Green Technology on the Brink of Collapse as Industry Demands Additional Four Billion in Funding

A groundbreaking green technology initiative led by Ed Miliband, the UK Energy Secretary, is under threat of collapse unless an extra £4 billion in funding is secured, according to industry leaders. Olivia Powis, the chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, has stressed the dire urgency of this funding, calling on Chancellor Rachel Reeves to deliver support as part of this week’s spending review. Despite nearly £22 billion already allocated in public subsidies to the sector, experts warn that delays and shortfalls in funding could jeopardise the projects entirely.

Two flagship carbon capture projects, HyNet in Merseyside and Net Zero Teesside, were greenlit last year with promises of creating thousands of jobs and revitalising industrial areas. Industry proponents are now insisting on additional financial commitments to expand these initiatives and start two further projects – the Acorn project on Scotland’s east coast and the Viking project in the Humber. Without these investments, the UK’s burgeoning carbon capture sector risks falling short of its ambitious goals.

The technology has been heralded as a game-changer, with projections of adding £94 billion in economic value by 2050 and the creation of up to 50,000 highly skilled jobs. It also aims to retain a further 50,000 jobs in industries such as steel production. Despite these merits, concerns remain. Critics, including MPs and environmentalists, have labelled the technology as “unproven” and “high-risk”. Some experts claim its efficiency is limited, capable of capturing just 50 to 60 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions, leaving the rest to escape into the atmosphere.

Public opposition to the scheme has also emerged. Jeremy Pocklington, the permanent secretary at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, outlined the financial burden in parliamentary discussions last December. Three-quarters of the funds for carbon capture projects would come from levies on consumer and business energy bills, with the rest funded through taxation. Critics warn that this additional cost to households and businesses might push the technology into political controversy.

Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, has expressed strong criticism, calling the initiative a distraction that will fail to address climate challenges while unfairly burdening taxpayers. Similar concerns were raised by the Green Party’s co-leader, Carla Denyer, who argued that carbon capture is primarily being used as a cover for continued fossil fuel extraction, delaying investment in more reliable solutions like renewable energy, storage systems, energy efficiency programmes, and natural carbon sequestering methods.

Government representatives have defended the policy, describing carbon capture as essential for safeguarding the future of heavy industries in Britain. A spokesperson stated that these projects would be instrumental in supporting jobs, revitalising industrial areas, and contributing to the fight against the climate crisis. The Energy Secretary views these projects as critical in facilitating the nation’s clean energy transition.

Although carbon capture technology remains a contentious issue, its proponents argue it is indispensable for achieving net-zero emissions. The upcoming spending review will likely determine the future of this turbulent, high-stakes endeavour and its contribution to the UK’s environmental and economic ambitions.

||| A groundbreaking green technology initiative led by Ed Miliband, the UK Energy Secretary, is under threat of collapse unless an extra £4 billion in funding is secured, according to industry leaders. Olivia Powis, the chief executive of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, has stressed the dire urgency of this funding, calling on Chancellor Rachel Reeves to deliver support as part of this week’s spending review. Despite nearly £22 billion already allocated in public subsidies to the sector, experts warn that delays and shortfalls in funding could jeopardise the projects entirely.

Two flagship carbon capture projects, HyNet in Merseyside and Net Zero Teesside, were greenlit last year with promises of creating thousands of jobs and revitalising industrial areas. Industry proponents are now insisting on additional financial commitments to expand these initiatives and start two further projects – the Acorn project on Scotland’s east coast and the Viking project in the Humber. Without these investments, the UK’s burgeoning carbon capture sector risks falling short of its ambitious goals.

The technology has been heralded as a game-changer, with projections of adding £94 billion in economic value by 2050 and the creation of up to 50,000 highly skilled jobs. It also aims to retain a further 50,000 jobs in industries such as steel production. Despite these merits, concerns remain. Critics, including MPs and environmentalists, have labelled the technology as “unproven” and “high-risk”. Some experts claim its efficiency is limited, capable of capturing just 50 to 60 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions, leaving the rest to escape into the atmosphere.

Public opposition to the scheme has also emerged. Jeremy Pocklington, the permanent secretary at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, outlined the financial burden in parliamentary discussions last December. Three-quarters of the funds for carbon capture projects would come from levies on consumer and business energy bills, with the rest funded through taxation. Critics warn that this additional cost to households and businesses might push the technology into political controversy.

Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, has expressed strong criticism, calling the initiative a distraction that will fail to address climate challenges while unfairly burdening taxpayers. Similar concerns were raised by the Green Party’s co-leader, Carla Denyer, who argued that carbon capture is primarily being used as a cover for continued fossil fuel extraction, delaying investment in more reliable solutions like renewable energy, storage systems, energy efficiency programmes, and natural carbon sequestering methods.

Government representatives have defended the policy, describing carbon capture as essential for safeguarding the future of heavy industries in Britain. A spokesperson stated that these projects would be instrumental in supporting jobs, revitalising industrial areas, and contributing to the fight against the climate crisis. The Energy Secretary views these projects as critical in facilitating the nation’s clean energy transition.

Although carbon capture technology remains a contentious issue, its proponents argue it is indispensable for achieving net-zero emissions. The upcoming spending review will likely determine the future of this turbulent, high-stakes endeavour and its contribution to the UK’s environmental and economic ambitions.