Billions risked on 'unproven' green tech, MPs warn
The government is committing billions of pounds to an "unproven" green technology for reducing planet-warming gases without considering the impact on consumers' bills, MPs have warned.Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) facilities prevent carbon dioxide, produced by industry, being released into the atmosphere by capturing and storing it underground.In October, the government pledged nearly £22bn for CCUS facilities and three quarters of the money will be raised from consumer bills.But on Friday, the House of Commons' Public Accounts Committee raised serious concerns that the government had not properly assessed the financial impact on households and businesses.
"It is an unproven technology, certainly in this country. And we are concerned this policy is going to have a very significant effect on consumers' and industry's electricity bills," said Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, a cross-party group of MPs which scrutinises public spending.The government said that it would formally respond to the committee, but that CCUS was a "necessity not an option" for reaching its climate goals.It said in a statement that this type of technology would make Britain's energy system secure, something that would lower electricity costs and bills. The UK has a target to reach "net zero" - meaning no longer adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, by 2050. As the country switches to renewable energy and away from fossil fuels for heating homes and running cars, greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide, also known as CO2, will fall.But a small amount of gas will still need to be used to maintain electricity supply and there are some industries such as cement where there are few green alternatives. Carbon capture could prevent the CO2 produced by these processes from entering the atmosphere - and the government has bet achieving its climate goals on it.Both the UK's independent climate watchdog and the UN's climate science body, the IPCC, agree that CCUS will be needed if countries want to reach net zero and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.By 2050, the government wants carbon capture and storage to prevent the emitting of 50 million tonnes of CO2 - more than 10% of what the country currently releases - and has committed £21.7bn to achieving this goal.The funding, announced in October, will go towards clusters of carbon capture projects in Merseyside and Teesside, which it said would create thousands of jobs and attract private investment.Dr Stuart Jenkins, research fellow at the University of Oxford, pushed back on the committee's assessment of the technology."I really don't like the phrase "unproven" technology, it is not representative of the status of the technology as an engineering problem," he said.Although there are no commercial CCUS sites in the UK, there are 45 commercial facilities already operating globally capturing around 50 million tonnes of CO2, and there are more than 700 being proposed or developed, according to the International Energy Agency.But Dr Jenkins did agree with the Public Accounts Committee that there were questions about whether the government's current funding model was sustainable.The committee have recommended that the full financial impact of the programme on consumers be properly assessed, taking account of cost-of-living pressures.
The committee did recognise the importance of early government support for novel technologies like CCUS to give confidence to the industry.But it added it "was surprised" to discover that the government had signed two contracts with CCUS developers last year and not guaranteed that if the projects were successful that the government - and the public - would receive profits or benefits such as lower energy bills."If you were a venture capitalist investing this sort of sum of money, which is effectively what the taxpayers are doing here, you would expect to have a big equity stake in this whole thing," said Sir Clifton-Brown.His committee recommended that any future contracts be changed to include profit-sharing mechanisms.The government said that it expected the £21.7bn funding for CCUS to unlock £8bn in private sector investment over the next 25 years.
Mirte Boot, co-founder of Carbon Balance Initiative and research associate at University of Oxford, said her team's research suggests a better long-term model for financing could be introducing a carbon storage mandate - placing a legal obligation on fossil fuel producers to store a share of the CO2 they produce, or face a financial penalty."We argue that carbon storage mandates on fossil fuel producers are fair whilst also providing the kind of investment certainty that companies need," she said.
Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC's Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
6 hours ago
- BBC News
Prince William calls on world leaders to protect ocean
Prince William has urged world leaders to "act together with urgency" in order to protect the planet's delivered a speech on Sunday saying how important oceans are for our environment and that more money needs to be spent to preserve them. The prince was speaking in Monaco at a special event ahead of the United Nations (UN) Oceans Conference in Nice, France. What is the UN Oceans Conference? It's a big event where countries come together to talk about how best to protect our last one happened three years ago, and the aim this time is to get 60 countries to approve something called the High Seas they do, it would give 30% of the seas around the world protected status to stop overfishing and other damaging practices. The conference, which is happening all week, will also look at the role oceans play in global trade, food security and sustainable energy. What did Prince William say? Speaking to an audience of environmentalists, scientists and investors, Prince William said life on the ocean floor was "diminishing before our eyes" and called for ambitious action "on a global, national and local level".He said he understood the sea can feel "distant" to many at times, but that we shouldn't underestimate its importance: "For many, it is an urgent wake-up call to just what is going on in our oceans. But it can no longer be a matter of 'out of sight, out of mind'."The truth is that healthy oceans are essential to all life on earth. They generate half of the world's oxygen, regulate our climate and provide food for more than three billion people," he ended his speech by quoting Sir David Attenborough: "If we save the sea, we save our world." Why are oceans important? Oceans are a vital part of the planet's ecosystem - especially since they cover 70% of the surface of produce over half the world's oxygen we need to breathe, and absorb tonnes of carbon dioxide, the planet-warming greenhouse gas. Millions of different species live in the sea, which are, among other things, crucial for many people's diets around the they're a huge source of renewable energy, as the motion waves they make can be turned into electricity. The Attenborough effect Ahead of the Oceans Conference, Buckingham Palace released a video of Prince William chatting with environmental legend Sir David Attenborough has recently released a film called Oceans, in which he states how important it is that people look after speaking to the prince, Sir David said he hopes the leaders gathering for the UN conference will "realise how much the oceans matter to all of us, the citizens of the world".
Scotsman
13 hours ago
- Scotsman
Why Tories must stop agreeing with Farage and start attacking him to survive
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... On April 15, 2010, the UK held its first-ever televised general election debate, pitting Labour's Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister, against David Cameron of the Conservatives, with Nick Clegg expected to do little more than make up the numbers. However, if that was the anticipated script, no one told Clegg, who spoke so persuasively that the catchphrase of the night was 'I agree with Nick' as both Cameron and Brown sought to side with him. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In a snap YouGov poll after the contest, 51 per cent declared the Liberal Democrat leader to be the winner, with Cameron on 29 and Brown on 19. While 'Cleggmania' proved short-lived, the clear lesson was that agreeing with a political opponent tends to benefit them. Delegates at the Conservative party conference in 2023 pose for a photograph with Nigel Farage (Picture: Oli Scarff) | AFP via Getty Images A political cataclysm looms Fifteen years later, and the Conservatives' current strategy to defeat Reform UK, by echoing its rhetoric, is backfiring even more badly. While the 2010 debate was a one-off event, the Tories have effectively been campaigning for Reform for years. In Thursday's Hamilton by-election, the Conservative candidate received just 1,621 votes, down from 6,332 at the last Scottish Parliament election, while Reform got 7,088, not far behind the winner, Labour's Davy Russell, and the SNP in second. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As the Scottish Tories prepare for their party conference this week, a major topic of discussion must be about finding ways to disagree with Reform, if they wish to survive what threatens to become a political event as cataclysmic as the collapse of the old Liberal party after the First World War. Farage is out to destroy the Tories, and they must be as determined and ruthless. There is much to go at. Many of Reform's policies are patently ridiculous and some are downright dangerous. Keir Starmer's claim that Farage would 'crash the economy' like Liz Truss was a good line, and the Conservatives need to find similarly resonant ways of highlighting the very real dangers of voting for Reform.
The National
14 hours ago
- The National
Defence review dodges Britain's nuclear blind spot
Presented as a roadmap to 'Make Britain Safer', the review promised clarity and accountability, but it fails to confront the most pressing truths: that the UK's nuclear programme is financially unsustainable, strategically unbalanced, increasingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all. These concerns are not hypothetical. In the final months of the last Parliament, I raised them on the floor of the House of Commons, not out of party dogma, but in response to serious and public allegations from Dominic Cummings, former chief adviser to the then prime minister, remember him? He described Britain's nuclear infrastructure as a 'dangerous disaster', responsible for the secret 'cannibalisation' of other national security budgets and shielded from meaningful scrutiny. READ MORE: UK won't recognise Palestine at UN conference despite 'discussions', reports say Whatever one thinks of Cummings or the nuclear deterrent, the substance of these allegations is disturbingly familiar. The National Audit Office (NAO) has echoed similar concerns, reporting a projected defence funding gap of up to £29.8 billion, with nuclear and Royal Navy costs rising the most sharply. These are not partisan claims, they're structural failures. That day in the Commons, the then-shadow defence secretary, now the Secretary of State, was present to hear them and now in government, he has chosen not to challenge or investigate them, he's just sidestepped them entirely. Nuclear ringfencing: A cost we refuse to count The UK Defence Review reaffirms the nuclear deterrent as the UK's 'top defence priority' and explicitly commits to protecting its funding through ringfencing, yet it offers no detailed breakdown of those costs and barely acknowledges the impact this has on the rest of the armed forces. At one point, the review admits that nuclear spending 'might have forced savings in essential capabilities' – a remarkable understatement. Behind this phrase lies a wider truth: that the UK's defence strategy is being skewed by a deterrent whose costs are rising beyond control, shielded from accountability by MOD political taboo. There is no analysis in the review of how ringfencing distorts capability development, procurement planning or readiness in the conventional forces. In a document designed to show how Britain will 'balance' risk and resilience, this omission is fatal. Procurement dysfunction: Recognised, and untouched The review admits what every oversight body has said for years: defence procurement is broken. Projects are delayed, over budget and misaligned with modern threats. Yet beyond nodding at the problem, the review offers no structural reform. Cummings alleged that the MOD continued to fund 'legacy disasters' while gutting new capabilities. Those criticisms align with a long history of NAO reports, whether on AJAX, Type 26 delays or wider programme mismanagement. The review responds with little more than the promise of procurement 'measured in months, not years'. READ MORE: 'Joy, celebration and warmth' of Palestinian art to be showcased at Edinburgh Fringe Unsurprisingly, there's no serious roadmap, no new governance model, no mechanism to hold decision-makers in the MOD accountable and without these, the same dysfunction will continue to waste billions, no matter how polished the strategic language. Where is the democratic oversight? Perhaps most worrying is the review's treatment of oversight. Cummings claimed that key decisions about the UK's nuclear strategy were made through 'secret tunnel' processes that excluded even senior ministers. If true, this undermines the core principles of democratic governance of departments. The review's answer is to propose that a new National Security Council (Nuclear), a closed ministerial subcommittee, should meet twice a year to review progress; that is not oversight, it's entrenchment. There's a passing reference to potential 'enhanced parliamentary scrutiny under appropriate conditions' with no clarity on what that actually means, or how it would be applied, and no mention of expanding the role of Select Committees or publishing clearer data for Parliament as many nuclear Nato allies do. For an area of defence with the greatest cost and risk, the lack of democratic scrutiny is glaring and frankly a dereliction of duty. A missed opportunity Labour's Strategic Defence Review 2025 had a rare opportunity to correct course by managing it more transparently, more accountably and with greater strategic realism. Even those of us opposed to the nuclear enterprise in its entirety couldn't and shouldn't oppose increased scrutiny. That opportunity has been missed. READ MORE: Freedom Flotilla urges UK Government to 'protect' ship from Israel as it nears Gaza Instead of confronting the truth, the review restates familiar platitudes and leaves the public and Parliament no wiser about the scale cost, or consequences of the UK's nuclear commitment. The Defence Secretary, who heard these warnings first-hand from the opposition bench, is now in a position to act – he has chosen not to. So, the central questions remain for the UK Government: What is being done to stop the nuclear enterprise from distorting the wider defence budget? What safeguards ensure genuine democratic oversight of the UK's most dangerous and expensive defence programme? Until these are answered, Britain's defence policy will remain unbalanced, unaffordable, alarmingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all.
