The UK's carbon capture and storage (CCS) program, a £264 billion white elephant, is a prime example of how government policy can be shaped by lobbying from the fossil fuel industry. This program, which aims to reduce carbon emissions, has instead become a massive financial burden on the public, with the government's own Climate Change Committee admitting that 'gas with CCS accounts for around half of the remaining demand for fossil fuels in 2050'.
The program's origins can be traced back to the 'Wedges' paper, a 2004 study financed and steered by BP, which claimed that climate stabilisation was compatible with continued fossil fuel use. This paper became a foundation of government policy around the world, and its reliance on CCS has led to the current program's massive cost.
The program's focus on CCS has also led to a massive increase in fossil fuel use, particularly in the electricity sector. This is despite the fact that there are abundant alternatives to these destructive plans, such as battery technology, which is evolving rapidly and can enable a balanced and reliable electricity supply without any use of fossil fuels.
The program's failure is not just financial, but also scientific. The Climate Change Committee's own data shows that CCS will only address a small percentage of emissions, and that the majority of CCS deployment in the UK will be attached to new fossil fuel-burning power stations and hydrogen production from fossil gas.
The program's success is not the point; the point is to provide a gigantic, publicly funded reason for the fossil fuel industry to stay in business. The lead operator of the government's first CCS cluster is BP, the very company that shaped the scientific credibility of CCS as a climate solution.
This program is a prime example of how government policy can be shaped by lobbying from the fossil fuel industry, and how this can lead to massive financial and environmental costs for the public. It is a sad reflection on the state of climate policy, and a call for a more transparent and accountable approach to decision-making.
