And that, as I see it, is the crux of the matter. At the present time, heavy industry is extremely polluting, both in terms of emissions and impacts on the local environment. There is also the economic factor. My very rudimentary understanding of electric arc vs blast furnaces suggests that the former are more energy efficient and flexible. If you are going to make your facility more flexible and future proofed, then electric arc seems to be the most logical approach. Sadly this means a reduction in workforce, however anyone who believes that we will move to a greener economy and retaining the same level of skilled manual jobs, is going to be sorely disappointed.
Politicians and others who on one hand espouse green credentials and campaign against heavy industry, or oil exploration or mining, cannot complain when the inevitable closure of such polluting facilities have an impact on local employment and communities. That is the price that is paid; however tragic that is for the communities. People can be retrained, and the need for commodities such as steel is still required, so there is a future. And that future is being developed as we speak; more efficient production methods, less raw materials required, less energy required in the production.
As has been mentioned before, outsourcing coal mining, steel making and other polluting activities does not solve the issue - it merely transfers the issue to someone else; especially galling when countries such as the UK beat up others for their high carbon emissions, when we are customers of those countries.
Perhaps a fairer way of attributing emissions would be to spread those produced in a country to the emissions figures of their customers. So for example, it has been said that China produced 1,875 million tons of steel in 2019, resulting in at least 3,375 million tons of CO2 being generated. If 10% of that was exported, then surely 10% of the emissions should be attributed to the customer countries (the product is for them, and in the past likely as not they would have produced it themselves). This may help reduce the drive to reduce heavy manufacturing in a country to meet green targets, but actually only shift the issue elsewhere - and yes I know that economies of scale will impact on the calculations.
In saying all of this, it is regrettable that for the sake of headline chasing, a clear and sustainable plan was not on the agenda for any of our governments over the last few decades. Closing coal power stations in particular at a time when our need for electricity is significantly increasing without a consistent, reliable and most importantly upwardly scalable alternative for providing this electricity, will not win favour with the populace when they cannot charge their car; irrespective of how many pats on the back the politicians may get a climate summits...
As with so many things, the need for immediate results or a 'lasting legacy' causes so much more damage. But then, when has a long-term sensible approach (an approach that would inevitably encompass more than one government) ever been a palatable option? Ultimately you cannot have the best of both worlds today, either option will have its supporters and detractors, but sadly no matter which approach it taken there will be those who lose out. So glad I am not a decision maker!