Analysis by climate experts Dr Andrew Boswell and Simon Oldridge has revealed that the UK government's carbon capture and storage (CCS) programme could cost £264bn by 2050, far exceeding the official £21.7bn figure. The cost will be divided between the public and private sectors, with the public likely bearing most of it through direct government spending and levies on energy bills.
Public accounts committee warns of high-risk approach
An investigation by the House of Commons public accounts committee found that roughly 25% of public CCS costs will be borne directly by the government, while the remainder will come from extra levies on energy bills. This could add up to £198bn to household bills. The committee described the government's approach as 'high-risk' by backing first-of-a-kind, unproven technologies with large amounts of taxpayer and consumer funding.
CCS to increase emissions, not reduce them
Despite government claims that CCS is essential for cutting carbon emissions, the Climate Change Committee's own data shows that only 5-6% of UK CCS deployment will address hard-to-abate industrial sectors. The vast majority will be attached to new fossil fuel-burning power stations, wood-burning power stations, and hydrogen production from fossil gas. Experts argue that battery technology and renewables offer cheaper, more effective alternatives.
Fossil fuel lobbying behind CCS push
In 2023 alone, oil companies Equinor, BP, and ExxonMobil attended 24 meetings with Conservative ministers to discuss CCS. Investigative work by ProPublica and Drilled revealed that BP helped shape the scientific credibility of CCS by financing and steering the influential 'Wedges' climate paper published in 2004. The paper oversold CCS as 'already deployed at an industrial scale' despite minimal testing.
Three previous UK CCS attempts have been abandoned due to cost escalation and infeasibility. The lead operator of the government's first CCS cluster is BP, highlighting the industry's influence. George Monbiot, a Guardian columnist, describes the programme as 'a gigantic, publicly funded reason for the fossil fuel industry to stay in business.'
