Last week, the leveling secretary gave the go-ahead for the new mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, which will produce 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year from mining operations alone, excluding emissions produced when 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 that the Whitehaven development does”. In the decision, Gove said he accepted that the business would inevitably release carbon into the atmosphere, but noted that West Cumbria Mining’s proposal included proposals to mitigate residual emissions by buying carbon credits from the Gold Standard carbon credit organization or its equivalent. These certify reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from reforestation projects, cookstove schemes and renewable energy projects, often in the developing world, which are sold as carbon credits. Margaret Kim, Gold Standard’s chief executive, said using carbon credits to claim carbon neutrality was “nonsense”. “We are in a climate emergency and new fossil fuel extraction is unwarranted. Our claims guidelines make it clear that to make an offset claim, organizations will have to prioritize avoiding and reducing emissions – which is clearly impossible for a coal mine,” he said. Owen Hewlett, the chief technical officer of the carbon standard, told the Guardian that the coal miner’s claim, accepted by Gove, was “plain nonsense, moral nonsense and technically insane”. “It is clearly not in line with the science of 1.5C [above pre-industrial levels] heating scenario. And it’s clearly not what we’d consider compensating for why [the mine] it is not an organization trying to reduce its emissions. We don’t support the offset claim in the first place, but you can’t use mitigation as an excuse for your new coal mine. “I was quite shocked by the position of the foreign minister. If you think this is the right decision economically and politically, make that decision and stand by it, but don’t try to suggest that it’s somehow good for the climate. I mean, it’s absurd. “We think it’s nonsense,” he added. “It’s the coal mine emissions that are offset, not the coal. Its green wash looks like the soccer World Cup in Qatar. It’s smoke and mirrors to say that this coal mine doesn’t really do much damage. The actual emissions of the mining activity are probably not large. But it’s like saying a gun can’t kill people, bullets can. It doesn’t make sense, it’s just a silly thought.” The most important stories on the planet. Get all the week’s environmental news – the good, the bad and the must-haves Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. A spokesman for the Department for Housing, Housing and Communities said: “The Secretary of State has agreed to grant planning permission for a new metallurgical colliery in Cumbria as recommended by the independent planning inspector. “This coal will be used to make steel and otherwise it will have to be imported. It will not be used to generate electricity. 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 inquiry into the proposal.”
