UK to shut down coal

The leaders of the UK's three main political parties have signed an agreement aimed at phasing out "unabated" coal power generation.

Environmental groups broadly welcomed the move, but said the agreement lacked detail.

Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats and Labour opposition leader Ed Miliband committed to ending power generation from coal plants that do not use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

CCS compresses CO2 and stores it deep underground, rather than releasing it into the atmosphere.

A historic move?

The UK is the first industrialized country to announce plans to phase out the carbon-heavy fuel. The coal industry played an important role in its economy from the industrial revolution on. Today coal provides a third of the UK’s electricity.

Susanne Neubronner, a coal expert at Greenpeace, said the agreement sent an important message ahead of international climate talks at the end of the year, aimed at a new, binding, international climate treaty.

"Overall, it is a good sign for Europe and the world that the UK, one of the biggest coal nations, would like to quit using coal in the long run," Neubronner told DW. But she added that the agreement failed to mention a time frame.

Setting the tone of Paris 2015

The declaration came on the heels of a six-day meeting in Geneva where delegates agreed on an early draft of the new international climate treaty. The treaty is to be signed in Paris in December 2015, nailing down binding climate targets for all 194 member states.

In Paris, British politicians say they will push for an agreement to limit global warming to two degrees. To achieve this, fossil fuel power generation without CCS technology must end by 2100, according to a UN panel of climate scientists.

The joint climate pledge from Cameron, Clegg and Miliband acknowledges that "climate change is one of the most serious threats facing the world today. It is not just a threat to the environment, but also to our national and global security, to poverty eradication and economic prosperity."

Besides ending the use of unabated coal for power generation, they pledged to "work together, across party lines" to achieve climate goals.

The UK has a general election approaching in May. Antony Froggatt, senior research fellow at the Chatham House think tank in London, said the party leaders’ joint statement sent a signal that regardless of who wins the election, there will be a focus on climate policies in the coming years – which was important in light of the climate talks in December.

Role model for Europe?

The only European countries that generate more power from coal than the UK are Germany and Poland. But experts said the announcement should not be expected to prompt similar plans around Europe.

Froggatt said that because European energy markets differ considerably, British strategies are not necessarily applicable in other countries.

"It's written in the stars whether any other country will be convinced to phase out coal power plants without investing in nuclear energy or other high-risk technology," said Greenpeace’s Neubronner.

"In the end, what really matters is: How can a country find a way with renewable energy only?"

Question mark over alternative power sources

While generally supportive of the cross-party agreement, Neubronner said it was disappointing that no deadline had been put on the UK’s exit from coal.

Another snag is the uncertainty over alternative sources of power. So far, no strategy has been announced to make up the shortfall of power if coal-fired plants are shut down.

Neubronner is concerned that coal might be replaced with nuclear power. This would allow the UK to achieve its aim of reducing CO2 emissions, but Greenpeace believes it would be the wrong approach.

"Nuclear power generation is a high-risk technology,” said Neubronner. “And the British power plant fleet in particular is old and prone to bugs."

Another option would be to set up coal power plants that operate with CCS. But such technology is expensive and, Neubronner said, risky.