ALTHOUGH the decision has sparked a new round of debate, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) welcomes the decision, for the second time, to grant planning permission to open the former Haig Colliery in Cumbria.

The controversy centres on the signal that this decision sends to the rest of the world about Britain’s commitment to combatting climate change by opening up a new coalmine while advocating that other countries close theirs — and of course, the actual carbon emissions the mine might produce.

There is no shortage of experts in the field of climate change who can back up their theories with statistical data on a specific issue such as this. While some have taken a politically green position against the mine in an ideological stance against climate change, others have taken a more practical approach.

What seems to be missing from the politically motivated positions is the common-sense side of the debate — the recognition that climate change is a global issue which can not be resolved by what we do in Britain alone.

From the start, the NUM has supported the opening of a new colliery on the site of the old Haig Colliery. The obvious reason for this is that it will create around 500 mining jobs and therefore possibly new members for the union — this is something the NUM has been open and honest about.

The second reason is that it makes sense, while coking coal is being used to make steel, to mine the reserves we still have here in Britain. While there are ambitions to be in a position to produce steel in Britain without the need to use coking coal at some time in the future, that is not the situation today.

Predictions at the moment are that only 15 per cent of what might be produced at the new mine will be used in Britain while 85 per cent will be exported. That still represents a reduction in the carbon emissions of importing that 15 per cent — and gives the steel producers in Britain the option of further reductions, should they switch to using British coal.

The NUM believes that the demise of the British coal industry was politically motivated and not in the interest of the nation — or combatting climate change. While we are using coal in Britain, it would be better for the environment to use our indigenous coal reserves than to import it.

A tonne of coal produced in Britain has the same impact on the climate as a tonne of coal mined in any other country. The carbon emissions from burning a tonne of coal are the same no matter where the coal was mined — although the carbon emissions from transporting a tonne of British coal are considerably less.

There could be additional benefits to British coal in combatting climate change if the methane released from the production process is captured and used to generate electricity and heat for the site, as was the case in many of the former coalmines in Britain.

Offshoring our carbon emissions does not combat climate change — and when we are then importing goods to compensate for not being able to produce them here, we are increasing the carbon emissions. The result is the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve.

Before the destruction of the industry, Britain had an opportunity to be a world leader in how to continue to use coal while reducing the carbon emissions from burning it in both the production of steel and the generation of electricity. As it is, Britain is an example to other countries that rely on coal of why you should not close down your mining industry.

Follow Chris Kitchen on Twitter @cjrkitch_num_gs.