The Carbon Capture Con: Wasted Billions for Taxpayers

Published: 08 July 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The incoming government faces a pressing need for significant public funds. Perhaps they should consider the vast sums currently pledged to carbon capture. The state could effectively cancel its precarious carbon capture and storage programme. This move would carry no cost to the broader welfare of citizens. In reality, such a decision would likely reduce the harm we suffer. The government has frequently touted a figure of £21.7bn for spending. This amount supposedly covers the programme’s costs between now and 2050. However, this figure accounts for only the initial phase of deployment. Climate experts have recently analysed the data from the government’s committees. Their findings suggest the true cost is closer to £264bn overall. Some recent independent reports even project costs exceeding £400bn by 2050.

This total cost is split between the public and private sectors. Given historical trends, the public will likely shoulder the heaviest burden. A major committee in parliament found that many costs remain hidden. Roughly one-quarter of public costs will be paid by the state. The remaining three-quarters will likely land on our energy bills. The government must be transparent about these potential future charges. It should explain that this policy could inflate consumer energy bills. The public deserves to know the real price of this strategy. Additionally, there are uncosted commitments to pay premiums for hydrogen. These subsidies could potentially add tens of billions more in costs.

But is carbon capture actually essential for cutting carbon emissions? The government certainly presents it as a vital climate solution today. On the contrary, this programme could significantly increase our total emissions. The advisory committees claim that such tech targets hard sectors. They suggest it is for industries with very few other alternatives. However, this narrative does not align with the provided data. A tiny fraction of these projects targets true industrial needs. Most of the planned capacity is linked to fossil fuel plants. These schemes are intended to keep gas-burning power stations running. Battery technology is evolving very rapidly to provide reliable power. We can already achieve a balanced supply without using fossil fuels.

The insistence on hydrogen from fossil gas is equally quite baseless. Data shows that renewable hydrogen will be cheaper to produce soon. New carbon capture plants require vast amounts of extra gas usage. This dependency necessitates higher imports of liquefied natural gas daily. Methane leakage during the production chain creates a high climate impact. Much of this harm happens long before the gas reaches us. These emissions are often excluded from our national reporting figures today. If we truly wanted to cut emissions, we would change tactics. We should scale up renewables and storage to replace gas usage. The current programme only serves to prolong these expensive fossil dependencies.

The entire structure of this industry appears driven by heavy lobbying. Fossil fuel companies have held frequent meetings with senior ministers. These corporations know this tech is their only viable future lifeline. They want to keep burning gas under the guise of green targets. Consequently, a massive, expensive white elephant has been created for us. Scientific credibility for this approach was built by major oil firms. Older, foundational research was heavily influenced by industry executives directly. They famously promoted carbon capture as a ready, industrial-scale technology. In reality, it was barely tested at the time of publication. Yet, it became a cornerstone of global climate policy for decades.

Since that time, there has been a record of repeated failures. Several attempts in the UK have been abandoned due to costs. The technology remains technically unproven and commercially very risky for investors. The government is taking a massive gamble with public funds again. It is backing unproven systems with billions in taxpayer-provided capital. Yet, the real goal seems to be keeping the industry alive. The biggest fossil fuel companies remain the lead project operators. They are the primary beneficiaries of this massive public subsidy scheme. From start to finish, this programme appeases a destructive sector.

The wasted money, the lost years, and the lost lives matter. For how much longer will this expensive farce be allowed continue? How many more expert warnings will the government choose to ignore? The transition to net zero requires bold and honest fiscal choices. We are currently funding a path that delays our climate progress. It is time for a new approach that benefits the public. True decarbonisation will require us to move past these outdated methods. We must prioritise proven, clean technologies that reduce our long-term bills. The path forward must be built on reality rather than hype.

Check our latest news