I couldn't let her flabby response to me go unanswered:
Dear Ms Richardson,
Thank you for your email of 18 February in response to mine of 5
February with respect to the proposed Whitehaven deep coal mine.
I am writing to you again because I find the details in your email
alarmingly complacent.
IPCC modelling has clearly indicated that to limit warming to 1.5C
requires that CO2 emissions are reduced
globally by 50% by 2030. This requires urgent action across all
sectors of the ecomony, including carbon intensive heavy industry.
To provide the steel industry with a get-out-of-jail-free option
when all the emphasis should be on encouraging it to seek low carbon
energy sources is illogical to say the least. I refer you to the
Swedish HYBRIT project aiming to make fossil free steel available by
2026. Even the conversion of Whitehaven coal to so-called "blue"
hydrogen for such a purpose would be better than the current
proposals.
I also note that the expectation is that only some 15% of the
Whitehaven production would be destined for the UK steel industry
with the other 85% being exported. Frankly this makes risible the
claim that the overall carbon cost of the project would be reduced
through lower transport needs. Furthermore it brings into doubt your
claim that "the extracted coal would be exclusively for steel
production rather than energy production". How would the UK control
the use of the 85% exported portion? Granted, coal of this quality
would not normally be used in power generation anyway but that is no
justification for the proposed project.
Finally, in my previous email I refrained from mentioning the UK's
role in the forthcoming COP26. The irony of hosting this pivotal
gathering while at the same time sanctioning a retrograde deep coal
mine is surely too stark to be ignored.
Yours sincerely
Richard Bawden
No comments:
Post a Comment