I am no fan of CCS, but the £22bn is across 25 years.
I don’t think that spending less than 1bn a year to research better methods of carbon sequestration is a bad idea, and it definitely won’t meaningfully change the need to drastically reduce the amount of carbon being emitted in every one of those 25 years.
How can I confident in that statement? Because if it would be a meaningful reduction, you’d see a shit load more being spent given just how inexpensive that would be in comparison to the cost of transition and abandoned O&G assets.
it definitely won’t meaningfully change the need to drastically reduce the amount of carbon being emitted
You’re right, but this is also the problem. These oil and gas companies are spending so much on lobbying so they can limp along with lines like:
“We’ll be clean as soon as someone else figures out carbon sequestration”
It’s plastic “recycling” all over again. Yes we do need to spend money on studying these types of solutions, but we need to be VERY careful about letting very powerful industries abuse the system and gaslight their way into continued pollution.
Articles like this are an important reminder - if the major oil lobbyists see this as a good thing, we need to be asking why.
The UK has actual problems to spend [almost] 900 million pounds p.a. on. They could spend it on improving the grid or heat pump subsidies, or on remedying Tory-inflicted social issues. All of which would be massively more effective than wasting it on projects that will never be profitable and will, even conceptually, not be the most effective use of money for at least two decades.
I 100% agree with you! But I think you’re missing some key context on why people are angry about this:
The new UK government is from the center left Labour party, who were elected under the promise (amongst others) that they would do more about carbon change that the previous government
They recently announced funding for carbon capture as the central part of their climate change plan
Their plan to achieve the UK’s legally obligated net zero targets (they no longer plan to reduce emissions by anything more than international law mandates) depends on the success of this very unproven technology
The UK prime minister referred to critics of this scheme (which should include pretty much anyone who wants climate policy to be based on scientific evidence rather than lobbying) “finger wagging extremists” in an opinion piece[1]
So, although I’d support investing into climate capture research as part of a much broader carbon reduction plan, this policy is really an incredible backslide and a massive betrayal of anyone who voted for the party on the basis of their climate change policies.
I’m sorry, but your additions are simply not a correct summary of the situation.
I live in the UK, and first and foremost, The Sun is an absolute shit rag and should never be considered trustworthy. That also isn’t an opinion piece - check the byline - and Starmer’s quote (in bold) is…
But in a direct rebuke, Sir Keir writes on this page: “I know some like Extinction Rebellion will lecture me on carbon capture . . . they’ll say it isn’t the right choice.”
And warning that industries employing tradesmen including sparkies and brickies would go to the wall without action, he insisted: “It’s working people who come first.”
It’s very clear that they are looking in all areas at once, and given the 2030 deadline it’s not accurate to suggest that CCS is a central part of the plan, because it very much isn’t. The plan is 2x solar generation, and 3x wind generation.
Again, I’m not a fan of CCS, but research is a good thing, especially for such a comparatively small price. And we ultimately need to get to carbon negative, and I would expect CCS to be part of that, because scrubbing already released CO2 is going to be a bitch of a challenge, but would logically include things like sequestration in nature (trees, soil, sea grasses, etc).
I don’t agree they’re looking at all areas at once, solar, wind and the net zero per mw by 2030 goal only relate to energy, not things like gas heating reduction, or public transport etc. Energy is also one of the few areas where as a country we’ve already made quite a bit of progress. There are points where only 10% of the UK’s energy comes from fossil fuels.
This ground-breaking technology, known as Carbon Capture Usage and Storage, is a game-changer in our efforts to fulfil our legal obligations to reach Net Zero by 2050 in a sensible way, while supporting jobs and industry.
Shifting focus onto onto bare minimum meeting of legal obligations and positioning carbon capture as a central part of that strategy.
To those drum-banging, finger-wagging extremists I say: I will never sacrifice Great British industry.
Said in opposition to people wanting regulation of carbon emissions over carbon capture investment.
But this is a third way that brings industry with us on our path to Net Zero
Again, in opposition to regulating emissions more strictly.
To be 100% clear, this is speculation from Labours messaging that implies they’re gearing up for a massive backslide, we won’t know for sure until their budget is announced over the next few weeks. I think this is where a lot of objection comes fron though. If we see large investment in public transport and heat pumps, and regulation of emissions, then I’ll be extremely happy to be proved wrong.
Completely agree the 2030 target is electricity, not the entire economy.
For me the key paragraph is in the middle of this section, emphasis mine:
I know some like Extinction Rebellion will lecture me on carbon capture investment. They’ll say it isn’t the right choice.
But it’s working people who come first. Without this tech, heavy industries such as cement, glass-making and chemicals will risk having to down tools.
The Budget in a few weeks’ time will be about fixing the foundations and continuing to show a decisive break from the past
The jobs of brickies, sparkies and engineers — the backbone of Britain — will be risked.
That means fewer new homes, fewer new roads and a slow decline to the dark ages.
These are not impossible industries to decarbonise, but they are very difficult especially with stuff like cement.
Back to your original reply, I don’t think it’s a fair reading of the manifesto to say they promised more than 2030 for electricity and ~2050 for the economy.
Yes I want this to be faster, I’m still pissed off that the £34bn/year for retrofitting, etc, has been watered down multiple times, but - so far - nothing from the manifesto has been scraped.
Come the budget at the end of the month, I may very well be wrong, and very angry.
I am no fan of CCS, but the £22bn is across 25 years.
I don’t think that spending less than 1bn a year to research better methods of carbon sequestration is a bad idea, and it definitely won’t meaningfully change the need to drastically reduce the amount of carbon being emitted in every one of those 25 years.
How can I confident in that statement? Because if it would be a meaningful reduction, you’d see a shit load more being spent given just how inexpensive that would be in comparison to the cost of transition and abandoned O&G assets.
Edit: typos
You’re right, but this is also the problem. These oil and gas companies are spending so much on lobbying so they can limp along with lines like:
“We’ll be clean as soon as someone else figures out carbon sequestration”
It’s plastic “recycling” all over again. Yes we do need to spend money on studying these types of solutions, but we need to be VERY careful about letting very powerful industries abuse the system and gaslight their way into continued pollution.
Articles like this are an important reminder - if the major oil lobbyists see this as a good thing, we need to be asking why.
Absolutely agree.
The UK has actual problems to spend [almost] 900 million pounds p.a. on. They could spend it on improving the grid or heat pump subsidies, or on remedying Tory-inflicted social issues. All of which would be massively more effective than wasting it on projects that will never be profitable and will, even conceptually, not be the most effective use of money for at least two decades.
I 100% agree with you! But I think you’re missing some key context on why people are angry about this:
The new UK government is from the center left Labour party, who were elected under the promise (amongst others) that they would do more about carbon change that the previous government
They recently announced funding for carbon capture as the central part of their climate change plan
Their plan to achieve the UK’s legally obligated net zero targets (they no longer plan to reduce emissions by anything more than international law mandates) depends on the success of this very unproven technology
The UK prime minister referred to critics of this scheme (which should include pretty much anyone who wants climate policy to be based on scientific evidence rather than lobbying) “finger wagging extremists” in an opinion piece[1]
So, although I’d support investing into climate capture research as part of a much broader carbon reduction plan, this policy is really an incredible backslide and a massive betrayal of anyone who voted for the party on the basis of their climate change policies.
Edit: spelling!
[1] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/30855560/keir-starmer-ignore-climate-extremists/
I’m sorry, but your additions are simply not a correct summary of the situation.
I live in the UK, and first and foremost, The Sun is an absolute shit rag and should never be considered trustworthy. That also isn’t an opinion piece - check the byline - and Starmer’s quote (in bold) is…
And that’s it.
Now, this is the relevant press release from the Dept of Energy: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-reignites-industrial-heartlands-10-days-out-from-the-international-investment-summit
And two days before, there was this statement about the approval of 2GW additional solar, and a restatement of the manifesto pledge of clean power (ie electricity) by 2030: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/solar-taskforce-meets-in-drive-for-clean-power
It’s very clear that they are looking in all areas at once, and given the 2030 deadline it’s not accurate to suggest that CCS is a central part of the plan, because it very much isn’t. The plan is 2x solar generation, and 3x wind generation.
Again, I’m not a fan of CCS, but research is a good thing, especially for such a comparatively small price. And we ultimately need to get to carbon negative, and I would expect CCS to be part of that, because scrubbing already released CO2 is going to be a bitch of a challenge, but would logically include things like sequestration in nature (trees, soil, sea grasses, etc).
I don’t agree they’re looking at all areas at once, solar, wind and the net zero per mw by 2030 goal only relate to energy, not things like gas heating reduction, or public transport etc. Energy is also one of the few areas where as a country we’ve already made quite a bit of progress. There are points where only 10% of the UK’s energy comes from fossil fuels.
In fairness, I did share the wrong article, sorry! Here’s the actual opinion piece it’s referring to (which was written in the Sun, I agree it’s a shit rag, but Kier Starmer chose to publish in it, so here we are): https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/30853358/keir-starmer-great-british-industry-net-zero/
Specifically, the bits I’m referring to are:
Shifting focus onto onto bare minimum meeting of legal obligations and positioning carbon capture as a central part of that strategy.
Said in opposition to people wanting regulation of carbon emissions over carbon capture investment.
Again, in opposition to regulating emissions more strictly.
To be 100% clear, this is speculation from Labours messaging that implies they’re gearing up for a massive backslide, we won’t know for sure until their budget is announced over the next few weeks. I think this is where a lot of objection comes fron though. If we see large investment in public transport and heat pumps, and regulation of emissions, then I’ll be extremely happy to be proved wrong.
Thank you for the correct link, much appreciated.
Completely agree the 2030 target is electricity, not the entire economy.
For me the key paragraph is in the middle of this section, emphasis mine:
These are not impossible industries to decarbonise, but they are very difficult especially with stuff like cement.
Back to your original reply, I don’t think it’s a fair reading of the manifesto to say they promised more than 2030 for electricity and ~2050 for the economy.
Yes I want this to be faster, I’m still pissed off that the £34bn/year for retrofitting, etc, has been watered down multiple times, but - so far - nothing from the manifesto has been scraped.
Come the budget at the end of the month, I may very well be wrong, and very angry.
Edit on budget day: I wasn’t.