The UK government's carbon capture and storage (CCS) programme is a colossal waste, costing up to £264 billion by 2050, according to climate experts Dr Andrew Boswell and Simon Oldridge. This figure, far exceeding the government's stated £21.7 billion for the first phase, will largely be borne by the public through direct spending and energy bill levies, potentially adding £198 billion to household bills. George Monbiot argues that cancelling the programme would save money and reduce climate harm.
Massive Costs Hidden in Plain Sight
The projected £264 billion cost was derived from Climate Change Committee data scattered across spreadsheets. The House of Commons public accounts committee found that roughly 25% of public CCS costs will come directly from the government, with the rest from energy bill surcharges. An uncosted commitment to pay a premium for hydrogen produced by CCS for 15 years could add tens of billions more.
CCS Will Increase Emissions, Not Reduce Them
Despite government claims, CCS is not essential for cutting emissions. Only 5-6% of UK CCS deployment will address hard-to-abate industrial sectors like chemicals and cement. The majority will support new fossil fuel and wood-burning power stations and hydrogen from fossil gas. Given rapid battery technology advances enabling reliable renewable electricity, the Climate Change Committee's justification is baseless. Producing hydrogen from gas with CCS will cost twice as much by 2050 as electrolysis using renewables.
Fossil Fuel Lobbying Drives Policy
The programme appears driven by fossil fuel lobbying. In 2023, Equinor, BP, and ExxonMobil attended 24 meetings with Conservative ministers on CCS. The Climate Change Committee admits that gas with CCS accounts for half of remaining fossil fuel demand in 2050, providing a lifeline for the industry. Investigative work by ProPublica and Drilled revealed that BP financed and shaped the influential 2004 'Wedges' climate paper, which oversold CCS as 'already deployed at an industrial scale' despite minimal testing. Three of the paper's 15 climate actions relied on CCS.
History of Failure
The UK has abandoned three CCS attempts (2005 Peterhead plan, 2011 demonstration project, 2012 funding competition) due to cost overruns and infeasibility. The public accounts committee warns the government is taking a high-risk approach by backing unproven technologies. BP is the lead operator of the government's first CCS cluster, highlighting the industry's influence. Monbiot concludes that the programme is a publicly funded reason for fossil fuel companies to stay in business, wasting money and time while ignoring better alternatives.
