One thing that strikes me about this that nobody has yet commented upon, is that here is another case of the public purse being used to clean up an industry problem. It so often happens (and has happened, many times before) that polluters manage to pocket significant profits without charging the full costs of production, which, of course, must include the cost of dealing with environmental "bads" as well as offering consumer "goods". It is early days, so it may be that the government commitment may bring industry investments in due course, but the concerning aspect of this is the notion that the fossil fuel industry will see this as a life-extending policy. We should be pressing hard to #keepitintheground as a focus for government policy. It should be much cheaper to avoid creating the carbon emissions in the first place, than to spend £22bn capturing the carbon and storing it beneath the waves!?
BBC News - Nearly £22bn pledged for carbon capture projects. Groan. What if we used that money instead for heat networks and to retrofit our homes and buildings, targeting operational carbon. We'd minimise the need for carbon capture. We'd be able to boost the economy by upskiling and retraining large parts of the workforce who over the next few decades might otherwise loose out to technology, driverless cars, drones and AI replacing their existing jobs. We could eradicate fuel poverty through localised energy and heat production, putting money back into the pockets of people who need it most. We could reduce the demand of the NHS from the conditions associated with fuel poverty and damp and mouldy homes and have a healthier nation. We could do so much better than this. #netzero #heatnetworks https://lnkd.in/eEWNSsTZ
