The UK government is currently investing £22 billion in a series of technologies designed to capture, utilize, and store carbon (CCUS) as part of its efforts to meet its legally mandated net-zero emissions target by 2050. However, a recent report by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), a influential group of Members of Parliament, has raised serious concerns about the viability, affordability, and fairness of this massive investment. The PAC warns that the government is essentially “gambling” on unproven technologies, with no certainty that these projects will succeed or that the financial burden on households will be manageable. This summary explores the key findings of the report, the risks associated with the CCUS program, and the implications for the UK’s energy landscape.
One of the most striking criticisms from the PAC is the lack of assessment into whether this £22 billion investment is affordable for billpayers. The government has committed to funding this program over 25 years, with the majority of the £21.7 billion investment—approximately two-thirds—coming from levies on consumer energy bills. However, the PAC found that there has been no formal evaluation of how this financial burden will impact households, many of whom are already struggling with some of the highest energy bills in the world. This oversight is particularly concerning given that the program’s success is far from guaranteed. If the technologies fail to deliver as expected, consumers will be left footing the bill for an initiative that may not provide any tangible benefits.
The PAC also highlighted a significant imbalance in how the risks and rewards of this investment are being distributed. While taxpayers are being asked to underwrite the early stages of these projects, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that households will share in any profits if the technologies prove successful. Instead, private sector investors, who are providing a portion of the funding, stand to reap significant returns once the projects become profitable. This arrangement has drawn sharp criticism from the PAC, with the committee chair, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, noting that taxpayers are being asked to shoulder the risks without any assurance of future benefits. “All early progress will be underwritten by taxpayers, who currently do not stand to benefit if these projects are successful,” he said, emphasizing the unfairness of the current setup.
Another critical issue raised by the PAC is the lack of evidence that CCUS technologies can operate at scale in the UK. While smaller-scale projects have been tested internationally, there are no examples of CCUS being deployed successfully on an industrial scale within the UK. The PAC heard testimony suggesting that the technology may not capture as much carbon as expected, and that the government’s expectations for its performance are “far from guaranteed.” International examples cited in the report further underscore the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of CCUS, casting doubt on the government’s decision to rely so heavily on this technology to meet its net-zero targets.
The PAC’s report also highlights the potential threat that the failure of CCUS technologies poses to the UK’s climate goals. The government has already downgraded its expectations for the amount of carbon that can be captured and stored annually, acknowledging that its original targets were “no longer achievable.” However, no new targets have been announced to address this shortfall, leaving a significant gap in the UK’s plan to achieve net zero by 2050. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown expressed skepticism about the government’s reliance on CCUS, stating that the committee was left “unconvinced” that the technology represents the “silver bullet” that policymakers seem to believe it is. Without a credible backup plan, the failure of CCUS could derail the UK’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet its international climate commitments.
In conclusion, the PAC’s report paints a troubling picture of a government taking enormous financial and technological risks without adequate preparation or safeguards. The £22 billion investment in CCUS technologies is not only unproven but also potentially unfair, as it places a disproportionate burden on consumers without offering them a share in any future benefits. The lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of CCUS at scale, combined with the absence of a clear plan to address potential shortfalls, raises serious questions about the UK’s ability to meet its net-zero targets. The government must address these concerns by conducting a thorough assessment of the affordability and viability of CCUS, ensuring that the risks and rewards are shared more equitably, and developing contingency plans to avoid derailing the UK’s climate goals. Only then can the public have confidence that this massive investment is in their best interests and in the best interests of the planet.
