The UK's Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) program, a £264 billion project, is a prime example of how government policy can be shaped by powerful interests, in this case, the fossil fuel industry. This program, which aims to reduce carbon emissions, is instead likely to increase them, as it is heavily reliant on fossil fuels and hydrogen production from fossil gas. The project's costs, which will be borne by the public and private sectors, are expected to be substantial, with the government committing to pay a 'premium' for the hydrogen produced by the CCS program for 15 years. This commitment is uncosted, but could run to tens of billions more. The program's reliance on fossil fuels is particularly concerning, as it will lead to more gas use and imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which has higher emissions than coal. The UK's Climate Change Committee claims that CCS is essential for cutting carbon emissions, but its own data shows that only 5-6% of CCS deployment in the UK will be used to address the emissions of industrial sectors such as chemicals and cement, whose impact is hard to abate. The program's true aim, in my opinion, is to provide a gigantic, publicly funded reason for the fossil fuel industry to stay in business. The lead operator of the government's first CCS cluster is BP, which has a long history of financing and steering climate research to promote CCS as a viable solution. The 'Wedges' paper, published in 2004, became a foundation of government policy around the world, and it greatly oversold CCS, presenting it as 'already deployed at an industrial scale'. Since then, there has been a long record of shiny promises followed by partial or total failures. The UK's CCS program is a prime example of how government policy can be shaped by powerful interests, and it raises important questions about the effectiveness and integrity of climate solutions. Personally, I think that the UK government should re-evaluate its priorities and focus on scaling up renewables and battery storage instead of investing in CCS. In my opinion, this would lead to much lower climate impacts and much lower bills. The program's costs, which will be borne by the public and private sectors, are expected to be substantial, with the government committing to pay a 'premium' for the hydrogen produced by the CCS program for 15 years. This commitment is uncosted, but could run to tens of billions more. The program's reliance on fossil fuels is particularly concerning, as it will lead to more gas use and imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which has higher emissions than coal. The UK's Climate Change Committee claims that CCS is essential for cutting carbon emissions, but its own data shows that only 5-6% of CCS deployment in the UK will be used to address the emissions of industrial sectors such as chemicals and cement, whose impact is hard to abate. The program's true aim, in my opinion, is to provide a gigantic, publicly funded reason for the fossil fuel industry to stay in business. The lead operator of the government's first CCS cluster is BP, which has a long history of financing and steering climate research to promote CCS as a viable solution. The 'Wedges' paper, published in 2004, became a foundation of government policy around the world, and it greatly oversold CCS, presenting it as 'already deployed at an industrial scale'. Since then, there has been a long record of shiny promises followed by partial or total failures. The UK's CCS program is a prime example of how government policy can be shaped by powerful interests, and it raises important questions about the effectiveness and integrity of climate solutions. From my perspective, the UK government should re-evaluate its priorities and focus on scaling up renewables and battery storage instead of investing in CCS. This would lead to much lower climate impacts and much lower bills.
