17 ms·

Climate protesters storm Garzweiler coal mine in Germany

225 points by thg 7y ago

Bostonian 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
x3ro 7y ago
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/g20-viel-weniger-verletzte-polizisten-als-angegeben-a-1157913-amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/...
- tastroder 7y ago
  > 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. Where would that bar be higher, especially when reporting these numbers in the context of protest deployments?
  - x3ro 7y ago
    I don't understand the question? I'm saying this because such numbers often spark anti-protester sentiment in the rest of the population, and the police is contributing by reporting exaggerated numbers of injured officers. I did not mean to make a comparison to anywhere else, since I wouldn't know how police reports such numbers in other countries.
    - tastroder 7y ago
      Oh, I see. I was just wondering about what the point was tbh. "Harmed by dehydration" sounded like a useful metric to have internally but if you're getting at the public perception I'd have to clearly agree. Just saw it as more of a lack in good reporting as opposed to actually tracking how people get injured in the first placed.
      - pluma 7y ago
        The police has no reason to release less ambiguous numbers because over-reporting injuries actually works out in their favour by shaping public perception as "police attacked by violent protestors" rather than "police escalating a protest by using violence and protesters then resisting". Politicians likewise excuse this by saying that there are no reliable reports of misconduct while also only considering reports reliable that are directly sourced from the police. "Who watches the watchmen?" in this case is "the watchman". Requests for more accountability for police violence was basically shot down with "while there are many accusations of police violence, barely any of them have resulted in convictions".
    - usrusr 7y ago
      It doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious move to put the protesters in a bad light: when military historians look at a battle or war, they make very little distinction between casualties from direct enemy action and casualties from bad environmental and supply conditions (e.g. La Grande Armée vs Russia, the famous infographic). You should not do that, apply military metrics to civilian unrest, but I guess it happens. That being said, there are definitely elements in and around German police forces that will jump at every opportunity to put protesters in a bad light.
- mk89 7y ago
  German police officers have very limited power to do anything at all. What you mentioned is one sort of loophole they use to be able to “catch” someone: you touched me! Oh, regarding the policemen trying to hold your arms. Never seen that as a first action, and typically when that happens is a sign that you have actually done something, otherwise they don’t touch you.
  - dschu 7y ago
    https://twitter.com/timluedde/status/1142489729771982850?s=21 https://twitter.com/timluedde/status/1142489729771982850?s=2... #2: https://twitter.com/oekofuzzi/status/1142719827376857088?s=21 https://twitter.com/oekofuzzi/status/1142719827376857088?s=2... Update: More Video links.
    - mk89 7y ago
      Power != law. This policeman risks his job now. If it was in another country, I would laugh it off. Here in Germany this will become a national case.
      - x3ro 7y ago
        With all due respect, that is ridiculous. There have been dozens such cases over the last years, with little to no repercussions the police officers. Amnesty international has repeatedly criticised police violence in Germany. This is not a one-off problem.
        mk89 7y ago
        Fair enough I don’t know all the cases. Could you tell me how you would have done it? To hold those protesters with a limited amount of policemen?
        kuschku 7y ago
        > Could you tell me how you would have done it? To hold those protesters with a limited amount of policemen? By not holding them. The right to protest outranks the right to property.
- blattimwind 7y ago
  > 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. Obviously it's at least obstruction of a police officer. > 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) But they were injured during the police action?
  - Semaphor 7y ago
    > But they were injured during the police action? Yes, but to many, it might sound like injuries due to protestors attacking them.
  - pluma 7y ago
    If a police officer is doing something illegal, you are not legally required to comply. Also, Germany in theory has pretty strict laws about what is considered an appropriate level of force (which is why you're considerably less likely to see a German police officer reach for their gun because even drawing the gun is considered a massive escalation and may require them to file paperwork later). The objection to the reporting isn't that they weren't injured, it's that the numbers are used to portray protestors as violent even when the injuries were the direct result of police violence. If I punch you in the face and break my hand, it's at least extremely misleading to report that as a fight in which both parties suffered injuries (mostly because "fight" implies you fought back).
  - x3ro 7y ago
    If a police officer stops me for speeding and while giving me a fine dies of a heat stroke because it's really hot and they are dehydrated, did I kill that police officer? Because that seems to be the logic implied here.
    - Lev1a 7y ago
      No, in that scenario he "died in the line of duty" or something similar to that.
- odiroot 7y ago
  > 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.
  - pluma 7y ago
    Yet at the same time the police manages to identify, process and charge said protestors just fine but seems to be absolutely incapable of doing anything about literal nazis openly performing illegal salutes and calling for violence, even if they have it on tape and have police officers present and witnessing. There's a reason Germans left of center have a disdain for the police and it's obvious why that tends to escalate. If you're okay with police officers injuring themselves while violently suppressing protestors being counted as "injured by protestors" you should also be fine with the police being held to the same standards. Somehow even if someone dies in police custody the investigations never amount to anything though, and the government is okay with that because the police investigated itself and said the police isn't doing anything wrong.
    - pard68 7y ago
      Wait, is that illegal in Germany? Do Germans not have a right to free speechi
      - claudius 7y ago
        There is no right to free speech in Germany. The constitution protects freedom of opinion and you are allowed to voice your opinion in most cases, but there are restrictions (e.g. demagoguery).
      - pluma 7y ago
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  Along that line I remember police reported being attacked by protesters with allmost chemical weapons or acid ... which turned out to be soap bubbles.
tomglynch 7y ago
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.
- gkamsky 7y ago
  Sucks
- tootahe45 7y ago
  Mining hasn't benefited Australia economically? what are they teaching over there?
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Some mines require a lot of subsidies. These can be direct or indirect. https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/mining-subsidies-over-4-5b-australia-institute/ https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/mining-subsidies-ov... > 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 7y ago
      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/download.cgi/download/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fta2006103.txt http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/cgi-bin/down...
adrianN 7y ago
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.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Can we keep up with large scale battery production yet? (For places which can't use other energy storage systems) I remember that being a problem a few years ago.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    There is a tradeoff between a better grid and more storage requirements (it's always windy somewhere, and with a sufficiently smart grid you can match demand to supply better). You probably only need a day or two of battery or hydro storage and can use power-to-gas for long winters. Strategic gas storage infrastructure is already available, and power to gas is a proven technology (with fairly terrible energy efficiency). But you need power-to-gas anyway, because replacing all the old gas infrastructure for heating with heat pumps will take too long. If you speak German, there is a very informative interview with Prof. Quaschning of Scientists for Future here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3EoCKgzLo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3EoCKgzLo4
    - glogla 7y ago
      Sadly gas here means Russia. A lot of people aren't happy about it, since it gives Russia power and more power for Russia is bad for everyone in the world, but especially for Eastern Europe.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        Power-to-gas means independence from Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ForHackernews 7y ago
Still can't believe Germany turned its back on nuclear to burn coal instead.
- paines 7y ago
  So, you haven't heard about Chernobyl nor Fukushima?!? Maybe stop reading hackernews and go to CNN and Wikipedia pal!
  - simion314 7y ago
    Coal industry has more deaths and injuries then nuclear energy industry. Though I agree that I would not feel safe with a nuclear plant near my home so I understand why it causes fear in people.
    - xvilka 7y ago
      Even probably more radiation, since coal ash often has some dangerous radionuclides.
  - zakk 7y ago
    I should assume you never travel by airplane since there have been some disasters? Truth is that nuclear energy is the safest form of energy.
    - xvilka 7y ago
      Planes are a toy compared to the cars and public buses (if you check mortality rates).
  - lucb1e 7y ago
    I think you're the one that should read up on the actual deaths or disfigurements or whatever that those accidents resulted in, rather than the media reports which scream bloody murder. > there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome [...] studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... Also, the world has changed since 1986. As an example (it seems that almost nobody knows this), the number of people living in extreme poverty has quartered since then, despite the population growth from 5 billion to nearly 8 billion people. Russia changed less, as far as I can tell this is due to the fall of the USSR. Still, an accident from thirty years ago in a poor country is almost incomparable to today. There was no common Internet back then, knowledge had to come through books (or possibly TV) and learning something that helps you do your job was not as easy as it is today. Still, even with Chernobyl: > The Chernobyl disaster, considered the worst nuclear disaster in history [...] there is rough agreement that a total of either 31 or 54 people died from blast trauma or acute radiation syndrome [...] deaths due to the disaster's long-term health effects, with long-term death estimates ranging from 4,000 (per the 2005 and 2006 conclusions of a joint consortium of the United Nations and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia), to more than 93,000 (per the conflicting conclusions of various scientific, health, environmental, and survivors' organizations). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... That's pretty awful, but nothing like burning fossil fuels: > the greatest energy fatalities that result from energy generation by humanity, is the creation of air pollution. The most lethal of which, particulate matter, which is primarily generated from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is (counting outdoor air pollution effects only) estimated to cause 2.1 million deaths annually That page also lists 10 000 deaths per petaWatt-hour in the USA in 2012 and 100 000 deaths globally (the same table lists much, much fewer casualties for solar, wind, and nuclear per PWh). If the worst disaster ever has casualties ranging from 4k to 93k, then what are we talking about? Shut coal down now! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents And Chernobyl was the worst accident ever, it is not common. If nuclear power was so likely to blow up with these results, not a nation on earth would risk this, yet France (I think we all agree this is not some poor third world country desperate for energy and unable to build solar or wind) is littered with reactors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France), 58 in total. The number of accidents listed is 12, starting in 1969, ranging from "75kg of slightly radioactive material was leaked, fishing and drinking the river water was banned for two weeks" to "one person killed in a blast from a metal melting accident that the nuclear plant uses" (i.e. not a nuclear accident).
nmc 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      Pretty easy to erode shareholder value for mining companies if they’re unable to mine.
  - jseliger 7y ago
    If only there were some power source that is reliable and technologically mature; one could use it as a substitute for coal. Alas that such a thing must remain in fantasy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20254019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20254019
- 7y ago
perfunctory 7y ago
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/plunging-prices-mean-building-new-renewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-running-existing-coal https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/12/03/plu...
- kikoreis 7y ago
  24x7 sustained power output, lots of existing tech and expertise, ample supply of fuel, and inertia to change.
- rmtech 7y ago
  It's not cheaper when you take into account the variability of renewable energy. And that's a huge problem that is basically unsolved at the moment.
CamperBob2 7y ago
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.
Swaglord333 7y ago
Was there had a good time
jokoon 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    I confess to scanning the top photo in TFA for Baggers! You can see them in the distance
- BSVogler 7y ago
  There is a museum explaoining all the stuff around coal mining and you are free to go to to viewing platforms. It's not a secret.
jplayer01 7y ago
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.
microcolonel 7y ago
Given that Germany's other fossil fuels come largely from Russia, I can not trust that this protest is entirely grass roots.

225 points by thg 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.

x3ro 7y ago

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

tastroder 7y ago
> 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. Where would that bar be higher, especially when reporting these numbers in the context of protest deployments?
- x3ro 7y ago
  I don't understand the question? I'm saying this because such numbers often spark anti-protester sentiment in the rest of the population, and the police is contributing by reporting exaggerated numbers of injured officers. I did not mean to make a comparison to anywhere else, since I wouldn't know how police reports such numbers in other countries.
  - tastroder 7y ago
    Oh, I see. I was just wondering about what the point was tbh. "Harmed by dehydration" sounded like a useful metric to have internally but if you're getting at the public perception I'd have to clearly agree. Just saw it as more of a lack in good reporting as opposed to actually tracking how people get injured in the first placed.
    - pluma 7y ago
      The police has no reason to release less ambiguous numbers because over-reporting injuries actually works out in their favour by shaping public perception as "police attacked by violent protestors" rather than "police escalating a protest by using violence and protesters then resisting". Politicians likewise excuse this by saying that there are no reliable reports of misconduct while also only considering reports reliable that are directly sourced from the police. "Who watches the watchmen?" in this case is "the watchman". Requests for more accountability for police violence was basically shot down with "while there are many accusations of police violence, barely any of them have resulted in convictions".
  - usrusr 7y ago
    It doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious move to put the protesters in a bad light: when military historians look at a battle or war, they make very little distinction between casualties from direct enemy action and casualties from bad environmental and supply conditions (e.g. La Grande Armée vs Russia, the famous infographic). You should not do that, apply military metrics to civilian unrest, but I guess it happens. That being said, there are definitely elements in and around German police forces that will jump at every opportunity to put protesters in a bad light.
mk89 7y ago
German police officers have very limited power to do anything at all. What you mentioned is one sort of loophole they use to be able to “catch” someone: you touched me! Oh, regarding the policemen trying to hold your arms. Never seen that as a first action, and typically when that happens is a sign that you have actually done something, otherwise they don’t touch you.
- dschu 7y ago
  https://twitter.com/timluedde/status/1142489729771982850?s=21 https://twitter.com/timluedde/status/1142489729771982850?s=2... #2: https://twitter.com/oekofuzzi/status/1142719827376857088?s=21 https://twitter.com/oekofuzzi/status/1142719827376857088?s=2... Update: More Video links.
  - mk89 7y ago
    Power != law. This policeman risks his job now. If it was in another country, I would laugh it off. Here in Germany this will become a national case.
    - x3ro 7y ago
      With all due respect, that is ridiculous. There have been dozens such cases over the last years, with little to no repercussions the police officers. Amnesty international has repeatedly criticised police violence in Germany. This is not a one-off problem.
      - mk89 7y ago
        Fair enough I don’t know all the cases. Could you tell me how you would have done it? To hold those protesters with a limited amount of policemen?
        kuschku 7y ago
        > Could you tell me how you would have done it? To hold those protesters with a limited amount of policemen? By not holding them. The right to protest outranks the right to property.
blattimwind 7y ago
> 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. Obviously it's at least obstruction of a police officer. > 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) But they were injured during the police action?
- Semaphor 7y ago
  > But they were injured during the police action? Yes, but to many, it might sound like injuries due to protestors attacking them.
- pluma 7y ago
  If a police officer is doing something illegal, you are not legally required to comply. Also, Germany in theory has pretty strict laws about what is considered an appropriate level of force (which is why you're considerably less likely to see a German police officer reach for their gun because even drawing the gun is considered a massive escalation and may require them to file paperwork later). The objection to the reporting isn't that they weren't injured, it's that the numbers are used to portray protestors as violent even when the injuries were the direct result of police violence. If I punch you in the face and break my hand, it's at least extremely misleading to report that as a fight in which both parties suffered injuries (mostly because "fight" implies you fought back).
- x3ro 7y ago
  If a police officer stops me for speeding and while giving me a fine dies of a heat stroke because it's really hot and they are dehydrated, did I kill that police officer? Because that seems to be the logic implied here.
  - Lev1a 7y ago
    No, in that scenario he "died in the line of duty" or something similar to that.
odiroot 7y ago
> 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.
- pluma 7y ago
  Yet at the same time the police manages to identify, process and charge said protestors just fine but seems to be absolutely incapable of doing anything about literal nazis openly performing illegal salutes and calling for violence, even if they have it on tape and have police officers present and witnessing. There's a reason Germans left of center have a disdain for the police and it's obvious why that tends to escalate. If you're okay with police officers injuring themselves while violently suppressing protestors being counted as "injured by protestors" you should also be fine with the police being held to the same standards. Somehow even if someone dies in police custody the investigations never amount to anything though, and the government is okay with that because the police investigated itself and said the police isn't doing anything wrong.
  - pard68 7y ago
    Wait, is that illegal in Germany? Do Germans not have a right to free speechi
    - claudius 7y ago
      There is no right to free speech in Germany. The constitution protects freedom of opinion and you are allowed to voice your opinion in most cases, but there are restrictions (e.g. demagoguery).
    - pluma 7y ago
hutzlibu 7y ago
Along that line I remember police reported being attacked by protesters with allmost chemical weapons or acid ... which turned out to be soap bubbles.

tomglynch 7y ago

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.

gkamsky 7y ago
Sucks
tootahe45 7y ago
Mining hasn't benefited Australia economically? what are they teaching over there?
- DanBC 7y ago
  Some mines require a lot of subsidies. These can be direct or indirect. https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/mining-subsidies-over-4-5b-australia-institute/ https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/mining-subsidies-ov... > 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 7y ago
    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/download.cgi/download/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fta2006103.txt http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/cgi-bin/down...

adrianN 7y ago

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.

viraptor 7y ago
Can we keep up with large scale battery production yet? (For places which can't use other energy storage systems) I remember that being a problem a few years ago.
- adrianN 7y ago
  There is a tradeoff between a better grid and more storage requirements (it's always windy somewhere, and with a sufficiently smart grid you can match demand to supply better). You probably only need a day or two of battery or hydro storage and can use power-to-gas for long winters. Strategic gas storage infrastructure is already available, and power to gas is a proven technology (with fairly terrible energy efficiency). But you need power-to-gas anyway, because replacing all the old gas infrastructure for heating with heat pumps will take too long. If you speak German, there is a very informative interview with Prof. Quaschning of Scientists for Future here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3EoCKgzLo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3EoCKgzLo4
  - glogla 7y ago
    Sadly gas here means Russia. A lot of people aren't happy about it, since it gives Russia power and more power for Russia is bad for everyone in the world, but especially for Eastern Europe.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Power-to-gas means independence from Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ForHackernews 7y ago

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

paines 7y ago
So, you haven't heard about Chernobyl nor Fukushima?!? Maybe stop reading hackernews and go to CNN and Wikipedia pal!
- simion314 7y ago
  Coal industry has more deaths and injuries then nuclear energy industry. Though I agree that I would not feel safe with a nuclear plant near my home so I understand why it causes fear in people.
  - xvilka 7y ago
    Even probably more radiation, since coal ash often has some dangerous radionuclides.
- zakk 7y ago
  I should assume you never travel by airplane since there have been some disasters? Truth is that nuclear energy is the safest form of energy.
  - xvilka 7y ago
    Planes are a toy compared to the cars and public buses (if you check mortality rates).
- lucb1e 7y ago
  I think you're the one that should read up on the actual deaths or disfigurements or whatever that those accidents resulted in, rather than the media reports which scream bloody murder. > there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome [...] studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... Also, the world has changed since 1986. As an example (it seems that almost nobody knows this), the number of people living in extreme poverty has quartered since then, despite the population growth from 5 billion to nearly 8 billion people. Russia changed less, as far as I can tell this is due to the fall of the USSR. Still, an accident from thirty years ago in a poor country is almost incomparable to today. There was no common Internet back then, knowledge had to come through books (or possibly TV) and learning something that helps you do your job was not as easy as it is today. Still, even with Chernobyl: > The Chernobyl disaster, considered the worst nuclear disaster in history [...] there is rough agreement that a total of either 31 or 54 people died from blast trauma or acute radiation syndrome [...] deaths due to the disaster's long-term health effects, with long-term death estimates ranging from 4,000 (per the 2005 and 2006 conclusions of a joint consortium of the United Nations and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia), to more than 93,000 (per the conflicting conclusions of various scientific, health, environmental, and survivors' organizations). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... That's pretty awful, but nothing like burning fossil fuels: > the greatest energy fatalities that result from energy generation by humanity, is the creation of air pollution. The most lethal of which, particulate matter, which is primarily generated from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is (counting outdoor air pollution effects only) estimated to cause 2.1 million deaths annually That page also lists 10 000 deaths per petaWatt-hour in the USA in 2012 and 100 000 deaths globally (the same table lists much, much fewer casualties for solar, wind, and nuclear per PWh). If the worst disaster ever has casualties ranging from 4k to 93k, then what are we talking about? Shut coal down now! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents And Chernobyl was the worst accident ever, it is not common. If nuclear power was so likely to blow up with these results, not a nation on earth would risk this, yet France (I think we all agree this is not some poor third world country desperate for energy and unable to build solar or wind) is littered with reactors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France), 58 in total. The number of accidents listed is 12, starting in 1969, ranging from "75kg of slightly radioactive material was leaked, fishing and drinking the river water was banned for two weeks" to "one person killed in a blast from a metal melting accident that the nuclear plant uses" (i.e. not a nuclear accident).

nmc 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    Pretty easy to erode shareholder value for mining companies if they’re unable to mine.
- jseliger 7y ago
  If only there were some power source that is reliable and technologically mature; one could use it as a substitute for coal. Alas that such a thing must remain in fantasy. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20254019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20254019
7y ago

perfunctory 7y ago

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

kikoreis 7y ago
24x7 sustained power output, lots of existing tech and expertise, ample supply of fuel, and inertia to change.
rmtech 7y ago
It's not cheaper when you take into account the variability of renewable energy. And that's a huge problem that is basically unsolved at the moment.

CamperBob2 7y ago

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.

Swaglord333 7y ago

Was there had a good time

jokoon 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  I confess to scanning the top photo in TFA for Baggers! You can see them in the distance
BSVogler 7y ago
There is a museum explaoining all the stuff around coal mining and you are free to go to to viewing platforms. It's not a secret.

jplayer01 7y ago

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.

microcolonel 7y ago

Given that Germany's other fossil fuels come largely from Russia, I can not trust that this protest is entirely grass roots.