The news that Michael Gove has finally approved a new coal mine in Cumbria is still sinking in. The whole sorry saga has been dragging on for years, with the can being kicked down the road for far too long, seemingly because politicians lacked the guts to make a decision that they knew was right, but which they also knew would bring howls of protest down on their heads. Those howls of protest come from far and wide, just as did the opponents of the mine whenever there seemed to be any chance at all that it might get the go-ahead.

BBC

Pride of place has to go to the British Broadcasting Corporation. The report on the decision is reasonably balanced, in my opinion, and I give the BBC credit for that. But only for that. For years it has felt as though the BBC was running a determined campaign to ensure that the coal mine never opened (of course, it might not, given the ongoing campaign against the positive decision). The BBC’s opposition really became obvious in 2021 in the run-up to COP 26 in Glasgow. Here’s a flavour of the BBC headlines (I provide embedded links to facilitate reading the articles, should you be so minded) last year, all posts under the headlines being either unattributed or written by the now departed (from the BBC) Roger Harrabin:

8^th January 2021: Greta Thunberg criticises Whitehaven coal mine plan

14^th January 2021: Government defends Cumbria coal mine green light

The tone of the entire article struck me as hostile:

Environmentalists have reacted with astonishment and disbelief, saying the carbon from burning coal is clearly a global concern.

Extensive quotes were offered up from representatives of Greenpeace and CPRE (both hostile). No quotes were offered (nor indeed any arguments in favour supplied) from supporters of the mine.

8^th February 2021: Cumbria coal mine: Climate tsar urged to quit over ‚reckless‘ plan

By way of explanation:

The UK’s climate tsar, Alok Sharma, has been urged to resign unless the prime minister scraps plans for a new coal mine in Cumbria.

1^st March 2021: Cumbria coal mine plan ‚damaging PM’s reputation‘

12^th March 2021: Cumbria coal mine: Public inquiry after government U-turn

“Analysis” (by Roger) of the decision quoted “local Conservatives” and “supporters of the mine” (unnamed) as being the two groups in favour, while quoting extensively from opponents Tim Farron, Ed Miliband, Professor Rebecca Willis and Professor Mike Berners-Lee from Lancaster University, Kohn Kerry, “[o]ne of the world’s leading climate scientists, the American James Hansen”, “the government’s climate advisers, along with a crowd of green groups”, as well as noting that “yesterday Alok Sharma was again rebuked by MPs over the plan”. Eleven paragraphs were devoted to the opponents of the mine, while two were devoted to its supporters. Nicely balanced, then!

And for good measure, we had this (unattributed) piece from 29^th June 2022: “Cumbria coal mine proposal is indefensible, says UK climate chief”. Lord Deben’s opposition to the mine was quoted extensively, with a quote from Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth thrown in for good measure (no quotes or arguments cited from anyone in favour of the mine).

Since the reasonably balanced article reporting the decision earlier this week, the BBC has also offered up:

Whitehaven coal mine: An almighty row only just beginning. This time the author is the balanced Chris Mason, and now we find things like this:

Until then, 40% of the coal needed to make steel in the UK, metallurgical coal, the stuff this new mine will dig up, came from, you guessed it: Russia.

Since then, alternative suppliers have been found, but nonetheless the issue of energy security is a salient one…

…The government is arguing their decision is in keeping with their emissions obligations because the alternative would be importing the coal, and alternatives to using coal are a long way off.

And plenty of people in west Cumbria are delighted.

A county with a proud mining heritage sees a proud mining future too.

To my mind, there is more balance in that single article than in any that appeared last year on the BBC website.

The Guardian

Of course, the Guardian. Needless to say the Guardian has long campaigned against the coal mine. This week, since the decision broke, it has given us:

Cumbria coalmine protests planned as local opposition grows

Admittedly it quotes a couple of people who might be described as “local”, but this is stretching “local” a bit:

Carole Wood, the chair of South Lakes Action on Climate Change, said the group was crowdfunding to explore a potential legal challenge.

It is noticeable that a lot of the froth in Cumbria comes from Tim Farron’s constituency. Speaking of whom, the Guardian also offers us this:

“New Cumbria coalmine ‘like opening a Betamax factory’, says Tim Farron”

Mr Farron is duly quoted:

“The only argument at all for this mine that I think has any merit is it will create jobs. The jobs will be created for a very short period of time and they will go if the business case for the mine is as weak as it obviously is.”

The Liberal Democrat MP said the Cumbrian coast was a far more sensible place to invest in “green, renewable energy”.

He added: “This is not only foolish in fact, it’s also foolish politically, as it makes us a laughing stock when it comes to us trying to talk to other countries like China about how they reduce their carbon emissions.”

Well, I suppose we should be grateful that he recognises that bringing jobs to a depressed area with high unemployment is a good thing. Many of the opponents in the main give me the impression that they don’t care about jobs. The problem, of course, with arguing that the better alternative is “green” jobs, is that they never seem to materialise.

As for China and laughing stocks, I think you’re the one having a laugh, Tim. As Brendan O’Neill pointed out in his excellent article in Spiked today, China produces 13 million tonnes of coal a day whereas the new Cumbrian coal mine is projected to produce 2.8 million tonnes of coal a year. Brendan links to an article in Mining [Dot] Com, dated 24^th October 2022, which provides some statistics that really ought to give opponents of the mine reason to think again:

China’s September coal production jumped 12.3% from a year earlier to 390 million tonnes, official data showed on Monday, reaching record average daily levels as mines resumed operation after heavy rainfall in the summer months.

The average daily output was equivalent to 13 million tonnes, according to data from the National Bureau of Statistics, which compares to 11.95 million tonnes per day in August and 11.14 million tonnes per day a year earlier.

But back to the Guardian:

Could Cumbria coalmine be stopped despite government green light?

MPs

Look no further than the last Guardian article I cited. Some wondrous quotes from a couple of politicians on different sides of the debate, but in agreement about this (even if they did express their views with differing levels of stridency):

Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, vowed to keep fighting: “This government has backed a climate-busting, backward-looking, business-wrecking, stranded asset coalmine. This mine is a climate crime against humanity – and such a reckless desire to dig up our dirty fossil fuel past will be challenged every step of the way.”

Philip Dunne, the Tory MP who is chair of the environmental audit committee in parliament, said: “Coal is the most polluting energy source, and is not consistent with the government’s net zero ambitions. It is not clear cut to suggest that having a coalmine producing coking coal for steelmaking on our doorstep will reduce steelmakers’ demand for imported coal. On the contrary, when our committee heard from steelmakers earlier this year, they argued that they have survived long enough without UK domestic coking coal and that any purchase of coking coal would be a commercial decision.”

Tim Farron we have already heard from, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. How about the Labour Party? Here’s another Guardian (sub) headline from this week: “Ed Miliband vows party will seek to prevent ‘climate-destroying’ plan and if elected would deliver green jobs”. Fuller quote:

Ed Miliband, the shadow climate change secretary, said: “A Labour government will leave no stone unturned in seeking to prevent the opening of this climate-destroying coalmine, and instead ensure we deliver the green jobs that people in Cumbria deserve.”

Of course, it’s not a climate-destroying coal mine. The emissions associated with it are utterly insignificant compared to emissions from coal produced in China, India, Indonesia, Russia and scores of other places (and that’s assuming one signs up to the quasi-religious cult that believes in climate destruction).

What does beggar belief is that a Labour shadow minister – a senior Labour politician, would be so keen to destroy new jobs in an area of high unemployment and deprivation during a cost-of-living crisis. As a former Labour Party activist, I find that very hard to take, but it reminds me why my activism on behalf of the Labour Party is in the past and not current. I recall the words of Neil Kinnock to a Labour Party conference in 1985:

I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council – hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers.

I see parallels a-plenty.

Conclusion

I can do no better than end with a quote from the Spiked article by Brendan O’Neill mentioned above:

The overwrought apocalypticism of the likes of Ms Lucas… demonises in the most hysterical fashion perfectly normal and in fact good endeavours. The Cumbria coalmine will create hundreds of well-paid jobs. It will increase the independence and dignity of working-class families in Cumbria. It will help to reduce the UK’s reliance on coal imports. These are positives. They should be celebrated. Of course to Ms Lucas and other middle-class greens, that local communities in Cumbria have welcomed the coalmine only shows that they’re ‘nostalgic’ for the past and that they’ve been ‘seduced’ by a plan that will actually make them ‘suffer’. Patronising much? The Cumbrian working classes who can’t wait to start mining are a paragon of reason in comparison with the Guardianistas madly sobbing about coal being a crime against humanity.

via Climate Scepticism

December 9, 2022

Who’s Afraid Of The Big Bad Mine? — Climate Scepticism