comment: >
  
  As I said, 80% are against that decision. Still it happens. There is no vote for individual decision, you know that. But if the large majority is against a particular decision and the parties elected by that majority is for that decision, how is that democratic?
  As I said, the green party went through with it as some sort of deal where RWE pledged to end coal 8 years earlier (in 2030 instead of 2038). But that's kind of a scam as reports show that after 2030 coal would be cost inefficient as the high CO2-certificates by then would make coal mining (in Germany) economically unfeasible by then.
  80% of the people in a representative poll are against that decision to destroy the villages and mine the goal there. So to reply to your initial comment, there is a democratic majority that is against this. In fact, the people there are not behaving undemocratic but in accordance with the decision and will of the majority of the people.
context: Disappointed to hear Germany of all countries is still mining coal. >
  
  Why “of all countries”? >
  
  Germany sells itself as a very climate conscious country >
  
  Turns out that ditching nuclear is not as climate conscious as they thought. >
  
  Also not having Russian gas is a disaster for Europe (reddit will tell you we wont even notice it) >
  
  This is not just caused by Russian war, courts ruled in 2013 the mine can expand at expense of nearby settlements.
  Arbitrarly and forcibly resetting people is the purest form of state violence we are 'supposed' to accept. People rarely if ever feel fairly compensated. 
  Besides police is the extension of state sanctioned to use violence against you, you might think they are there to protect you but as soon as you find yourself in disagreement with state or corporate interests they will use violence against you. >
  
  
  The expansion is going ahead in spite of plans to phase out coal by 2030, with the government blaming the energy crisis caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. >
  
  are you confused? >
  
  70 police injured, but only 20 demonstrators injured out of a crowd of 15,000. >
  
  Police injuries include mud in the eye and a broken nail... >
  
  That’s cause the climate activists rejected nuclear power. What did they expect? 
  Renewables won’t be enough for current demands for years to come (if ever at this consumption rate). >
  
  Climate activists did not protest to reject nuclear power in favor of Russian natural gas. They're anti-nuclear but gas was always seen as a transitional solution, a transition which the fossil fuel industry has been stalling as much as possible for over 30 years, breaking promise after promise. This allowed them to make record profits while shifting blame, very convenient! >
  
  The point is they protested nuclear when it’s cleaner than coal mining and more efficient than any other renewable sources. Serves them right >
  
  The german countryside and environment is getting destroyed for the profit of the ultra rich : 
  "serves them right" >
  
  The German countryside is being destroyed and the rich are benefiting because short sighed climate activists torpedoed their own best shot. Nobody got served right. The rich didn't get beat down, the regular people didn't get green power. >
  
  The rich got richer and the poor got poorer, they're the one who have to live in the polluted areas, the rich can just go wherever they want. >
  
  The cops work for the rich and their corporations. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  Climate activists on Sunday accused police of "Pure violence" after clashes during a demonstration at a German village being razed to make way for a coal mine expansion.
  A police spokesman said on Sunday around 70 officers had been injured since Wednesday, many of them in Saturday's clashes.
  Criminal proceedings have been launched in around 150 cases, police said, including for resistance against police officers, damage to property and breach of the peace.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: police^#1 activist^#2 Sunday^#3 Protest^#4 Saturday^#5 >
  
  I an guessing the same people that protested nuclear. This is what happens when you let greens decide your energy policy. >
  
  Yeah because Germany was famously run by the greens for years...
  Merkel was in power, she and her clique decided to keep using russian gas and to delay the necessary transition >
  
  Pure violence. Sounds almost delicious. >
  
  So maybe these people should stop using electricity, cars, and anything that uses coal, oil, or nuclear power to cut down on demand.  Without the need for the coal, this wouldn’t happen.  The clean electric isn’t quite there yet, not enough to power nations and industry.  I can understand them wanting to protect the town from being destroyed though. >
  
  They’re gonna need more mud wizards >
  
  Disappointed to hear Germany of all countries is still mining coal. >
  
  They phased out coal and nuclear in order to instead use natural gas. With the current war going on, they stopped buying Russian gas, but still have to get their energy from somewhere.
  Even if they changed direction and wanted to focus on nuclear again that would still take a long time to get going and many industries aren't geared towards using electricity for their production needs. >
  
  I don’t think chewing up and permanently destroying their countryside for low-quality coal is necessary.  They will probably regret it. >
  
  small protests over coal mining in one town are easier to quell than large protests over high energy prices in every town. 
  its a calculated maneuver regarless of whether that calculation is happening consciously or subconsciously >
  
  Except this lignite is marked for export, not for local power production. >
  
  Do you have a source?
  From my understanding the lignite from that mine normally is burned in nearby lignite fired powerplants - the mine is owned by RWE power, and there is even a direct conveyor connection between it and the Neurath power plant for efficient transport. >
  
  This is not just caused by Russian war, courts ruled in 2013 the mine can expand at expense of nearby settlements.
  Arbitrarly and forcibly resetting people is the purest form of state violence we are 'supposed' to accept. People rarely if ever feel fairly compensated. 
  Besides police is the extension of state sanctioned to use violence against you, you might think they are there to protect you but as soon as you find yourself in disagreement with state or corporate interests they will use violence against you. >
  
  ~~That village has been abandoned long ago, no inhabitants are being displaced.~~
  The protesters are coming from afar to make a stand against coal and RWE in general. 
  The federal government made a deal with RWE: RWE is allowed to mine the coal sitting underneath the village, but instead of phasing out coal all together by 2038 they have to phase it out in 2030. Why are the protesters still pissed you ask? On the one hand Some studies suggest coal would have been unlucrative by 2030 anyway due to cost of the european CO2 emissions certificates trade, so RWE got the government fooled and is making quite some profit off of that. On the other hand some estimate the amount of coal around the village is almost as high as underneath it, so if RWE would mine that instead the village could be preserved. 
  ~~Why anybody would care so much about a ghost village is beyond me though.~~
  Edit: Village has been evacuated since 2005, because of the expanding mining operation. I assumed it was simply abandoned due to dying out population, like many other small settlements tend to be. >
  
  Why was the village abandoned? Is that not a displacement when farmers protest and court rules mine can expand at the expense of settlement? The village is "ghost" because they had to leave because of the mine expansion, how are people not grasping this? >
  
  That makes sense, thanks for the info. >
  
  70 police injured, but only 20 demonstrators injured out of a crowd of 15,000. >
  
  Police injuries include mud in the eye and a broken nail... >
  
  Especially when it says 70 police 'injured' vs 20 activists 'taken to hospital for treatment'.
  Also the number for police is given a time frame 'since wednesday', but the number for protesters is not. That medic could have been talking about the entire time or just the day they were asked for all we know. >
  
  The cops work for the rich and their corporations. >
  
  That’s cause the climate activists rejected nuclear power. What did they expect? 
  Renewables won’t be enough for current demands for years to come (if ever at this consumption rate). >
  
  Climate activists did not protest to reject nuclear power in favor of Russian natural gas. They're anti-nuclear but gas was always seen as a transitional solution, a transition which the fossil fuel industry has been stalling as much as possible for over 30 years, breaking promise after promise. This allowed them to make record profits while shifting blame, very convenient! >
  
  The point is they protested nuclear when it’s cleaner than coal mining and more efficient than any other renewable sources. Serves them right >
  
  Germany had great damages from the Chernobyl accident, it's not unreasonable they wanted to pay the higher price for renewables when they were more than able to with plenty of time to spare. 
  Except that didn't happen. They didn't pay the higher cost for renewables, compromise after compromise, gas got expanded for so long it's now even too late for renewables. 
  These were vile tactics by the fossil fuel industry to turn you on the Greens, and it worked. >
  
  That would explain not building more plants, but they shut down operational plants in favor of gas. >
  
  It wasn't activists who did that, the Greens never ruled alone either. They were in coalition governments and made lots of compromises. >
  
  This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  Climate activists on Sunday accused police of "Pure violence" after clashes during a demonstration at a German village being razed to make way for a coal mine expansion.
  A police spokesman said on Sunday around 70 officers had been injured since Wednesday, many of them in Saturday's clashes.
  Criminal proceedings have been launched in around 150 cases, police said, including for resistance against police officers, damage to property and breach of the peace.
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: police^#1 activist^#2 Sunday^#3 Protest^#4 Saturday^#5 >
  
  I an guessing the same people that protested nuclear. This is what happens when you let greens decide your energy policy. >
  
  Clearly they didn't if the coal mine is going ahead despite the 'greens' opposition >
  
  Good. Spoiled kids that should finally learn what they get for breaking laws and attacking police officers just doing their job. >
  
  And what about the police defending the state to destroy the climate we require to live?  No law against that, so that's ok, I presume? >
  
  The geen party is literally in the government and sending the police. If there were democratic majorities that did not want to use the coal there, it would not be used. As it stands, the people there are behaving wildly undemocratic. >
  
  The majority of 80% of Germans want Lützerath (the village talked about) to stay. The majory is for keeping the village. There is no democratic majority that "wants to use the coal" there. It is corporate interests and how they can shape politics to their will and profits.
  The people there and in the surrounding villages want and wanted to stay but were forced out.
  Clearing that village and getting the coal underneath THAT is the only wildly undemocratic thing going on here, not legitimate protests against this in the midst of a worsening climate crisis. >
  
  So instead of the climate protesters not being right, the whole democratic system is wrong. That kind of "if democracy ignores my particular interests democracy is wrong and not me" is exactly what leads to to the loss of democracy. >
  
  I just told you, that a majority of 80% was against this decision. What about that do you not understand?
  The whole affair was a deal between politicians and RWE. The people didn't get a say in this, especially not the people living in that village and the surrounding villages. >
  
  Thats some poll, not a voting result. You cant just take any poll and call it democratic - there are laws for that and those produced governments, in which the green party is involved, that decided to go through with this.