‘No to new coal? That’s environmental nimbyism’

The construction of energy company E.ON’s proposed Kingsnorth coal-generated power plant in Kent, England, has been delayed until 2016 because of the recession and a decline in electricity demand, reported BBC News last month.

The news came as a victory for protesters, local residents and environmentalists who have actively worked to stop the coal plant from being built since its inception.

But Times of London journalist Hugo Rifkind was absolutely outraged by the plant’s delay. In a recent editorial, he said that anti-Kingsnorth activists touting the message of “no new coal” were “not saving the planet” but were instead practicing “environmental nimbyism.”

Rifkind wrote: “The new plant at Kingsnorth would have been one of the most efficient, cleanest coal stations in the world, at the forefront of developing what they call ‘carbon capture and storage’ technology, which seeks to find a way to hold on to CO2, rather than blasting it out in the world. Who’s going to figure that out now, then?”

Rifkind went on to say that “coal isn’t going to disappear from the world just because it disappears from a small corner of Kent.”

We agree. According to the International Energy Agency, coal provides more than 41 percent of the world’s electricity and will be used as a major power source for years to come.

In any case, refusing to support new coal plants means we’ll just be using older, less technologically advanced facilities to produce electricity – and that’s not good for anyone. That’s why it’s so important that plants like Kingsnorth are built. The advanced, emissions-trapping technologies that will be a part of these future power plants will allow us to continue to use coal to generate affordable electricity while also protecting our environment – and that’s good for everyone.