All the while big business is polluting the planet on a grand scale, some petty vandalism by a muppet who cant even spell 'tyre' properly is really going to 'liberate the Earth'.

dont listen to the undercover police officers who post back negative comments to submissions like these, that was a great action, more of them need to happen. Keep up the good work ELFs

"Moron Alert", when I spell the word "tires" instead of "tyres" or "jail" instead of "gaol", when I say "elevator" instead of "lift" or "truck" instead of "lorry", I am NOT indicating that I am an ignorant muppet who can't spell properly and doesn't know the English language. What I am indicating that I'm from a different part of the English speaking world than you are (or pretending that I am).

Although your intentions are right, I can see a massive problem with Earth Liberation actions that involve destroying things.

After I long conversation with someone I respect a lot about 3 years ago, I started thinking more about the environmental impact that any kind of direct action has. For example, if you use paint stripper to ruin a car's paintwork or slash tyres or break a few windows, more energy needs to be used to produce more tyres or re-paint the car and the original energy used to produce the original car has been wasted too, along with the tins or cans of stripper or paint that you've used.

Insurance for companies or even people's personal car insurance covers damage and replacements quite quickly and easily and most people/companies will have insurance.

Personally I think that if you're going to do an action for "the liberation of the earth" it needs to be a really good publicity stunt to get a lot of attention to the cause or it needs to have a large impact on the company/industry. Otherwise you're creating more of a problem.

If an action is big enough, not only will it have a huge impact on the company in the way of inconvenience but it will alos raise insurance premiums for the industry as insurance companies will worry that they'll have to pay out huge sums of money again and again. And larger actions are more likely to get more attention.

Is there a legal obligation for you to say 'moron alert' everytime you enter into a conversation, just so we know whowe are talking to?

>All the while big business is polluting the planet on a grand scale, some petty vandalism by a muppet who cant even spell 'tyre' properly is really going to 'liberate the Earth'.

The First Rule of Trolling:
--------------------------------

If the only flaw you can find in a cogent article is a spelling or grammar error, then it is probably best not to mention it. To start with, petty criticism underlines the lack of real criticism you are capable of. Secondly, and this is where Murphy's Law intersects the rules of grammar, your criticism of other peoples language will always be intrinsically flawed.

MDN has pointed out your misinterpretation of their use of words, but much more cringeworthy is your failed smear on their literacy was only partially literate.

1) You should have a question mark at the end of your question. Isn't that 'traditional'?
2) "Cant" means various things, but I think it is fair to assume you meant to type *can not* or it's shortened version *can't*. Which would be a totally forgivable mistake if you weren't criticising someone else for their grammar, but instead shows you to be a hypocritical idiot. Or in common parlance, a 'transparent, poisonous douche-bag'.
3) So far I've been generously trying to interpret your statement, as have others here, but let us deconstruct it further. You said - All the while 'A', something 'B'.

As in, all the time 'the cat chased the mouse' 'the town hall burned down'. So the cat is the arsonist or obviously innocent - or is this in simple distraction? What was your point? Please explain your weird assertion. Is that what passes for logic in your head? I don't have any idea what you are trying to convey. Are you trying to blame global warming on this vandal? Is the vandal partially complicit for not doing more sabotage of objects you agree are damaging to everyone? I've searched for your logical point in vain, and I'm beginning to think your logical point is myth or mist.

If this troll is a paid troll then I have to ask their line manager, if you are going to send us spelling-Hitlers then first make sure that they themselves can spell.

One out of ten, must try harder.

I hope by larger actions to gain publicity you mean torching SUVs or dealerships :-)

That certainly raises the insurance premiums and is a great media stunt !!

Either way direct action large or small all adds up.

Keep up the actions!

A present for you...

My information is 20 years out of date so correct me if I am wrong. To do financial rather than gesture damage to any car owner, you want to crack the windscreen, as that evades insurance policies. A more satisfying way to ruin a vehicle for months is to insert a smelly substance, like a joke sulphur capsule or whatever smells. Slashing tyres is a huge improvement over just deflating tyres though so well done for that.

I tend to support some of these actions - but with caveats. Could I encourage the author in future to add some more details? Photos are a nice to have, but essential to the story is emission data for the precise models damaged. CO2 and MPG are a good start, and other pollutant data may also be of interest. This is required to demonstrate to readers (sceptics especially) why these cars were targetted in particular. Perhaps also the piece could be expanded with the reasons why the people involved choose radical action rather than joining a pressure group or holding a street stall?

Care also needs to be taken to damage only the worst polluting vehicles - if it is later shown that the cars in question will do 60mpg (perhaps due to improvements in engine technology) then they're cleaner than older family saloon cars. And there lies the rub - you may garner some support for damaging newer (cleaner) vehicles but you'll not get any support at all (quite rightly) if you do the same to ordinary people's cars, even if the latter do more damage to the environment. I am not saying that this particular action is counterproductive - just that these issues need to be considered in detail beforehand.

Incidentally the manufacturers may publish emissions data but this cannot necessarily be relied upon - but there are likely to be other sources for this data.

Also, how's about interviewing the dealership manager by telephone to ask his views on climate destruction? (Yes, that's a serious suggestion).

Lastly - I wonder if anyone has examined the effects of radical interventions like these in the past? Can the views of people (for example in the local paper) be said to be changing after a series of radical actions? Or is there a danger that actions that are "too radical" will encourage reactionary views that slows down the real social change required to save the planet?