I've done lots of media on the coal mine, and I'm struck by how journalists' questions, and indeed many campaigners' statements, essentially embed the false debate over the mine.
An explanation - and some alternative questions - in a thread 1/9
An explanation - and some alternative questions - in a thread 1/9
These are the questions asked time & again:
1. is the mine carbon neutral?
2. isn't it better than importing coal?
3. do we need coal for steel production?
4. isn't it worth doing for the jobs?
And each one of them requires a patient answer (which I have given). BUT 2/9
1. is the mine carbon neutral?
2. isn't it better than importing coal?
3. do we need coal for steel production?
4. isn't it worth doing for the jobs?
And each one of them requires a patient answer (which I have given). BUT 2/9
All are based on a false premise, that there is a debate to be had. And in reality, there isn't.
1. 'carbon neutral' claims ridiculous; conclusive evidence that new mines are incompatible with 1.5deg target
2 & 3. no steel company in the UK wants the coal from the mine
3/9
1. 'carbon neutral' claims ridiculous; conclusive evidence that new mines are incompatible with 1.5deg target
2 & 3. no steel company in the UK wants the coal from the mine
3/9
... which means that
4. jobs becomes a non-question. Those jobs should never have been offered.
Rather than debating the evidence again and again, we should be talking about WHY shoddy arguments have such persistence. And the answer is, of course, political. 4/9
4. jobs becomes a non-question. Those jobs should never have been offered.
Rather than debating the evidence again and again, we should be talking about WHY shoddy arguments have such persistence. And the answer is, of course, political. 4/9
As I outlined in a lot of detail (probably too much for some) in this Long Read,
the story of the mine is not 'hmm coal mine, good idea or not?' but 'how can such claims have such zombie-like persistence?'
5/9
theguardian.com/environment/20…
the story of the mine is not 'hmm coal mine, good idea or not?' but 'how can such claims have such zombie-like persistence?'
5/9
theguardian.com/environment/20…
So - in the spirit of public service (& thanks @RachelCoxcoon for the suggestion) here are the questions I would *like* to be asked about the mine.
1. Why, in a country with a statutory net zero target, are we even discussing opening a new mine?
6/9
1. Why, in a country with a statutory net zero target, are we even discussing opening a new mine?
6/9
2. Why, in the planning process, was peer-reviewed scientific evidence dismissed in favour of the mine's unsubstantiated arguments?
3. Why are we struggling to move from setting ambitious targets, to meaningful action on curtailing fossil fuels?
7/9
3. Why are we struggling to move from setting ambitious targets, to meaningful action on curtailing fossil fuels?
7/9
4. Do high-carbon economic interests still dominate our political system? If so, why?
5. Why was a local community forced to choose between dirty jobs and no jobs at all?
These are the real questions. Asking anything else just hides the reality of this horrific decision.
8/9
5. Why was a local community forced to choose between dirty jobs and no jobs at all?
These are the real questions. Asking anything else just hides the reality of this horrific decision.
8/9
In media training, it's a common advice to answer the question you want, rather than the one you were given. But that's hard. I, and many others, have failed to do this.
In doing so, we have unwittingly conspired created a false debate where really, none should exist.
9/9
In doing so, we have unwittingly conspired created a false debate where really, none should exist.
9/9
*conspired to create
[sorry typing too fast]
[sorry typing too fast]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
