Critics Argue Carbon Capture Is a Deceptive Tool for Fossil Fuel Expansion
- The cost of carbon capture and storage could exceed £264 billion by 2050.
- Renewable energy sources are significantly more effective in avoiding emissions than carbon capture projects.
- New gas power stations, rather than retrofitting existing ones, form the majority of planned CCS projects.
Cost and Efficacy of Carbon Capture
A recent letter in The Guardian highlighted concerns about the high cost and limited efficacy of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. According to Professor Myles Allen's proposal, the UK may spend up to £264 billion by 2050 on CCS projects. This estimate is based on data from the Climate Change Committee and cannot be dismissed lightly.

While the government has committed £21.7 billion in funding for existing projects, which are projected to capture just over 3 million tonnes of CO2 annually, plans by the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) suggest a much larger scale with around 77 million tonnes of CO2 expected to be captured. This discrepancy raises questions about whether the current investment will suffice.
Renewables vs. CCS
The letter points out that renewable energy sources are far more effective in reducing emissions compared to carbon capture projects. The International Energy Agency reports that solar and wind power avoided 2,600 megatonnes of CO2 in 2025, while global CCS efforts captured only about 40 megatonnes. This disparity is expected to widen as renewable technologies continue to grow.
Olivia Powis, CEO of the CCSA, argues that the UK’s plans focus mainly on capturing emissions from industry, but critics contend that the majority of planned projects are aimed at supporting new gas power stations and fossil fuel activities. This emphasis on new infrastructure, particularly for liquefied natural gas (LNG), raises concerns about increasing reliance on imported fuels with substantial methane emissions.
Alternatives to Fossil Fuels
The letter concludes by emphasizing that a 100% renewable energy system is technically feasible and more cost-effective than CCS. Additionally, restoring nature can provide proven methods for carbon removal while offering benefits like improved flood protection and public health.
Critics argue that CCS proposals such as those from Professor Allen serve to shield fossil fuel expansion rather than address the root causes of climate change. Simon Oldridge, co-founder of National Emergency Briefing, suggests that continued investment in fossil fuels is unnecessary when renewable alternatives are available.
Source: The Guardian





