Campaigners battling plans for an open cast mine on the edge of Telford today unfurled banners across one of Shropshire’s busiest roads.Members of Wrekin Stop War and Wrekin Anarchist Group are bidding to catch the attention of motorists travelling on the M54 past Telford and are calling for them to join their protests.
Banners were dropped from the bridge crossing the motorway at Arleston reading “Coal: Leave It in the Ground”, referring to UK Coal’s proposals to create an open cast mine in the New Works area near the Ercall.
Elsewhere, banners proclaiming Telford as “Birthplace of Industry/Womb of Climate Change” were hung from bridges crossing the motorway at the Ercall and Castle Farm Interchange.
Rachel Whittaker, 34, said they were highlighting the local and national issues to coincide with Climate Camp, a massive gathering of climate change campaigners this month in Kent. She said: “This is a peaceful action designed to highlight the global dangers of climate change and the local threat of open-cast mining.
“The banners will be seen by many people as they are driving in and out of Telford and we hope they will join us in our campaigns.”
She added they were also worried about the potential increase in traffic and pollution.
47 Comments
oil leave it in the sea bed and under the sand get a life .
Great. I wish them well with their protest.
Its good to see that the local economy is doing so well that we do not need the additional jobs!?!
Open the coal mine, and bring the money into the area. There are tough times ahead and any business is good business in the current climate.
Before you all jump to conclusions, I do live fairly close to the proposed mine. I like most would rather it not be on my doorstep however, its a good thing for Telford.
An anarchist group is a bit of an oxymoron, no?
I’d rather have a mobile phone mast or a wind turbine
Why can’t Eon afford “clean coal technology” here in Shropshire, as they propose at Kingsnorth?
Are we expendable?
i support the protestors, we do not need coal, ironbridge is closing soon due to its high levels of air pollution, why devestate the landscape for a fuel which is so polluting and less in demand now in the UK
and theres gordon brown wanting clean energy, why doesnt make a hydro-electric dam on the river severn, or put a few wind turbines on top of the wrekin, no he wants to dig holes and get the coal out,they wont turn it back as it was they will just let it fill with water,look at the big pool in randlay and st georges,there quarry pools!!stop mining and start using clean energy!!
Its not just a case of digging coal out of the ground.
Coal mines create a lot of coal dust - as the mine will be very near to Wellington I hope everyone who lives there is prepared for constantly dirty windows and being unable to hang out washing
Regardless of the environmental effects of burning fossil fuels the fact still remains that we live in a world with high demands for its use. We have healthy reserves here in Shropshire so why not exploit that fact.
You all sound like hardened environmentalists, but i expect few are driving low emissions cars and taking other action to reduce fossil fuel usage.
Its easy to talk the talk but accept that we all use these fuels. In fact we are all happy to use them until the issue is on our doorstep. How many of you have ever taken any serious action to reduce their fossil fuel usage, or got involved in community projects? Either start walking the walk or embrace this fantastic opportunity as a boost to the local economy.
MR J, I don’t think Gordon Brown want to “dig holes”, UK Coal is a private company, nice try at the usual blame everything on the Government game though.
Thank you to those people who have supported our protest and just a few brief replies to others.
To Big Matty:
The proposed mine will bring 40 unsustainable jobs to Telford, the positive economic impact of which will be negligible compared to the damage that fossil fuels are doing locally, nationally and globally, mainly to working class communities. Looking at the ‘current climate’ in another context, I would say that the mine is a bad idea all round.
To Michael Ryan:
The proposal for the new Kingsnorth plant to be ‘clean coal’ have been all but abandoned, not least because no such thing exists as yet.
The Government is currently running a competition in which it is offering financial incentives to the company who come up with the best demonstration model for ‘clean burn’/carbon capture technology. Even if the Government had included the money for this project in its latest spending round (which it did not) the demonstration would not be on-line until at least 2018-2020. In addition, a model on the scale proposed will only be able to capture around one-twentieth of the carbon produced by a large coal-fired power station, with industry-wide carbon capture not likely to be available until 2030 at the earliest. It will also have pitfalls in terms of efficiency, as it reduces the energy output of a coal-fired plant by around one-third.
To Harry Saxon Esq:
You’re probably right but despite popular belief, most anarchism isn’t about individualist show-boating and, for our part, we’re just trying to work towards a society of mutual assistance and co-operation so the ‘group’ thing isn’t as disingenuous as it at first appears.
To Y Mab Darogan:
Good point but I think there may be more pressing concerns for the people of Wellington (and other areas) if they don’t pull their fingers out and oppose this mine. Rises in asthma and other respiratory conditions to name but one.
the loony left have reinvented themselves as greenies - mad - we need cheap power - dig the whole hill up as far as I care - it will grow back in a few undred years
It seems that more folk are now prepared to engage with the Opencast mine issue, Friends of The Ercall have fought this from the begining, and although the politics of Anarchy are not those that our group pursue, the issue and their commitment to bringing their protest to the Public by a banner campaign, can only be regarded as a step in the right direction.
Perhaps the promised Health Impact Assessment would emerge should this group choose to demonstrate their feelings outside the Public Health Directors Office, and also the local Councils planning department.
Please keep writing letters of opposition to the UK coal proposal, the consultation period is not over yet, contact Mr D Coxill, Planning Officer, Telford and Wrekin Council, Darby House, Telford, every letter counts - Yours could be the one that makes all the difference.
Rachel - “a society of mutual assistance and co-operation” is not ararchism!! Quite the opposite to anarchy in fact.
the really dangerous stuff is not the visible dust that coats our laundry nor even the measurable particulate matter of less than ten microns which can get deep into our lungs aveoli. Its the invisible PM2.5 less than 2 and half microns, this is the stuff which long term will really do alot of harm to the adjacent communities and also of course to the porr people down wind of where ever this coal gets shipped to for incineration
good on em
Rachel is there anyway people from out of the area can help your protest.
Well done to Rachel and others who peacefully give their time and efforts to oppose the mining plan.
Nice to see someone making a stand for people and planet - climate change is too important to sit by and do nothing about . . and for those who declare climate change worries to be unfounded, please consider the argument that if you are wrong and we are right . . we are stuffed if we do nothing! I’d rather err on the side of caution myself and at least try to make the world a cleaner, greener place for us and future generations!
Amanda, opposing the plan is hardly making a stand for environmental issues! The opposition is for personal objection and ‘not on my doorstep’ attitude. If these people had true and genuine environmental concerns they would be doing much more than this little protest. How about opposing fossil fuels, as the protest is not about the use of the fuel its only about the mining of them locally.
How many of the opposition drives low emission cars? How many have been involved in other environmental campaigns? How many produce their own energy?
Lets be realistic here and come clean about your motives for objection!
what about road safety???
What about road safety?
Green cross code never failed for me!
Just a few more responses:
Thanks again to all those who have supported our protest.
To Jane:
It isn’t really ‘our’ protest it’s everyone’s and we’re sure that people are able to object to this scheme in their own creative ways if they want to. However, we know it’s much more fun (if that’s the right word) in a group and we’d love to have you on board.
To Big Matty:
As it happens, myself and others in our group are active locally and nationally in climate change campaigns, as well as other connected issues and have been for some time. Personally, I don’t need to worry about whether or not my car has low emissions because I don’t have one. My partner and I grow most of our own food and although we’re not quite at the stage of generating our own energy yet, we’re getting there.
The ‘Coal: Leave it in the Ground’ protest was undertaken in conjunction with the Climate Camp action at Kingsnorth this week and is part of a wider national and international campaign against fossil fuels. It seems we can’t win, if we’d all traipsed off to Kent for the Climate Camp, we’d be hypocrites for using fossil fuel to get there and if we stay locally and bring the issues to our own community, we’re nimbyists.
Whether you agree with what we are doing or not, please don’t assume that you know what we’re all about if you haven’t even taken the trouble to find out. The whole reason that we’re doing this independently from those intent on only opposing open-cast in a local forum is that we think their nimbyism is clouding the bigger picture. We’re also not happy to jump into bed with Tesco just because they’re pretending to care on the issue of open-cast.
To Harry Saxon Esq:
Anarchy in its literal sense means ‘without leaders’ and nothing more. It has since been used by the establishment to refer to chaos and destruction because they want people to think that’s what a leaderless society would be like. Those who have latterly adopted anarchism as an ideology generally believe in the withering (or in some cases, direct overthrow) of the state, to be replaced by a society of mutual assistance, co-operation and personal freedom.
Before someone says it, yes, it is idealistic but anyone who says that our current global society is a shining example of human potential obviously isn’t paying attention. Either that, or they’re happy to live in a world where the majority are, to varying degrees, enslaved by a wealthy minority.
I do think climate change is a big worry BUT is coal dust REALLY more dangerous than toxic nuclear waste??? I think not, some people are now saying we should go nuke just save co2 which is barmy in my opinion radiactive waste is far more dangerous and costly than climate change, after all we can put on sun screen if it gets too hot but try living next to Gamma rays!!
Star blogger, like many sensationalist views that we are used to seeing, yours is no different. Im no nuclear expert, but safety standards are high and technogy is improving very quickly. Handling, processing and disposal/storage of the waste is dangerous, but handled correctly (as im sure it is) presents little danger.
Big matty obviosly doesnt live in Chernobyl, Sarov, Three Mile island, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Sellafield, Bialystok, Gilan etc etc etc or many other areas where radiation has escaped from nuclear sources and causes massive health problems for people and wildlife in the area, you are right on one thing big matty, you are no nuclear expert
JD is right nuclear is not the answer. However I would argue coal is more dangerous, getting cancer from radiative waste will slowly kill you but if the green house effect ”runs away” there will be no life on planet earth within a couple of hundred years - look at venus if you think im exagerating
I’ve looked at Venus and you are right. No open cast coal mines there.
Let’s hope that these local eco-terrorists have carried out a risk assessment and used biodegradable banners.
John Davies…. You are correct I don’t live in those places, however if you had shown me the courtesy of actually reading my post you would have possibly understood what I said.
To clarify. I was discussing nuclear power not unfortunate bombings where nuclear weapons have been used. If I were to use that argument then it could be said that a box of matches is more dangerous then nuclear power as if you look at the atrocities in Darfur as an example then you will see that horrendous amounts of people are dying due to their villages being burnt to the ground. So please show the intellect to take peoples comments in context!
I also mentioned that safety standards and technology have improved vastly. I’m sure accidents like Three Mile Island in 1979 are much less likely these days. Again as mentioned I said I expect they present little danger, I never mentioned there was no risk but being realistic the best things in life are never risk free!
As with everything healthy debate of the pros and cons of any idea is a good thing and on a subject like this my opinion is far from decided one way or another. I would be happy to live near a Nuclear power station before anyone trys to attack me from that angle.
Nuclear power the answer, what a joke, there is no safe and enviromentally friendly way of storing the waste.
AA. It appears you have the answers, yet are reluctant to share the solution.
Fossil fuels are something that most of you seem happy with as long as its not on your doorstep. Nuclear power is far too dangerous, and wind farms are not efficient enough to power the whole country added to the fact that few want these on their doorsteps too.
So….. what is the answer?
we must stop mining and burning coal at all costs, its a life and death situation, stop it now
both nuclear and coal must go, we need more gas, more wind, more biomass and we need a severn barrage big time!
Big Matty - you are consistently correct on this one. There is a perfectly good way of disposing of nuclear waste - you bury it uinder tons of concrete deep underground - well away from anyone who might want to get at it for unauthorised purposes.
I’m always astonished by the hysterical comments that eco-warriors come up with. No life on planet Earth within a couple of hundred years? Absolute nonsense!
As usual the self-appointed guardians of the planet come up with objections to almost everything - coal, nuclear, car usage, but never with any solutions that wouldn’t have us all living in mud huts knitting sweaters out of dog hair (which is of course what many of them would like!)
Looking at the workshy rabble who have congregated at the so-called ‘Climate camp’ at Kingsnorth only confirms my view that the real agenda of these zealots is not ‘Saving the planet’ but instead, in the same way as religious zealots, to control the way in which other people choose to live their lives.
The solution has to be to limit everyone to a certain amount of energy per week.
Ie you get 30 credits worth of electric per month which is worth about 30 pounds you can use this electric for whatever you want to but if you run out of credits due to having to many bathcs, watching too much TV having lights on in the evening then you go cold until next month.
This would reduce the need for coal to be mined and the introduction of new nuclear power stations
i think the problem with the burial option is its not sustainable, besides who is going to pay to build and run these sites, oh guess what yes, you and me the tax payer, and who’s going to guard the sites from terrorist, right the army, paid for my the taxpayer, and who cleans up the sites after their done, bingo taxpayet, the cancer treatment for the workers, got it in one the tax payer, who makes the profits, Energy DE FRANCE!! Hang on a minute…. something doesnt add up here - so is nuclear electricty that cheap after all then
Climate change is an issue but i’m not convinced “we” are the cause. The climate has changed for millions of years - why are SOME people convienced “we” are the cause?
There are theories both ways - climate change and global warming will change no matter what we do, it has throughout earths history.
Personally, i’d rather have a life expectancy of 70 odd years not 30 which was not so long ago - so be careful what you wish for. Without power; food, hygiene and healthcare would all suffer greatly - and then with only 30 years to live you may not have lived long enough to see the affects of coal dust and nuclear waste storage in the first place. Well probably anyway!
Y Mab Darogan, are you a communist with your Utopian ideas it would be easy to be mistaken. The truth is that some will always need and use more than others, and cost per unit as it is at the moment is still the most effective way to ration power. Your rationing method still requires power to be supplied, so how do you propose that it is provided?
Itsallajoke, I do somewhat agree with you however its not that straightforward. Climate change has occurred naturally for millions of years but the recent changes have been found to be much quicker to occur than any previous events that scientists have discovered. The fear is that human influences have caused this to happen. I do believe that effects are exaggerated by the media and politicians for political gain.
I also find it interesting how many people want wind power and also the mention of the Severn Barrage. Both of these are great ideas in principle that I support, but amount of power created and efficiency issues mean they can only realistically supplement power provided from other sources such as nuclear.
too right we dont want coal, we need more wind turbines, put in north shropshire the tory mp is blocking them!!
Big Matty says he’s sure that nuclear power is safer these days and that he’d happily live near a nuclear plant. I think he might be in a minority and I would suggest that nuclear power generates even more nimbyism than coal.
Then again, it’s not surprising when you consider that in 2005 Britain saw its worst nuclear accident in 13 years when 83,000 litres of nuclear waste leaked unnoticed from a ruptured pipe at Sellafield.
But the lessons learned from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl meant that it was dealt with quickly, right? Not so I’m afraid; Sellafield had to be closed because the authorities didn’t know how to deal with the leak and it was later revealed that the pipe had been leaking for nine months!
Oh and just a quick reply to Peter. Everyone in our group and most of those we work with have jobs or are retired so please don’t judge people by your own spurious prejudices. Of those people I know who don’t have a standard ‘job’, most grow their own food, generate their own energy and deal with their own sanitation requirements which, I can assure you, involves a lot more physical work than 9-5 employment.
Again Rachel the question gets thrown back to you…. what is the answer to the worlds power needs?
Part of the problem in all of these cases is media hype, spin and propaganda. In the case of Sellafield in 2005, was the problem accurately reported, or was it exaggerated to be worse than it was or even played down. I have a cynical attitude to these things and have perhaps more faith in modern practices than most.
Another interesting point Rachel is that you mentioned your friends generate their own power, and while I support this very strongly I am left with questions. Do they use any power from the National Grid and use this in addition to some of their own generated power, or are they truly independent? As this poses again the same question, where does the additional power come from. I would like to generate my own power, however the the time to obtain return on investment is far too long to be feasible for most due to the high costs.
Well done to the protesters for getting this vital discussion going.
We need more people like Rachel and her friends and fellow protesters.
Their activism is posing important questions and their arguments need proper responses.
For this reason it is a shame that Peter (#35) has to resort to ad hominem arguments in the second half of his response rather than engaging with the points Rachel makes and the figures she cites in comment #12.
Big Matty says that he wants to generate his own power like Rachel’s friends, but that the return on investment is too long and the costs are too high.
I hope he will agree with me, then, when I say that UK policy on renewable energy needs to change to a system of feed-in tarriffs like they have in Germany (where for a few years the Green Party were part of the governing coalition).
In the feed-in tariff system, big electricity companies pay smaller organisations (households with solar panels on the roof, farms, businesses and communities with wind turbines) for the surplus energy which they generate and sell.
I have just returned from rural southern Germany, where householders and farmers have clearly embraced this policy. Everywhere you look there are solar panels on rooftops.
German citizens are helping cut their country’s carbon footprint by feeding the national grid with solar energy and helping their family/business finances, too.
In a time of rising fossil fuel costs for households and businesses across the country, it is hard to see what is holding us back from adopting win-win policies like this in the UK.
In this discussion about wind turbines earlier this year http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/06/10/hundreds-air-views-on-wind-farm/ the subject got onto climate change and the denialists started their now familiar arguments.
I cited (in comment #17) 41 scientific institutions from across the world, which have declared that man-made global warming is very real.
I then challenged the contrarians to name ONE scientific institution to add credibility to their views.
I have not yet had a single response.
The pattern is very familiar in each discussion that I have about climate change on the Shropshire Star site.
When challenged to provide evidence, the denialists disappear.
Perhaps Itsallajoke (#38) who thinks mankind is not contributing to climate change could provide the evidence to substantiate his views.
Scientific institutions, please.
Not right-wing US blogs, fake grassroot organisations or Esso-funded think-tanks, please.
As for the nuclear debate, Peter, you say that burying nuclear waste deep underground is the solution.
Would you, then, agree that we need strong international institutions to monitor this waste?
For how long?
For 100 years?
For 1,000 years?
For 10,000 years?
Which strong, international institution do you know of, which has lasted more than 100 years?
Big Matty’s question in #32 (’So….. what is the answer?’ deserves a response.
Researchers working for the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT), based in Machynlleth in Wales have written a report ‘Zero Carbon Britain’, which answers your question, Big Matty.
According to this report the UK could produce all of its electricity from clean renewable sources.
With a massive increase in renewable energy and efficiency measures there would be no need for new coal fired power stations like the one proposed at Kingsnorth or the controversial open-cast mine opposed by the banner-writers and Friends of the Ercall.
The report by CAT proves that the UK could be completely renewably powered without the need for climate damaging coal or as yet unproven technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
Citing from a CAT press release on 6th August, ‘the UK also needs to think about energy security.
Currently 70% of our coal comes from unreliable foreign sources and the price of coal has doubled in the past 12 months.
In an increasingly unstable world the UK should take advantage of massive wind, wave and tidal resources that could provide safe reliable energy.
If we want other countries to take climate change seriously we cannot ask them to sign up to international agreements and then invest in high emitting coal power at home.
The support of the rest of the world is essential if climate change is going to be stopped.
If other countries see the UK investing in unsafe coal generation then it becomes very difficult for us to ask them to make reductions.’
Does that answer your question, Big Matty?