Among the many
promises for the future being flung about in the debate on the Labour
leadership election there are those to take us back to what was to make what
will be. Some are easier than others. The promise of new coal mines sounds easy but
is not.
This
UK Coal web site gives a fair
amount of basic information related to deep mining. It had two mines, Thoresby and Kellingley,
both gone. They had been kept going with
government support which ended. This has
to do not simply with subsidy and debt but climate policy and carbon emissions.
Is Labour
talking about far more extensive open cast mining across Wales and the odd
drift mine for specialist coals? If it
is deep mines then the idea that opening new ones in South Wales will be a
restoration to existing communities they need to think again.
Assuming
Labour win in 2020 it would take a good ten years to create new deep mines, if
not more. By that time just how many of
those former deep mines communities have gone?
Probably most of them and in a number of areas all leaving a remnant
body of labour.
Also, such deep
mines will need thick seams over extensive areas to allow modern methods to be
applied. The deeper and more you go means serious challenges in geology and the
physics; do I need to go into the air and water issues?
Then there is
the subsidence. Having lived in worked
in mining areas this is a major issue.
What is to be done with all the waste?
Take it back down again? Dump it
in the sea? Put on top of hills to
create mountains for winter sports?
Are the
proposals made in the hope of achieving continuing and real profits? Or is the idea that state subsidies here will
allow benefits and savings elsewhere in energy use or overall impact? They might be creating jobs, money flows raising
taxes and reducing benefits.
Inevitably,
this raises many questions about the existing energy companies, probably
regarded as candidates for state control.
But the money realities remain.
Will highly subsidised mining need high energy prices to pay for
it? Back to square one as they used to
say in the 1930's but there is a price to be paid, one way or another.
If the mantra
is jobs and incomes to communities it would be a very expensive and risky way
of doing it. The question is could money
be spent on other forms of job creation which would yield far better and more
reliable returns? What other economic
activities are possible without wrecking the environment?
Not least will
be the wage and benefits levels for those who do the work. Presumably, Labour does not want cheap
labour. To make the figures work better
importing low wage labour from the East might make sense to private operators.
Given the
muddle of thinking in the Labour Party they are all too likely to import the labour
for the new state mines and then pay them top dollar, especially if the locals
don't like the idea of going down or working in mines.
Bring back the
trolley buses.
No comments:
Post a Comment