COP26 host U.K. pledges to phase out coal power while considering its first new coal mine in 30 years

And the United Kingdom is among countries pledging this week to end all investment in new coal power generation, both internationally and domestically.

At the same time, however, Britain is mulling whether to approve what would be its first new deep coal mine in over 30 years.

This week’s pledges wouldn’t apply, because the mine would be for coal used in the process of iron and steelmaking, rather than thermal coal, used in electricity generation.

Even still, critics say a new mine would not only increase global emissions, but be a bad look at a time when the world is watching. The mine has already attracted unfavorable attention from the likes of the teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg and U.S. climate envoy John F. Kerry.

Supporters, including many in this Georgian town in northwest England, say it would bring much-needed prosperity to an area that is postcard pretty, but struggling economically. They also argue: If Britain is going to burn coking coal, which is used to make steel, for many years to come, then why not burn local, English coal that doesn’t need to be imported and can be produced at mines they can monitor?

The proposed mine has become something of a political headache for Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is trying to lead on climate but who also campaigned on a pledge to promote economic activity in the north of England. In a BBC interview at Cop26, Johnson said, “I’m not in favor of more coal,” but he also said the decision wasn’t up to him.

It is up to his government, though.

The Cumbria County Council approved the project. But a panel advising Johnson’s government on climate issues urged a rethink. A top official has put the project on hold, pending an assessment of whether it is “consistent with Government policies for meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change.”

An independent planning official intends to make a recommendation early next year to cabinet minister Michael Gove. Johnson’s government will then need to decide whether it agrees with the recommendation.

The significance of coal in enabling Britain to become the world’s first industrialized nation cannot be overstated. The country has an abundance of coal deposits, and in the 18th and 19th Century, King Coal transformed the nation: powering steamships across oceans and locomotives across the land. It revolutionized the manufacturing of almost everything.

In his new book “Black Gold,” author Jeremy Paxman writes: “the history of its extraction is the story of Britain.”

The industry provided jobs for more than a million Britons in its heyday. It was once the lifeblood of regions like this, creating communities that worked, socialized and organized together.

But Britain has largely weaned itself off coal, replacing it with gas and renewable energy sources, including a world-leading network of offshore wind farms. In 1950, 97 percent of British electricity generation came from coal. Today, it’s less than two percent.

Coal is still used, though, the world over, by heavy industry to manufacture steel, which is used to make everything from cars to bridges to appliances to wind turbines. The British steel industry imports most of its coal from America, Russia and Australia.

West Cumbria Mining, funded by an Australian-based venture capital, wants to build a coal mine on the edge of Whitehaven that it says would provide 500 jobs, paying about 60,000 - 70,000 pounds a year, and create an estimated 1,500 indirect jobs.

Walking along the large grassy expanse of the proposed mine site, local mayor Mike Starkie said the kind of investment on the table “is almost heaven-sent … this mine will be transformational for the community.” He estimated that “90-95 percent of people around Whitehaven support it.”

He also bristled at outsiders, from countries that consume far more coal than Britain, who have weighed in. “It’s kinda irritating when John Kerry says, ‘don’t mine coal, we’ll sell you ours’ and ship it around the world, leaving a carbon footprint from transport,” he said.

Trudy Harrison, a local Conservative member of Parliament for the area, says there are both economic and environmental arguments for the mine. She told a recent public inquiry that it would contribute an estimated 1.8 billion pounds [$2.45 billion] to the country’s gross domestic product in its first decade. “This could be invested into research and development for new steelmaking processes,” she said.

But the mine also has plenty of detractors.

Neil Hudson, another local lawmaker from the Conservative party, was initially a supporter, but said he has come to believe it is a bad idea. He cited extreme weather in North America and Europe, as well as an August United Nations report on climate, as factors that led him to change his mind.

The Climate Change Committee, the government’s independent climate advisers, objected to the mine on the grounds that it would increase global emissions and negatively impact the country’s legally-binding carbon budgets.

They suggested that there may be no need for coking coal after 2035. And they warned that permitting the mine “gives a negative impression of the U.K.’s climate priorities” in the year it is hosting COP26.

Robert Falkner, an environment expert at the London School of Economics, agreed the mine plan was undermining Britain’s credibility.

“The U.K. is trying to convince the Chinese to scale down their coal plants, but how can you make that argument when you are considering opening a new coal mine?” he said.

The West Cumbria Mining company declined a request for an interview. But at a recent public inquiry, its lawyer, Gregory Jones, said objections to the mine “amount to little more than emissions offshoring.”

“The reality is that some industries, especially the steel industry, will continue to need coking coal for many years. Once it's recognized as a continuing need, which will be met with imports from the USA, irrespective of whether this development gets [approval], the objections to this mine amount to little more than emissions offshoring.”

Rebecca Willis, a professor of energy and climate governance at Lancaster University, said it was understandable that a community would want to say yes to a mine when jobs were being dangled in front of them.

“What really upsets me is you have forgotten communities, and then along comes a coal mine being really nice to them,” she said. “What West Cumbria Mining did was actually say, here’s a register. You can write your name down if you want a job and as soon as we have vacancies, we’ll email you. Obviously, they are going to go for it.”

She said the argument that steel is needed to create wind turbines — while true — was a “distraction.”

“The fundamental point is: If coal is dug out the ground, it will be burned, and burning coal causes climate change. It is that simple,” she said, adding that there was enough coal in existing mines around the world to meet demand.

Frans Berkhout, a professor of environment, society and climate at King’s College London, said emissions from the shipping of imported coal were equivalent to a tiny fraction — 1 to 5 percent — of the emissions from steel production itself.

The focus, he said, should be on decarbonizing steel production. And one way to accelerate innovation would be to stop opening coal mines, because restricting supply would then drive up the costs of the materials traditionally used to make steel.

“Hydrogen steel is something that seems a little bit far off, but there is quite advanced research and development going on in that area,” he said, citing Sweden a leader in the production of low-carbon steel.

Many neglected, ex-industrial towns in the north of England would welcome an influx of new jobs. Whitehaven, a beautiful seaside town with sweeping views of the Irish Sea, was once a thriving economic hub, home to coal mining, iron ore mining, ship building, farming and a major chemical plant. Today, the economy is dominated by one company, Sellafield, a nuclear processing site that’s being decommissioned.

But in towns like this one, a new mine is not just an economic draw. It also has social and cultural appeal.

Darren King, 47, a business manager at Sellafield, said his father and both his grandfathers worked in the mines. “I think it should go ahead … it’s part of the town’s history, as long as there’s not a major environmental impact, I don’t see the problem.”

Fred Spires, 77, a retired register, expressed a similar sentiment. “We need coal, in the country, and much better to have it mined locally than import it from Australia,” he said. “The opportunity of so many jobs is too good of an opportunity to let go.”

Sharon Graham, 52, a secretary who was walking her German pointer dog, said she had mixed feelings on the mine: “It’s good for jobs for the area, but not so good for the environment.” But her son, Bradley, 22, had no such conflict. “I’m fully in support of our environment, so I’m fully against it,” he said. “You got to have a world to live on in order to have jobs in the first place.”

The last coal mine in town, dubbed a “Georgian gem” for its architecture, was closed in the 1980s, after a faceoff between Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and striking miners.

Emma Williamson, a Labour Party councilor, pointed out a darker side. In her ward, where the mine would be built, she said there is over 25 percent child poverty. She said the roads have pot holes, shops are closing at an “alarming rate,” and high streets “are decimated.” She is in touch with many ex-miners, some of whom fell into destitution after the last mine here closed.

“If this mine doesn’t go ahead, what’s going to replace it?” she asked.