Michael Gove’s justification for approving the UK’s first coalmine in three decades is “obviously nonsense” and has no climate justification, according to the carbon offsetting standard whose credits could be used to make the operation “net zero”.
Last week, the levelling up secretary gave the green light for the new mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, which will produce 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year from mining operations alone, not counting the emissions produced when the coal is used.
Gove told the Commons the mine would be “net zero”, and said he knew of no other mine of its kind in the world that “aspires to be net zero in the way the Whitehaven development does”.
In the judgment, Gove said he accepted the operation would inevitably release carbon into the atmosphere, but noted that the proposal by West Cumbria Mining included proposals to mitigate residual emissions by buying carbon credits from the Gold Standard carbon credit organisation or an equivalent.
These certify greenhouse gas emission reductions from reforestation projects, cooking stove schemes and renewable energy projects, often in the developing world, which are sold on as carbon credits.
Margaret Kim, the chief executive of Gold Standard, said using their carbon credits to claim carbon neutrality was “nonsense”.
“We are in a climate emergency and new extraction of fossil fuels is unjustifiable. Our claims guidelines make it clear that to make an offset claim organisations should prioritise the avoidance and reduction of emissions – something that is clearly impossible for a coalmine,” she said.
Owen Hewlett, the chief technical officer of the carbon standard, told the Guardian that the claim by the coalmining firm, which were accepted by Gove, were “obviously nonsense, morally nonsense and technically insane”.
“It’s clearly not in line with the science of 1.5C [above pre-industrial levels] warming scenario. And it’s clearly not what we would consider to be offsetting because [the mine] is not an organisation that’s trying to reduce its emissions. We don’t back the offset claim in the first place but you can’t use mitigation as a justification for your new coalmine.
“I was pretty shocked at the secretary of state’s position. If you think this is economically and politically the right decision, take that decision and stand by it, but don’t try and somehow kind of point to it being good for the climate. I mean, it’s absurd.
“We think it’s greenwashing nonsense,” he added. “It’s the coalmine’s emissions that are being offset, not the coal. Its greenwashing is similar to the football World Cup in Qatar. It’s smoke and mirrors accounting to say this coalmine is not really doing much damage. The actual emissions of the mining activity are probably not great. But it’s like saying that a gun can’t kill people, it’s the bullets. It doesn’t make any sense, it’s just nonsense thinking.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said: “The secretary of state has agreed to grant planning permission for a new metallurgical coalmine in Cumbria as recommended by the independent planning inspector.
“This coal will be used for the production of steel and would otherwise need to be imported. It will not be used for power generation. The mine seeks to be net zero in its operations and is expected to contribute to local employment and the wider economy.
“The reasons for the secretary of state’s decisions are set out in full in his published letter, alongside the report of the independent planning inspector who oversaw the inquiry into the proposal”.
