
Climate protesters storm Garzweiler coal mine in Germany - thg
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48734321
======
x3ro
One thing to note when reading such reports with quotes the German police, is
that the bar for a police officer being "hurt" is ridiculously low in Germany.
E.g. if an officer is grabbing your arm, and you try to yank it free, this
constitutes "assaulting a police officer" and will go into that number. In
past protests the police also reported officers being hurt without qualifying
that they had been hurt by other officers employing tear gas against
protesters.

Edit: to add at least one source, here's Spiegel Online reporting that the
police counted dehydration and circulatory issues as "injured officers"
(German unfortunately)

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/g20-viel-
weniger-verletzte-polizisten-als-angegeben-a-1157913-amp.html)

~~~
odiroot
> One thing to note when reading such reports with quotes the German police,
> is that the bar for a police officer being "hurt" is ridiculously low in
> Germany.

I'm totally okay with it.

One thing to note, at least in Berlin where I live, there's huge contempt and
disrespect towards police. Some criminals (calling themselves "protesters")
are literally throwing rocks, cobblestones, bottles (or at times Molotov
cocktails) at policemen. This is totally despicable and should never be
accepted.

At the same time police is heavily underfunded and constrained in their means
by ignorant (malevolent?) local government.

~~~
dmos62
How do you make the jump from (or, further yet, justify) the use of ridiculous
definitions of officer injury, to police funding and police constraint
problems or occurrence of violent clashes? Adverse conditions invite
malpractice, but doesn't make it justifiable.

Actually, on second read, you're not really justifying one with the other,
you're just saying that you sympathize with the German police, which according
to you has it bad, and you think that deceptive Police reports are thus
tolerable.

To be clear, I'm not providing insight into the main discussion, just saying
that your post doesn't read well.

~~~
blattimwind
> and you think that deceptive Police reports are thus tolerable.

I'll often cross check reporting with the actual police press releases and the
deceptiveness tends to be in the reporting, not the press release. The press
release might say something along the lines of "58 officers participated in a
police action at the blah-blah protest, where 15 officers and 19 protestors
were injured". Then the reporting will become "Blah-blah protestors injured 15
officers". Non sequitur.

------
adrianN
Burning lignite is the most ridiculous thing you can do. It would literally be
better for the climate to import coal from Australia and burn that. There is
no point in delaying the end of lignite mining until 2038.

We need a massive buildout of wind and solar and we need it now. There are no
technological problems left, we just need to spend the money. The 20k coal
jobs in Germany would pale against the workforce needed for a rapid switch to
renewables.

~~~
StavrosK
We need a massive buildout of nuclear and we need it thirty years ago. Wind
and solar aren't nearly as good as nuclear.

~~~
PeterStuer
Humanity have time and time again proven they can't handle the
responsibilities that come with nuclear. An 'I wash my hands and walk away, or
even better, make a profit of the cleanup when it all goes wrong' neo-liberal
market economy that skirts all the dangers 'by design' is a fatal compounding
factor.

~~~
StavrosK
What are those times? It has been massively more safe than almost any other
form of energy generation.

Edit: Why the downvotes without a counterpoint?

~~~
pastage
You have to define what you mean by safe. It's not good for nuclear proponents
that Fukushima and Chernobyl happened, after spending decades telling everyone
how some like this could "never" happen. I've read quite a lot of pronuclear
books and they are never very good at explaining risks. They basically say we
have thought of everything and there is no risks, or talk about non existent
tech. This is not good enough. Given their track record.

And I'm actually pronuclear.

~~~
snovv_crash
And the radioactive waste that coal plants spew directly into the atmosphere
during _normal operation_ somehow gets a free pass...

~~~
cygx
At the very least on HN, people are quick to point out the radioactive
material released by coal plants - I do not remember a single relevant
discussion where it wasn't.

Personally, I'm on board with getting rid of nuclear and fossil energy sources
both, which appears technologically feasible to me (offshore windparks help
with base load, flywheels can get you through the day and power-2-gas through
the winter).

------
nmc
Why would they storm a mine where poor people work in hazardous and exhausting
conditions? Do they not know that the company owning the mine is headquartered
in Essen, where the top-level managers responsible for this actually work?
(The company, RWE AG, has a 14 billion euros market cap and is not even
mentionned in the article, good reporting BBC!)

~~~
EamonnMR
Because the only way to stop climate change is to stop extraction of fossil
fuels. Once they're out of the ground they're destined for the atmosphere. I
envision state actors doing the same thing eventually.

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
the point is that the decisions are being made somewhere else. RWE executives
get to isolate themselves and continue to talk about _bonuses_ and
_shareholder value_ , while themselves remaining entirely removed from the
discussion. At the same time it is the poor people which have to be in the
trenches and the effects will be felt by all (including plant and animal
species we haven't even discovered yet).

Naming and shaming these crooks in public, and on social media is the future.
If that doesn't gel then go after their families and children too. The stakes
from damages due to climate and environmental crimes are simply too high.

~~~
Robotbeat
Pretty easy to erode shareholder value for mining companies if they’re unable
to mine.

------
tomglynch
Fantastic.

Pity here in Australia we just voted in a ~corrupt government who have signed
a deal to allow Adani to open a huge new coal mine that doesn't even benefit
Australians economically, and at a huge cost to the environment.

~~~
tootahe45
Mining hasn't benefited Australia economically? what are they teaching over
there?

~~~
DanBC
Some mines require a lot of subsidies. These can be direct or indirect.

[https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/mining-subsidies-
ov...](https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/mining-subsidies-
over-4-5b-australia-institute/)

> The Productivity Commission figures from earlier this month showed the
> mining industry got direct subsidies of $492 million last year.

> But senior economist at the left-leaning think tank Australia Institute Matt
> Grudnoff said total subsidy is almost ten times that amount when tax
> concessions given to mining companies are included.

> “The mining industry has the lowest rate of corporate tax because it has so
> many tax concessions,” he said.

~~~
roenxi
But the bulk of those subsidies are the fuel credit rebate. On the one hand,
it is technically a subsidy under the standard definitions of what a subsidy
is. On the other hand, the tax was never intended to tax diesel because of
some problem with diesel, it was literally intended to target (quoting from
the Act [0]):

"(a) fuel used in private vehicles and for certain other private purposes; and
(b) fuel used on-road in light vehicles for business purposes."

Ie, it is a tax on road users as a user-pays style of thing and the subsidy is
an accounting trick to make it easy to implement.

If a solar company used a lot of fuel without using the public road system,
they would be eligible for the subsidy too. It isn't conceptually mining
specific.

[0] [http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/cgi-
bin/down...](http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/cgi-
bin/download.cgi/download/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fta2006103.txt)

------
perfunctory
What's the hack with the coal industry? _New_ renewable energy is now cheaper
than _existing_ coal.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plu...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plunging-
prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-
coal)

~~~
kikoreis
24x7 sustained power output, lots of existing tech and expertise, ample supply
of fuel, and inertia to change.

------
jplayer01
I would say burn it all down, but I guess in this case that isn't quite a good
idea. We should be moving off of coal yesterday. The Energie Wende is a
massive failure, especially with the removal of solar subsidies. I'm ashamed
that this is my government supposedly representing my interests.

------
ForHackernews
Still can't believe Germany turned its back on nuclear to burn coal instead.

~~~
paines
So, you haven't heard about Chernobyl nor Fukushima?!? Maybe stop reading
hackernews and go to CNN and Wikipedia pal!

~~~
gambiting
1) don't build new reactors using 60-year old technology(even though that
technology has proven safe after the major issue was rectified after
Chernobyl)

2) don't build reactors in areas threatened by tsunamis and earthquakes.
Germany is safe from both, so using Chernobyl and Fukushima to justify
shutting down reactors in Germany, or even worse, stop construction of new
ones, is borderline insane.

~~~
_ph_
The problem is:

\- new reactors would still produce nuclear waste we don't have a storage
solution for

\- no one can afford new reactors. Properly safe new reactors cost so much
that they are not economically feasible.

~~~
gambiting
>>\- new reactors would still produce nuclear waste we don't have a storage
solution for

And this is the bit I just don't understand. The solution is almost obvious:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal)

Dig a shaft 5km deep, put your waste at the bottom, fill it up. Nothing from
that depth it coming out through any natural process for eons. I wonder why
it's not actually done...

"[...] pair of proposed test boreholes in the United States were cancelled due
to public opposition"

Oh. Of course.

------
Swaglord333
Was there had a good time

------
CamperBob2
I wonder if these are the same protesters who (successfully) clamored for the
shutdown of all nuclear plants in Germany only a few years ago.

I wonder what they'll protest next, after they get what they want _this_ time.

------
Bostonian
Judging from the comments, many HN readers are ok with illegal tactics in a
cause they support. People in causes they do not support may think they have
the right to employ similar tactics. There is not the politcal will to ban
coal, or it would have been done.

~~~
shaki-dora
Slavery was legal, interning Japanese-Americans during WW2 was legal,
Apartheid was legal etc. Legality often lags morality.

The Civil Rights Movement also stepped on a few lawns it wasn't supposed to.

------
jokoon
I have to be honest, I never had the occasion to see those huge machines
before I saw them in online photos, not from that article, but on places like
reddit.

Maybe the companies involved in this industry don't really like to allow
journalists, those mines and machines are quite scary and bad PR.

Anyway I guess most people might be surprised to see those tiny protesters
next to that huge thing.

Meanwhile, I hope greenpeace activists will be turned into ridicule.

~~~
usrusr
In Germany those machines are basically pop stars. Forget the few thousand
jobs that would be affected, forget energy independence, for most Germans, I
think, shutting down those monstrous monuments of an easier time would
secretly be their number one drawback of abandoning lignite. It's a love/hate
thing.

~~~
spopejoy
I confess to scanning the top photo in TFA for Baggers! You can see them in
the distance

