> I assume many of those cars I earlier estimated that a 5% shift more than makes up for the additional CO2 emissions caused by replacing the damage. Are you

> I assume many of those cars I earlier estimated that a 5% shift more than makes up for the additional CO2 emissions caused by replacing the damage. Are you arguing that >95% of the population who bought an SUV did so because of seating or room or other essential feature that isn't possible in another car? If not, then my hand-waving response to your earlier objection at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32217386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32217386 stands. > I kind of doubt the red paint thing made much if an impact- it wasn't that common. Things don't need to be common to have an impact. Look at the widespread worries about "stranger danger" when abductions of children by strangers is extremely uncommon. And the Grey Lady appears to disagree with you: "For years, we’ve watched videos of screaming animals and seen red paint splatter fur coats. With these in-your-face and highly visual tactics, the activists helped win the culture war over fur." - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/style/peta-fashion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/style/peta-fashion.html But really, I think you're missing my point. I pointed to a half-dozen or more political movements with a militant component. (I'll add unionization, and anti-unionization, to the list. And Irish independence.). These are people who deliberately broke the law to advance their cause. The use of militant activism does not negate the validity of the political goals of the movement. There's wide agreement that women suffrage is correct, even though the suffragettes carried out illegal acts of violence - and expected extreme opposition. My point is to highlight these questions: 1) where is the equivalent militant arm among climate activists? 2) why are their actions so mild compared to the other movements I pointed out? 3) is there a point where militant activism (King's "a riot is the language of the unheard") would justified? 4) your observations (eg, "Extreme tactics beget extreme opposition") also apply to other militants - why didn't it didn't stop the suffragettes or others? Now that I think about your phrase, ExxonMobil deliberately used extreme tactics to promote fossil fuel use even though their scientists knew about global warming back in the 1970s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont... . If "Extreme tactics beget extreme opposition" then where is the extreme opposition to ExxonMobil? (Or do you want to argue that a multi-decade multi-national conspiracy to delay acceptance and action on global warming is not an extreme tactic?)