Rachel Reeves's carbon capture plan is irresponsible – here's why

I don’t, though. I seem to be worrying more and more as time goes by. I stress that’s not because my own demise must, inevitably, be closer than it was in the past. I can live with that fact. What worries me is the total negligence of our politicians of almost all persuasions when it comes to the potential demise of all human life on this planet.

The warnings about the risks that we face have been in existence almost throughout my lifetime. I first read about climate change, the consequent need to reform our economy, the requirement to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and much more in the 1970s. One of the first ever theoretical economics books that I read was written in the late 1960s by a man called EJ Mishan. It was entitled "The costs of economic growth".  I read it before I went to university.

The troubling fact is that its message would be as relevant today as it was at the time when The Beatles topped the charts. We have still done nothing to eliminate the enormous costs that our pursuit of economic growth is imposing on this planet and which it will impose on every generation that is following on from the baby boomers who began the process of treating it with utter contempt. To be blunt, we are burning our home down, and it seems that almost none of our politicians really care.

The latest evidence of this comes from Labour, almost inevitably. In 2021, I admit I was greatly encouraged by Rachel Reeves’s commitment of at least £28 billion a year to what might have been properly called a Green New Deal. The idea of a Green New Deal was created by me and a bunch of colleagues working in 2007 and 2008 when we realised that a massive financial and environmental crisis was heading our way, with a likelihood that it was imminent. We proposed investment in greening our country as a way to rebuild our economy after a financial crash. I still think that would be the right thing to do, and for a brief moment, I thought that Labour might share this vision.

READ MORE: Sue Gray's new job in doubt as she pulls out of major meeting

As we all know, Labour abandoned this commitment long before they got to the election, in the process putting aside the only real economic commitment that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves had ever made. It was as if burning the planet was a matter of inconsequence to them.

And now we know that this is, in fact, the case. Instead of putting in place a green plan that would have had the aim of cutting the production of greenhouses gases and of reducing our consumption of energy, both of which are precondition for the survival of human life on this planet, they have been instead committed to spend £22 billion on what is described as carbon capture and storage. 

Ignore for a moment the fact that the £22bn happens to be a sum almost identical to the so-called black hole that Rachel Reeves claims has appeared in her budget, and which she is very likely to claim can only be filled by austerity measures at cost to those least able to bear the consequences in her budget at the end of this month. Instead, note the fact that carbon capture and storage is, for all practical purposes, a gigantic con trick put forward by the fossil fuel industry so that they might claim they are going green when absolutely nothing of the sort is going on.

The carbon capture that this process describes will be necessary because it is very clear that Labour has no intention of cutting the production of energy from fossil fuels. As a result, carbon will still be produced by gas-fuelled power stations, energy-intensive chemical industries, cement producers, and others. There is, as yet, no proof that the carbon created by these processes can be successfully captured in any significant amount, but things get much worse than that when the storage aspect of this is considered.

Where will this carbon be stored, you might ask? The answer is that it will be pumped deep under the sea into the empty caverns left there because of the previous extraction of oil. This, however, will not be the end of the matter. The actual intention of those who seek to store the carbon in this way is to use that injection process to force out from those under the sea caverns the last oil that would otherwise be difficult to obtain from the. There is, then, implicit in this entire carbon capture and storage process a desire to perpetuate for as long as possible the supply of fossil fuels that will continue to threaten the well-being of everyone on this planet.

READ MORE: Edinburgh councillors speak out ahead of nations and regions meeting

I object to £22 billion being used to support the profit-making activities of oil companies.

I am deeply offended that the money in question is not being used to reduce carbon consumption.

I am even more offended that genuine green projects which would increase the chance of life on Earth continuing will go unfunded as a consequence of this decision.

I resent the reckless misrepresentation by Labour of this policy as one that might create sustainability when it is intended to do the exact opposite.

As readers of this column will know, I was not enamoured with Labour well before the election in July, but since then, my contempt has only grown. Now, I can only feel hostility towards a party that is being so reckless with the wellbeing of all children in our country.

Everyone, but most especially older people, has an enormous duty of care to the young. Labour have abandoned their share of that responsibility, and that is unforgivable.