Deep (AKA underground) coal mines have a long history in the UK dating back some 400 years. On the other hand, opencast coal mines only became common between 1940 and 60, becoming the dominant mining method in the UK as deep coal mining entered rapid decline. Opencast coal mining techniques were largely imported from the USA (Hansard, 1950) together with the heavy machinery they required. In 1942, the UK Government established the Directorate of Opencast Coal Production under the Ministry of Works to exploit coal seams near the surface (National Archives, n.d.) that were too shallow or fragmented for deep-mining techniques (Ritchie & Roser, 2019). The UK Government encouragement of opencast coal mining was partly the result of a need to boost coal production and a wartime shortage of labour to do it (British Geological Survey). Opencast coal mining was cheaper and used less labour - it also did not require the specialised skills that deep coal mines do. Although opencast coal mining was introduced as an emergency wartime measure, it persisted due to its economic viability compared with deep coal mining. Yet, despite this transition from deep to opencast coal mining, as of 2026, deep coal mines have outlived opencast coal mines as the only active mines remaining in the UK - namely, Aberpergwm in South Wales and the relatively small Ayle Colliery in Northumberland.
The Opencast Coal Act 1958 provided the first comprehensive legal framework for the industry, regulating land acquisition and restoration requirements as the practice moved from emergency status to a long-term economic strategy. However, today we see that this legislation and subsequent legislation was not strong enough to secure restoration of the sprawling opencast coal mines.
We worked with media outlet, Nation.Cymru, to ask where the main political parties in Wales stands on restoration issues ahead of the Welsh election on 07th May 2026. This is a key issue for many people, but particularly those who live near under-restored opencast coal mine sites. These sites need Welsh Government support to bring them more in line with the quality that was promised to local residents. It's also vital that Wales learns lessons from its scarred landscape. We hope that these political parties remember these pre-election commitments when it comes to determine the called-in Ffos-y-fran ex-opencast restoration planning application. Reform was the only party not to respond - but this is a summary of what the other political parties of Wales had to say:
(see the Nation.Cymru article for the full account)
Industry Accountability: Strengthening "polluter pays" laws to ensure companies that profited from heavy industry are legally responsible for land restoration.
National Remediation: Implementing a nationwide strategy to monitor and restore every coal tip, while demanding Westminster fund the clean-up of pre-devolution hazards.
Community Planning: Reforming land-use planning to balance development with nature restoration and better public access to green spaces.
Justice First: Mandating that polluters pay for all prevention and repair, ensuring environmental damage is never subsidized by the public.
Ecological Regeneration: Focusing on long-term ecological repair of mining sites rather than short-term safety fixes to deliver environmental justice.
Fundamental Access: Treating high-quality nature access as a fundamental right, prioritizing new green spaces in communities historically affected by industry.
Pollution Reform: Introducing a new Clean Water Bill and a dedicated watchdog to crack down on water pollution.
Tip Safety: Establishing a "Disused Tips Authority" in Merthyr Tydfil to secure 400+ sites and exploring solar energy or mine-water heating on reclaimed land.
Green Renewal: Expanding on the 4,000+ green spaces already created by launching an urban rewilding taskforce.
Aggressive Enforcement: Taking tough action on sewage and industrial dumping, ensuring big companies—not local taxpayers—foot the bill for clean-ups.
Green Opportunity: Moving past "empty nostalgia" by transforming former coal sites into hubs for green industry, housing, and skilled work.
Land Reclamation: Partnering with councils to turn derelict land into parks, tree-filled areas, and safe walking or cycling routes.
New Oversight: Scrapping Natural Resources Wales and replacing it with a new independent regulator to enforce environmental rules.
Conservation Funding: Establishing a £20m "Wildlife Wales Fund" to support conservation efforts and community green spaces.
Economic Focus: Prioritizing economic transformation in coalfield areas while protecting heritage and improving site safety.
As part of our Politics Unspun series we are unpacking politicians' public comments on coal to challenge any misleading or incorrect messages.
Todays' focus is on comments made in a BBC interview during the Senedd election campaign about coal mining in Wales. During the interview, Reform UK candidate in Afan Ogwr Rhondda, Ben Hodge-McKenna, made some statements about coal mining which we would like to address as part of this series.
Mr Hodge-McKenna claimed that reopening Welsh coal mines could help meet the UK’s energy needs. However, the UK no longer operates any coal‑fired power stations and the country’s energy strategy is now centred on renewables, storage, and electrification. Coal has not been a major part of the UK energy mix for almost a decade and Welsh coal cannot substitute for modern low‑carbon energy systems. Reopening mines would not contribute to UK energy security.
"It doesn't make sense for us to be sabotaging our economic policy and sacrificing jobs in Wales when you have other countries around the world that are ramping up,"
Reopening mines now would not recreate the large, long‑term workforces of the past. Modern mining is highly mechanised, and any jobs created would be limited and short‑lived, particularly due to the decreasing demand for coal in the UK. Aside from this though, the UK Government will soon legislate a prohibition of new coal mining licences, making new mining activities impossible approve in Wales or anywhere in the UK.
In contrast, Wales’s growing renewable energy sector offers larger, more stable employment opportunities which offer long term jobs in an expanding industry to workers today and in years to come.
Mr Hodge-McKenna said he understood the concerns about climate change, but the emissions that are produced in Wales on a global scale "are absolutely minuscule" meaning any changes would have "virtually no impact".
Regardless of other countries ramping up their coal production, it is in our own economic interest to pursue a clean energy future. All countries could, and some do, avoid taking action because of larger current or historic emissions being produced by another country. Wales can only control its own coal production and be the example to other countries as to how to transition in a just way which benefits workers, communities and the climate.
"I don't think anybody's talking about sort of going back to the 70s or 80s and reopening mines in the conditions that they were previously. But if there are commercial opportunities to enjoy the natural resources that we have then we shouldn't be automatically closed off to any options without at least giving them a fair consideration,"
While safety standards in coal mining have improved, this does not address the core issue: coal is the highest‑emitting fossil fuel. The UK’s climate commitments require rapid reductions in emissions, and new coal extraction would run counter to those goals. Additionally, Wales still faces safety risks from legacy coal infrastructure, such as abandoned opencast sites and unstable tips which require ongoing management.
Improved safety conditions in mining do not change the environmental and climate impacts associated with burning coal.
Coal Action Network is proud to present our 2026 manifesto for Wales. With the Senedd elections taking place in May this year, Wales stands at a decisive moment. For over a century, coal has shaped Welsh landscapes, communities, and politics. Now Wales has the opportunity to shape something very different: a future defined not by extraction, but by restoration, innovation, and justice.
Our recommendations are:
We urge all parties to prioritise a bolder, brighter Wales, by adopting these recommendations.
Download a copy in Welsh or English by clicking on either of the images above.
As part of our Politics Unspun series we are unpacking politicians' public comments on coal to challenge any misleading or incorrect messages.
Todays' focus is on comments made during a Westminster Hall debate in December about the oil refining sector. During the debate, Lee Anderson MP made some statements about coal use and extraction which we would like to address as part of this series.
In summary, Mr Anderson’s views in this debate appear to cling to the positives of the coal mining industry without accepting its negatives. These views do not accept contemporary scientific, economic or legal realities and do not consider either the worsening impacts of climate change if the world does not transition from coal, or the vast opportunities that a just transition offers society.
"I worked in the coal mines in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and the whole industry was decimated by the Conservative Government at the time… What the Government did not realise at the time is that when they got rid of a coalmine—each coalmine had a football team, a rugby team, a cricket team, a community club, a miners’ welfare, a brass band and a bandstand in the local welfare grounds—it destroyed whole communities, and those communities will never come back. They will never be the same again."
We absolutely agree with Mr Anderson’s initial statement; the destruction of Britain’s coal communities in the 1980s was profound, lasting, and traumatic. The way the Thatcher Government closed the mines is now taught internationally as a case study in how not to transition from coal; a warning about what happens when governments shut down an industry without planning for new jobs, new skills, or new economic purpose.
This is why we are surprised that he now forgives Thatcher’s economic policies which directly led to the closure of the pits in such a destructive way. The 1980s mine closures were not inevitable, they were damaging political choices – choices which he now appears to support.
While we want to see the end of coal mining in the UK and elsewhere, we campaign for just transitions which benefit workers and communities. The answer is not to just reopen the pits, but to replace those jobs in industries which aide our transition to clean energy.
"It is all well and good saying to somebody, “It’s okay, you can make windmills or solar panels,” or, “We’ll retrain you in green energy,” but they do not want that. This lot do not understand that there are still men and women in this country who want to get up in the morning and go do a proper day’s graft. I have been one of those working men who gets up in the morning at 5 o’clock and goes and does a dirty, horrible, dangerous job. I know what it is like to come home, after doing a horrible shift on a horrible job. I know what the people in these communities feel like."
Communities deserve better than being told their only future is their past. Mr Anderson paints a picture of working‑class pride rooted in dangerous, exhausting labour. But why should workers be condemned to work in ‘dirty, horrible, dangerous jobs’? Pride does not require danger and we should expect more than that now that we have alternatives. Community does not require coal dust and dignity does not require repeating the mistakes of the 1980s.
He seems to suggest that the electricians, welders, engineers and other workers who are installing solar farms and wind turbines do not ‘do a proper day’s graft’. A real pro‑worker position would be to invest in tomorrow’s industries in former coal regions, guaranteeing secure well‑paid jobs for years to come which support community institutions directly AND protect workers from dangerous conditions.
The lesson of the 1980s is not that we should cling to coal. It is that when transitions are done badly, communities suffer—and when they are done well, communities thrive. Mr Anderson is right to honour the miners. But honouring them means fighting for the future of those communities, not chaining them to their past.
"I have heard colleagues talk about “net stupid zero” in the past. We think the targets should be scrapped; we are not against trying different sources of energy to fuel our nation. We are saying we should have a sensible transition. China has got it right: it is burning coal. China is opening coal mines and using coal-fired power stations."
Mr Anderson appears to be contradicting himself within two sentences. ‘We should have a sensible transition’ but ‘China has got it right: it is burning coal’. A ‘sensible’, or just, transition is not what happened in the 1980s, but reopening coal mines and coal power stations now, when the UK has already transitioned from them, would be counter intuitive.
Our view is that China should also be transitioning from coal use and extraction. But pointing to China’s coal use is a way of excusing inaction at home. The Chinese Government should do more to decrease coal use in China. Lee Anderson is a Member of the UK Parliament though and should be helping his community to benefit from the energy transition we are in the midst of.
The Government is reforming planning policy in England and thanks to thousands of our supporters asking for an end to coal extraction in the last consultation in 2024, they are now recommending that planners "should not identify new sites or extensions to existing sites for peat or coal extraction". The Government is now running a consultation on its latest draft which includes this wording.
So it's time for our supporters to take action again and prove that the Government is well supported to prohibit coal extraction. If we flood the consultation with supportive submissions for this particular policy, we will certainly drown out any pro fossil fuel voices seeking to change the Government's mind.
Please take two minutes of your time to send our template submission by the deadline of 10th March 2026.
Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd illegally mined coal at Ffos-y-fran for over a year, profiting from record coal prices. Now, it wants to keep all the profits by trying to downgrade the restoration plan, breaking its promise to the 60,000 residents of Merthyr Tydfil, South Wales.
Your objection means much more if it's put in your own words why you want Merthyr Tydfil Council to refuse the application to downgrade this huge restoration project. Here's some points you might choose to include, or go straight to the objection form:
This will take you to the Merthyr Tydfil Council's short objection form.
Ironically, the original approval of the opencast coal mine was to fund the restoration of the area which had been scarred by previous iron ore and coal mining. Key to the agreed restoration plan is that the huge overburden mounds (coal tips), currently dumped in 3 mountainous piles around the site, would be returned to the void, both of which were created by the opencast coal mining. That would return the site to the undulating landscape it was before and in sync with the rest of the lanscape in that area. Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd agreed to this restoration plan in 2015, when it took over operations at the site - but is now trying to wriggle out of that contract.
We got internationally renowned foresnic accountants, C. Lewis & Company, to analyse mining company Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd's accounts. Guess what? Not only can the mining company afford the full restoration, it has even set the money aside for it, and it can't legally spend it on anything else... unless the Council agrees to downgrade the restoration by granting the company's cut-price restoration application.
It's a stitch up! Don't let it happen
The new proposal was published on Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council's website on Friday 21/02/2025. It is a plan to do as little as possible that would justify the company getting its hands on the £15 million currently held by the Council in an ESCROW account. But that £15 million was only intended to cover the barest necessities to make the site safe in case Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd goes bust. Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd hasn't gone bust though, and should be stumping up around £75-110 million to pay for the restoration.
The 218-page environmental impact assessment for the new plan is overflowing with greenwash. The assessment even claims that the lack of restoration it's now proposing for the opencast coal mine will be an 'educational resource' and testament to the area's mining history - more like a permanent reminder to Merthy Tydfil residents of broken promises and rampant profiteering at their expense.
The assessment fails to account for the impact that a loss of land and associated loss of carbon sequestion will have over the decades. The State of Nature Wales 2023 reveals the devastating scale of nature loss across the country and the risk of extinction for many species. This is not the time to cut the restoration budget by around 80-90% of a huge site - much of which has been off-limits to nature for too long.
In November 2024, the new UK Government announced its intention to legislate a ban of new coal mining licences – which we welcomed. Over a year later, the legislation is yet to be introduced, and the Government is not planning to include all types of extraction.
2026 needs to be the year that ALL coal extraction is banned. Here’s Why that is, and How it can be done:
May’s local authority and devolved Government elections will possibly see gains for pro coal candidates. This could result in local authorities across the UK and possibly even the Welsh Government being run by Councillors and Members who are part of a party that has stated its aim to re-open coal mines. While this is impossible in many circumstances; Britain’s 5,000 coal tips are within reach.
The current Welsh Government’s Coal Policy adds a level of scrutiny to potentially prevent coal tip extraction, but a new Government could abandon this policy and approve many of Wales’ 2,590 coal tips to be mined if they have been given approval by local authorities. In England, only local authorities need to approve coal tip extraction- using the same framework which Cumbria County Council used to approve the West Cumbria coal mine.
With more local authorities likely to be led by pro coal Councillors, now is the time to ensure that ALL types of coal extraction are treated equally, banned nationally and that the ban is legislated before any coal tips are approved to be mined by local authorities.
Coal Action Network commissioned leading environmental Barristers Rowan Clapp and Estelle Dehon KC to draft the precise wording of amendments to the Coal Industry Act 1994. This advice showed that relatively minor amendments could be made whilst legislating the coal licence ban to achieve this aim. This advice has been shared with the Government.
Referring to the coal policies of devolved Governments, Energy Minister Michael Shanks told us during a Westminster Hall debate in October; “Their firm view is that they can bring into effect the aim of the Welsh Government and the UK Government to make sure that extraction of coal is a thing of the past. Their view is that their existing powers do that.”
Coal Action Network does not agree that existing powers do prevent further extraction due to the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, we are reaching out to Westminster and the devolved Governments. The Welsh Government in particular needs to consider the wider implications of banning coal tip extraction across the UK. While their coal policy could prevent 2,590 coal tips in Wales from being exploited whilst it is adhered to by a Government which seeks the end of coal; their advocacy for the inclusion of coal tips in this Westminster legislation could almost double their impact by expanding that ban to the other 2,400 coal tips throughout the rest of the UK.
Members of Parliament
Members of the Senedd
Members of the Scottish Parliament
Despite 2024 being a momentous year for UK coal mining and use, the fight's not over.
The UK steel and cement sectors (and to a lesser extent, bricks) are the largest users of coal following the closing down of the UK's last coal-fired power station in September 2024. But tried and tested alternatives to coal exist. Check out our coal dashboard for our most recent coal stats including an industry break-down. We support the UK Government's commitment to ban new coal mines opening in the UK - but this must be accompanied by a commitment to rapidly wean domestic industry off coal by adopting existing alternatives. Failing to do this simply off-shores the dangers and localised environmental harm of coal mining to where it's out of sight. This kind of practice marked the British colonial period, where some of the dirtiest and most grueling work was forced upon colonised countries, to supply and develop the UK. Continuing this pattern is called 'neo-colonialism', and the UK must avoid this by de-coaling domestic industry.
As the UK no longer produces thermal coal, the type used by the cement industry (and to a lesser extent in the steel industry), 1.78 million tonnes was imported in 2024 – primarily from Colombia and South Africa, two countries plagued with poor track records in coal mine-based health and safety, forced displacements of communities, and killings of environmental defenders. Without a plan to decisively and rapidly wean cement works off coal, the UK is open to accusations of perpetuating neocolonial patterns of trade.
Carbon footprint
The steel industry produces 9-11% of the annual CO2 emitted globally, contributing significantly to climate change. In 2024, on average, every tonne of steel produced led to the emission of 2.2 tonnes of CO2e (scope 1, 2, and 3). Globally in 2024, 1,886 million tonnes (Mt) of steel were produced, emitting in the order of 4.1 billion tonnes CO2e (75% of which are direct emissions). This is largely due to the reliance on ‘coking’ coal in blast furnace primary steel production.
Coal-free steel pathways
Four of the five biggest global steel producers aim to reach carbon neutral steel production by 2050. This would be through a combination of using ‘electric arc furnaces’ (EAF) to recycle scrap steel into secondary steel products, and a newer technology called Direct Reduced Iron that replaces coal with natural gas or hydrogen in primary steel making. The hydrogen option could be generated from renewables but relies on the roll-out of much more renewable generation capacity and massive green hydrogen infrastructure, which has so far received little of the huge investment required. So where this new Direct Reduced Iron technology (also requiring significant investment) is being used, it’s generally with natural gas instead. Those steelworks could be switched to hydrogen in the future, if the price of green hydrogen drops to a competitive level and the infrastructure to get the hydrogen to steelworks is built.
Threats to coal-free steel decarbonisation
There is a global over-supply of steel, primarily generated by China which produced 54% of global output in 2023. This has reduced the price that steel can be sold for to the point that many steelworks are running at a loss, supported by government subsidies to continue operating. This threatens the very significant private sector investments needed into green steel production as the industry’s current position makes a profitable return on that investment unlikely. A blast furnace can continue for 15-20 years before undergoing a ‘relining’ (refurbishment) process to extend its life further. Relining can cost 25-50% of the cost of a new blast furnace, but still amount to hundreds of £millions. Due to the long life and large capital investments, it’s essential that investments now are in greener steel-making processes or the world will be ‘locked in’ to CO2-intensive steel-making for many years to come.
In 2024, UK steel production made up 32% of domestic consumption and was responsible for 13.4% of GHGs from manufacturing, and 2.2% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of this footprint is due to the coal burned at Scunthorpe steelworks. With the UK Government rightly ruling out any new coal mining projects in the UK, it is vital that UK steelworks becomes coal-free. Switching domestic coal mining for coal mining abroad would perpetuate colonial patterns of trade where the impacts of extractive industries are off-shored.
UK primary steel-making is wholly dependent on imports for the two main resources needed to make steel: ‘coked’ coal and iron ore. Coal needs to be ‘cooked’ in ‘coking ovens’ before it becomes coked coal capable of burning at very high temperatures required in blast furnaces. The UK closed its last coking oven in Port Talbot in March 2024. Since then, UK primary steel-making has depended on other countries to process coal in coking ovens before being imported into the UK.
The UK’s largest steelworks, Tata Steel UK’s Port Talbot steelworks, recently closed its blast furnaces, which had come to the end of their operational life. With £500 million from the UK Government, Tata seized the opportunity to shift from making coal-based blast furnace primary steel to using electricity to recycle scrap steel into new secondary steel products instead.This technology is called an ‘electric arc furnace’ (EAF). Although the transition should have had more Union and worker involvement, the conversion to EAF is a pragmatic move given the UK’s scrap steel surplus, the financial losses being made in the blast furnace steel production, and the UK’s net-zero commitments. Four of the UK’s other steelworks also recycle scrap steel using EAFs. The fifth is British Steel’s Scunthorpe steelworks, which still produces coal-based primary steel, and so is the second biggest single site source of CO2 in the UK.
Scunthorpe’s blast furnace steelworks needs to decarbonise to remain competitive, improve local air quality, and avoid fuelling climate chaos. Before the UK Government took partial control of the steelworks around April 2025, the operators – Jingye Group – claimed financial losses of £700,000 per day. Additionally, customers – who will soon face mandatory carbon reporting – may increasingly choose to import lower carbon steel from other European countries like Sweden and Spain who are pursuing low-emission primary steel production. The current options for Scunthorpe steelworks are:
1) convert to Direct-Reduction Iron technology to produce primary steel
2) convert to recycling scrap steel in a EAF to produce secondary steel products.
Producing secondary steel option would be much cheaper, but politically difficult as it would mean the loss of many jobs and the loss of the UK’s primary steel-making capacity. Find out more about the technology options below:
Read more about coal in steel in our 2021 report.
Blast furnace primary steel production: Metallurgical-grade coals converted to ‘coke’ which has a dual role in a blast-furnace, providing the required heat and creating a chemical reaction with iron ore reducing it to ‘pig’ iron which is heated with other additives (including small quantities of existing scrap steel) to make steel.
Electric arc furnace secondary steel production uses 99% less coal than blast furnaces per tonne of steel produced by using electricity to melt down scrap steel to make secondary steel products, with small quantities of coal added to remove certain impurities. In countries, such as the UK, which generates a large share of its electricity through renewables, EAFs have a much smaller carbon footprint than blast furnace steel production. The UK currently produces a surplus of scrap steel, exporting it to EAFs abroad. Having greater EAF capacity in the UK will keep the scrap here, and the jobs it supports. Steel is – in theory – an endlessly recyclable product, but when it’s fused with other metals and materials, or has other properties added to it, it can be challenging to recycle it in EAFs into high-grade metals needed for certain applications, even with small quantities of coal added to remove certain impurities.
Direct reduced iron (DRI) primary steel production: is an emerging alternative to blast furnaces where natural gas or hydrogen replaces the role of coal in heating and reducing high-grade iron ore down to iron, ready for primary steel-making in an electric arc furnace. There are successful commercial test-cases for this technology, such as HyBrit in Sweden which uses hydro-generated green hydrogen to make steel. However, green hydrogen is prohibitively expensive, currently, so DRI facilities tend to use natural gas whilst being “hydrogen ready”. DRI production also makes capture rates for CCS much higher than a blast furnace.
It is vital that the forthcoming UK Government’s green public procurement policy for construction and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism should be sufficiently robust so as to support UK low-emission steel to compete with cheaper higher emission steel imports. Together, this should add confidence within the British steel sector that the UK Government’s public procurement pipeline will be a pipeline that supports domestic industry.
The UK Government must take action to secure the UK’s production of virtually coal-free secondary steel-making:
The UK Government’s steel safeguard Tariff Rate Quota expires in June 2026 – but the UK’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is not expected to be implemented until 2027. The UK Government should introduce stop-gap measures to prevent high-carbon steel imports causing carbon-leaking and undermining investment to produce greener steel in the UK.
The UK Government should engage in honest conversations now with unions and workers at the loss-making Scunthorpe Steel Works regarding the future of steel-making at the site. EAFs are currently the only financially viable technology to replace the coal-fed blast furnaces currently in operation. That would result in job losses but this can be a just transition with enough time to allow for proper planning, union and worker involvement, and funding. This should be followed with a commitment to add DRI primary steel production by mid-2035 as the technology and green hydrogen are expected to become more financially viable.
