Carbon capture criticised as costly and ineffective
In a series of letters responding to a recent article, experts have sharply criticised carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a fig leaf for continued fossil fuel expansion. Andrew Boswell of Carbon Reckoning and Simon Oldridge, co-founder of the National Emergency Briefing, challenge claims made by Prof Myles Allen and the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA).
Methane emissions ignored in CCS proposals
Boswell points out that Prof Allen's proposal to license gasfields on condition that producers store an increasing proportion of CO2 only considers carbon dioxide, deliberately excluding methane. Methane leaks throughout global fossil-fuel supply chains, including extraction, processing, liquefaction and shipping. Satellite observations have revealed substantial methane plumes, making it the dominant near-term climate impact for liquefied natural gas (LNG). The UN secretary general specifically targeted these impacts at London Climate Week.
£264bn cost and questionable value for money
The estimated £264bn cost of CCS to the UK by 2050, derived from the Climate Change Committee's data, cannot be dismissed. The government's £21.7bn funding commitment supports projects capturing just over 3 million tonnes of CO2 annually, while the CCSA's own pipeline envisages around 77 million tonnes—25 times as much—suggesting the £264bn figure may be conservative. In contrast, the International Energy Agency reports that solar and wind avoided 2,600 megatonnes of CO2 in 2025, while global CCS captures under 40 megatonnes—a 65-fold difference set to widen as renewables grow.
Job figures and public subsidy
Boswell notes that CCS job figures are misleading: construction employment is temporary, leaving a smaller operational workforce, yet public subsidy runs for 25 years. The cost per lasting job is extraordinary.
CCS programme mostly for new gas power stations
Oldridge challenges CCSA CEO Olivia Powis's portrayal of CCS as mainly for industrial emissions. George Monbiot's article showed only about 5% of projected CCS costs relate to hard-to-abate industry; the majority is for new gas power stations, fossil gas hydrogen, and bioenergy. Crucially, the CCSA generally proposes building new gas plants, not retrofitting existing ones, with public money.
Imported LNG and upstream emissions
The UK already imports a quarter of its gas as LNG, mostly from US fracking, involving substantial methane emissions along the supply chain. Every new gas power station increases demand for imported LNG, locking in upstream emissions that CCS will not capture. Oldridge argues that while Prof Allen's proposal for fossil fuel companies to pay for carbon disposal is good, it does not answer the criticism that CCS enables fossil fuel expansion.
Renewable energy and nature restoration as alternatives
Oldridge concludes that continued fossil fuel investment is not the only option. 'Experts in the field now agree that a 100% renewable energy system is technically feasible. It can be deployed rapidly,' he writes. Meanwhile, restoring nature offers a proven, cost-effective way to remove residual carbon while benefiting wildlife, flood protection, and public health.
