You’re comparing an extreme minority on one side to the mainstream view on the other.

Democrats are not banning everything related to fossil fuels, nor do they disrupt public life. They have simply applied subsidies to encourage environmental friendly choices. Which is exactly the middle ground you are asking for.

> and impose its ideology on others (e.g., Klima Klebers in Germany)

what does "impose its ideology" mean?

they were protesting for the government to uphold their own promises and use low hanging fruits which are even beneficial beyond reducing green house gases.

Are you sure it's not just media magnifying the extremes? In my own bubble and honestly most of what I see online most people seem to believe in a middle ground.

The problem is that there isn't really a middle ground. The damage is done and no actions taken now will have a quick, politically measurable effect. The people arguing against action are relying on the delay between action and effect. If you can't see it now (despite actual measurable data being available for at least the last 2 decades) then it must be a lie.

I'm still not sure what the climate change denialists see as the goal of "big climate". All of the money and profit is on the side of continuing to fuck the climate. All of the projects to alleviate the problem are expensive and have very little profit to be gained, but apparently it's a conspiracy of academics on minimum wage in various university research centers who are determined to take the money from our wonderful oil and mining benefactors (who have nothing but our best interests at heart). What's worse is they want to push technology that gives us energy for free! Must be a bunch of communists or something!