Following years of fossil fuel lobbying, the UK Government has developed plans for carbon capture which are a dangerous mistake. Here’s how you can help stop them.
By Dr Andrew Boswell and Simon Oldridge
Key Points
- UK carbon capture plans revolve around building new fossil-gas infrastructure, which could be just as damaging as coal for global warming—even if the technology works.
- These plans would raise household and industry energy bills – according to MPs on the influential Public Accounts Committee [1].
- Carbon capture in the UK could cost £400bn by 2050 diverting vital resources from real climate action: investing to cut energy demand, rapidly deploying renewable energy and energy storage, and restoring nature.
What can you do?
Watch and share the campaign video
As climate impacts intensify, capturing carbon emissions before they reach the atmosphere might sound like a good idea. Indeed, carbon capture could play a role in certain industrial processes—though doubts persist around its feasibility and cost, especially with better alternatives emerging that allow us to design out carbon pollution altogether.
However, the UK government’s carbon capture plans are not about solving the climate crisis—they’re a lifeline for Big Oil.
The core issue with the government’s carbon capture strategy is its heavy reliance on building new fossil fuel infrastructure—specifically gas power stations and ‘blue’ hydrogen plants. Even decarbonisation of industrial processes like cement depends upon this fossil fuel infrastructure being built first in the UK’s “cluster model” for CCS – a model lobbied for by Big Oil because it locks in fossil fuels. Even if the fossil fuel industry keeps its promises (a very big “if”), the carbon footprint of these operations is expected to be roughly as bad as burning coal.
Why is this the case?
North Sea reserves are nearly exhausted, and we already import around a quarter [2] of the gas we burn in the UK as Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), largely from the USA [3]. New gas power stations will increase imports, but here’s the kicker: imported US gas has a carbon footprint roughly a third higher than coal [4], due largely to leaks of potent warming gas methane along the supply chain. With North Sea gas already maxed out and in decline, the extra gas needed for these new plants will mean further increasing LNG imports—and President Trump is pushing Europe hard to buy more. Emissions are slightly lower from other sources like Qatar, but the warming impact remains very significant.
But won’t emissions be captured? Unfortunately most of the emissions won’t be, because they happen along the supply chain, well before the gas reaches the power station. Methane (aka ‘natural’ gas) is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, 84 times more harmful than CO₂ over 20 years. A recent landmark study [4] revealed that only about one-third of the warming impact from imported US gas comes from burning it at its final destination—the other two-thirds occur during extraction, processing, and transport. Carbon capture doesn’t address these upstream emissions.
How could the Government allow this?
The UK Government only accounts for emissions produced within its borders, as per international conventions and the 2008 Climate Change Act. This outdated framework fails to capture the full climate impact of our activities when they depend on fossil fuel imports. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) also ignores these emissions when they advise the Government. The CAN Bill would remedy this problem, ensuring we take responsibility for all our emissions.
In contrast, businesses and even cities routinely take responsibility for their entire carbon footprint, including ‘scope 3’ emissions—those generated indirectly through the entire supply chain. The government needs to catch up and acknowledge that the climate doesn’t respect borders.
What do the Government’s advisers say?
The chair of the Climate Change Committee, Prof Piers Forster, has stated clearly [5] that carbon capture should not be used to generate electricity (as currently planned), but because the Climate Change Committee is bound by law to ignore non-UK emissions, that advice has not been formally given to Government. This should be a red flag for ministers genuinely concerned with addressing climate change.
Is there still a role for carbon capture?
Potentially, yes—but not the way the government is currently pursuing it, focused on prolonging fossil fuels. For some industrial processes, there isn’t yet an alternative to capturing carbon. However, if CCS is used for these, the CO₂ transport and storage system, which compresses the CO₂ and takes it for storage typically under the sea should not rely on new fossil plants – as it currently does in the UK cluster model. It can and should be driven by renewable energy instead.
However, it is very uncertain that the CO₂ storage for CCS clusters can be expanded to support industrial emissions at the rates required. For example, analysis of the Teesside Endurance sub-sea CO₂ site [6] suggests an initial storage capacity of 4 million tonnes per year (Mtpa) for 25 years is within safe pressure limits, but expanding beyond this rate to accommodate more annual CO₂ storage for industrial processes has no certainty of success.
A more forward-thinking approach would look at the full emissions picture, and prioritise redesigning industrial processes from the ground up. For instance, switching steel production to electric arc furnaces might be expensive, but it’s an investment in a sustainable future.
Instead of deluding ourselves into thinking that we can continue burning fossil fuels with fake solutions, we should build systems fit for the 21st century. Please write to your MP or arrange to meet with them at the link below
