Sarah McGowan who was born in Whitehaven and took part in the action says, "We can all see the impacts of climate change. In Cumbria the summer has been a washout since June, while on the Hawaiian island of Maui people escaped firestorms by jumping into the sea. Meanwhile the IPCC has said we simply cannot afford to permit any new coal mines, the UK government is flying in the face of reason. Our banners show the strength of feeling against the coal mine and our determination to keep the coal in the ground. The mine must be stopped.”

West Cumbria Mining Ltd is looking to extract a total of 67 million tonnes of coking coal from under the seabed off Whitehaven right up to 2049. The vast majority of this coal would be exported to foreign steelworks, as it is too high in sulphur to comply with UK and European air pollution regulations.[1]

Continues...

The day the planning permission was overturned! On the 13th September South Lakes Action on Climate Change and Friends of the Earth won their case, against the Conservative Government's decision to allow a new coal mine. Following a hearing in the High Court in July 2024. Delighted campaigners gathered outside the former County Hall in Kendal and in Whitehaven Market Place to hear the news together this morning.

The Judge, Mr Justice Holgate ruled, "The assumption that the proposed mine would not produce a net increase in GHG emissions, or would be a net zero mine, is legally flawed"

The insurance industry found itself in the spotlight over the end of February/ beginning of March as a Global Week of Action blossomed across the world beginning February 27th. In a wave of protests, both online and in the streets, swept through the doors of insurance giants, demanding accountability over their support for polluters and decisive action on climate change. In the UK many of these actions called on insurance companies to refuse to insure the proposed West Cumbria coal mine and East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). More details here. Yet another leading insurance company, Probitas, has ruled out insuring the proposed West Cumbria coal mine.

People hailing from Cumbria to London, and everywhere in between, descended on the Mines and Money Conference in London across two days (28^th-29^th Nov 2023). We demanded that investors stop pouring cash into the mining sector, and instead invest in our collective future. Together with Fossil Free London and other groups, we greeted investors with flyers highlighting risks to investments in mining that mining companies want to hide—such as successful grassroots resistance to mining projects around the world.

On Friday 27^th October, visitors and residents travelling in Cumbria were met by a powerful message of opposition to the proposed new coal mine at Whitehaven. Large banners were hung at major roads across the county, declaring this is “No Time for a Coal Mine”. The banners were hung at the M6 junction at Penrith, on the A66 at Keswick and Cockermouth, on bridges over the Staveley by-pass and the A591 at Kendal, at Garsdale Head and at Whitehaven itself.

Meanwhile, posters emblazoned with “No Time for a Coal Mine” appeared all around Kendal and Penrith. On Saturday 28^th October, the Cumbrian Canaries made an outing at the Winter Droving festival in Penrith, raising the alarm about the proposed coal mine and handing out around 800 leaflets to the revellers.

October's Speakers' Corner hosted Prof. Julia Steinberger, an IPCC 6th Assessment Report author who said that demand reduction is needed to reduce the worst impacts of climate change, and that we already have the technology to ensure this can happen while ensuring a comfortable life. There were 5 other brilliant speakers.

The event was planned to mark the first day of the legal challenge against the Government's approval of the mine proposal, but the hearing has been postponed until after a linked case, which will decide whether the end use emissions need to be considered when giving planning consent. This would mean that the emissions from consuming coal from this site in steelworks would need to be counted, not just those released from mining. Further Speaker's corner events took place in November and December.

On the 18th October, hundreds of protesters occupied the plush City of London offices of ten Lloyd’s of London insurers demanding they rule out insuring the proposed West Cumbria coal mine and the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). Earlier that day the protesters marched waving banners saying “Don’t Insure EACOP” and “Don’t Insure West Cumbria Mine” to three high profile buildings including the “Walkie Talkie” where in a coordinated swoop, activists are causing disruption in the office foyers of Ascot, Talbot, Chaucer, Markel, Allied World, CNA Hardy, Tokio Marine Kiln, Sirius International and Lancashire Syndicates. The activists staged a sit-in. More details here.

On the 15th September, the Global day of action against fossil fuel finance, kicked off demonstrations at the offices of Lloyd of London Insurance companies kicking off the campaign to ensure West Cumbria Mining Ltd don't get insurance for the proposed coal mine. Demonstrations took place in places including London, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, York, Wrexham, Croydon and Cardiff.

At September's Speakers' Corner event the demonstrators heard from Sarah Finch, Weald Action Group, about the proposal to extract oil in Surrey - which she is challenging in the Supreme Court.

Michael Gove referenced the High Court decision on the case of Horse Hill in Surrey, and used that case to justify excluding the greenhouse gas emissions that would arise from burning the coal from the mine. Sarah's court case questions how end use emissions can be ignored in projects like oil or coal extraction. The Horse Hill decision is awaited and will likely influence the outcome of the legal challenges against the Whitehaven proposal and therefore whether the mine goes ahead.

At the end of August 2023 Earth First! squatted the site of the proposed Whitehaven coal mine and held a week long gathering packed with inspiring discussions, delicious food, wonderful workshops, lots of sock wrestling and some spectacular sunsets! It was a week of radical ecological existence, bursting with love and burning with revolutionary spirit. Their message was

As thousands of visitors travelled into Cumbria for the busy August bank holiday they were met with a powerful statement: 25 large banners opposing the proposed new coal mine near Whitehaven with the words ‘NO TIME for a COAL MINE’ on all the roads into Cumbria.

Leafleting also happened in Carlisle, Keswick, Kirkby Lonsdale and Penrith with a good reception.

South Lakes Action on Climate Change legal challenge

Ground 1 – error of law and/ or failure to give understandable reasons concerning substitution.

The Inspector’s report assumes there will be “some degree of substitution” between coal mined abroad, likely from the USA, and coal from Whitehaven. Unless the substitution would be 100%, as in exactly the same amount of coal extracted from Cumbria would be left underground in a permitted mine elsewhere, the mine would still result in increased global emissions. Substitution won't be anywhere near 100%, as the owners of mines elsewhere will simply sell the coal to different steelworks. The Secretary of State decided on an “overall neutral effect on climate change”, despite the increase in emissions.

Ground 2 – error of law in discounting the international impacts of allowing this mine.

Sir Robert Watson, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, gave evidence that many other countries will follow suit and approve fossil fuel projects as a result of this decision. A rare letter from Lord Deben from the Climate Change Committee concurred, the decision “gives a negative impression of the UK’s climate priorities in the year of COP26.”

The UK’s international climate reputation was a key reason that the government called in the decision, rather than allowing Cumbria County Council to make it. The Inspector’s report completely fails to deal with both sets of evidence related to this central controversial issue.

Ground 3 – errors of law concerning whether ‘downstream emissions’ caused by the coking coal were indirect significant environment effects of the proposal.

The Inspector concluded that downstream emissions - those resulting in the use of the coking coal, rather than its extraction - “cannot reasonably be regarded as indirect significant effects of the proposed development.” This is incorrect understanding of the law because of the above substitution error – as other coal will not be 100% substituted for mining reduction elsewhere, but also a misunderstanding of the implications of a cited court case (Finch). Without this coal being mined, it wouldn’t be burnt and so there would be significantly fewer downstream emissions.

Ground 4 – unlawful disparity of treatment of the parties and error concerning the approach to the burden of proof.

The Inspector applied different standards to the parties throughout the inquiry. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 217, imposes a high threshold of evidence as to the benefits of a coal mine on the applicant rather than those opposing it. The Inspector seemed to do the opposite, imposing a higher threshold upon testimonies against the coal mine development. This might have influenced how the Government later interpreted the testimonies through the Inspector's report.

Friends of the Earth’s legal challenge

Ground 1: Approach to considering the effect of the development on the UK’s Sixth Carbon Budget.

The impact of the mine on the UK’s Sixth Carbon Budget, which covers the years 2033 to 2037, was a key issue in the Public Inquiry.

The mining company had entered a legal agreement requiring it to buy international carbon offset credits to offset residual emissions from the mine. In the decision letter the Secretary of State concluded that this requirement meant the mine would be net-zero for the purposes of the Sixth Carbon Budget. That conclusion was wrong and unlawful. Such offset credits do not count towards the UK’s carbon budgets.

Ground 2: Approach to considering the international impacts of the decision.

Similar to SLACC’s Ground 2 reasoning.

Ground 3: Approach to ‘substitution’ of WCM coal and the global coal market.

Similar to SLACC’s Ground 1 reasoning.

Ground 4: Earlier court case (Finch) and downstream emissions.

The Secretary of State’s reasoning closely follows the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of R (Finch) v Surrey County Council, both in terms of whether downstream emissions should have been the subject of environmental assessment, and in terms of the case-by-case assessment of their materiality. It is argued that this is a misinterpretation of the judgement, similar to SLACC’s Ground 3.