Anyone who has read Rory Stewart’s book, Politics on the Edge, will have learned the uncomfortable, shocking truth that MPs frequently go through the division lobbies with little or no knowledge of the content, purpose or justification for the proposed legislation on which they are voting. Unless they have a particular personal interest or are unusually conscientious or influenced by lobbyists, donors or constituents, they obediently obey their whips and vote ‘yay’ or ‘nay’ accordingly. It doesn’t help that bills are referred to by a reference code, which changes as amendments are made during the parliamentary scrutiny process. How many of us have watched parliamentary debate (when able to do so without wanting to throw something at the screen in fury at the ignorance, insolence and tribalism) utterly confused as to what exactly is being voted on?
Such ignorance, wilful or otherwise, on the part of our elected representatives is both inexcusable and undesirable and is particularly worrying in the context of the climate emergency. Enter MP Watch:
“Local MP Watch groups of concerned constituents share their fears for the future with their representatives, draw attention to relevant information and encourage MPs to work to raise standards of integrity. On the environmental front, we encourage them to join groups such as the Conservative Environment Network, Socialist Environment, Resources Association, Labour Climate and Environmental Forum and UK100. We are pleased to ally with MPs and engage as critical friends. If all else fails, we will work to remove MPs we believe to be the greatest moral hazard or who block action on Net Zero.”
https://www.mpwatch.org/About-Us
MPs will shortly be considering the government’s proposed spending on the fabulous-sounding but controversial Carbon Capture and Storage schemes. MP Watch want to ensure that MPs are properly informed and have drawn on the expertise and research of leading climate experts to produce the following briefing paper.
You can help the drive for informed, fact-led decision-making by writing to your MP, urging them to read the briefing, reproduced below. You could also post a link to this article on social media, and tag your MP.
The Briefing:
The UK Government’s £22 billion investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) has sparked controversy in the environmental world. CCS captures CO₂ from industrial sites like cement plants, but despite its potential, the technology remains contentious.
A. High Level Summary
A1 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 (in the Teesside cluster, all projects selected for funding are either new gas power stations or fossil-based blue hydrogen). This strategy will lock us into fossil fuel usage for decades, impeding the clean energy transition.
A2 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 2/3rds of the carbon footprint arising elsewhere in the supply chain.
A3 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 position.
B. Background
The UK plans to develop CCS—with hydrogen production—at 4 ‘clusters’. ‘Track 1’ funding starts with the Teeside section of the East Coast Cluster (which also covers the Humber area) and HyNet in the North West / North Wales.
B1 Cost to the taxpayer: £22 billion over 25 years, plus a commitment to provide 15 years of operational support to help hydrogen compete with natural gas—which could amount to many billions.
Plans centre around building new fossil fuel infrastructure—new gas power stations and ‘blue’ hydrogen plants. All projects so far at Net Zero Teesside fall into this category.
There are also plans to capture emissions from heavy industry like cement production, but this retrofit element plays a lesser role.
With the North Sea in decline, the extra natural gas demand for new plants will be met entirely by imported LNG, which has a very high carbon footprint, 33% worse than coal according to a new high-profile study1.
The same study shows that due to methane leaks upstream and in transit, only a third of LNG’s greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint occurs at the point of use (burning or conversion to hydrogen).
CCS is a controversial technology, with a track record of unmet promises.
C. Key Points
Retrofit. There is a rational argument to try to stop emissions from existing hard-to-abate heavy industry by retrofitting CCS. But there are limitations to what CCS can achieve here, and strong reasons to consider alternatives:
- CCS can only address a third of the problem, due to the impact of methane emissions along the vast upstream supply chain as explained above.
- Independent scientists question the viability of CCS at scale.
- Electrification alternatives are increasingly available – e.g. for steel.
- Our primary aim should be to stop burning fossil fuels. But, where that is not possible, restoring nature is a proven way to absorb carbon, and at a far lower cost—see Zero Hour’s Nature-rich UK report. Nature will also deliver an array of co-benefits like clean water, flood defences and rural jobs, with subsidies circulating within the UK economy rather than flowing offshore to the oil industry.
- New capacity. There is no valid case for building new CCS-enabled gas power stations and blue hydrogen plants, which will impede the natural transition to renewables. Reasons:
- New capacity will increase demand for imported LNG from the US—now shown to be 33% worse than coal. And since CCS leaves 2/3rds of the GHG footprint unaddressed, the warming impact of this new fossil fuel infrastructure is likely to be similar to burning coal—worse if CCS fails to deliver.
- There is a growing scientific consensus that 100% of our energy needs can be met by renewables without CCS—with Oxford University reporting that decarbonisation will save the world $12 trillion, and that the faster we go, the more we will save.
- Operators of the blue hydrogen plants at the centre of the UK’s CCS plans want to inject hydrogen into the grid for home heating. But 54 studies now say that makes no sense. The industry may hope that building blue hydrogen capacity now will make it difficult for the Government to act on the evidence and rule out hydrogen for heating.
- The Subsidy Advice Unit reports that Gov claims an exemption for its CCS plans from a requirement to demonstrate that they will actually reduce UK emissions, on the grounds that the subsidies are only for construction, not operation – suggesting, bizarrely, that there will therefore be no associated emissions.
- After the continuing scandal of the sewage-dumping privatised water industry, is it wise to trust a for-profit industry to operate expensive-to-run CCS equipment reliably, particularly an industry whose honesty has been robustly questioned.
- NGOs are asking if the public should pay for the pollution caused by oil companies when they’re making record profit?
This decision was taken after very strong lobbying from the industry. Was this decision based on the best available evidence and was evidence from other sources properly considered?
D. Calls for Action
UK GHG emissions—before final investment decision. If the Government genuinely considers that CCS plans will reduce emissions, why not submit them to independent review? This review should include the following key elements in order to reflect the latest science.
- Take into account the carbon emissions from the operation of the plants. The Government’s position that operational emissions do not matter is not tenable.
- Use the latest independent evidence on upstream methane leaks. An independent study found the leakage rate in the North Sea to be around five times higher than assumed by Government. Government figures come from theoretical leakage rates from equipment manufacturers.
- Use methane’s warming impact over 20 years when converting to a CO₂ equivalent (82.5 times not 29.8 times).
- We suggest that DESNZ meets with a group of independent experts to better understand the concerns raised by the science community – including those set out in a recent open letter.
E. Glossary
CCS – Carbon capture and storage
DESNZ – Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
GHG – emissions Greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to global warming
LNG – Liquified natural gas imported by ship to the UK to make up the shortfall between North Sea natural gas production and UK gas demand
‘Natural’ Gas – Fossil gas made up mostly of methane
Carbon footprint (of product) – Total greenhouse gases caused by manufacturing the product, considering the whole life cycle including impacts up and down the supply chain.
