Old King ‘Coal’ and BBC’s Jackanory

jackanory-16x9.jpg

The BBC have sent a letter back in response to our complaint about the West Cumbria Mine coverage on 27th Dec Radio 4’s PM.

Dear Ms Birkby

Thanks for contacting us about the PM item on Woodhouse Colliery from December 27.

We raised your concerns with the programme team. They explained that the piece looked mainly at the socio-economic impact of the mining community, as it could be the first new coal mine in the UK for 30 years.

However, it also tackled some well-known environmental concerns about the coal industry. We challenged Caroline Leatherdale, the firm’s Environmental Advisor: “We are talking about burning large amounts of fossil fuels and there will be those that will be against this. We all know what the issues are with reaching CO2 targets.”

She offered the position that the mine wasn’t producing “thermal coal” as its product. Instead, the coking coal’s limited use in steel production would in turn benefit the environment through wind turbine production, public transport infrastructure. Again, she was challenged – “It’s still CO2 emissions, isn’t it?”. Listeners then heard further details of the firm’s attempts to offset its carbon output. As such, we feel the item considered criticisms of the colliery and the environmental factors at play.

We’ve also included other reports about environmental matters on PM, but realise you felt this angle should have been reflected in more depth here. That’s not compulsory on each and every report, but we welcome feedback when it’s felt something has been overlooked.

Your reaction was shared with the Editor and senior News staff at BBC Radio 4.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

Sheesh! What a load of old BBC Jackanory.

The mine would emit 175 Million tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime

Every tonne of steel proposed to be made with this coking coal would create almost two tonnes of carbon dioxide.

The mine would also produce mega amounts of ‘thermal’ coal – this was not questioned at all by the BBC, neither was the fact that most of the coal would be for export.

The BBC interviewer swallowed the children’s story that the steel would be for all things nice and green like wind turbines – not nasty Trident submarines or nuclear installations which need mega amounts of steel.

No mention of the high level omission that this mine would be 8km from Sellafield

No apology for the deliberate bias in not interviewing those opposed to the mine – there are plenty of miners local to the area who are against it as this video shows

What pathetic journalism from the BBC!  Or maybe it is targeted deliberately biased journalism to promote this mine as a ‘good thing’  (you may well ask, why?)  Green minded folk who heard this programme have told me they felt reassured ….until the big fat lies were pointed out to them.  The BBC’s percieved gravitas has taken us to war before now.  Whats a coal mine between friends?

JamesDuva Steel.jpg

Advertisements

How To Write to Cumbria County Council and tell them to Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole

white and black moon with black skies and body of water photography during night time
Irish Sea – the scene of the first deep coal mine in the UK in 30 years?   (Photo by GEORGE DESIPRIS on Pexels.com)

The consultation period ends on January 28th,  Cumbria County Council will still accept letters after this time but the sooner you write the better.

Send your email now to Cumbria County Council at developmentcontrol@cumbria.gov.uk.

Please also ask if you can speak at the meeting on the 22nd February – the more folk who write, speak and make a noise against this plan the better chance we have of stopping it.

Please remember to include the planning application reference number PL\1689\05 (4/17/9007) and your postcode in the subject.

The main points to make are

  • This  coal mine proposal flies in the face of Cumbria County Council’s Carbon Reduction Plan and Climate Local programme.
  • The mine workings would extend to within 8km of Sellafield, this would increase the risk of earth tremors and worse.
  • Collapse of the sea bed as a consequence of mining under the Irish Sea would resuspend radioactive particles from decades of Sellafield reprocessing.

 

Here below is an excellent letter from Sam who is a member of Radiation Free Lakeland.  Feel free to use this as inspiration to write your own letter of objection.  It doesn’t need to be long – just a sentence or a paragraph or two.

To Rachel Brophy, Development Control, Cumbria County Council

Jan 8th 2019

WOODHOUSE COLLIERY, APPLICATION 4/17/9007

In response to the current consultation I wish to make the following comments regarding the revised Environmental Statement from West Cumbria Mining [WCM]. This letter is additional to my submission of Feb 6th 2018.

I am writing to raise serious concerns concerning climate change, subsidence, earth tremors and the potential to trigger a major nuclear emergency at Sellafield.

I wish to OBJECT to the application.

I wish to raise four major grounds on which this application must be firmly rejected.

  1. The 2008 Climate Change Act

The revised Environmental Statement fails completely to address the UK Government’s commitments to carbon reduction within the 2008 Climate Change Act and the increasingly stringent restrictions regarding the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

WCM state that at full annual production the mine will extract: 2.43 million tonnes of metallurgical coal; 350,000 tonnes of lower grade ‘middlings’ coal; and 150,000 tonnes of rock overburden (reject).    (annually!)

WCM continue to refer to ‘metallurgical’ coal as if this is in no way related to the coal used in energy generation.   The simple facts of physics are that all coal produces CO2 when burned for whatever purpose.

WCM seem to be completely unaware of the global urgency of reducing carbon emissions. The proposal to open a new coal mine in our current precarious climate change situation is completely counter to Government policy.

  1. Subsidence, earth tremors and nuclear accident/emergency.

I have written to The Office for Nuclear Regulation [ONR] regarding the application.   In response to my letter they state –

‘ONR ask to be consulted on developments within the off-site emergency planning area around the Sellafield site, which extends approximately 6.1 – 7.4 km from the site centrepoint (see http://www.onr.org.uk/depz.htm for further details).  We would not expect Cumbria County Council to consult us regarding developments outside this zone, and I can confirm that we have not been consulted.’

map WCm.jpg

This ONR map shows the offsite emergency planning zone around Sellafield.   This shows the area where planning consultation with ONR is required.

The ONR state that Woodhouse Colliery would be approx. 10 km from Sellafield. WCM state the mine would reach within 8km of Sellafield. Which is correct? Surely it is essential to know exactly what the distance may be.

Even more crucially – this is not a mere surface development – the WCM application concerns undersea mining in an area known to be heavily faulted.

The nature of underground earth tremors and minor quakes is that they travel in unpredictable ways through the rock. Earth tremors have no regard for the 7.4 km exclusion zone drawn on the map.

The geology that WCM plans to mine is completely connected to the geology underneath Sellafield. That the mine would be outside the formal ONR planning zone by up to 4km is completely irrelevant given the unpredictable nature of earth movements.

Any earth tremor caused by mining or subsidence would have catastrophic effects in terms of a nuclear emergency bringing massive danger to life over a vast area.

  1. Potential collapse of the mine.

The ONR state – ‘The nature of the proposed mine (pillar and room) is one that is not designed to collapse at any point in the future, unlike for example long wall mining.   Even in the highly unlikely event of a collapse, the nature of any ensuing earth tremors would be limited to very low levels.  These levels would not be felt by persons on the Sellafield site and would not disrupt structures, systems and components important to safety on the site. ‘

This is a very worrying response. Firstly ONR states that they believe that the mine is not designed to collapse – then they state that if it did so it would not affect nuclear safety.

IMG_3707.png

‘Pillar and Room’ mines can and do collapse.

Crandall Canyon Accident Investigation
Summary and Conclusions On August 6, 2007, six miners were killed in a catastrophic coal outburst when roof-supporting pillars failed and violently ejected coal over a half-mile area. Ten days later, two mine employees and an MSHA inspector perished in a coal outburst during rescue efforts.

https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2018/12/30/murray-energys-crandall-canyon-coal-mine-disaster-9-deaths/?fbclid=IwAR3O7nI2ICJCp9qFoMNvPTF3noiDeGly_rGtL6XaRmsJLVt0gXmEiqCc_BA

In the event of a mine collapse at Woodhouse the potential for injury and death would reach well beyond the mine shaft itself. Radioactive accidents at Sellafield could affect much of the UK and neighbouring nations.

There is a major inconsistency here as the ONR believe the mining process to be ‘pillar and room’ while the WCM website states –

‘Run-out and Pocket extraction will be the chosen mining method as this is a proven, highly versatile coal mining method that takes advantage of advancements in mining technology to mitigate risks associated with the Cumbrian Coal fields.’

How can this application possibly be agreed given that WCM and the ONR are clearly not operating on the same basis regarding the basic mining method and associated risks?

It is telling that WCM themselves are acknowledging the very real risks of the Cumbrian coal fields and are seeking to ‘mitigate’ them.

This is a glaring inconsistency and indicative of the wrong footed nature of this entire application.

What Nuclear Emergency Plans are in place by the County Council should tremors damage the containment vessels at Sellafield?

  1. Formal assessments of likely subsidence damage have proved to be very wrong

There are big lessons to be learned from the fracking industry at home and abroad.

Groningen in the Netherlands is Europe’s biggest gas field. The Netherlands Government has recently decided to close it down leaving billions of euros of gas in the ground. So far 80,000 homes have been damaged, families are living in sheds and schools are closed.

In the UK the Governments Oil and Gas Authority [OGA] has allowed fracking in Lancashire to proceed with the ‘traffic light’ system of monitoring tremors. Since fracking recommenced in autumn 2018 there have been over 30 Lancashire quakes recorded by the British Geological Society.     Many of these quakes causing shut down of production.   The UK OGA has said – ‘it is rare for damages, even cosmetic ones, to occur at magnitudes of less than 4.’

The truly frightening aspect of this is that ALL of the Groningen quakes measured less than 4. The Netherlands Government had insisted that they were harmless, yet the damage stands at 8 billion euros so far and the closure of the industry.

Groningen had few geological faults or earth tremors before the extraction began.   West Cumbria has a history of both faults and of tremors.

https://www.channel4.com/news/why-the-dutch-are-ditching-gas-extraction

 

CONCLUSION

The nature of subsidence and earth tremors is by nature unpredictable.

What is certain is that this constitutes a very real potential.

The damage caused in the Netherlands by allegedly ‘safe’ levels of tremor would result in radioactive mayhem were such tremors to occur in West Cumbria where we have Europe’s largest collection of deadly nuclear waste.

This potential risk of a nuclear accident/emergency is simply too great a risk.

There is no way that Cumbria County Council can possibly assure the public safety of this proposed mine and the application must be firmly rejected.

 

Sam Moisha

Member of Radiation Free Lakeland

Workington says NO to New Coal Mine Under Irish Sea

Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole Workington 5.1.19.jpg

On Saturday 5th January Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole were joined by Cumbrian folk from Extinction Rebellion and the Green Party.  We spoke to dozens of shoppers in Workington at the market place and the verdict was a big NO to the first deep coal mine in the UK for over 30 years.

The word on the street is in direct contrast to the slick PR put out by the developers West Cumbria Mining and repeated verbatim by most media including the BBC (our complaint to the BBC is awaiting a reply)

We spoke to ordinary folk including miners who were adamant that there should not be a return to coal mining on the West Coast of Cumbria.  The reasons are many – the water situation in West Cumbria is already stressed, the mine would impact hydrology, would produce 175 million tonnes of CO2, the possibility of seabed collapse and earth movement is unthinkable so near to Sellafield….

Thank you to all the folk we spoke to.  Only one person thought the jobs were worth the damage  (just 500 jobs proposed for the mine – similar to a supermarket depot and no where near the jobs in renewables and energy efficiency technologies)

 

So Workington says No.

What are folk saying who live near the proposed mine?

This is an extract from a letter sent by local folk to Cumbria County Council (it may be available on the CCC website  – although our letters of objection from Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole are not on!!)

“Pow Beck has the railway and a couple of wind turbines but in the main it is a tranquil, fairly secluded and pretty place. In our opinion the Railway Loading Facility will affect our environment with emission, dust, noise and light, and detrimental to the ecology here. The facility will impact the peaceful enjoyment of our home, St. Bees village and Pow Beck wildlife.

The building is large and railway sidings extensive. The facility will be visually overbearing and no amount of tree planting or timber clad buildings will soften its appearance on the landscape. They have planned technically advanced building to keep the dust, noise and emissions to regulation levels, but the Loading Facility will still be a noisy, dusty and bright facility in our quiet, dark valley.

By its very nature mining is a messy business and we are not convinced by the marketing and bright coloured CGI animations used to demonstrate how this MODERN mine will operate. The animation makes it looks so clean but we have the opinion that is far from the facts. It does not show the shunting of wagons to the sidings, the plumes of dust as each wagon is loaded; We read somewhere 4 trains’ daily transporting coal to Redcar. These quieter modern trains can pull at least 21 large covered coal wagons, not the 7/8 shown on the CGI.

In our estimate that must be a train over 200m long. The CGI does not show those large trains trundling past homes through Mirehouse, Parton or Harrington to name a few. Pow Beck is going to be a very different place at all times of the day and night. We thought the United Nations and EU have in place regulations to reduce carbon emissions to meet climate targets, yet here we are in Cumbria giving consideration to digging out millions of tonnes of coal. We would have thought political policy would have put the kibosh on mining in this country, indeed in March of this year our government rejected an open cast mine in Northumberland saying the environmental impact outweighs economic benefits.

In Wales, only last month, they have reached the decisions no new mining unless under exceptional circumstances. WCM say 80% will be exported. We produce the coal and let someone else burn it. What a legacy, will we ever learn? Mining coal is a retrograde step, Apologies to all those miners past and present, We don’t wish to be ungrateful for their legacy, but we should not be thinking of building a new mine, burning coal is never going to be clean enough and that’s the facts.

Since 2014 WCM Ltd have marketed the mines with the creation of jobs for a lot of people over a very long time, benefits for the economy; an investment for West Cumbria. It is our belief that the environmental costs and environmental risk are too high a price for all that. The coal is not an asset anymore, the burning of fossil fuel is a liability that our children will be paying for. Therefore, we ask that Cumbria County Council refuse this planning application and keep Copeland coal, and other pollutants locked beneath the sandstone out of harm’s way.”

 

That last line from folk living near this proposal is worth repeating

..”we ask that Cumbria County Council refuse this planning application and keep Copeland coal, and other pollutants locked beneath the sandstone out of harm’s way.”

Please write your own letter to CCC quoting Planning reference 4/17/9007 Woodhouse Colliery

This plan is scheduled to be decided upon in Kendal by the Development Control Committee at the County Offices on FEB 22nd.  Not much time!  Please write to Cumbria County Council,s Development Control Committee and let them know you OBJECT. You can also ask to speak at the Meeting in Kendal – the more speakers the better chance we have of stopping the plan.

 Members of the Committee http://councilportal.cumbria.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=124

People also outside Cumbria can both object and speak if they register with nicola.harrison@cumbria.gov.uk

To Find the Planning Documents

You can insert insert application reference 4/17/9007 in Cumbria County Council’s search box  – and then click on the  “Documents” link on the right hand side.

NOTE The application reference  is 4/17/9007, West Cumbria Mining, Woodhouse Colliery. Written submissions can be sent to Jackie Currie, Cumbria County Council Development Control Team, County Offices, Busher Walk,  Kendal, Cumbria LA9 4RQ or via mail at developmentcontrol@cumbria.gov.uk.  or jackie.currie@cumbria.gov.uk

There is also an online petition.

Rebel Against Double Whammy Extinction Event in Cumbria: Coal & Nuclear

Extinction Rebellion seems to be very much in the news just at present.   Here in Cumbria we have our own terrifyingly real threat of extinction.     Not only is there Sellafield with its deadly collection of nuclear waste – we also have an ongoing planning application for a new coal mine reaching under the sea to within 5 miles of the nightmare nuclear site.

West Cumbria Mining have an active planning application with Cumbria County Council to open the first deep coal mine in 30 years.       Given the urgent need to cut carbon emissions this is total madness.   Given the proximity to Sellafield of mining operations, known to cause earth tremors, the proposal does threaten very real extinction here and now.

As far as we can ascertain from the documents available on the Cumbria County Council’s website there has been no consultation with Sellafield concerning the risks of a major nuclear emergency. Seismic disturbance affecting Sellafield would be a very rapid extinction of all life forms within a very wide radius.   And wherever the wind blows. EXTINCTION IN CAPITAL LETTERS ON A HUGE SCALE.

And then there is the carbon.     West Cumbria Mining [WCM] have a way of describing their proposal as the extraction of metallurgical coking coal for the steel industry – implying that somehow the burning of this fossil fuel is somehow different to burning fossil fuels for energy generation.

Burning coal is burning coal – and WCM plan to extract 2.8 million tonnes of it every year during the lifespan of the proposed mine.  Assuming a 40 year life (following construction), and an average of 2 million tonnes a year, that is a total production of 80 million tonnes!

In terms of the Paris agreement and the current Katowice discussions this application must be stopped.

The WCM application and the many letters of concern and objection can be found at https://planning.cumbria.gov.uk/     The Application reference is 4/17/9007

Anyone wishing to comment can write to Rachel Brophy, Senior Planning Officer rachel.brophy@cumbria.gov.uk

The WCM planning application was made in mid 2017. It has been postponed and postponed and postponed by Cumbria’s Planning Committee during all of 2018.   It may, or may not, come to Council early in 2019.

We need to be as vocal and as visible as we can possibly be in opposing this hideous proposal.   It is a very real threat to life on an unimaginable scale far larger than the threat to Guillemots that the RSPB has limited its comments to.

We have with the help of top lawyers Leigh Day ensured that we may still have a chance to stop the plan should Cumbria County Council say yes to this diabolic fossil fuel development.  But lets MAKE SURE CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL SAY A BIG FAT NO!!!

 

MORE INFO

This application may be decided on these dates (tbc)  in the new year by Cumbria County Council’s Development Control and Regulation Committee at County Offices, Kendal

18 Jan 2019 10.00 am

22 Feb 2019 10.00 am

The WCM application and the many letters of concern and objection can be found at https://planning.cumbria.gov.uk/     The Application reference is 4/17/9007

Anyone wishing to comment can write to Rachel Brophy, Senior Planning Officer rachel.brophy@cumbria.gov.uk and ask that your letter is sent to all members of the Development Control and Regulation Committee.

Or write to all members of the Development Control and Regulation Committee – their contact details can be found here

WRITE, PHONE, EMAIL, MAKE A BIG NOISE

 

RSPB - St Bees Black guillemot

Quaker Charity and IPCC Author Blast Coal Mine Plan

Quakers for Sustainability

Laurie  Michaelis was a Lead Author  on several Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, including the Special Report on Emission Scenarios.  He continues to serve as an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC, including the Special Report on Global Warming 1.5°C currently in development.

Laurie is the Quakers for Sustainability expert and he has written to Cumbria County Council outlining why they should turn down the coal mine plan. His letter and memo is reproduced in full below.

Dear Rachel Brophy

Planning Application 4/17/9007: Woodhouse Colliery

I am writing to comment on the above application and to ask to be allowed to speak at the Development Control Committee meeting on 7th March.   ( note this is now 18th April)

My comments centre on the climate change implications of the proposed mine and on the business case for the mine. As far as I can see these have not been addressed in any meaningful way by the applicant. There are several issues which need to be addressed for the Council to meet its obligations within the National Planning Policy Framework:

  1. Since every country in the world has signed the Paris Climate Agreement, we are all committed to limit global average temperature rise to well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C (see Annex). These limits are only possible with a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels to achieve zero net CO2 emissions around mid-century. WCM appears not to acknowledge this commitment or its implications in proposing a new coal mine with a ‘notional’ life of 50 years. In removing coal from underground and supplying it to steel manufacturers, the mine would be contributing to a continuation of CO2 emissions that would run counter to the Paris Agreement.

 

  1. UK Government policy does not yet reflect the Paris Agreement but is still working in the context of the 2008 Climate Change Act. The Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which has a statutory role guiding the government in implementing the Act, has advised that policies need strengthening to meet emission reduction goals in the coming 15 years[1]. Lord Deben, CCC chairman, has said[2] that the committee will not provide advice to the Government on meeting its Paris commitments until the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C is finalised later this year. It is clear, however, from the bulk of the science and policy literature that has emerged in the last two years, that UK climate change policies will need considerable further strengthening.

 

  1. Through one assumed scenario in which its coal displaces coal from the US imported to Europe, WCM claims that the mine would reduce global CO2 emissions by about 40kg per tonne of coal produced by reducing shipping distances. However, the coal will generate 3100kg of CO2 per tonne[3], whether it is burned or used in steelmaking (in which carbon, the main constituent of the coal, reacts with the oxygen in iron oxide, the main constituent of iron ore, to produce iron and CO2).

 

  1. The whole system of iron ore extraction, shipping, smelting, manufacture and use needs to be, and probably will be, transformed in the coming decades. Many governments and at least parts of the steel industry are well aware of the need to rapidly decarbonise the sector and are working hard on being prepared for the future. Changes are likely to include reduction in the use of steel, so that most if not all demand can be met by recycling, and deployment of one or more of the ultra-low carbon methods of steelmaking currently being developed – whether based on biomass, hydrogen or electrolysis. Iron ore itself is shipped to the UK in larger quantities than the coal used to smelt it, from countries including Brazil and Canada. It would make more sense for any residual iron production from ore to be close to iron ore mines; some of the world’s largest iron ore producers (Brazil, China) also have the greatest potential for and commitment to renewable energy. The world does not need new coal mines.

 

  1. If this mine were to go ahead and the coal that is now safely underground in the custody of Cumbria County Council were to end up as CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be a serious risk of climate change impacts including some thousands of deaths extending long into the future (see Annex). The mine could also result in global loss of livelihoods and homes numbering many times greater than the jobs created in Cumbria. While within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change the primary responsibility for reducing emissions falls on the country in which the emissions take place (in this case, use of the coal for steel making or as fuel), causal and moral responsibility for the emissions is shared by a) those involved in removing the coal from the ground, b) those involved in converting it to CO2 and releasing it to the atmosphere (the steel makers), and c) those involved in producing and consuming final products. If Cumbria County Council knowingly allows this mine to be developed, it bears at least a share of moral responsibility for those deaths and may in the future bear legal responsibility.

 

  1. The Planning Statement does not address the significant risk that the proposed mine would become a stranded asset and would need to be abandoned within ten to twenty years, along with the 500 jobs. The mine would divert people’s valuable time, energy and creativity from addressing the need for sustainable development in the region.

I have included a short bio outlining some of my relevant experience in the Annex.

Yours sincerely

 

Laurie Michaelis

[1] Committee on Climate Change: An independent assessment of the UK’s Clean Growth Strategy, January 2018.

[2] Lord Deben was responding to a question on 7th February at the Faith for the Climate Network Symposium, London.

[3] UK Government Emission Factors for Company Reporting, 2017

 

Annex

Mortality risk associated with CO2 emissions

The UK government, along with every other UN Member State, has signed the Paris Climate Agreement. Article 2.1(a) commits the signatories to:

‘Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change’.[4]

Global average warming currently stands at just over 1°C. Risks and impacts associated with 2°C and greater temperature increases have been set out in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers[5], approved by governments of IPCC Member States including the UK Government, states that:

“Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. Limiting climate change would require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions which, together with adaptation, can limit climate change risks.”

“Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.”

Among other risks, a 2°C global average rise would expose significant populations to extreme weather events, jeopardise food security and increase the range of infectious diseases, and make some current centres of population uninhabitable with large scale loss of homes and livelihoods. The human consequences depend on how people respond, but mass migration and violent conflict are likely.

The World Health Organisation has assessed the implications of climate change for mortality associated with a limited range of health impacts (heat stress, child undernutrition and three diseases)[6]. It finds a total of approximately 240,000 deaths per year from these causes between 2030 and 2050. This is with a global temperature rise of approximately 1.5°C temperature rise, resulting from cumulative CO2 emissions of approximately 2 trillion tonnes since 1880[7]. The mortality resulting from these emissions can be expected to continue well into the future – on the order of a century. On the conservative assumption that mortality rises linearly with global temperature and with cumulative CO2 emissions, since 2 trillion tonnes of CO2 emissions results in at least 24 million deaths, the 500 million tonnes of CO2 that would result from using the coal from the proposed mine would cause at least 6000 deaths.

Mortality is likely to rise nonlinearly with global temperature rise, because people will become less able to adapt to local changes in climate; and other causes of death are likely to be significant, possibly much more so, than those included in the WHO assessment. Climate change with temperatures exceeding 2°C would pose a substantial and serious risk to global food security and health, which could potentially result in early deaths for a significant proportion of the world population. It is possible that the next 2 trillion tonnes of CO2 emissions could cause on the order of one billion early deaths. In this scenario the proposed mine would cause 250,000 deaths.

 

Laurie Michaelis: a short bio

Laurie Michaelis is the co-ordinator of Living Witness, a Quaker charity supporting engagement with sustainability and climate change. He has a degree in physics and a PhD in energy studies and has worked with a variety of approaches for evaluating the climate change impacts of products, services, processes, activities and lifestyles.

In the early 1990s he was part of a team in the Strategic Studies Department at the Energy Technology Support Unit, assessing long-term technology policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for UK government, European Commission and World Bank.

He went on to the International Energy Agency and the OECD where responsibilities included supporting the development of national reporting and review processes under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, preparing policy papers for climate negotiators, supervising staff of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme (then operated by OECD), and participating in ‘In-Depth Review’ teams evaluating national policies on energy and climate change in several countries.

He was a Lead Author or Convening Lead Author on several IPCC reports, including the Special Report on Emission Scenarios. He continues to serve as an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC, including the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, currently in development.

[4] The text of the agreement can be accessed at http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

[5] http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

[6] World Health Organisation, 2014: Quantitative Risk Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Selected Causes of Death, 2030s and 2050s.WHO, Geneva.

[7] There are multiple mechanisms by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and these are changing as a consequence of climate change, so it is not possible to define a CO2 lifetime, but a first approximation is that global average warming is proportional to cumulative emissions.

 

FURTHER INFO Sent on 1st March

1st March 2018

Further to my letter of 12th February (attached for reference), I would like to raise a further matter in relation to the climate change implications of the proposed mine.

West Cumbria Mining hopes to export the coal from the proposed mine, so emissions resulting from its use, whether as a fuel or for iron smelting, would arise outside the UK. However greenhouse gas emissions from the mine itself, associated operations and inland transport of the coal would form part of the UK’s national inventory and would need to be accounted for within the budgets under the Climate Change Act 2008. Cumbria County Council has itself committed to play its part in meeting the national commitment by achieving emission reductions from residents, visitors and industry, in the Cumbria Climate Change Action Plan, 2009-2014 (I can find no record of an update to this).

The DEFRA Emission Factors for Company Reporting, 2017 give upstream emissions from coking coal supply as 442kg CO2e per tonne of coal. A large part of this will be associated with energy use and methane emissions from the mine. At a production rate of 2.8 Mt/year, the proposed mine would generate 1.24MtCO2e. The latest figure I can find for CO2 emissions in Cumbria was given in a presentation by Phil Davies, County Council Climate Change Officer, in 2010 and related to emissions in 2005. That figure was 7.4 Mt.

West Cumbria Mining has not given an assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions from its proposed project, but based on the above figures, it would constitute a significant increase in Cumbria’s greenhouse gas emissions. It would make it impossible for Cumbria County Council to meet its commitment, enabling the county to play its part in reducing national emissions by 80% by 2050.

 

Yours sincerely

Laurie Michaelis

 

South Lakes Action on Climate Change Object to the Coal Mine

South Lakes Action on Climate Change
Dear Ms Brophy,
Re: Application ref 4/17/9007 by West Cumbria Mining Ltd for
Development of an existing surface
mine entrance for a new underground metallurgical coal mine and associated surface development
including: at the former Marchon site (High Road) Whitehaven […] off Mirehouse Road, Pow Beck valley and area from, Marchon Site to St Bees Coast
1. South Lakes Action on Climate Change towards transition (SLACCtt) objects to the above coal mining application because the quantity of greenhouse gases it will release over its projected years of operation would be totally incompatible with the urgent and steep reduction in carbon emissions that climate scientists state we will need to ensure,
in order to have any good chance of meeting the temperature goals of the Paris Climate Agreement that the UK and almost all other nations have signed up to.

New Petition to Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole

Keep Cumbrian Coal in the Hole

Please Sign, Share and Talk about this, Letters to the press, please help to stop this plan in whatever way you can. Incredibly this mad, bad and dangerous plan has received far less media attention and discussion than the proposed Zip wires accross Thirlmere.  Why is that?  What is Going On?

The Petition can be signed here

The Full Petition Text is below….

Please do not let Cumbria be the first place in 30 years to open a deep coal mine in the UK. The proposed undersea coal mine under the beautiful coastline at St Bees would be five miles from Sellafield and five miles from the plan for new reactors (Moorside) at Beckermet. Coal mining is known to increase seismic activity.

Why is this important?

What People are Saying:

“We are particularly concerned in regard to the potential impact upon the wider marine and coastal environment of the discharge of water into the sea, which has been pumped from the flooded anhydrite mine.” National Trust

“ The application site is in proximity (Solway Firth 1.5km) to a European designated site (also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites), and therefore has the potential to affect its interest features.”Natural England

“any level of subsidence upon the terrestrial or marine heritage assets and designated sites and landscapes could be significant and permanent, therefore having a detrimental impact ..The history of contamination of watercourses in the areas raises concerns for some local residents in relation to the impact of the development on the complex hydrology of the area.” Colourful Coast Partnership

“Our position is to object to the proposed development on the grounds of the adverse impact on groundwater, surface water and biodiversity.”Environment Agency

“It is clear that this is a very large mine, with a very long life span…of 20-50 years and a peak of 2.8 million tonnes a year. Assuming a 40 year life (following construction), and an average of 2 million tonnes a year, that is a total production of 80 million tonnes, which will emit around 175 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. The level of emissions and proposed life-time of the mine is of major concern….We would also query whether or not there has been robust enough analysis of the potential for seismicity (and subsidence) relating to well-known nuclear facilities in the wider area, including Sellafield and proposed new facility at Moorside? What potential is there for seismicity to effect these and other facilities (including the low level waste repository at Drigg) and the possible high level waste radioactive waste facility which has been proposed in West Cumbria for some time.” Friends of the Earth

“The application should be rejected because it is not in the national interest. From reviewing the documents submitted by West Cumbria Mining it is clear that the intention is to export the coal to Europe and Asia…The application to mine is too close to the Sellafield nuclear site and the proposal for another nuclear power station at Moorside. Underground mining can have a significant impact on the surrounding areas, recently a coking coal mine in Russia triggered an earthquake.” Coal Action Network

Just some of the “Star Species” found in this Heritage Coast and Marine Conservation Zone are listed by the RSPB as: Fulmar, Guillemot, Herring Gull, Kittiwake, Razorbill and so many more that would be impacted on by the plan for a new coal mine with possible subsidence of the Irish Sea bed impacting on food sources such as sandeels (and not to mention disturbing and resuspending decades of Sellafield discharges which have settled there).

We ask that Cumbria County Council listen to the substantial concerns of the Coal Authority, Natural England, the National Trust, Coal Action Network, the Environment Agency, Colourful Coast Partnership, Friends of the Earth and others and turn down West Cumbria Mining’s planning application.

How it will be delivered

The petition will be delivered to the planning meeting at Cumbria County Council offices in Kendal on 7th March 2018