Last month, GJA published a blog, The Labour government’s dirty energy technofix must be contested and replaced, written by Les Levidow and Simon Pirani and, given how high profile and controversial the government’s plans are proving (see, for example, this Guardian article by George Monbiot) sought responses to the argument the piece sets out.  In the event, no disagreement was forthcoming, but we did receive a number of comments highlighting different aspects of the issue and present these here along with some valuable reports that have been produced.  A full list of links is provided at the end.

In terms of dissenting arguments, however, and with the CCS industry gathering at a conference in London on 17 December, this article on the Energy Voice website appears to embody all our worst fears.  The article says nothing substantial about jobs, though it talks a lot about the potential for trading in carbon emissions reduction and the UK putting its supposedly massive storage space on sale (as well as transporting it the length and breadth of the country).  Worth noting is the glancing reference to opposition to CCS ‘gearing up’ as if it were merely a competition to be won rather than a serious debate concerning the future of the planet.

GJA supporters, free from the constraints imposed by profiteering, expressed considerably more enlightened views.  Nils Markusson provided the following response, which very much aligns with both Les and Simon’s article and GJA’s position on these issues:

‘The push for CCS in the UK used to be a rearguard action defending and extending the future of coal-fired powered production. But CCS on coal never went beyond words – neither industry or government were interested in paying up to make it happen. And now coal-fired power production has been phased out, whilst low-carbon renewable energy has grown.

What is at stake today in the UK is instead the future of fossil gas. Again, policy makers are talking up CCS (now with an added U in it). But don’t hold your breath waiting for funding to materialise, or government to force industry to invest in CCS.

CCS probably could help decarbonise heavy industries where there are limited decarbonisation alternatives, like cement. But for that to work, UK policy makers would need to stop tiptoeing around fossil industry interests and protecting the relatively limited number of jobs that industry supports nationally.

Les Levidow and Simon Pirani usefully call for the building of a coalition of trade union groups, environmental organisations and others, in support of a wealth of green jobs, in areas like home insulation. This points towards a different political economy context more conducive to decarbonisation, and maybe even a little CCS.

Daniel Scharf notes that ‘The carbon emissions from Labour housing policies based substantially on new building (inc. new settlements) could exceed the carbon budgets for the whole economy’, citing this article in Science Direct,  A home for all within planetary boundaries.  An alternative approach to meeting housing needs is set out in this dan the plan blogspot, titled Migrating to a Problematic Future.  Daniel adds that he has raised the issue of upfront carbon in a blog on the Red Brick site, directly to the Labour Housing Group, Labour Policy Forum, Labour Together and the APPG on planning and housing, pointing out that the emissions from housebuilding will be seen as part of the carbon reduction plan to be reconsidered (for the third time) by the High Court in May 2025.

Ellen Robottom, Secretary of Campaign Against Climate Change’s Trade Union group, makes several characteristically astute observations:

‘”Clean energy” is a misuse of the word “energy” since it appears to apply only to electrical power, and therefore relies on the fact that the bulk of our energy use at 2030 is likely to still be in ICE engines and gas boilers.  Clearly a decarbonised energy system by 2030 is a physical impossibility and the use of the term “energy” in this context looks like deliberate obfuscation.

What assumptions are they making about technologies? If they pursue the current approach to “decarbonising” the grid, which appears set to rely on increasing imports of very high emissions LNG, the grid may well get dirtier, not cleaner – not to mention all the emissions involved in building CCS and nuclear infrastructure.

Leaving aside the many things that could be said about the talk of “incentivising” the private sector, absence of existing workforces, unions or communities from the picture, etc, it doesn’t look as if they’re contemplating funding FE colleges properly or getting jobseekers on proper training courses instead of forcing them to become baristas or work for Amazon, on pain of having their benefits stopped.’

Rory O’Neill, editor of Hazards magazine and an occupational health adviser at the International Trade Union Confederation, notes that ‘even the Enhanced Oil Recovery stuff is a failure and a health risk, which means the one working model referred to in the GJA piece is a bust too (I think your authors imply this, but maybe give EOR more credit than it is due).’  Rory is pulling together a case on the OHS risks, which GJA would be happy to publicise when it emerges.

It’s also worth pointing our audience towards two excellent reports that provide detailed analysis to underpin these broad arguments.  The MP Watch website carries this article on CCS.  Please read the full article for a detailed analysis of the Labour government’s plans which, as the item says, have ‘sparked controversy in the environmental world’ but the following are the high-level summary points made:

1. In its CCS communications, the Government focuses heavily on retrofitting CCS to existing heavy industrial processes like cement manufacture, a relatively uncontentious area amongst scientists. But the UK’s CCS plans include much new CCS-enabled fossil fuel infrastructure. This strategy will lock us into fossil fuel usage for decades, impeding the clean energy transition.
2.  With the North Sea in decline, the extra gas for these new projects will come from Liquified Natural Gas (‘LNG’) imports. A landmark new study shows that, due to the powerful warming impact of methane leaks along the supply chain, only a third of greenhouse gas emissions occur at the point of use. So even if CCS works, it will do nothing about the two thirds of the carbon footprint arising elsewhere in the supply chain.
3. Government subsidy proposals, reviewed by the Subsidy Advice Unit, say that CCS plans will be exempted from a requirement that decarbonisation projects should actually reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions – on the grounds that the proposed funding is only for construction of plants, not their operation. This is an untenable

We would draw the reader’s attention to the recently published report The False Promise and Potential Health Harms of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2 EOR) as a Tool of Climate Mitigation, produced by the Science and Environmental Health Network (sehn.org) and the Bold Alliance (boldalliance.org).

The abstract for the report states that ‘Using increasing amounts of newly subsidized CO2 to remove oil from the ground is the next phase in the fossil fuel industry’s bid to extend the use of fossil fuels far into the future. While the industry claims that carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO2 EOR) is a tool of climate mitigation, it actually perpetuates oil and gas extraction and generates more greenhouse gases. Subsidized by public money through excessively generous tax credits, CO2 EOR not only exacerbates climate change, it causes unusual public health and environmental damage.’

While the report concludes that ‘CO2 EOR is a moral failure, a climate failure, and a threat to public health and the environment, all while being publicly funded. Morally sound public policy would not pay the polluter to pollute. It would penalize the polluter for damaging the commons. Real climate policy would cut CO2 emissions rather than guaranteeing increased atmospheric CO2 far into the future…particularly in the absence of any mechanisms for public accountability of either the CO2 captured and sequestered, or for the 45Q tax credits given to prop up corporations. CO2 EOR is the last best hope for the fossil fuel industry to keep pumping oil out of the ground. It must end.’

Finally, we are aware that an inquiry has been opened by the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee on “how to build the workforce that is needed to deliver the policies and infrastructure for the UK’s clean, secure energy mission” (open for submissions until 13 Jan).  This appears to include aspects from energy generation to buildings retrofit and domestic energy.

References

The Labour government’s dirty energy technofix must be contested and replaced, Les Levidow/Simon Pirani, GJA blog, 31 October 2024

Labour’s carbon-capture scheme will be Starmer’s white elephant: a terrible mistake costing billions, George Monbiot, The Guardian, 11 October 2024

CCS4G Symposium 2024 – Super-Critical Implementation – GESGB, A Symposium on Carbon Capture and Storage for GeoScientists

Talk turns to jobs as mood warms on CCS plans, Ed Reed, Energy Voice, 21 November 2024

A home for all within planetary boundaries: Pathways for meeting England’s housing needs without transgressing national climate and biodiversity goals, Ermgassen et al, Science Direct: Ecological Economics, November 2022

Migrating to a problematic future, Danthe Plan blogspot, 24 August 2017

Hazards magazine

Climate Briefing: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), MP Watch, 15 October 2024

The False Promise and Potential Health Harms of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2 EOR) as a Tool of Climate Mitigation, Science and Environmental Health Network (sehn.org) and the Bold Alliance (boldalliance.org), August 2024

Workforce planning to deliver clean, secure energy, UK Parliament Committees Inquiry, Closing date: 13 January 2025

Carbon Capture and Storage Facts, a site containing much useful information.