Your reply illustrates the utter folly of a domestic net zero policy nicely: not your fault, of course (at least I hope you bear no responsibility for it). The point is that the mine will result in lower emissions globally than otherwise would be the case. Those who are serious about lowering emissions should grab such opportunities with both hands, and not hide behind rules established by virtue signalling politicians pursuing impossible agendas. The economic factors include a useful benefit to the UK blance of payments - surely essential given the amount of damage it will incur through offhsoring caused by the economy being made uncompetitive in pursuit of the inedible net zero.

It is for the owners of the mine to evaluate the commercial risks. But unless you can show that the world will magically be able to make steel, which is an alloy of carbon and iron and other metals, without carbon, or that we will instead have developed artificial spider silk to replace it, all you are arguing about is displacement of steel manufacture to less environmentally conscious countries and greater emissions through transport as being a price worth paying for virtue signalling.

I am pleased to see space being made here for the case for the mine to be set out. I trust that the Council will stick to its original guns, despite the heavy handed propaganda campaign being organised against it, which I suppose may now extend to official arm twisting (which deserves to be exposed if it is being threatened). Excluding Harrabin's Room 28-gate in Minitrue, I am sure there is widespread support for a project that will, on a global emissions basis, actually reduce overall emissions anyway. Having steel made in China now they are refusing quality Australian coking coal is not a good alternative. It will be an opportunity missed to improve our balance of payments through both exports and import substitution if the project does not go ahead.

You certainly have my full support for your correct decision in the interests not only of the local people you represent, but also of the rest of us.

Nature cannot be fooled

Feynman

Nor can the laws of thermodynamics.

That is a disadvantage. There are plenty of means to lobby government that are available. It should not be a privilege reserved to the legal profession. Besides, it is far more effective if there is a genuine groundswell of public opinion. For one thing, they are likely to vote with their wallets.

It's a long way from being the obvious way forward. Hydrogen is extremely expensive as a fuel, (start at about 3 times electricity) and the handling problems are considerable. Hydrogen fuelled vehicles are very expensive. A research project with a limited chance of success.

Afriye has a good future as a fiction writer.

EVs only make any kind of financial sense to business buyers who can save thousands of pounds a year in BIK tax and avoided congestion charges, not to mention the subsidy on purchase and lower VED. It helps to be able to stuff that motorway recharge at 80p/kWh on expenses. Depreciation still remains eye-watering.

Government is not going to be able to afford to subsidise EV rollout for ever. It will have to replace lost taxation as well. Ordinary motorists are aware, and they fear the attempts to make owning a vehicle a privilege of the rich.

The naivety of assuming that it is merely a matter for the National Grid and subsidising the installation of charge points is charming. The reality is that it will be the distribution companies who will be faced with digging up every street in Britain to recable to provide the necessary power: that alone is a £200bn item, without considering the inconvenience caused. There isn't the spare capacity in the distribution system. Even more stupid will be doing it over again a few years later if there is a large push towards electrification of heating.

Then of course there is the question of providing the additional power in a reliable fashion. The manner in which the grid has creaked whenever it has been cold, dark and windless, despite still having coal and nuclear capacity to call on that will soon be shut down, suggests that regular power cuts loom.

It is of course entirely wrong to suggest that we will have 100% EVs on the road in 2030, since there will still be a very substantialfleet of ICE vehicles. Proba by just as well, since the target is complete fantasy.

It is a big concern if we have MPs who believe the impossible and are determined to attempt to impose it. Some basic understanding of the very real problems is desperately needed.

What is the use of a verdict passed by a British court? They will not have the guilty parties in the dock to sentence to a term in jail. It just becomes virtue signalling by the Bench. Done badly, it backfires. Different matter if you are running the International court in The Hague with the perpetrator present, and under arrest.

Well, actually not necessarily. See the BMJ article I cite below.

Some data

Ongoing review in real time for the ‘Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test’ shows that the test had a specificity of 99.68% (that is, a false-positive rate of 0.32%), an overall sensitivity of 76.8%, and a sensitivity of over 95% for those with high viral loads.

It should be noted that the preliminary report from the joint PHE Porton Down and University of Oxford SARS-CoV-2 test development and validation cell found the sensitivity of the ‘Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test’ dropped from 79% when used by laboratory scientists compared to 73% when used by trained healthcare staff compared to 58% when used by self-trained members of the public. This means there is a higher chance of false negatives when the tests are used by self-trained users until they develop more experience.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/eviden...

So this test will not be all that good at picking up true positives, unless you are pretty sick with the virus, especially if you are not a skilled tester. And it still comes with a false positive rate that can give misleading impressions when blitz testing is conducted. It's far from clear that this is a sensible way to spend money.

The BMJ was unimpressed:
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/12/covid-19-gov...