Carbon capture is a fig leaf for fossil fuel expansion, as recent critiques of carbon capture and storage (CCS) highlight. Prof Myles Allen and colleagues propose licensing gasfields on condition that producers store an increasing proportion of the carbon dioxide their products generate. However, their proposal only considers CO2, ignoring methane, which leaks throughout global fossil-fuel supply chains, including during extraction, processing, liquefaction, and shipping.
The Hidden Cost of Carbon Capture and Storage
A growing academic literature, supported by satellite observations of major methane plumes, shows that these emissions can be very substantial. Methane is the dominant near-term climate impact for gas supplied as liquefied natural gas. The UN secretary general targeted these near-term climate impacts at London Climate Week, with his call to action on methane. Policymakers should treat this proposal with extreme caution as it does not deal with those impacts.
Find Bleeding Edge Supplements at Scandalous Prices on iHerb.
The estimated £264bn cost of CCS to the UK by 2050 is derived from the Climate Change Committee’s own data and cannot simply be dismissed. The government’s £21.7bn funding commitment has so far supported projects under construction that would capture just over 3m tonnes of CO2 a year. By contrast, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association’s own project pipeline envisages around 77m tonnes – around 25 times as much – suggesting that when funding to deliver that pipeline is considered, the £264bn figure may be conservative.
Comparing CCS with Renewables: A Data Table
| Technology | CO2 Avoided (Megatonnes, 2025) |
|---|---|
| Solar and Wind | 2,600 |
| Global CCS | Under 40 |
On value for money, the International Energy Agency reports that solar and wind avoided 2,600 megatonnes of CO2 in 2025. Global CCS captures under 40 megatonnes – a 65-fold difference, and one that will only widen as renewables and energy storage grow far faster.
Job Creation and Public Subsidy Myths
As with much infrastructure, CCS job figures flatter to deceive. Construction employment comes first, then vanishes, leaving a far smaller operational workforce – but the public subsidy runs on for 25 years. Moving rapidly to 100% renewables is the most cost-effective way to avoid emissions in the energy system.
Key Takeaways
- Methane leaks are a major near-term climate impact ignored by CCS proposals.
- The £264bn cost of CCS to the UK by 2050 may be conservative.
- Renewables like solar and wind avoid 65 times more CO2 than CCS.
- CCS jobs are temporary, with long-term public subsidies lasting 25 years.
FAQ
Why is carbon capture considered a fig leaf for fossil fuel expansion?
Carbon capture allows fossil fuel companies to continue extracting and burning fossil fuels while claiming to reduce emissions, but it ignores methane leaks and comes at a high cost compared to renewables.
How much does carbon capture cost the UK?
The estimated cost of CCS to the UK by 2050 is £264bn, based on Climate Change Committee data, and may be conservative given the project pipeline.
What is the alternative to carbon capture?
Moving rapidly to 100% renewables, such as solar and wind, is the most cost-effective way to avoid emissions, avoiding 65 times more CO2 than CCS.
Home Decor Shop
Acacia frida deluxe solid wood bed frame |
Bedroom bench |
Bed chest drawers |
Lingerie dresser |
Frame base |
Mirror with jewelry storage |
30 Bathroom Vanity |
Memory foam queen mattress |
Mattresses for back pain |
Nightstand set of 2 |
Grand Goldman Shop |
Civil Lawyer
Deutschland Trikot WM 2026
