Environmental (Commonwealth Union)_ The UK government’s ambitious commitment of nearly £22 billion to Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) has sparked concerns among MPs, who warn that the financial burden on consumers has not been adequately considered. The Public Accounts Committee, a cross-party group tasked with scrutinizing public spending, has raised alarms about the government’s approach, questioning the viability and economic implications of CCUS.
CCUS is designed to capture carbon dioxide emissions from industrial processes and store them underground, preventing their release into the atmosphere. The technology is widely seen as crucial for reaching net zero emissions by 2050, a target the UK has set to mitigate climate change. However, the committee argues that the government is gambling on an “unproven” solution at least within the UK without a clear plan for its impact on household and business energy costs.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, voiced concerns about the financial strain this could impose. “While everyone agrees on the urgency of tackling climate change, the government must ensure that consumers do not bear the brunt of costly, untested policies. The current approach risks significantly increasing electricity bills for households and industries alike,” he stated.
Despite skepticism, CCUS has strong backing from climate experts. Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy, defended the policy, emphasizing that without carbon capture, achieving net zero would be impossible. “This is an innovative technology, but one that experts including the UK Climate Change Committee and the UN’s IPCC agree is essential if we are to cut global emissions,” Miliband asserted. He reaffirmed the government’s commitment to its climate goals, insisting that early investments in CCUS will pay off in the long run.
The UK government plans to prevent 50 million tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere annually by 2050 through CCUS. A substantial portion of its funding, £21.7 billion, will be directed toward industrial clusters in Merseyside and Teesside, aiming to create thousands of jobs and attract private investment. However, the Public Accounts Committee argues that the funding model needs serious revision.
Dr. Stuart Jenkins, a research fellow at the University of Oxford, criticized the characterization of CCUS as “unproven.” “It is misleading to label this an unproven technology when 45 commercial CCUS sites are already operational worldwide, capturing around 50 million tonnes of CO2 per year,” he pointed out. The International Energy Agency also reports that over 700 CCUS projects are in various stages of development globally.
However, even Jenkins acknowledged the flaws in the government’s funding approach. The committee expressed surprise that two CCUS contracts signed last year lacked guarantees ensuring the public would benefit from any potential profits or reduced energy costs. “If this were a venture capital investment, the taxpayer would rightly expect an equity stake,” Clifton-Brown argued. He recommended that future contracts include profit-sharing mechanisms to ensure public returns on investment.
The government maintains that its £21.7 billion investment in CCUS will unlock an additional £8 billion in private sector funding over the next 25 years. However, some experts argue that a more sustainable financing model is necessary. Mirte Boot, co-founder of the Carbon Balance Initiative, suggests that a carbon storage mandate forcing fossil fuel producers to store a portion of their emissions or pay financial penalties could provide a more balanced and fair approach. “This system would ensure long-term investment certainty while holding polluters accountable,” she explained.
With debates intensifying over CCUS’s feasibility and economic impact, the government faces increasing pressure to refine its strategy. While carbon capture remains a cornerstone of the UK’s net-zero ambitions, the challenge lies in implementing it in a way that does not unfairly burden consumers. Policymakers must maintain a delicate balance between environmental necessity and economic responsibility as calls for profit-sharing mechanisms and alternative funding strategies intensify.
