Campaigners have urged the UK government to reconsider its £24 billion investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, arguing that the funds would be better allocated to more reliable and immediate climate solutions. The call comes ahead of this week’s budget announcement, with environmentalists describing current CCS plans as unrealistic and excessively costly.
Chris Packham, naturalist and broadcaster, criticized the government’s heavy financial support for CCS projects backed by major oil companies such as BP and Norway’s Equinor. He described the current strategy as a "national embarrassment," pointing out that UK spending on CCS now exceeds that of the United States, European Union, Norway, and Japan combined. According to Packham, continued investment in CCS risks prioritizing fossil fuel interests over effective climate action and community welfare.
CCS technology captures carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel infrastructure and stores them underground to prevent atmospheric release. Advocates argue this approach remains a vital tool for decarbonizing industries where alternatives to fossil fuels are limited. However, critics note that many CCS projects have failed to meet initial emission reduction targets, have been hindered by high costs, and may serve to prolong fossil fuel dependency.
Environmental groups worry the UK government is overly reliant on CCS, at the expense of more immediate, proven interventions such as promoting energy efficiency and renewable heating solutions. Reports indicate that subsidies for household electrification measures, including grants for replacing gas boilers with electric heat pumps, are set to be reduced. Such heating is considered key to cutting emissions from buildings, which contribute around 20% of the country’s greenhouse gases.
Aled Dilwyn Fisher, senior researcher at Oil Change International, described the ongoing CCS funding as a risky gamble. He expressed concern about the wider budget priorities, highlighting cuts to climate initiatives in favor of defense spending. Fisher called for public money to be steered toward projects that can deliver tangible emissions reductions and alleviate energy costs, rather than continued financial support for uncertain carbon capture efforts.
Current CCS development in the UK includes projects like the East Coast and HyNet Clusters located in north-east and north-west England, respectively. The government’s next phase of support earmarks £200 million for the Acorn Project in Aberdeenshire, supplemented by £80 million from the Scottish government.
Friends of the Earth Scotland campaigner Rosie Hampton criticized the government’s approach, warning that ambitions to transform the North Sea into a large-scale carbon storage site are diverting attention from practical climate solutions that could improve people's quality of life, such as warmer homes and enhanced public services.
The debate underscores broader tensions over how best to allocate public funds in the UK’s efforts to meet climate targets while ensuring economic and social benefits. As the budget approaches, advocates on both sides call for fiscal strategies that balance innovation with proven, accessible measures to reduce emissions and support households.