The coal debate: why Kingsnorth power station is an issue for Oxfam

Here in Britain we have a long-standing relationship with coal.

Over centuries, billions of tonnes of it have been mined from our landscape. For some it's simply the 'black gold' that powered the Industrial Revolution. While to others it's an industry that entire towns have been built on the back of.

But whatever your views, there's one thing for certain - coal is made of carbon, and the world-wide burning of this small black rock is the highest global source of CO2 emissions.

So the question is - why is Oxfam interested in coal?

At the beginning of October, we launched Forecast for Tomorrow - a review of good and bad climate change policy and practice in the UK - and began the latest stage of our climate change campaign.

Oxfam is a charity known by most for high-street shops and disaster relief, so campaigning on climate change might seem like unfamiliar ground.

However, there is a profound connection between climate change and poverty.

For rich countries, the effect that increasingly erratic weather is having on day-to-day lives is relatively small. But in poor countries it's a different story. Climate change is not a distant worry; it's a real and present nightmare.

For poor people - who are often subsistence farmers, spending up to 80 per cent of their income on food - there is little scope to manage the effects of climate change.

In coastal areas of Bangladesh, the salinisation of land is hampering food production and reducing water quality.

Last year, Oxfam responded to the worst floods in Africa in 30 years.

People living in poverty are more vulnerable because they're often forced to live in temporary settlements, on land prone to flooding, storms and landslides. Making a living is already hard - few have savings or government help to fall back on in an emergency.

In the UK we're proud of the progress we're already making on tackling climate change. And quite rightly too. From the plastic bag recycling revolution, to low-carbon towns, to the groundbreaking Climate Bill, we've taken giant steps forward in just a few years.

Yet the actions of a minority of powerful players, such as Shell - who are planning to treble their investment in oil sands, which is at least 300 per cent more polluting to produce than conventional oil - are threatening to undo this progress.

And so that brings us back to coal.

E.ON, the UK's second largest energy company, is planning to invest in new coal power at Kingsnorth, Kent.

If Kingsnorth gets the go ahead it will be the first new coal fired power station in the UK for 30 years, churning out over 7 million tonnes of CO2 annually - threatening to undermine the UK as an international leader on climate change, and the consequences of which will be felt hardest by the millions of poor people already living on the frontline of climate change.

How can the UK expect other countries not to use coal if it chooses to do so, and how can it expect to lead by example?

Investing in new coal at Kingsnorth will clearly be inconsistent with realizing the human rights of poor people today and in the future.

And the truth is we don't need new coal. By insulating homes, by being more energy efficient, and by investing in renewables, we can plug the energy gap. And for all E.ON's talk of how the emission from Kingsnorth will be buried underground, there is no coal plant anywhere in the world that has carbon capture technology functioning at a commercial scale.

E.ON know that green, clean solutions exist - they are investing in the UK's largest windfarm, the London Array. But of the top six energy companies they have one of the poorest track records in investing in renewables.

The switch to a low carbon future must come - the lives of millions of the world's poorest people depends on it. And with our voices, we can put pressure on E.ON to choose clean, climate-friendly energy.