The United Kingdom government is facing renewed criticism over its £21.7 billion [1] carbon capture and storage (CCS) programme.

This debate centers on whether massive public investments in CCS technology effectively reduce emissions or primarily serve the interests of the fossil fuel industry. Critics argue that the funds could be redirected toward more efficient renewable energy transitions to prevent climate breakdown.

George Monbiot said the government could cancel its "deranged, disastrous" carbon capture and storage programme at no cost to public welfare. He said that the current approach represents a waste of public funds that fails to address the root causes of environmental collapse.

According to Monbiot, there are far better ways to tackle climate breakdown, but successive governments have chosen to listen to the fossil fuel companies instead. The dispute highlights a growing tension between industrial-scale technological fixes and a total shift away from hydrocarbon energy.

The programme's total cost of £21.7 billion [1] remains a focal point for those calling for a policy reversal. Opponents suggest that the scale of the investment is disproportionate to the actual carbon sequestration achieved by these systems.

While the government maintains that CCS is a necessary tool for reaching net-zero targets, the opposition argues that such technology provides a pretext for continuing the extraction of oil and gas. This conflict pits the strategy of carbon management against the strategy of carbon elimination.

“The government could cancel its deranged, disastrous carbon capture and storage (CCS) programme at no cost to public welfare”

The controversy over the CCS programme reflects a broader global debate on 'climate mitigation' versus 'climate transformation.' By questioning the £21.7 billion investment, critics are challenging the viability of carbon capture as a bridge technology, suggesting instead that it may act as a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry to extend its operational lifespan.