Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is increasingly promoted as a climate solution, but critics argue it serves as a fig leaf for fossil fuel expansion. Prof Myles Allen and colleagues recently proposed licensing gasfields on condition that producers store an increasing proportion of the carbon dioxide their products generate. However, this proposal ignores methane, a potent greenhouse gas that leaks throughout global fossil-fuel supply chains.
The Methane Blind Spot in CCS Proposals
Methane emissions are excluded by choice from the CCS licensing framework, yet they are the dominant near-term climate impact for gas supplied as liquefied natural gas. A growing body of academic literature, supported by satellite observations of major methane plumes, shows these emissions can be very substantial. The UN secretary general highlighted this at London Climate Week with his call to action on methane. Policymakers should treat any CCS proposal with extreme caution if it does not address these near-term impacts.
The Staggering Cost of CCS
The estimated £264bn cost of CCS to the UK by 2050 is derived from the Climate Change Committee’s own data and cannot 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—roughly 25 times as much—suggesting the £264bn figure may be conservative.
Comparing CCS to Renewables: A Value Gap
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 that will only widen as renewables and energy storage grow far faster. Moving rapidly to 100% renewables is the most cost-effective way to avoid emissions in the energy system.
| Technology | CO2 Avoided/Captured (Megatonnes, 2025) | Cost Efficiency |
|---|---|---|
| Solar & Wind | 2,600 | High (rapidly falling costs) |
| Carbon Capture (CCS) | Under 40 | Low (requires massive subsidy) |
CCS Job Creation: Temporary and Misleading
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. Per job, the cost is enormous compared to investing in renewable energy projects that create sustained employment.
Key Takeaways
- CCS proposals often ignore methane emissions, which are a dominant near-term climate impact.
- The UK’s CCS costs could reach £264bn by 2050, with current projects capturing only a fraction of planned capacity.
- Renewables avoid 65 times more CO2 than CCS captures, at a fraction of the cost.
- CCS job creation is temporary, while subsidies last decades, making it poor value for money.
FAQ
Is carbon capture a solution for fossil fuel expansion?
No, critics argue that CCS acts as a fig leaf for continued fossil fuel expansion by not addressing methane leaks and being far less cost-effective than renewable energy.
Why is methane a problem in CCS proposals?
Methane leaks throughout fossil-fuel supply chains and has a much stronger near-term warming effect than CO2. Most CCS proposals exclude methane, making them incomplete climate solutions.
How does the cost of CCS compare to renewables?
Renewables like solar and wind avoid 65 times more CO2 than CCS captures, and their costs continue to fall. CCS requires massive public subsidies with limited long-term impact.
