[ad_1]
Michael Gove’s justification for approving the UK’s first coal mine in three decades is “obvious nonsense” and has no climate justification, according to the carbon offsetting standard, whose credits can be used to make the operation “net zero”.
Last week, the Leveling Up Secretary gave the green light for a new mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, which will emit 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year from mining operations alone, not counting emissions produced when coal is used.
Gove told the Commons that the mine would be “net zero”, and said he knew of no other such mine in the world that “aspires to be net zero in the way the Whitehaven development does”.
In the ruling, Gove said he accepted that the operation would inevitably release carbon into the atmosphere, but noted that West Cumbria Mining’s proposal included proposals to reduce residual emissions by purchasing carbon credits from a gold standard carbon credit institution or its 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 as carbon credits.
Gold Standard chief executive Margaret Kim said using their carbon credits to claim carbon neutrality was “nonsense”.
“We are in a climate crisis and new extraction of fossil fuels is unjustified. Our claims guidelines specify that organizations must prioritize avoiding and reducing emissions in order to make an offset claim – which is clearly impossible for a coal mine,” she said.
Owen Hewlett, Carbon Standard’s chief technical officer, told the Guardian that the claim by the coalmining firm, which was accepted by Gove, was “plain nonsense, morally absurd and technically insane”.
“It is clearly not consistent with the science of 1.5C [above pre-industrial levels] A warming scenario. And it is clearly not what we would consider an offsetting cause [the mine] It is not an organization that is trying to reduce its emissions. We don’t support offset claims in the first place but you can’t use mitigation as justification for your new coal mine.
“I was very shocked at the state secretary post. If you think this is the right decision economically and politically, then make that decision and stand by it, but don’t try and somehow it’s good for the climate. I mean, that’s absurd.
“We think it’s greenwashing nonsense,” he added. “It’s the coal mine emissions that are offset, not the coal. Its greenwashing is akin to the football World Cup in Qatar. That smoke-and-mirrors account says that this coal mine isn’t really doing much damage. The real emissions from the mining activity are probably great. No. But that’s like saying guns don’t kill people, bullets do. It doesn’t make sense, it’s just a nonsense idea.”
A spokesman for the Department of Leveling Up, Housing and Communities said: “The Secretary of State has agreed to grant planning permission for a new metallurgical coal mine in Cumbria as recommended by an independent planning inspector.
“This coal will be used for steel production and otherwise it will 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, together with the report of the independent planning inspector who oversaw the investigation into the proposal”.
[ad_2]
Source link
