The UK Government launched a consultation on a limited review of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) for 8 weeks from 30 July to 24 September 2024. The NPPF is an influential document that shapes planning decisions and priorities across England. It is periodically updated by the Government, following a public consultation. Although this consultation was focused on just sections of the NPPF relating to house-building and economic infrastructure, we felt this was a good opportunity to align the NPPF with the stated policy of the current UK Government not to licence any new coal mines.
The UK Government has committed not to licence any new coal mines - a function of the Mining Remediation Authority (previously, The Coal Authority). However, licencing may not apply to all types of coal mining so it is important to also prevent planning permission from being given to any new coal mining applications in a 'double lock' approach. We therefore recommended that the following changes to the NPPF -
The following text should be removed entirely:
221. c) indicate any areas where coal extraction and the disposal of colliery spoil may be acceptable;
221. d) encourage the capture and use of methane from coal mines in active and abandoned coalfield areas;
221. e) provide for coal producers to extract separately, and if necessary stockpile, fireclay so that it remains available for use.
and:
223. Planning permission should not be granted for the extraction of coal unless:
223. a) the proposal is environmentally acceptable, or can be made so by planning conditions or obligations; or
223. b) if it is not environmentally acceptable, then it provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh its likely impacts (taking all relevant matters into account, including any residual environment
should be replaced by:
223. Planning permission should not be granted for the extraction of coal.
In an e-action we organised, 2,130 supporters and member of the public contributed to the NPPF consultation to demand planning permission for new coal mining is ruled out. A little concerningly though, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government only counted 1,867 emails calling for this. Even at 1,867 emails, that means, of the 10,981 emails in total that the consultation received, 17% - or almost 1 in 5 - was a demand to rule out planning permission for new coal mines.
The overwhelming consultation response for the UK Government to implement its stated position against new coal mines in the NPPF presented an early opportunity for joined-up policy-making by the new Government between the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Without this 'double lock', coal mining companies could still apply for - and obtain - planning permission for new coal mining. Theoretically, a standard coal mine still wouldn't be able to proceed because it's unable to obtain the licence, which it needs in addition to planning permission - but which the UK Government has said it would refuse.
HOWEVER, if the coal to be mined is not from a virgin coal seam (see mining coal tips), the project does not require a licence in addition to planning permission. There is well over 600 million tonnes of coal that this applies to across the UK. That's exactly why planning permission, as well as licences, needs to be categorically ruled out for new coal mining projects. Due to their complex nature, processing new coal mining applications also creates a large burden on over-stretched local planning authorities. The current wording of the NPPF creates an ambiguous and complicated assessment process for local planning authorities which our proposed wording would have simplified.
In this case of the left hand not speaking to the right hand, we hope the UK Government recognises the value of working more closely with non-governmental and civil society organisations seeking to support its stated policy aims.
In its environmental statement, Bryn Bach Coal Ltd attempts to present the anthracite coal it wishes to extract from an expansion of Glan Lash as a unique and scarce commodity that is needed for water filtration, bricks, and graphite, and would therefore be too valuable to burn. Yet, visiting Energybuild Ltd’s website will demonstrate that anthracite coal is currently being produced in large quantities at Aberpergwm. It is this coal that Bryn Bach Coal Ltd currently washes and sells to both burn and non-burn customers. This proves that Glan Lash anthracite coal is not unique or scarce, and just because it is of a carbon-content suitable for water filtration does not prevent it being also sold for combustion. Indeed, anthracite coal from Aberpergwm is also currently sold to heat greenhouses in the Netherlands to grow tomatoes into the cold season, according to Energybuild Ltd’s website.
For example, the three local water filtration companies that Bryn Bach Coal Ltd refer to are listed as customers on Energybuild Ltd’s website, along with Ibstock Ltd, the brick manufacturer, which Bryn Bach Coal Ltd claim would buy its Glan Lash coal. Therefore, coal supplied to any of these customers from Glan Lash would compete with coal from Aberpergwm, which could instead be supplied to combustible uses (as the High Court has confirmed that the displacement argument with coal are fallacious as coal is simply sold to different markets). It is also unlikely that separation would be maintained between anthracite coal from Glan Lash and anthracite coal from Aberpergwm, rendering record-keeping on respective customers a fiction.
In light of the local demand for our anthracite and letters of intent for supply we are able to ensure that 100% non-thermal-non/fossil fuel use will be achieved should planning permission be granted. This can be monitored by submission of yearly declarations from our customers stating tonnages purchased and its end use. It would not make economic sense for Bryn Bach Coal Ltd to change market strategy as poorer quality cheaper anthracites can be used as a fossil fuel. It can therefore be stated that this is not a fossil fuel application as the anthracite will not be used as an energy source this is an application to mine a mineral. P23
“Letters of intent for supply” can be binding or non-binding. As Bryn Bach Coal fails to specify which it has, we must assume it is “a non-binding letter of comfort” which “are merely expressions of hope” – ERDC Group v Brunel University [2006] EWHC 687 (TCC) – HH Humphrey Lloyd QC at para [27]. We understand that, without planning permission, Bryn Bach Coal Ltd may be unable to obtain binding letters of intent or contracts, but the fact remains, that its so-called ‘letters of intent’ therefore amounts to nothing more than pillow talk.
Bryn Bach Coal Ltd will know that there’d be no consequences for its planning permission if it supplies Glan Lash coal to its existing customers for home heating and other combustion uses. Section 106 agreements cannot control or monitor customers or customers’ use of the coal. Bryn Bach Coal Ltd also cannot predict the market volatility over the next 6-7 years affecting its various customers, and their demand for anthracite coal. Just as Bryn Bach Coal Ltd currently supplies anthracite coal to fossil fuel customers, it is likely to do so again with Glan Lash coal should the market conditions make it favourable to do so.
This exception has been accomplished firstly as Bryn Bach Coal Limited being the largest supplier of anthracite to the British brick manufacturing industry. Between 0.5-1.0% anthracite is used in the clay mix within each brick to react with the clay and add colour & carbon should the clay require additional carbon. This use as a brick colourant means the anthracite is not burnt and therefore does not release CO2 into the atmosphere... Ibstock Brick PLC is a long-standing customer and we have been supplying anthracite since 2005. A letter of support has been included and it must be noted that with the UK Government pledging to build 1.5 million new homes demand for bricks will undeniably increase. P24
Ibstock’s kilns fire bricks at heats exceeding 1,000c – and Energybuild Ltd, which operates Aberpergwm coal mine, confirms “The coal does combust…”, so the EIA’s claim that the anthracite is not burned or released CO2 appears to be ostensibly false, again throwing into question the credibility of other claims around the proposed consumption of coal from the Glan Lash expansion. Our research also suggests that anthracite is not required to “react with the clay”, and therefore invite Bryn Bach Coal Ltd to reference their claim. Furthermore, it may be that there are suitable alternatives to anthracite as a brick colourant, given the range of minerals used to currently produce different colours; “the body colour is largely dependent on the clay type, however, variation can also be achieved through methods such as body staining, surface sanding, staining or altering firing conditions” – Brick Development Association, 2023. The necessity of anthracite coal for British brick production is far from clear so should not be a material planning consideration until Bryn Bach Coal Ltd is able to substantiate its claims with accurate references, as we have.
Secondly Bryn Bach Coal Limited is a supplier to the water filtration industry where the anthracite is used as a filter medium in the water industry, the anthracite from the original Glan Lash site supplied three local Ammanford based Filter Media businesses. The anthracite is used in filter beds to purify drinking water, in de-salination plants and in sewage beds. Again, the anthracite use is non-thermal and does not release CO2 into the atmosphere. There are 3 Ammanford based filter media manufacturers and jointly employ over 100 people. The 3 filter media manufactures are long standing customers and with Celtic Energy having ceased operations there is a desperate shortage of premium quality anthracite. Letters of support annexed to this report. P24
These three filtration companies are currently being supplied by the large Aberpergwm deep coal mine which has permission to mine 40 million tonnes more anthracite until 2039 and which describes its own coal as a “source of high-grade anthracite” – again proving false the claim that “there is a desperate shortage of premium quality anthracite”. The reference to Celtic Energy is even stranger, since the four mines operated by Celtic Energy produced largely thermal coal, not anthracite. We respectfully suggest that this whole section of the EIA (as amended in Nov 2024) is revisited by Bryn Bach Coal Limited.
Even if the coal is not burned, the mining of coal releases methane into the atmosphere with a far higher climate change intensity than CO2. According to Veolia, industrial water treatment contractor, “quartz sand, silica sand, anthracite coal, garnet, magnetite, and other materials may be used as filtration media. Silica sand and anthracite are the most commonly used types.”. The existence of alternatives to anthracite clearly exist and should be encouraged, given the methane dimension of anthracite and propensity for it to also be sold for combustion, once mined – just as Aberpergwm anthracite coal is currently. Maintaining and increasing the supply of anthracite coal ‘locks in’ the water filtration industry to rely on anthracite rather than invest in improving its less harmful alternatives.
“Developing markets for non-thermal-non fossil fuel uses are emerging especially using anthracite as a substitute for graphite which is a critical mineral essential to achieve Net Zero by 2050 (Glan Lash anthracite has 92% fixed carbon, natural graphite has 100% fixed carbon). The demand for graphite will increase from the current 1.6m tonnes per year to 8m tonnes per year if we are to achieve Net Zero by 2050 (World Bank 2020). The International Energy Agency estimates a 400% increase in graphite production will be required by 2040.”
Again, Bryn Bach Coal Ltd’s claims of non-thermal are misleading. Anthracite wouldn’t be used to fuel graphite heating as a fossil-fuel, but it certainly would be heated to extreme temperatures of 1,000c for ‘baking’ and up to 4,000c for ‘calcination’ to remove impurities making up 8% of the anthracite and stabilise the graphite end product. This would release greenhouse gasses in a similar way to if it were burned for household heating – there is little to distinguish between the two end uses in terms of climate change impact.
It should also be clarified that Anthracite wouldn’t be a substitute for graphite as such, it would be used to manufacture synthetic graphite – being one of several suitable carbon-heavy materials). But natural graphite and scrap graphite can also be used. Furthermore, the UK doesn’t manufacture any graphite – therefore, the anthracite used for this purpose would be exported abroad, undermining further Bryn Bach Coal Ltd’s arguments around saved travel emissions. Demand in the UK is also relatively low “UK is a small net importer of natural and synthetic graphite”.
“The importance of Anthracite has been highlighted in the European Union’s publication Sustainable EAF Steel Production and describes how Anthracite will still be required after this transition and how it will play a vital role as a foaming agent and a carrier of carbon in this type of Steel Production process. Tata Steel at Port Talbot will require Anthracite when the Electric Arc Furnaces start producing steel.”
Bryn Bach Coal Ltd’s EIA statement neglects to mention that the study it refers to is over a decade old (2013)…and concludes the very opposite of what this Bryn Bach Coal Ltd purports it to: “The results obtained have demonstrated the technical feasibility of the approaches used while the economical evaluation has showed the sustainability of replacing the coal with char from biomass, in addition to environmental benefits due to CO 2 reduction, even if at the moment there is not a real assessed market of charcoal for steelmaking purposes” - European Commission: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Echterhof, T., Baracchini, G., Pfeifer, H., Griessacher, T. et al., Sustainable EAF steel production (GREENEAF), Publications Office, 2013, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/44502.
A more recent follow-up study commissioned by the EU from the same authors reinforces the 2013 report findings “Industrial trials of EAF charging confirmed the feasibility of coal substitution and outlined the relevant process aspects.” And “The best slag foaming, comparable with the pulverised fossil coal injection has been obtained with virgin biomass. Outlined energy saving with EAF equipped for post combustion and tailored char production form low grade biomass showed that char utilization is economically sustainable.”
The misleading referencing and unsubstantiated claims made throughout this section of the EIA undermines the credibility of Bryn Bach Coal Ltd’s EIA overall, and should prompt Carmarthenshire Local Planning Authority to fact-check all claims made within it.
“The Glan Lash Revised Extension provides an opportunity to calculate a definitive amount of C02 emitted by the additional transportation requirements when importing the replacement tonnage of anthracite from China or Columbia…
Glan Lash Revised Extension tonnage=84,896 tonnes x 0.611t of C02 per imported tonne= 51,871 tonnes of additional C02 through importing anthracite from China compared to mining anthracite at the Glan Lash Revised Extension.
Glan Lash Revised Extension tonnage=84,896 tonnes x 0.231t of C02 per imported tonne=19,611 tonnes of additional C02 through importing anthracite from Columbia compared to mining anthracite at the Glan Lash Revised Extension.”
Anthracite coal is consistently and overwhelmingly imported into the UK from the EU – and as Bryn Bach Coal Ltd itself admits, it currently washes anthracite from neighbouring Aberpergwm deep coal mine. Again, Bryn Bach Coal Ltd misleadingly only provides scenarios of coal imports from China and Columbia, suggesting that this is where the UK imports the bulk of its anthracite from, and that tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 could therefore be saved by expanding mining at Glan Lash. This scenario is again clearly detached from reality and deeply misleading.
Secondly, if Bryn Bach Coal Ltd realises its ambition to sell its coal for graphite production, that would require exporting anthracite abroad, further undermining any claims to transportation-related savings. It also remains the case that planning permission S106 conditions could not constrain Bryn Bach Coal Ltd selling more of its anthracite for export, since it claims to already meet local demand with coal from Aberpergwm and elsewhere.
Finally, and as mentioned above, the High Court confirmed that this substitution would have to be over 99% or the benefits of reduced transport are outweighed by the additional coal burned. That’s because demand for coal is influenced by the availability and price of supply – therefore, expanding the Glan Lash coal mine stimulates demand and ‘industry lock-in’ in the UK.
Disclaimer: information on this page is accurate to the best of our knowledge. We invite Bryn Bach Coal Ltd or other interested parties to submit corrections with evidence for our review and updates.
Over the past year, we've secured some massive victories. By taking part in our digital actions, supporters sent over 26,000 messages to the UK Government, MPs, Welsh Senedd members, Councillors, and companies to help consign coal to the history books in the UK.
The Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Bill (‘the Bill’) was prompted by a series of coal tip landslides that occurred in Wales following storms’ Ciara and Dennis in 2020, including a major landslide of a disused coal tip in Tylorstown. The Bill seeks to update the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969, to more effectively manage the 2,573 coal tips and over 20,000 non-coal tips within Wales so they do not threaten human welfare, by reason of their instability. To drive this management framework, the Bill proposes to create a new public body – the Disused Tips Authority for Wales (‘the Authority’), which would assess, register, monitor and manage disused tips.
To prevent disused tips from threatening human welfare through instability. The aim is for the Bill to be preventative and proactive rather than reactive. The first section of the Integrated Impact Assessment discusses the need to anticipate impacts of climate change on tip stability, such as the trend of increasing rainfall and storms. It seeks to do this by:
The current categories of R,A,B,C, and D would be replaced by a simpler two-step assessment process. The first step would be a desk-based risk assessment, the results of which may recommend a subsequent full assessment.
Key changes introduced by the Bill include:
Context 1
The Integrated Impact Assessment claims the Bill does not deal with coal tip remediation, and does not increase the likelihood of movement and potential combustion of coal that can accompany coal tip remediation. The Assessment goes further to state that the Bill’s preventative action will reduce the need for coal tip remediation and works required after coal tip slips. Coal Action Network believes these claims to be sincere but inaccurate.
Coal tip remediation involving coal removal and earthworks is presented as a solution to permanently prevent future coal tip instability. It does not substantively differ from other actions such as irrigation to prevent instability.
The UK Government’s proposed coal licencing ban wouldn’t currently prevent ‘re-mining’ coal tips. Additionally the patchwork of laws and policies in Wales is failing to prevent mining companies extracting coal or bringing new applications for coal mining and extensions in the past few years, with Local Planning Authorities shouldering the burden. This Bill may inadvertently increase pressure on resource-strapped Local Planning Authorities by fuelling a new wave of coal extraction applications, such as the current proposal by ERI Ltd to ‘re-mine’ two coal tips in Bedwas in a practice that dates back to at least 1984.
ERI Ltd is a private company offering to permanently remove tip stability risks at no charge to the landowner (Caerphilly Council) in return for selling the extracted ‘waste coal’, which we believe would be an attractive prospect to other landowners facing coal tip liabilities under the new Bill too.
Our recommendation 1
To prevent the unintended potential for the Bill to encourage an industry oriented towards ‘re-mining’ disused coal tips under the guise of preventing future instability, we recommend that the Bill includes a provision prohibiting coal extraction for commercial gain from disused coal tips.
Context 2
In our context to recommendation 1, we outline how – in practice – the Bill may fuel an industry oriented towards ‘re-mining’ coal tips. As a result, the decision to exclude a full Climate Change Impact Assessment and Carbon Impact Assessment from the Bill’s Integrated Impact Assessment should be reversed.
Our recommendation 2
The Bill should be accompanied by a full Climate Change Impact Assessment and Carbon Impact Assessment, given the potential of the Bill in its current form to encourage applications for coal tip ‘re-mining’.
Context 3
Over 85% of disused coal tips (and 90% of coal tips with higher stability risks) in Wales are located in the South Wales valleys, and – according to the Welsh Indices of Multiple Deprivation – are based in communities classed as amongst the 10% most deprived in Wales. As the Government’s Integrated Impact Assessment outlines, preventing coal tip slips would benefit lives, land, and housing in these areas.
Our recommendation 3
To realise this benefit, it is vital that the design and execution of stability works on coal tips prioritise minimising potential impacts on the wellbeing of these socio-economically disadvantaged communities – for example in operating hours, HGV movements, flora clearance, restriction of public access to green spaces etc.
In 2023, CAN reached out to the Business Design Centre to alert them to the fact their upcoming conference will be funnelling money into some of the world's worst companies for human and environmental abuses. We were resoundingly ignored. We held an action outside the Centre for 3 days in the freezing cold to speak with all the investors going in, but the Business Design Centre kept its head in the sand.
So, at the end of 2023, we contacted B Labs, the company behind the 'ethical' B Corp status. We followed B Labs' complaints process after it materialised that the Business Design Centre (conference centre in London) was using B Corp status to greenwash hosting Europe's largest investment conference for mining around the world. We felt that the Business Design Centre should have to choose between hosting exhibitors accused of human rights and environmental abuses, or enjoy B Corp status. We hoped, faced with this choice, Business Design Centre would drop the conference - helping reduce the UK's support for coal and mining around the world, a key aim of ours...
...But B Labs reply, after 6 months, disappointed us with no commitment to take action on what is clearly incompatible with the "high standards of social and environmental performance" that B Corp status promises customers. So we - or rather, our supports and the public - took action!
As B Labs doesn't seem bothered was the public says, we asked supporters to contact other B Corps - who are effectively B Labs customers. Almost 20,000 emails were sent to over 60 B Corp status companies, asking them to take a stand with us, and for what their B Corp status is meant to represent. Emailers politely asked these companies to contact B Labs and ask them to make the Business Development Centre stop greenwashing its promotion of mining with B Corp status. We had a great response with companies wanting to defend their investment in B Corp status and expressing dismay that B Labs would extend B Corp status to a company acting so clearly against the principles of environmental and social care.
"xxxx have raised your concerns with B Corp"
"I am frustrated about the event, but I am really angry at the greenwash and hiding of the even"
"I ask that B Labs take prompt action to protect the reputation of the B Corp trademark that we pay for and showcase on our website... last year some of the worst mining companies in the world gathered under the B Corp trademark. This is appalling and I hope you understand how important it is to put a stop to this."
The B Labs team finally responded to some of these B Corp status companies with:
"As of 18 November this year, companies looking to certify, or recertify, will be subject to a new framework that more closely considers the nature of the relationship between the certifying company and their client’s harmful practices. We’ll ensure the Business Design Centre is aware of this new framework."
We still think B Labs could - and should - do more to encourage the Business Design Centre to drop the annual 'Mines and Money Conference' - but this is, at least, a start. It was great to see supporters and more ethical companies join together to challenge greenwashing.
Stay tuned to hear what we plan in 2025 to turn up the heat even further on the Business Design Centre, and all the ways that the UK continue to support coal mining and use around the world.
The Welsh Government presented the long-awaited Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Bill to the Senedd in December 2024. Read our policy brief on what it needs on-page.
Coal tips, also known as coal spoil or slag heaps, and overburden are large mounds of waste soil, rocks, and fragments of coal that was dumped there as it was originally in the way between a mining company and the profitable coal it wanted to mine. Sometimes, mining companies promised to return these coal tips down the holes or into the voids they created, but often claimed bankruptcy or found loopholes to avoid this costly process. There are over 2,500 coal tips peppering Wales alone.
The coal tip slip in the town of Cwmtillery on Sunday 24th November 2024 occurred during Storm Bert, which brought intense rainfall. The coal tip is Category D, which means it is monitored every 6 months – and the last report did not flag any major issues. It follows on from the coal tip slip in 2020, which sent 60,000 tonnes of soil and rocks tumbling in Tylorstown, Rhondda Cynon Taf. That compares with 40,000 tonnes of debris that were dislodged and tumbled into a school in the infamous Aberfan disaster of 1966. Unlike the Aberfan tragedy, the two recent coal tip slips luckily resulted in no loss of human life.
What each of these coal tips have in common is that they occurred after a period of heavy rain. Leader of Blaenau Gwent council Steve Thomas commented on the recent coal tip slip in Cwmtillery, saying "We can confirm that we are dealing with a localised landslide believed to be caused by excess water as a consequence of weather experienced during Storm Bert."
Geologist Dr Jamie Price explained: "Both more prolonged and more intense rainfall events will heighten the risk of coal tip collapses….Increases in the moisture content of the coal tips and increases in groundwater level in general can affect the stability of these coal tips and could induce failure and collapsing of the coal tips."
A Cabinet Statement by the Welsh Government in 2023 stated “Winter rainfall has increased in Wales in recent decades, and the Met Office predicts that it will increase further as a result of global warming.”. By 2050 it's thought it could get 6% more rainy in winter in Wales, with as much as 13% more rain by the 2080s. Human-induced climate change made the heavy storm downpours and total rainfall across the UK and Ireland between October 2023 and March 2024 more frequent and intense, according to a rapid attribution analysis by an international team of leading climate scientists. This is exactly what we recently experienced with Storm Bert which led to the most recent coal tip slip in Cwmtillery.
ERI Ltd is a mining company that’s seized on community fears in Bedwas, South Wales, to propose mining two of coal tips in the area of around 500,000 tonnes of ‘waste’ coal contained within them on the promise of levelling out the coal tips afterwards. ERI Ltd is tempting Caerphilly County Council with the offer to do this at no cost to the Council, claiming it’ll use a portion of the profits gained by selling the coal it removes from the tips. The problem with this approach is:
Karadeniz kıyısında ağaçlarla kaplı dağların arasında yer alan küçük Ereğli şehri, Erdemir çelik fabrikasının gölgesinde kalıyor. Bu fabrika, kömür kullanarak çelik üreten Türkiye'deki üç izabe fırın çelik fabrikasından biri ve Ereğli’deki insanların hayatını ve sağlığını doğrudan etkiliyor.
Yerel halkın evleri, her birkaç dakikada bir buhar bulutları yayan ve körfezin karşısındaki apartmanları gizleyen bu devasa çelik fabrikasının etrafında bir amfitiyatro gibi konumlanıyor. Coal Action Network (Kömür Eylem Ağı) araştırmacıları, Cumbria’da yeni bir kömür madeninin açılması ve Türkiye’ye kömür sağlaması ihtimali doğunca, Erdemir çelik fabrikası gibi kömür yakan tesislerden etkilenen insanlarla görüşmek için Türkiye’ye geldi.
Coal Action Network’ün Türkiye’yi neden ziyaret ettiği ve Birleşik Krallık’taki kömür madenciliği bağlantıları hakkında daha fazla bilgi için bu sayfayı ziyaret edin.
Türkiye, çelik fabrikaları ve elektrik santrallerinde ithal kömür kullanıyor ve aynı zamanda yerli kömür de çıkarıyor.
Türkiye, küresel olarak sekizinci en büyük çelik üreticisi. 2023 yılında, 33,7 milyon ton çelik üretti ve 21,1 milyon ton hurda metal tüketti. Ülkedeki 30 çelik fabrikasından 27’si elektrik ark fırınlarında hurda metalleri eriterek çelik üretiyor ve ülkenin çelik üretiminin %72’sini sağlıyor. Çelik üretim sürecinde kok kömürüne dönüştürülmüş kömür kullanılan üç izabe fırın ve ısı sağlamak için kömür kullanan birçok elektrik ark fırınları bulunuyor. Bu kömür büyük ölçüde ithal ediliyor. Rusya, Türkiye'nin kömür ithalatının %73'ünü sağlıyor, kalan kısmının çoğu ise Kolombiya’dan geliyor.
Elektrik ark fırınları büyük miktarda elektrik tüketiyor ve Türkiye'de bu elektriğin büyük bir kısmı elektrik şebekesi üzerinden kömürden sağlanıyor. Türkiye’de bir elektrik ark ocağı, kendi kömürlü elektrik santraline sahip. Türkiye'nin elektriğinin %35’i kömürden sağlanıyor (2022 yılı verisi). Türkiye, 2023 yılında 18 milyon ton çelik ithal etti ve 12,7 milyon ton çelik ihraç etti. Şu anda hurda metal eritmek için kömür kullanan 20’den fazla elektrik ark fırını çelik tesisi var. Çelik, Türkiye'nin üçüncü en büyük ihracat sektörü.
Türkiye, Rus kömürünün en büyük beş ithalatçısından biri. Birçok ülke, 2022'de Ukrayna’nın işgalini takiben, yaptırımlar kapsamında Rus kömürü almayı durdurdu. Bunlar arasında Birleşik Krallık, AB üyesi ülkeler ve ABD de bulunuyor.
Enerji ve Temiz Hava Araştırma Merkezi’nden (CREA) Vaibhav Raghunandan, "Türkiye'nin artan Rus kömürü bağımlılığı (ve diğer fosil yakıtlar) giderek daha değişken hale gelen bir tedarikçiye bağımlı olması anlamına geliyor. Rus kömür sektörü Kremlin için büyük bir gelir kaynağı ve Rusya Enerji Bakanlığı, 2035 yılına kadar küresel kömür pazarının %25’ini elde etme hedefi koydu. Kömürden elde edilen vergiler, Federal Bütçe’nin önemli bir parçasını oluşturuyor. İşgalden bu yana Türkiye – bir NATO ülkesi – Rus kömürü için 8,2 milyar avro ödedi, bu da Rusya'nın Ukrayna'yı işgalini etkili bir şekilde finanse ediyor" dedi.
İşgalden sonra Türkiye, Rus kömüründeki pazar payını artırdı. Türkiye’nin ithalatı, Rusya’nın toplam kömür ihracatının %13’ünü oluşturuyor. 2024’ün ilk üç çeyreğinde Türkiye, 15,7 milyon ton Rus kömürü ithal etti; bu da Türkiye’nin toplam kömür ithalatının %49’unu oluşturuyor (değeri 1,66 milyar avro). Bu, işgal öncesi dönemin aynı dönemine kıyasla %82’lik bir artış anlamına geliyor.
Ayrıca, Rus kömür madenciliği sektörü kültürel soykırım, çevresel yıkım ve hava kirliliği sorunlarına neden oluyor. Bu konular, Coal Action Network ve Fern'in "Sibirya'da Yavaş Ölüm" adlı raporunda ayrıntılı olarak ele alınıyor.
Dünya Sağlık Örgütü'ne göre, hava kirliliği, dünya genelinde ve Türkiye’de halk sağlığı için en büyük çevresel tehdit. Çelik fabrikalarından ve elektrik santrallerinden kömür tüketimi sırasında salınan sağlığa zararlı dört ana kirletici bulunuyor: Sülfür dioksit (SO2); partikül madde – PM10 ve daha küçük PM2.5; azot oksitler (NOX) ve cıva.
Yüksek sülfür içerikli kömürün yanmasıyla oluşan SO2 solunduğunda, felç, kalp hastalığı, astım, akciğer kanseri ve ölüm gibi sağlık sorunları riskini artırıyor. Solunması son derece toksik olarak sınıflandırılıyor. Yüksek konsantrasyona bir kez bile maruz kalma, astım gibi kalıcı bir duruma yol açabilir. Türkiye’de SO2 emisyonları 2019 yılında %14 artış göstererek, emisyonların arttığı nadir ülkelerden biri oldu. Türkiye’de kömür bazlı enerji üretimi, SO2 emisyonlarının en büyük kaynağı olmaya devam ediyor.
Ereğli’de, Erdemir çelik fabrikasının çevresinde yaşayan halk, sağlıklarına ilişkin üniversitelerin yaptıkları çalışmaların genellikle hükümet tarafından ört bas edildiğini söyledi. Ancak Ereğli'deki multipl skleroz (MS) oranlarını, 40 km uzakta temiz bir kent olan Devrek ile karşılaştıran bir çalışma, “bir demir çelik fabrikasının bulunduğu bölgedeki [Ereğli] MS prevalans oranının kırsal bir şehirle [Devrek] karşılaştırıldığında iki kattan fazla olduğunu” gösteriyor. Bu da hava kirliliğinin MS hastalığının olası bir nedeni olabileceği hipotezini destekliyor. Yerel halk, çelik fabrikasının havayı kirlettiği ve sağlıklarını bozduğu konusunda ikna olmuş durumda.
Karadeniz, Ereğli ve Alaplı Çevre Gönüllüleri lideri Çetin Yılmaz, Erdemir’de yaşanan sorunları tartışmak üzere Coal Action Network ile görüşmek isteyen 15 endişeli vatandaşı bir araya getirdi. Bu kişiler, çelik fabrikaları ile yerel halkın sağlığının bozulması arasında bağlantılar olduğunu gösteren ancak hükümet tarafından gizlenen bilimsel çalışmalardan yakınıyorlar.
Çetin, “Şirket [Eren Energy] birçok insanda kansere neden oldu, çalışanlarının sendikalaşma hakkını tanımıyor; sendikalaşmak isteyen işçileri işten çıkardı; Çatalağzı’nı nefes alınamaz bir hale getirdi; balık üreme alanlarını külle doldurdu; yılda 2 milyon ton ithal kömür yakıyor ve bölgemizde insanlara ve doğaya en büyük zararı veriyor” diyor.
Erdemir çelik fabrikasında 18 yıldır çalışan bir işçi, gırtlak kanseri olduğunu anlatırken bu sesinden duyulabiliyordu. Yerel halkın %50’sinin sağlığının çelik fabrikasından etkilendiğini düşünüyorlar. Bir öğretmen, her sınıfında yaklaşık 10 çocuğun kötü hava kalitesi nedeniyle solunum sorunları yaşadığını anlattı.
Yerel siyasi temsilci Coal Action Network’e, “Buradaki çoğu kişi madenlerde veya çelik fabrikasında çalışıyor, herkes hava kirliliğinin kansere ve solunum zorluklarına neden olduğunu biliyor. Çalışanlar bu konuda bir şey yapacak durumda değil çünkü para kazanmaları gerekiyor ve işlerini kaybetme tehlikesi yaşıyorlar” dedi.
Erdemir ve İsdemir izabe fırınlarının sahibi olan OYAK, karbonsuzlaşmak için yedi farklı yöntem kullanacağını belirtiyor. Ancak sözde Net Sıfır Yol Haritası, emisyonları azaltma amaçlı potansiyel seçeneklerin bir listesi gibi duruyor; gerçek bir plan barındırmaktan oldukça uzak.
İsdemir’deki hava kirliliği ve sağlık sorunlarının Erdemir’deki durumla benzer olması muhtemel. Türkiye’nin izabe fırın çelik üretimindeki CO2 yoğunluğu, Avrupa, ABD ve Güney Kore’de üretilen çeliğin emisyonları ile kıyaslandığında daha yüksek düzeyde.
Türkiye'deki çelik üretim değer zincirinde çevre, kamu ve iş sağlığı düzenlemelerine uyum konusunda uzun süredir aksaklıklar yaşanıyor.
Avrupa’nın doğu sınırında yer alan Türkiye’nin, 2024'te Avrupa’nın en büyük kömürle çalışan elektrik üreticisi olan Almanya’yı geride bırakması bekleniyor. Türkiye, 2022 yılında açılan Hunutlu Termik Santrali gibi yeni kömürlü termik santralleri açmaya devam ediyor. Türkiye’de 34 kömürlü termik santral var; bunlardan 10'u taş kömürü kullanırken geri kalanı daha düşük enerji yoğunluğuna sahip, daha düşük kaliteli linyit kömürünü kullanıyor. Kömürle çalışan iki izabe fırının ayrıca elektrik sağlayan kömür santralleri de bulunuyor.
Türkiye'nin elektrik tüketimi son yirmi yılda üç katına çıktı; bu artış büyük ölçüde kömür ve gaz üretimindeki hızlı büyümeye dayanıyor.
Ereğli’nin yanı sıra, Coal Action Network, Zonguldak ilçesinde Muslu yakınlarındaki ZETES III ve IV ile Çatalağzı isimli üç kömürlü elektrik santralini ziyaret etti.
Zonguldak, 2020 yılında covid-19 önlemleri kapsamında Türkiye genelinde hafta sonu sokağa çıkma yasaklarına büyük şehirlere ek olarak dahil edilen tek bölgeydi. Bu karar, düşük hava kalitesine bağlı olarak önceden yüksek oranlarda görülen kronik solunum yolu hastalıkları nedeniyle alındı. Yerel yetkililere göre, bölge nüfusunun yaklaşık %60’ının belirli bir dereceye kadar solunum semptomları gösterdiği tahmin ediliyor ve 2010 ile 2020 arasında ölüm oranları neredeyse iki katına çıkmış durumda. Düşük hava kalitesi, çelik fabrikaları, kömür madenleri ve taş kömürü santrallerinden yayılan yüksek düzeydeki PM2.5 ve SO2 kirleticilerinden kaynaklanıyor.
Türkiye’de sadece kömürden elektrik üretiminin sağlık maliyetleri, 26,07 - 53,60 milyar Türk Lirası (2,86 - 5,88 milyar €) arasında olup, bu tutar Türkiye’nin yıllık sağlık harcamalarının %13 - %27’sine eşit.
Türkiye'nin çelik fabrikaları ve elektrik santralleri ile ilgili olarak AB’nin geri kalanından önemli ölçüde ayrıldığı nokta, hava kalitesi standartlarına uyum ve bu standartların uygulanması. “AB üye ülkeleri, tesis düzeyindeki emisyonları kamuya açık bir veri tabanına bildirmekle yasal olarak yükümlüyken [...] Türkiye elektrik santrali veya sektörel emisyon verilerini paylaşmıyor. Bunun yerine, elektrik üretimi ve ısıtma sektörüne ait birleşik verileri raporluyor.” Bu durum verileri gizliyor. Ayrıca Türkiye, sülfür emisyonlarını sınırlama ve diğer kirleticilerle ilgili iş birliği yapma amacı taşıyan üç önemli teknik anlaşmayı imzalamadı. Bunlar; Sülfür Emisyonlarının Azaltılması üzerine 1985 Helsinki Protokolü, Sülfür Emisyonlarının Daha Fazla Azaltılması üzerine 1994 Oslo Protokolü ve Asitlenme, Ötrofikasyon ve Yüzeyde Ozonu Azaltma üzerine 1999 Göteborg Protokolü’dür. HEAL, “Şeffaflık eksikliği, ülkede hava kalitesini ve sağlığı iyileştirme konusunda rasyonel ve bilgiye dayalı bir tartışmayı engelliyor” diye belirtiyor. Yerel halk ve ekosistemler, sonuçlarıyla baş başa kalıyor.
Son yirmi yılda Türkiye’de özelleştirilen elektrik santrallerinin birçoğu SOx filtre teknolojisini kullanmıyor ve bunlar Türkiye’nin artan SOx kirliliğine başlıca katkı sunanlardan.
Coal Action Network ile görüşen herkes, Türkiye’nin kömür tüketen tesislerinin hava kalitesi üzerindeki etkileri hakkında endişe duyuyor. Karadeniz yakınlarında, Zonguldak’ta üç kömürlü termik santraline yakın yaşayan bir sakin, “İnsanlar belirli dönemlerde santrallerdeki hava kirliliği filtrelerinin düzgün çalışmadığına inanıyor. Yılda 250 gün boyunca kirlilik, hükümetin kabul edilebilir standartlarının üzerinde oluyor” diyor.
Çelik fabrikalarını veya kömürlü termik santralleri ile yaşayan yerel sakinlerin genel anlatımı, kötü hava kalitesi, daha yüksek oranlarda solunum hastalıkları, çeşitli kanser türleri ve bitki ve bitki örtüsünün ölümü sonucunda yerel halkın yiyecek yetiştirememesi yönündeydi.
2021’de Türkiye, elektrik santralleri ve çelik fabrikaları için 36 milyon ton kömür ithal etti ve çoğunlukla çelik yapımında kullanılmayan yerli linyit kömürünü de tüketti. Türkiye Kömür İşletmeleri, kömür ithalatındaki en büyük artışın elektrik üretim talebinden kaynaklanacağını vurguluyor ve bu eğilimin devam edeceğini öngörüyor. Cumhurbaşkan Erdoğan, ülkenin 2053’e kadar karbonsuzlaşacağını söylüyor, ancak izabe fırınları karbon azaltım stratejilerine dahil etmeye yönelik anlamlı bir yol haritası bulunmuyor.
Ekosfer'den Barış Eceçelik, “Türkiye, Avrupa'da kömürü aşamalı olarak kaldırmak için bir tarih belirlememiş birkaç ülkeden biri. Geçen yıl, Türkiye tarihinde ilk kez, ithal kömür elektrik üretiminde en önde gelen enerji kaynağı haline geldi. Türkiye, rüzgar, güneş ve biyokütle dahil olmak üzere yenilenebilir enerji kaynakları için önemli bir potansiyele sahip. Ancak ciddi bir iklim hedefinin ve kömür kullanımına karşı önlemlerin olmaması hava kirliliğine ve yüksek düzeyde enerji bağımlılığına yol açtı. İthal kömür, iklim değişikliği veya hava kirliliği sorunlarına bir çözüm değil” diyor.
Kömürlü termik santrallerinin çevresindeki kirlilik sorunları sadece hava kalitesini etkilemekle kalmıyor. Aynı zamanda Karadeniz üzerinde büyük bir etkiye sahip. Elektrik santrallerinde soğutma işlemlerinde kullanılan suyun daha sonra denize geri verilmesi nedeniyle, santralin çevresindeki suyun diğer yerlere kıyasla 4 derece daha sıcak olduğu bildiriliyor. Yerel halk, santrallerden salınan ağır metaller ve diğer toksinlerden kaynaklanan bir tabakanın su yüzeyinde görüldüğünü bildiriyor. Yüksek sülfür içeriğine sahip kömürün yakılması, asit yağmuru üreterek göl ve akarsuları asitleştiriyor. Karadenizli balıkçılar, santrallerin balık üreme alanlarına zarar verdiğini ve yakaladıkları balık miktarını azalttığını belirtiyor. Bu balıklar İstanbul ve Ankara’ya satılıyor.
Kömür, Türkiye’de tartışmalı bir konu. Mevcut kömür tesislerine yakın yaşayan insanlar güvenli iş imkanları isterken, yeni madenlere karşı protestolar da var. 2013 yılında bir linyit kömür madeninin önerilen açılışı protestoların ardından iptal edildi. Maden kazaları ise oldukça yaygın; 2022 Ekim ayında Karadeniz yakınlarında derin bir madende 41 kişi öldü ve 11 kişi ağır yaralandı.
Kokurdan (resmi adı: Körpeoğlu) adlı yüksek dağ köyünde, kömür külü ve atık döküm alanı, yerleşim havuzunun çevresindeki yoğun ağaçlara toz bulutları saçıyor. ZETES elektrik santrallerinin külü ve hava filtrelerinden çıkan kirletici maddeler açık bir alanda biriktiriliyor. Coal Action Network, köyü, bitki örtüsünün, evlerin ve yolların yoğun bir yağıştan sonra tozdan temizlendiği bir zamanda ziyaret etti; ancak ZETES kömürlü termik santrallerinden gelen atıklar, bu insanların ciğerlerinde, evlerinde ve ekinlerinde birikiyor.
Köylüler, Coal Action Network’e, kömür tesislerinin bu tür kirlenmelere neden olduğu bir bölgeyi neden ziyaret etmek istediğimizi sordu. Yolda geçerken bir kadın, “Buradan nefret ediyorum, çünkü burası kirlilik nedeniyle yaşanmaz halde. Hava kuru olduğunda toz her şeyi kaplıyor” dedi. Bu köyde insanlar, iş imkanları yüzünden verilen zararın buna değdiğine ikna olmuyor. Yerel halk kömürlü termik santralleri hakkında iyi bir şey söylemiyor; yalnızca sağlık üzerindeki olumsuz etkilerden, ayrıca karaciğer kanseri ve mide kanseri gibi hastalıklardan bahsediyor.
En temel hava kirliliği kontrolleri bile uygulanmıyor – kömür taşıyan kamyonlar, tozun güzergâh boyunca yayılmasını önlemek için kapatılmıyor; bu önlem uzun zaman önce Birleşik Krallık'ta standart hale gelmişti. ZETES elektrik santrallerinin konveyör bantlarının altından kamuya açık yollar geçiyor.
PM10 olarak bilinen ince toz partiküllerini izleme cihazları çelik fabrikalarının çevresinde çalışmıyor. PM2.5, akciğerlere nüfuz edebilen ve hatta kan dolaşımına girerek astım, kalp krizi ve bronşit gibi kronik hastalıklara yol açabilen daha ince bir partikül. Ereğli çevresinde PM2.5 ölçümü yapılmıyor.
Coal Action Network’ün Karadeniz kıyısında dört kömür tesisini ziyaretinde, kömür yakmanın insan ve çevre üzerindeki maliyetlerinin yüksek olduğu görüldü. Sağlık, yerel çevre ve iklim değişikliği sorunları yeterince ele alınmıyor, ancak kömür tesislerine yakın yaşayan topluluklar bu durumun iyileştirilmesini talep ediyor.
Last December in London, the CAN team protested with other climate campaigners for two days in freezing temperatures outside one of the world’s biggest events funnelling investment into expanding mining globally. The ‘Mines and Money Conference’ held in London’s Business Design Centre connected investors with projects and companies responsible for human rights abuses, ecocide, and fuelling climate chaos.
Send an email to pressure the Business Design Centre to live up to its ‘B Corp’ ethical status by dropping the ‘Mines and Money Conference’ this December. We’ll send your email to a list of over 60 other B Corp certified big players, suggesting they protect the reputation of B Corps that they themselves rely on. Pressure from these big players might just be enough to get the Business Design Centre to drop the Mines and Money Conference to save its B Corp status.
Coal Action Network has been campaigning for a ban on new coal mining for years, and met with numerous MPs in the lead-up to the 2024 UK General Election. Together with our supporters, we celebrate this clear win for us and for all the communities that won't now suffer noise, dust, and traffic pollution from nearby coal mining. As the first G7 country to ban coal mining, it also sets an example to other G7 countries to follow.
The UK Government has laid a Written Ministerial Statement confirming that it will introduce legislation to "restrict the future licensing of new coal mines", by amending the Coal Industry Act 1994, "when Parliamentary time allows".
The UK Government's press release is entitled "New coal mining licences will be banned". We thinks it's great that the UK Government is following through on its historic manifesto pledge to rule out new coal mining throughout the UK. Following on the coattails of the UK’s exit from coal-fired power generation, this commitment bolsters the UK’s international reputation in leaving behind the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel. We hope to work with the UK Government to ensure no loopholes are carried into the final wording, and to leverage similar commitments in other G20 countries
Türkçe için bu web sayfasına bakın.
The small city of Ereğli nestles between tree covered mountains and Turkey’s Black Sea coast. The city is dominated by the Erdemir steelworks. It is one of three blast furnace steelworks in Turkey, using coal to produce steel. Erdemir is a mighty presence in the lives and lungs of the people living nearby.
Local people’s homes sit in an amphitheatre surrounding the vast steelworks, which sends plumes of steam into the air every few minutes that shimmers and obscures apartment blocks across the bay. Investigators from Coal Action Network travelled to Turkey to speak with people currently affected by Turkish coal burning facilities, like the Erdemir steelworks, when it looked possible that a new coal mine would open in Cumbria and supply coal to Turkey, perpetuating the local populations’ air pollution issues. For more information on why Coal Action Network visited Turkey and links to UK coal mining, see this page.
Turkey uses imported coal in its steelworks and power stations, as well as mining domestically.
Turkey is the 8th biggest steel producer globally. In 2023, it produced a massive 33.7 million tonnes of steel and consumed 21.1 million tonnes of scrap metal, according to World Steel Association. 27 of the 30 steelworks in the country produced steel by melting down scrap metal produced in Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF), producing 72% of the country’s steel output. There are three blast furnaces that use coal, converted into coke, in the steel making process, and many of the EAFs use coal to provide heat. This coal is largely imported. Russia supplies 73% of Turkey’s coal imports, and Colombia the bulk of the remainder.
EAFs consume large amounts of electricity. In Turkey, much of this electricity comes from coal through the power grid. One Turkish EAF has its own coal power station. Coal power supplied 35% of Turkey’s electricity in 2022. Turkey both imports and exports large quantities of steel (18 million tonnes and 12.7 million tonnes respectively, in 2023). More than 20 of the EAF steel facilities currently use coal to melt scrap metal. Steel is the country’s third largest export sector.
Turkey is one of the top five importers of Russian coal. Many countries, including the UK, EU member states and USA stopped buying Russian coal, as part of sanctions following the country’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Vaibhav Raghunandan, from Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) says, “Turkeyʼs increased reliance on Russian coal (and indeed other fossil fuels) is effectively tying it down to an increasingly volatile supplier who controls their market. The Russian coal sector is a huge source of revenue for the Kremlin and the Energy Ministry had set targets of attaining 25% of the global coal market by 2035. Taxes from coal constitute a significant part of the Federal Budget. Since the invasion, Turkey — A NATO country — has paid EUR 8.2 bn for Russian coal, which effectively finances Russiaʼs invasion of Ukraine.”
Since the invasion Turkey has increased its market share of Russian coal, Turkey’s imports constitute 13% of Russiaʼs total coal exports. In the first three quarters of 2024, Turkey has imported 15.7 million tonnes of Russian coal, making up 49% of Turkey’s total coal imports (valued at EUR 1.66 billion). This is an 82% increase when compared to the same period in the year prior to the invasion.
Additionally, the Russian coal mining industry causes cultural genocide, environmental destruction and air pollution issues, detailed in Coal Action Network and Fern’s report, Slow Death in Siberia.
According to the World Health Organization, air pollution is the largest environmental threat to people’s health across the globe, including in Turkey. There are four main health harming pollutants released in coal consumption from steelworks and power stations: Sulphur dioxide (SO2); particulate matter – PM10 and the smaller PM2.5; nitrogen oxides (NOX) and mercury.
Breathing SO2, which is produced on combustion of high sulphur coal, increases the risk of health conditions – including stroke, heart disease, asthma, lung cancer and death. It is classified as very toxic when inhaled. Even a single exposure to a high concentration can cause a long-lasting condition like asthma. SO2 emissions rose by 14% in Turkey in 2019, one of the few countries in which emissions increased in that year. Coal-based energy production remains the major source of SO2 emissions in Turkey.
Local people in Ereğli, the city surrounding the Erdemir blast furnace steelworks, told Coal Action Network that university studies into their health are normally suppressed by government. However, in a study looking at the incidence of multiple sclerosis (MS) in populations in Ereğli compared to Devrek, which is a rural and clean city located 40 km away from Ereğli, “indicate a more than double MS prevalence rate in the area home to an iron and steel factory [Ereğli] when compared to the rural city [Devrek]. This supports the hypothesis that air pollution may be a possible etiological [Pertaining to, or inquiring into, causes] factor in MS.” Local people take no persuading that the air is contaminated by the steelworks and damaging their health.
Çetin Yılmaz, leader of Black Sea, Ereğli and Alaplı Environmental Volunteers, brought together 15 concerned citizens from Erdemir to talk with Coal Action Network about the impacts they face in the town surrounding the steelworks. They bemoan the scientific studies which show links between the steelworks and the diminishing health of the local population, but which are suppressed by the Government.
Çetin says, “The company [Eren Energy] has caused cancer in many people, it does not recognize the right of their employees to unionize in its facilities; it has fired workers who want to be unionized; it has made Çatalagzı into a breathless state; it has filled fish breeding grounds with ash; it burns 2 million tons of imported coal every year and caused the greatest damage to humans and nature in our region.”
A worker, who has worked at the Erdemir steelworks for 18 years, explained how he got throat cancer, which could be heard affecting his voice when we met him. Local people think 50% of the population’s health is affected by the steelworks. A teacher present recalled how in each of his classes around 10 children will have breathing issues, caused by the poor quality air.
The local political representative told Coal Action Network, “Most people here work in mines or in the steel plant, everyone knows that the air pollution causes cancer and breathing difficulties. The workers aren’t in a position to do anything about it as they have to earn money and would lose their employment, as well as their health.”
OYAK, the company which owns Erdemir and İsdemir blast furnaces, says it will use seven different methods to decarbonise. Its so called Net Zero Roadmap reads more like a list of potential options to reduce emissions and does nothing to resemble an actual plan.
Air pollution and health problems at İsdemir are likely to mimic those at Erdemir. Turkey’s CO2 intensity for the blast furnace steel production exceeds the comparable emissions for steel produced in Europe, the USA, and South Korea.
There have been persistent shortcomings in compliance with environmental, public, and occupational health regulations across the steel production value chain in Turkey.
Sitting at the eastern edge of Europe, Turkey is expected to surpass Germany as Europe's largest coal-fired electricity generator in 2024. Turkey is still opening new coal power stations, such as Hunutlu Thermal Power Plant opened in 2022. Turkey has 34 coal fired power stations, 10 use hard coal and the remainder use lignite, a less energy dense, poorer quality coal that is burnt close to its source. Two of the blast furnaces using coal also have coal power stations providing their electric.
Turkey’s electricity consumption has tripled in the last two decades, which has been underpinned by rapid growth in coal and gas generation.
As well as Ereğli, Coal Action Network visited three coal fired power stations near Muslu, called ZETES III and IV and Çatalağzı. All of the sites are within the district of Zonguldak.
Zonguldak was the only non-metropolitan district included in Turkey-wide weekend curfews for covid-19 reduction measures in 2020. This was due to pre-existing high rates of chronic respiratory diseases caused by poor air quality. According to local officials, it’s estimated that as much as 60% of the population displays some degree of respiratory symptoms, with mortality rates almost doubling between 2010 and 2020. The low air quality is caused by elevated levels of PM2.5 and SO2 pollutants from steelworks, coal mines and hard coal power plants.
The health costs from coal power generation in Turkey alone, are 26.07 - 53.60 billion Turkish Lire (2.86 - 5.88 billion €), which is equivalent to 13 - 27% of Turkey’s annual health expenditure.
Where Turkey significantly deviates from the rest of the EU in relation to steelworks and power stations is in the compliance and enforcement of air quality standards. As a report by Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) shows, “While EU member states are legally required to report emissions at plant level to a publicly accessible database [...] Turkey does not share power plant or sectoral emission data. Instead, it reports merged data for electricity generation and the heating sector” This obscures the data. Furthermore, Turkey has not signed other important technical agreements to limit, and cooperate on, other pollutants. This includes three protocols on sulphur emissions (The 1985 Helsinki Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions, the 1994 Oslo Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions, and the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level ozone.). As HEAL states, “The lack of transparency prevents a rational and informed debate about improving air quality and health in the country.” Local people and ecosystems are left to deal with the consequences.
In the last 20 years, Turkey’s power plants that have been privatised and many do not use filter technology for SOx. They are the major contributor to Turkey’s increasing SOx pollution.
Everyone who spoke to Coal Action Network is worried about the air quality impacts of Turkey’s coal consuming plants. A resident living near three coal power stations on the Black Sea, near Zonguldak, says, “people believe that in some periods the air pollution filters on the plants are not working properly. Habitually, we have 250 days in a year the pollution is higher than the government’s acceptable standards.”
The consistent narrative from the residents overlooking either the steelworks or the coal power stations was one of poor air quality, resulting in higher rates of respiratory illness, cancers of various sorts, and death of plants and vegetation leading to an inability of local people to grow food.
In 2021, Turkey imported 36 million tonnes of coal for its power stations and steelworks, as well as using its domestically mined coal, which is mainly lignite, not used in steel-making. Turkish Coal Enterprises emphasises that the most significant increase in coal imports will come from the demand for electricity generation, and estimates that this trend will continue. Although President Erdoğan says the country will decarbonise by 2053 there is no meaningful road map to bring the blast furnaces into relevant carbon reduction strategies.
Barış Eceçelik from Ekosfer states, “Turkey is one of the few countries in Europe that has not set a date for the phase-out of coal. Last year, for the first time in the history of Turkey, imported coal became the leading energy source in electricity generation. Turkey has significant potential for renewable energy sources, including wind, solar, and biomass. However, the lack of a serious climate target and measures against coal usage has led to air pollution and a high level of energy dependence. It must be acknowledged that imported coal is not a solution to the issues of climate change nor air pollution.”
The pollution issues around the coal power stations do not just affect air quality. They also have a large impact on the Black Sea. The water around the power station is reported to be 4o warmer than elsewhere, as it is used in the power stations cooling processes and then returned warmed to the sea. Local people report seeing a sheen on the water from the heavy metals and other toxins which are released from the power stations. Burning coal high in sulphur increases sulphur dioxide which produces acid rain, and acidifies lakes and streams. Black Sea fishermen say that the power stations are damaging fish spawning grounds and reducing their catch. Food which is sold to Istanbul and Ankara.
Coal is a contested subject in Turkey. While people living close to existing coal facilities want the secure jobs, there are protests against new power stations and a proposed lignite power station was cancelled in 2013, following protests. Mining accidents are fairly common, with 301 killed in just one accident in Soma in 2014.
In the high up mountain village of Kokurdan (official name: Körpeoğlu) a coal ash and waste dump billows clouds of dust onto the dense trees surrounding the settling pool. Ash from the ZETES power stations and the dirt from the air filters are settled in a vast open dump. Although Coal Action Network visited immediately after heavy rain had washed the dust off the vegetation, homes and roads, the waste from ZETES coal power stations normally accumulates in the lungs, homes and crops of these people.
Villagers approached Coal Action Network to ask why we would want to visit their area when the coal facilities cause such contamination. “I hate being from here because of the pollution. When the weather is dry the dust covers everything.” one woman told Coal Action Network, whilst passing on the street in Kokurdan. In this village they are not convinced the damage is worth it because of the jobs. Local people say nothing good about the coal power plants, they just talked about the damaging health effects, adding liver cancer and stomach cancer to the list of illnesses caused by the coal power stations.
The most basic air pollution controls are not being implemented – lorries carrying coal are not even covered to prevent dust spreading along its route, a measure that long ago became standard in the UK. Public roads also run underneath the conveyor belts of ZETES power stations.
Monitors for fine dust particles known as PM10 are apparently not operational around the steelworks. PM2.5, is finer particulate matter that can penetrate the lungs and even enter the bloodstream and cause chronic diseases such as asthma, heart attack and bronchitis. PM2.5 is not monitored at all around Ereğli.
Coal Action Network’s visit to four coal facilities on the Black Sea showed that the human and environmental costs of burning coal are high. The issues of health, local environment and climate change are not being sufficiently addressed, but there is demand for improvement within Turkish communities living close to coal facilities.
