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.

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.

1. Leave behind a flooded mining void (the void is 175m deep at one end) with capacity for 1 million cubic metres of water
2. Leave behind 3 overburden mounds (coal tips) containing approx 37 million cubic metres of colliery spoil, rock, and soil - around just 2.8 miles from the site of the Aberfan disaster, where a coal tip collapsed, killing 144 people. This would permanently alter the landscape beyond recognition from what it was before and the surrounding landscape.
3. Leave behind a huge exposed coal-face cliff. Other than being an eyesore for local people, rain will cause erosion over years expected to leach heavy metals and toxic elements from the coal into the flooded mining void that will discharge into local waterways.
4. An aftercare period of just 5 years - this must be at least 15 years to ensure any woodland planting that hasn't survived can be replaced and nurtured to maturity.

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

• Ask when the Government plans to introduce the coal licence ban legislation. Request that it is introduced in 2026 - particularly as Colombia hosts the world's first fossil fuel transition Conference in April.
• Welsh MPs can write to the Welsh Government asking it to advocate for the Westminster coal licence ban to include coal tips.
• English MPs can highlight to DESNZ that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) could still allow the extraction of coal tips. Hence the need for the coal licence ban to include our suggested amendments.
• Scottish MPs can write to the Scottish Government asking it to advocate for the Westminster coal licence ban to include coal tips.

Members of the Senedd

• Ask the Welsh Government to advocate for the Westminster coal licence ban to include coal tips. They should do this for two reasons:
  • To expand the impact of the Welsh coal policy beyond Wales’ 2,590 coal tips to all 5,000 coal tips across the UK.
  • To safeguard against the possibility of pro coal parties taking power at local and national levels, in Wales and the rest of the UK.

Members of the Scottish Parliament

• Ask the Scottish Government to advocate for the Westminster coal licence ban to include coal tips. They should do this for two reasons:
  • To expand the impact of Scotland’s position against coal extraction to protect all 5,000 coal tips across the UK from being mined.
  • To safeguard against the possibility of pro coal parties taking power at local and national levels, in Scotland and the rest of the UK.

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.

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.

Feedstock reference

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.

Feedstock reference

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.

Last month we worked with Members of Parliament from various parties on a Westminster Hall debate about coal tip safety and the prohibition of new coal extraction licences.

The debate happened 59 years and one day after the Aberfan tragedy which killed 116 children and 28 adults. Rooted in this context, the debate highlighted the need to prioritise coal tip safety whilst also preventing the extraction of coal from these tips.

Plaid Cymru MP, Ann Davies, led the debate and highlighted that ‘because of increasingly violent storms caused by climate change, we have experienced further coal tip slips’. This is an important point in this debate as the further exacerbation of climate change, via the extraction and use of more coal, would lead to further slips.

She added ‘The UK Government have pledged to ban new coalmining licences, but they have confirmed their belief that re-mining coal from the tips does not require a licence, meaning that such activity falls outside the scope of the proposed ban. Although the Welsh Government believe that their own planning policies will prevent re-mining, a loophole allowing coal extraction in “wholly exceptional circumstances” has raised concern’.

Labour MP, Gerald Jones, discussed mining companies failing to comply with their legal obligations – a danger which could happen again with coal tip extraction. He used the example of the Ffos - Y - Fran opencast mine in his constituency: ‘When it first opened, the company running the mine, Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd, pledged to fully restore the site after it finished operations. I call on it to honour that pledge.’

Liberal Democrat MP, David Chadwick, reflected on the Reform party policy to re-open the pits earlier in the year. A move which, in many cases is not possible, but would be a clear abandonment of our responsibilities to future generations. He said: ‘The people of the south Wales valleys have given more than enough, and we are still waiting for our new south Wales to emerge. We deserve safety, fairness and a future built on renewal, not nostalgia.’

Labour MP, Steve Witherden, made a passionate and precise demand that the Government include coal tips within its coal licence ban: ‘Mining companies offering to remove coal tips in return for commercial access to coal is an easy answer to a difficult question, which we cannot allow, so I ask the Minister this. If the Government truly believe that the Welsh Government’s coal policy and England’s and Scotland’s planning policies are robust enough to prevent coal extraction, why do investors think otherwise? ERI Reclamation is actively seeking to extract 468,000 tonnes of coal from tips in Bedwas, Caerphilly. It clearly believes that the law allows that, and it is putting serious capital behind the belief. If this is approved—it is an “if”—it could set a dangerous precedent, whereby private profits determine which coal tips are removed and others, with less content, are left. It would be a precedent categorising coal tips by their value rather than their potential impact on public safety. Could we see landowners, burdened by maintenance costs, encouraged to sell access to these sites?

We cannot and must not rely on the private sector to make coal tips safe. That duty falls on us. The Government’s coal licensing ban must be strengthened to include coal tip mining.’

Liberal Democrat spokesperson for energy security and net zero, Pippa Heylings MP, eloquently highlighted Coal Action Network’s legal advice which shows how to include coal tips in the coal licence ban: ‘In practice, extracting coal from a tip is no different from open-cast mining. The method is the same, the disruption is the same, the risks are the same and the emissions are the same. The contradiction can be easily resolved. Leading environmental lawyers, working with the Coal Action Network, have proposed an amendment to the Coal Industry Act 1994 to clarify that the mining of coal from coal tips also requires a licence. That small change would ensure that the Government’s coal ban is comprehensive and future-proof.’

Energy Minister, Michael Shanks MP, concluded the debate, summarising that ‘We acknowledge the suggestion to make this type of coal extraction a licensable activity under the MRA, which would allow for a licensing prohibition, but our view is that the current planning policies around the regulations set by devolved Governments already provide robust frameworks.

We are a Government who believe in devolution. We created devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because we believe in devolving power to those authorities, so they are closer to people and to individual circumstances. It is right that we take their lead on these questions. 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.’

While we at Coal Action Network hope that the Minister’s faith in devolved powers to make coal extraction a thing of the past is well founded; we fear that a different Welsh Government could have an opposing aim and would be able to achieve that under current circumstances. The English National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was also not considered by the Minister, which allowed the West Cumbria coal mine to gain planning permission and would also allow coal tip extraction throughout England’s coal fields.

We would like to thank each of the Members for taking part in the debate and making the case for banning coal tip extraction.

Coal Action Network will continue to campaign for the inclusion of coal tip extraction in the coal licence ban.

Worldwide, the amount of cement being used for every person in the world has nearly tripled in the past 45 years and demand is projected to increase over 33% by 2050. This demand is driving an exponential growth in cement production - and 'clinker', a key binding agent in cement. Clinker is the main ingredient in most cement mixes, averaging 75% of its content, but can be up to 95% of the content in Ordinary Portland Cement mix (a common type of cement). To make clinker, limestone and clay are heated to around 1450c, creating a chemical reaction. To generate this heat, the industry generally burns fossil fuels - although alternatives exist. Burning the fuel emits an average of 35% of the clinker CO2 footprint, with the remainder (65%) emitted by the chemical reaction of the heated limestone. In total, the cement industry has reduced its reliance on fossil fuels to heat clinker by 22% from 98% in 1990 to 76% in 2023, with post-use mixed waste and biomass increasing their share as alternative fuels. This concrete progress has helped reduce the carbon intensity of the fuel mix by 8% between 1990 and 2023. Unfortunately, this reduction has been outstripped by increases in cement production overall since 1990, so total fossil fuel consumption has actually increased by 100 million gigajoules (GJ), from 1.78bn GJ in 1990 to 1.88bn GJ in 2023.

(Except where specified, figures are sourced from the GCCA, Getting the Numbers Right Project, Emissions Report 2023 - for External Stakeholders industry-reported dataset)

Cementing coal use

Today, 76% of the heat needed to make clinker is generated by burning fossil fuels, with coal constituting 49% of the fossil fuel mix - meaning 37% of cement worldwide is made by burning coal. Consequently, the cement industry consumes around 4% of global coal produced, which amounts to approximately 330 million tonnes of coal per year. UK Government research and commercial examples from around the world indicate that the elimination of fossil fuels in cement production is possible. Thermal coal is the most common fuel burned to produce the high heat required.

Successful, at-scale, examples already exist of cement works burning 100% fuel alternatives to traditional fossil fuels, including pilot projects using combinations of hydrogen and biomass (UK) and hydrogen and electricity (Sweden). Yet, innovations such as use of hydrogen and kiln electrification are forecast to play only a small role, providing 10% of energy needs by 2050. Worldwide, only 24% of cement in 2023 was produced using alternative fuels, with 76% of cement produced using fossil fuels (37% of cement overall is heated using coal). The continuing reliance on burning fossil fuels to generate heat at cement works contributes to its high CO2 footprint – particularly its upstream footprint due to the resources and methane emissions associated with mining coal. Globally, the cement industry is responsible for up to 7-8% of CO2 emissions (but only 1.5% of UK CO2 emissions) – nearly as much as steel.

Coal-free fuel examples from around the world:

Globally, the clinker ratio to cement (Portland and blended) has reduced from 85% in 1990 to 75% in 2023. The use of clinker substitutes has correspondingly increased by 12.7 million tonnes between 1990 and 2023, but much of this increase may be accounted for by the overall growth in cement production. Although most ‘green cement’ works around the world substitute up to 40% of clinker, there is at least one commercial example of a cement works substituting up to 100% of the clinker in their cement production. The use of alternative cementious materials reduce, or even eliminate the needs for clinker. Unlike clinker, these alternative cementious materials don’t require as much, or any, heating – thereby reducing the amount of coal burned. Some of these materials, such as the coal by-products of fly-ash and blast furnace slag, are in increasingly short supply as economies decarbonise. However, other clinker substitutes such as burnt rice husks do not face supply issues, and a lack of acceptance by the construction sector continues to be the most limiting factor in producing more cement with a lower clinker content. One solution to this would be Government mandating that publicly-funded construction projects must use entirely or partially ‘low carbon’ cement products where clinker substitutes have been included.

Clinker substitution examples from around the world:

In contrast to worldwide trends, UK cement production has been in decline since a peak in the 1970s, and roughly halving since 1990. Despite this decline, the UK cement industry still burned just under 400,000* tonnes of coal to make 7.3 million tonnes of cement in 2024 – averaging roughly 1 tonne of coal for every 18 tonnes of cement. To put that into context, around 8,000 tonnes of cement is needed for a new hospital, while between 3-5 tonnes are needed to build a four-bedroom family house.

*There is no cement-specific coal consumption statistics available, but the UK Government reported that 395,000 tonnes of coal were used in the minerals industry in 2024, the vast majority of which would be cement. The burning of this coal alone would have emitted nearly a million tonnes of CO2 in 2024. The UK's cement works emitted 4.2 million tonnes of CO2 overall.

After the tragic passing of Hefin David MS, a by- election is being held in the Senedd seat of Caerphilly on October 23^rd 2025.

Within the borders of the Caerphilly constituency is the proposed Bedwas coal tips re-mining project. In the lead up to the Senedd by-election, Coal Action Network has carried out a survey of the by-election candidates asking for their views about the re-mining of the Bedwas and other Welsh coal tips.

We asked the same two questions to each candidate:

1. Are you for or against the proposal to re-mine coal from the Bedwas coal tips?
2. Is there anything else you want to add about your attitude toward coal extraction in Wales, coal tip safety or climate change?

Of the eight candidates, six responded. Each candidates response is published in full here, in order of when we received their response: