Carbon capture: an answer to net zero pledges or continued fossil fuel usage?

On the 4th of October, Prime Minister Kier Sarmer announced that £22bn was going towards climate funding, specifically into carbon capture and storage. With the UK closing its last coal power station, making it the first G7 nation to phase out coal completely, the UK is looking to win another race on the energy front. But what is carbon capture? Is it the golden opportunity Kier Starmers Labour Party is making it out to be, or is it simply a scapegoat for oil and gas companies?

In its simplest form, carbon capture and storage is when you take the CO2 emissions directly from a power station or factory and transport them to a unit via pipes or ships to a location where they are typically stored by being injected into porous rocks deep underground. 

The UK government has cited that carbon capture is necessary for Britain to reach its climate targets set by the secretary of state, Ed Milliband. This is because carbon capture will greatly help reduce the CO2 emissions escaping into the atmosphere in heavy industrial operations like cement and glass making. This isn’t even to mention the 2,000 skilled jobs it would create and the foreseeable private investments spoken about by Chancellor Rachel Reeves. In addition, Starmer mentioned that on a large scale, it could create 50,000 jobs in the future.

So, in the government’s eyes, carbon capture is ideal for the UK as it provides more skill-based jobs while helping reach its COP pledges. Furthermore, the UK is at a prime spot geologically to provide storage for carbon as the UK’s continental shelf holds ⅓ of all the exploitable carbon storage space in Europe. Including access to the North, North Atlantic and Irish seas, as well as the English Channel. Insinuating that the UK’s economy could thrive if carbon capture and storage is introduced not just in the UK but globally, as it could become a hub for storage. 

While this sounds promising, there are some large concerns over using carbon capture and storage on a large scale. The general public and climate scientists worry that oil and gas companies recently urged governments to introduce carbon capture. It’s believed that carbon capture will still allow companies to keep using fossil fuels as it doesn’t equate to green or renewable energies. This implies that these large corporations can continue to exploit fossil fuels, depleting the already finite resources and further damaging the planet. Therefore making it harder to reach our net-zero targets. 

Studies into carbon capture have shown that it is not 100% effective at removing all the carbon. While the technology boasts the claim to remove 90% or more, scientists have found that it only removes around 70%. Moreover, climate scientists instead believe that the UK should be introducing cleaner, green, renewable energy sources like solar and wind instead of allowing the continued use of carbon via the vastly more expensive practice of carbon capture.

Overall, carbon capture and storage seems like a good idea on the surface for British people as it will advance the economy, create new jobs and seemingly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Simply looking deeper into the technology shows us that it won’t help the future of our planet, allowing elevated fossil fuel exploitation. Therefore, contributing to our rising sea levels and global temperature by allowing big companies to offset their carbon production without any real sustainable practice taking place.