resource (the highway) and interacting with your fellow citizens (which all travel involves as it's inherently a public activity). SUVs (and I'm largely talking about urban use here) are just shit on every level: safety, emissions, space etc. etc. and the justifications are all crap: everything you can do in an urban SUV can be achieved more cheaply, equally safely, and in just as much comfort in a standard estate car (and I particularly hate the "they make me more confident in traffic" line, as if that isn't obviously starting a size-based arms-race for safety on the roads). They are purely about putting your own comfort and/or self-aggrandisement over the wellbeing of others and the planet and should be called out as such...
...but more importantly, they should be legislated against.
-
It's very easy for someone to say "you're just envious of others success" when you target large and expensive cars.
If your the kind of person that would make this sort of disingenuous argument you’re just as likely to moan that you’re targeting working people just like the insulates Britain protests, if you take a different approach.
You’re never gonna win the argument with these people and it’s pointless trying to.
-
if you want to change the mind of the person who doesn't believe in climate change
Do you believe in climate change?
I suspect most SUV owners believe the science, but are engaged in the same cognitive dissonance that almost all of us are.
hoefla
ffm
HousecatHST
deleted
My point is that even in a city where it is easy and convenient for many people (obvs not all) to live day to day without cars, the cultural desirability of cars remains a problem underlying their excessive use. I'm sure it could be done in different, more effective, less smelly hippies ways, but it's valid that that idea needs countering and deflating. And the oversized power car - even if it actually doesn't use that much fuel - is a particular display of excess.