That Starmer fella...

ipcc isn't a policy forum, it does statitical modelling (very well mind you) - the difference here is in the data CCS has promising potential (in theory, no practical aplication has been effective) and would be a key attractive part of reducing climate change. the issue is in policy it's garbo

https://www.ciel.org/organizations-demand-policymakers-reject-carbon-capture-and-storage/

university of oxford released one of the widest reviews of CCS documentation over the last decades in 2023 covering its effectiveness as a policy in terms of cost in relation to other methods

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2023-12/Assessing-the-relative-costs-of-high-CCS-and-low-CCS-pathways-to-1-5-degrees.pdf

this video details it quite matter of factly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlsjvKKugKI

also a breif summary here

https://unclimatesummit.org/excessive-costs-mean-ccs-highly-economically-damaging-says-oxford-report/

reviews show that the cost of the schemes and its extra bits is massively underfactored and the effectiveness massively over quoted, by governments and the ipcc. that any use of it should be in absalutely unavoidable situations. also all examples are used to help extract further fossil fuels, something we cannot do.

the fact is 40 years this tech has been knocking about and the price has barely came down, which in a sector where renewables drop year on year is alarming. all that has happened is oil companies have access to more oil than ever before

ministers and officials expect it to play a major role in the government’s climate ambitions as a vital way to reach net zero.

this is contrary to any evidence on the use case on ccs. that it should be used in a low capacity as part of a broarder transition away from fossil fuels and destructive industries. and only in the case of reducing emissions from plants that otherwise have no fix.

the worrying part is what the government aims to do with this stored carbon, it's not bury it...

"The prime minister will say the commitment had helped to bring in an expected £8bn of private investment by some of the world’s biggest energy companies, including BP and Norwegian energy company Equinor."

"The East Coast Cluster is backed by oil companies including BP and Equinor. The HyNet North West project is being developed by the Italian oil company Eni.

https://www.hynethydrogenpipeline.co.uk/

Using CCS to produce “blue hydrogen” or to run gas power plants is controversial among green groups and some climate researchers because it requires a steady supply of fossil gas, which produces emissions that are not captured when it is extracted and transported."

again IPCC projections use data in a ideal environment, that CCS is used for capturing up to 95% of carbon from a plant and buried underground (current facilities hit a fraction of this). but from this policy implimentation the goal is to draw backing from fossil fuel giants to explictly prolong the use of gas plants. rather than transition. with the current and expected improvements to ccs and current data, all this will do is create a dependancy on fossil fuels and even if it works as intended, still be the wrong use of the technology.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/04/labour-to-commit-almost-22bn-to-fund-carbon-capture-and-storage-projects

you can read about blue hydrogen here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/07/hydrogen-clean-fuel-climate-crisis-explainer#:~:text=Notably%2C%20the%20term%20clean%20hydrogen,or%20diesel%20oil%20for%20heating.

by most recent thinking, the only way this looks rational is if labour goes on to announce 10x, 20x this level of funding for genuine green investment, rather than a mitigation approach which is the economic and environmental equivilent to lighting the money on fire currently.

there is plenty of green tech to invest in, the fact, after being so investment shy prior and post election, especially for green investment. they're suddenly energised for the one method that's got oil mc'barren slobbering at the idea of creating dependancy on fossil fuels with extra steps, it should make one sceptical, if not alarmed.