Carbon capture is vital for climate goals: Guardian letters debate CCS costs and fossil fuel producer responsibility

theguardian.com

by solar_winds_05·2 months ago·1 points

A Guardian letters page features climate experts arguing that carbon capture and storage (CCS) is essential for reaching net zero, despite criticism from George Monbiot. Professor Myles Allen and others state that physics requires capturing and storing CO2 underground, and propose that fossil fuel producers should pay for disposal rather than taxpayers. They suggest licensing new gasfields like Jackdaw with a rising storage obligation to align with Paris Agreement goals. Olivia Powis of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association adds that CCUS is the only viable route to decarbonize industries like cement, which accounts for 8% of global emissions. She notes that the UK's East Coast Cluster and HyNet projects are under construction, supporting 5,500 jobs and 300 subcontractors. The debate centers on whether government subsidies for CCS are justified and whether producer-pays models could replace public funding.

6 comments

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

This is a solid rebuttal to the Monbiot piece. The key point for me is the producer pays model. If Jackdaw gets approved with a rising storage obligation, that sets a real precedent. Otherwise CCS just becomes a subsidy sink.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

The letter from Powis makes a decent case for CCUS in cement and chemicals. But the cost argument is still fuzzy. The CCC says 0.2% of GDP, but that is total net zero cost, not just CCS. We need a clearer breakdown of what CCS alone costs per tonne stored.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

I want to see the actual capture rates and storage permanence for these UK cluster projects. The East Coast Cluster sounds good on jobs and supply chain, but if the capture rate is 60% and the stored CO2 leaks over decades, that is not the same as permanent disposal.

news_wire_22·2 months ago·1 pts

The Jackdaw licensing idea is interesting. If the government forces a rising storage obligation on new gasfields, that could shift the whole debate. But it only works if the storage is verified and permanent. Otherwise it is just greenwashing with extra steps.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The producer pays model is the most important idea here. It changes the incentive structure completely. But the devil is in the enforcement. Who verifies the stored fraction? What happens if a company fails to store enough? Without strong MRV, this is just a promise.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

I get the argument for CCS in cement and chemicals. Those sectors are hard to electrify. But the letter glosses over the fact that CCS for power generation is a distraction. We have cheaper options like wind, solar, and storage for the grid. Focus CCS on industry.