A new coal mine in Cumbria makes no sense for the climate – or Britain’s energy security

A flurry Newspaper ArticlesThere has been speculation that Michael Gove, the UK’s minister responsible for planning will soon approve the long-debated proposal of a new deep coal mine in Cumbria. This speculation is based upon a single unnamed source who said that the proposal for a new deep coal mine in Cumbria, northern England, was approved by Michael Gove, the UK minister responsible for planning. The Sunday Telegraph: “I don’t know for certain, but I get the impression he is going to approve it.” Not exactly a firm yes, then.

I am a Cumbria resident who is also a climate governance specialist. Over the past few decades, I have closely followed the complicated legal and political discussions surrounding the mine. As I have seen, misinformation is a major theme. Documented. These latest rumours could be genuine – or they could just be a carefully orchestrated campaign by the mine’s supporters, who have now seized on Russia’s war in Ukraine to make a case for domestic coal production.

Before we get to the Russia point, here’s a recap. West Cumbria Mining, which is backed by EMR Venture Capital, proposed the mine for the first time in 2014. It was also supported and backed by Cumbria County Council. The plans have remained stuck in the planning process ever since. Questions about the climate impact of the mine arose after the UK parliament passed stricter carbon targets in 2019.

The Climate Change Committee raised concerns. David King and Bob Watson, former chief scientists advisers to the UK, and John Kerry, US climate envoy, are all examples of this. The plans were criticized. The government responded by calling for a public inquiry that was headed by a planning inspector. The inspector has now made a recommendation, but Gove will not publish the findings.

Steel is needed

Two arguments have always been the basis of the case for the mine: that the mine will not increase global carbon emissions and therefore not harm the environment; and that the coal will be needed to produce steel in the UK. The evidence is strong on the first point. No new coal mines can be built if we are to remain within the globally agreed goal of keeping warming to 1.5℃. This was confirmed by a recent report from the International Energy Agency, and by Peer-reviewed scientific literatureThe following was presented to the public inquiry, by world-renowned experts, including Bob Watson, former UK science chief.

The second argument, that the mine will supply coal to the UK steelworks, has been the subject of much political debate. But the mining company itself told the public inquiry that nearly all the coal from the mine – around 85% – would be exported, not least because It is too high in sulphur to be sold in the UK. They couldn’t find UK steel companies willing to say that they would use the coal.

What might this have meant for the geopolitical landscape, now that Russia’s aggression has changed it? The steel experts I’ve spoken to say not. The war in Russia may provide political cover, but hasn’t changed the fundamentals. The UK has a very small market for coal. The best thing for energy security and climate stability would be to help the steel industry transition to low-carbon steel, using hydrogen – a Proven technology.

The mine that makes no sense

As an academic, it’s my job to assess evidence. I have been following the case for years, including the long-running public inquiry. I have gone through many pages and detailed documents. The many steel industry experts, economists, and climate scientists who contributed to this public inquiry all agreed that the mine does not make sense for the climate or for energy security.

Why would it be approved? The complexity, ambiguity and contradictions of UK laws are the key to the truth. The UK has strong carbon targets. However, it is not clear who is responsible for meeting these targets. Local government has no statutory responsibilities on climate change, nor does Michael Gove’s own department. In practice, it is far too easy to claim that those targets are someone else’s responsibility.

Planning law, meanwhile, requires consideration of climate change in any planning decision – yet, again, there are no clear rules on how this should be applied to individual decisions, even ones as momentous as a coal mine. This is why cases such as the mine and proposals for fracking sites or oil wells are retold in courts. This mess is a sham to powerful economic and political interests. Strategies have changedFrom denial to questioning and delaying climate change action, At the public inquiry, the mine’s lawyers argued that there were no legal grounds to refuse the mine. The law is unclear, but the science is clear: opening a mine would worsen climate changes.

We learned lessons from the Cumbria mine disaster, regardless of whether Gove approves or denies the mine. There is an urgent need for clear legislation on fossil fuel extraction, linked to carbon targets – not just coal, but oil and gas as well. Local areas also need to be held responsible for meeting climate goals. The Cumbria has the potential for green jobsIt is huge, but we have been locked in a dispute over the mine, instead of uniting to build the prosperous, high-carbon future the area deserves.