August 22, 2019

expert reaction to report on clean growth and net zero policy

The governments Science and Technology Committee has published a report into the Governments commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Professor Dame Ann Dowling FREng FRS, President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said:

“Bold action is required across the whole energy system to meet these ambitious targets. Many low-carbon technological solutions exist but large scale demonstration is needed to test their interdependencies. Their deployment at scale will require innovative policy making that works to break down silos and sets a regulatory and financial framework to encourage businesses to invest. It is vital that Government works with industry to support the demonstration of carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) for the UK for the benefit of future generations and economic growth.

“The IPCC states that negative emissions are an essential element to limit global average temperature growth to 1.5oC. A recent Royal Academy of Engineering/Royal Society Greenhouse Gas Removal report found that CCUS infrastructure will be a vital component of any suite of negative emissions technologies.”

Professor Nilay Shah FREng, Director of the Centre for Process Systems Engineering at Imperial College London and a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, says:

“The Science & Technology Committee is right that ‎net zero is going to require a transformation of our energy, transport, industrial and commercial systems. We shall have to pursue a twin track of deep reductions in emissions together with the deployment of greenhouse gas removal systems. Both of these require innovative business models and policies, and will be needed globally, indicating an opportunity for the UK to be at the forefront of these developments.”

Dr Shaun Fitzgerald, Director of The Royal Institution, said:

“The target for 2050 is meaningless unless significant public engagement is undertaken. The different policy ideas cited in this report then need to be put to the public for them to help influence the mix of policies which will be successful. Unless the public are behind any proposal, most of which involve paying something, then a policy is more likely to fail. We are talking about a 30 year time horizon here as a minimum, not just a 5 year term of a single government.”

Miles Seaman, Member of the Energy Centre Board, Institution of Chemical Engineers, said:

“Back in 2008 The Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons looked at a means of producing an overall framework for achieving a coordinated approach to reducing GHG emissions by introducing personal carbon allowances. At the time the chair of that committee warned of the inevitable consequence of not having such a rational framework for energising such an approach. Now some 11 years after that warning which was dismissed out of hand by government we are faced with an assessment which attempts to examine our current prospects of global achievement of these objectives which lacks any real sense of cohesiveness. Many of the comments made to the committee  suggest politely that we are still living in cloud cuckoo land with regard to meeting what the government has stated in the Climate Change Act as a necessary minimum reduction of GHG’s.

“From the point of view of developing the technology required to achieve this goals it is clear that there is currently no hope of avoiding the predicted climate catastrophe unless we address much more seriously how this can be done. From the perspective of Chemical Engineers we believe the means are within our grasp but the urgency with which we currently tackling these issues is not any where near sufficient. What is needed is an equitable way of pursuing these objectives for our society as a whole.”

Chris Richards, Institution of Civil Engineers’ Head of Policy and Public Affairs, said:

“It is clear there is a lot of work for the UK to undertake to meet the new net-zero emissions target, and the Committee for Science and Technology is right to point out the need for government to ensure strong policies are in place to help this be achieved.​ 

“In particular, the Government must be ambitious in backing emerging technologies ​to enable the transition to a cleaner, net-zero, economy to take place. A prime example in this context is energy storage. 

“If the true potential of renewable energies are to be realised, then efforts must be stepped up ​to provide the market with the right incentives (be that through maximising contracts for difference or via other mechanisms) to develop the commercial storage technologies that can help mitigate their intermittency.”

Dr Denes Csala, Lecturer in Energy Storage and System Dynamics at Lancaster university

“Looking at the interlinkages between the transport and energy sectors in the presented plan, it essential that the country explicitly synchronises their policies on transport electrification, renewable energy scale-up and ageing nuclear power. Furthermore, it should be clearly underlined that major investments in grid-scale energy storage are necessary, as well as the maintaining of good energy trade relationships with our trading partners, both in terms of electricity as well as hydrocarbons, especially in the event of a hard Brexit. Lastly, earlier this year, we shown with my colleagues (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-019-0365-7) that renewables coupled with energy storage should be the strongly preferred technological  option as opposed to encouraging CCS.”

Prof Phil Purnell, Professor of Materials and Structures at the University of Leeds, said:

“While the commitment to encouraging deeper and faster cuts in carbon emissions is welcomed, the report makes no mention of investment in better design for reuse, or recycling technologies.

“Reuse and recycling reduce our demand for raw materials that end up in waste, which accounts for over 200 million tonnes of carbon emission per year; these dominate the ‘offshored’ emissions hidden by the focus on territorial emissions (conclusion 2).

“Even our current rather limited recycling activities avoid 60 million tonnes of carbon – around ten times that avoided by windfarms – yet investment in the sector is by comparison tiny.

“Investing significant sums in both better design of products that can be repaired, reused and recycled, and in collection and infrastructure systems that can recycle materials better, would save more carbon per pound invested than many of the technologies listed here.

“In addition, it would reduce our reliance on imports of increasingly scarce and expensive raw materials, enhancing the self-sufficiency and resource security of the UK in a post-Brexit trading world.

“We must face the reality that as well as reducing the carbon emission per unit of things we consume, we must also reduce the amount we consume. Making better designed products from carefully-chosen materials that last longer, can be repaired or upgraded, and are easy to recycle at the end of their lives is by far the best and easiest way to do this.

“Our current throwaway society is, in the long run, a fast track back to the Stone Age.”

Dr Sarah Darby, Co-Director of the Oxford Martin School Programme on Renewable Energy and Associate Professor in Energy at the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, said:

“A low carbon energy system is within our grasp, but needs clear commitment from government.

“Research by the Oxford Integrate Programme on Renewable Energy (which also covers energy efficiency and electric vehicles) shows that a low carbon energy future is certainly achievable. 

“However, our work has shown how the drastic carbon reductions needed are not possible without increased efforts on several fronts: to improve energy efficiency, reduce demand, make changes to regulatory and market arrangements in the power sector, and provide consistent support for renewable energy sources, storage and innovative solutions for network management.

“A climate emergency calls for a full-on response from Government that supports on-the-ground activities by local authorities, utilities, community groups and citizens.  Technical and social aspects of energy systems are inseparable. There has been significant progress with ‘stand-alone’ low-carbon technologies and the main challenge now is to harness them to new market arrangements and social engagement to shape the transition to a viable low-carbon future.”

Prof Neil Harris, Professor of Atmospheric Informatics at Cranfield University, said:

“This is a valuable report which highlights the ambition of the UK but correctly highlights the lack of recent progress by the Government. Far too many initiatives have been allowed to stall at a critical junction. Responding to climate change is complex and it is really important that the Government identifies what it can do best and then does it. It also needs to support and assist the country’s citizens and organisations to play their part.”

Prof Jillian Anable, Professor of Transport and Energy at The Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, said:

“This is yet another recent authoritative voice concluding that the only way in which the transport sector can contribute towards environmental goals is if the demand for travel is lower than today and the size of the vehicle fleet is reduced. Even if we can accelerate the uptake of alternatively fuelled vehicles (and we should), they are only part of the solution, not the solution as the orientation of government policy have us believe. New vehicle technology requires huge material resource and embedded emissions and will perpetuate the energy intensive, hyper mobile society that has led the transport sector contributing nothing so far to net carbon reduction in the UK. As was emphasised by a recent report published by the Centre for Research on Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS): it is time to face up to the fact that we can no longer promote change by essentially changing nothing much at all.”

Prof Cameron Hepburn, Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment at the University of Oxford, said:

“The report makes it clear that we do not have the luxury of ignoring greenhouse gas removal. There are several technologies and pathways, developed here by UK plc, that are poised to scale with global potential – greater policy certainty will be crucial for investment in these new technologies if we are to achieve net zero by 2050.”

Dr Sam Hampton, post-doctoral research associate at the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, said:

“I fully agree with the 10 areas in which government policy is falling short of what we need to deliver a truly sustainable economy.

“The recommendations for change are largely reasonable in the context of our current political and economic system, but I would argue that they are still holding on to the idea that economic growth comes before social equity and environmental sustainability.

“The idea of ‘clean growth’ appears to be commendable, but hides a range of problematic assumptions and logics. Ultimately, more growth – even if it isn’t a direct result of burning fossil fuels – leads to more consumption, more resource extraction and more countryside sacrificed for infrastructure and development.

“The deficiencies identified in current government policy cannot be addressed with sticking plasters. We need to think fundamentally about what a prosperous society can look like, in light of what the science tells us about planetary boundaries.

“The UK were the first country in the world to start burning fossil fuels at serious volumes: we have a responsibility to lead the way in forging a sustainable future.”

Hannah Chalmers, Senior Lecturer in Engineering at the Institute for Energy Systems, University of Edinburgh, said:

“The Science and Technology Committee have delivered a timely call for essential actions to deliver ‘net-zero’ for the UK by 2050.  I agree that the UK must have actions that are at least as loud as it words, if we are to make the energy system changes that are needed to make net-zero a reality and address global climate change effectively.

“I am pleased to see that the need to step up to the challenge of decarbonising heat has been highlighted.  It is important that the UK considers the full range of options for addressing the CO2 emissions associated with the heat sector.  A robust strategy is an essential first step.  It must be followed up with concrete support to ensure widespread use of key technologies as soon as possible.

“Government has made significant progress with re-establishing the UK as an attractive location for CCS deployment.  I hope that this report will help to ensure that this progress leads to several substantial projects operating in the UK by the mid-2020s.  I also agree that taking action now to facilitate the development and deployment of greenhouse gas removal technologies will be an essential component of a robust action plan for delivering net zero by 2050.”

Dr Radhika Khosla, Senior Researcher at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford:

“Given the UK’s recent heatwaves, including the hottest summer on record, the impact of sustainable cooling was conspicuously absent from the recommendations. To truly future-proof new homes, the de-carbonisation of heat must be complemented with provisions for sustainable cooling, which is set to become the world’s largest driver of energy demand.”  

Dr Robert Gross, Director of the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology, Imperial College London, said:

“It’s great to see MPs affirm so clearly what experts have been saying for years. Policies have been cut back or killed in almost every area of energy supply and use. With a few exceptions like offshore wind the U.K. has lost its leadership role in low carbon energy. A reboot is urgently needed.

“There’s an almost perfect mismatch between aspiration and action. Policies to promote the use of low carbon and efficient products have been removed even as the government has ramped up its aspirations to achieve net zero and to capture the benefits for UK businesses and consumers.

“Investment in low carbon markets is a global business. Brexit means that the U.K. will have to try even harder if it wants to attract investors and create clean growth.”

Dr Ian Madley, Reader at Manchester Fuel Cell Innovation Centre at Manchester Metropolitan University, said:

On 1 – Decarbonisation of heat:

“I would add to the shortfall areas is the hidden disincentive to changing heating source by the way in which electricity and gas are priced.  Currently 13% of electricity prices is for “environment cost” charges but <1% of gas price is for environment cost.

“This then impacts on the first point in the recommendations for change to decarbonise heat as 85% of households use gas as the main source of heating but there is a price disincentive to moving away from gas.  Applying the same level of environment cost charges to gas would add circa £61 to average annual gas bill.”

On 2 – energy efficiency of home improvements:

“Previous incentives have been linked to specific interventions, usually those with fairly quick payback periods.  However to meet the needs of net-zero much deeper retrofit is required that does not payback for the typical householder as payback periods are in decades.

“We have some 27 million properties that will require deep retrofit by 2050 to meet the net-zero target which equates to 20,000 properties per week from now to 2050.  While the current rate is about 20,000 per year.

“Significant investment in developing a supply chain to deliver this is required. 

“Government needs to recognise that the benefits of doing this retrofit are far greater than meeting the net-zero target.  It is estimated that this would save the NHS circa £500m a year due to the effects of poor housing on health.”

On 8 – Carbon Capture Use and Storage:

“The recommendations identify that there is a need for a “sufficient number of projects of sufficient scale” however, the government is currently only proposing to part fund only one of the 4 projects currently being put forward as demonstration projects that integrate CCUS with hydrogen supply in the gas system.

“The £300m funding currently being offered will only cover a quarter to a third of the cost of just one of the projects.  This level of funding needs to be applied to all of the projects so we can best understand the true potential of these technologies.”

Professor Roger Kemp FREng, Lancaster University, said:

“Achieving ‘net-zero’ carbon emissions, without recourse to questionable ‘offsetting’ arrangements, will require a dramatically different approach to energy use. Many of the technologies we take for granted, such as gas central heating or petrol-driven cars, will have to be consigned to museums. Electricity will have to be generated exclusively by zero-carbon sources, mainly renewables, 24/7 all year, not just on windy days in summer.

“Many of these technologies, including cars, buses and lorries or central heating boilers, have life-cycles of up to 20 years from the time the order is placed until the product has been scrapped. ‘Net-zero’ by 2050 means that alternatives must be “this is way things are done” by 2030 which gives a very short timescale to change.

“There is no evidence that governments over the last few years have recognised the challenge a ‘net-zero’ target represents. Policies on fracking, reduced subsidies for renewables and opposition to on-shore wind farms are all moving in the wrong direction.

“The recent announcement that, post Brexit, imported petrol and diesel will not be subject to tariffs is another step backwards. ‘Net-zero’ is a comforting policy statement that is not reflected in any practical policies and is thus increasingly unachievable.”

Dr Gavin Killip, Researcher at the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford

“The construction industry is nowhere near being properly equipped to build and maintain the UK’s buildings to low-energy standards. The technical potential exists, but it is not being realised in practice. A nationally coordinated large-scale field trial of new low-energy building processes and business models is needed.”

Prof Peter Styring, Director of the CO2Chem Network, said:

“The views and recommendations of the Science and Technology Select Committee serve to highlight the dilemma we are experiencing in the decarbonisation sector: there is a conflict between Politics and Policy. Many of the recommendations contained within Net Zero and scenarios taking current government way beyond their accountability (2050). There is a perception that CCS will be the holy grail of decarbonisation, however on its own it has not demonstrated promise over two initial competitions nationally; and many globally. We agreed on a term CCUS (Carbon Capture, UTILISATION and Storage) in the 2018 Mission Innovation Report but the utilisation aspect, while flourishing globally, has failed to gain policy support nationally. There are a number of projects at a national level where carbon dioxide is being used as a valuable starting material to make new carbon-recycled products. This includes synthetic transport fuels that have far better well-to-wheel emissions reduction than similar electric vehicles. If EVs are to make an impact on climate change then the UK energy mix needs to change considerably…away from fossil-based energy generation towards fully renewable systems. Current energy demand suggests we are far from that. If we have more EVs we therefore need to produce more energy (the percentage renewables will need to increase at an unlikely rate).

“We need to make sure that the policy recommendations stack up. We need to consider their environmental impact as well as their economic impact. Can carbon dioxide utilisation, to produce fuels, chemicals, construction materials, make an impact on mitigation targets? Absolutely. Renewable Energy Directive II defines mitigation as CO2 captured and stored with equal weighting and priority to CO2 emissions avoided from avoided use of fossil oil in fuels and petrochemicals. By producing a CO2-derived fuel, new fossil fuel is avoided. This of course needs to be backed by comprehensive, honest and transparent Life Cycle Assessment, comparing like with like. The total CO2 utilisation is about 250 Mt per year, which is tiny compared to global CO2 emissions of around 37 Mt per year. However, total global CCS capacity is currently less than 40 Mt/yr and less than 3 Mt/yr if enhanced oil recovery (producing more fossil oil and so for CO2 emissions) is excluded. Projections for CCS capacity increase is also very small according to the Global CCS Institute who track all large scale projects.

“We need a comprehensive decarbonisation strategy based on CCS, CO2 utilisation, renewables growth, innovative transport strategies and so forth to really stand any chance of achieving a small reduction in net CO2 emissions (while also taking note of other emissions, NOx, Sox, PM, fugitive methane, etc). It will take a step-change in our thinking and technologies to get anywhere near a net zero scenario. Perhaps more importantly it will also need to be accompanied by a step change in the politics of climate crisis reversal and the adoption of SMART policies to achieve this.”

Prof Dave Reay, Professor of Carbon Management, University of Edinburgh, said:

“Achieving a Net Zero UK means balancing unavoidable emissions by enhancing greenhouse gas removals, such as by planting new woodlands. The more we dither today on cutting emissions, the more removals we then need tomorrow. Time really is against us. We’re already falling behind on tree planting targets and it takes 20 years or more for each new tree to really start hitting its carbon uptake straps. There’s now an urgent need to get the removals side of the climate scales properly mapped, managed and incentivised. If we don’t, the chance for a Net Zero UK will slip from our grasp.”

Dr Joanna Cox, Head of Policy at the IET, said:

“Delivering net zero will require technology providers, government and society to work together to eliminate emissions. While great strides have been made on the part of science and technology to make zero carbon a reality, engineers at the heart of delivering solutions are not currently being supported by consistent government and policy action. The lack of consistent policy, as highlighted in the areas of shortfall, holds back private investment in the low-carbon technologies.

“If some of the greatest challenges, like the decarbonisation of heat, are to be achieved, urgent and decisive action has to be taken – we can’t afford to waste any more time. We welcome the S&T committee’s report and recommendations for change.”

Prof Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science at the University of Oxford, said:

“It’s all too easy to lose the big picture in complicated to-do lists. Stopping climate change is astonishingly simple: we need to stop dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So what the government really needs to do is get the CEOs of about 20 fossil fuel companies into a room and ask them to explain how they plan to make both their activities and the products they sell compliant with net zero global carbon dioxide emissions by mid-century. If any company cannot or will not answer the question, then we need to ask whether they should have a license to operate in the UK or a listing on the London Stock Exchange.”

Dr Simon Harrison, Group Strategic Development Director at Mott MacDonald, said:

“Net zero is a challenge unprecedented in peacetime and a coordinated and driven response is needed across Westminster, the devolved administrations, cities and local government.  Time is now short, with clear policy needed in the near future so industry, business and wider society can start to deliver the transformative change needed.”

Prof Jon Gluyas, Director of the Durham Energy Institute, said:

“Abundant, accessible and effectively cheap energy has been available to the UK since the Industrial Revolution began.  First we had coal and as that energy source dwindled we managed to find huge quantities of gas and then oil in the North Sea and other basins around the UK coast.  Complacency set in and in 2004 when the UK ceased to be a net exporter (and hence earner from selling and taxing) petroleum it came as a shock, one from which we have not properly recovered and one now exacerbated by both a threat to energy security and the need to decarbonise power, heating and transport to meet climate change mitigation commitments.  So far we have managed to replace coal, largely with offshore wind but we still have a high dependency on gas for power generation and almost complete dependency on gas for heating our homes and places of work.  Decarbonisation of gas generated power is easy – carbon capture and storage (CCS).  There are no technical barriers to its development at large scale but successive governments since 2010 have shied away from implementation despite it costing less than initiating shipping contracts with companies that lack ships!

“Decarbonisation of heating is tough, simply from an infrastructure perspective, but again there are no technical barriers.  BritGeothermal (a UK thinktank of researchers working on geothermal energy) has already published on how we might decarbonise heating for an absolute minimum of 100 years with near nil carbon footprint and in a process that would improve the UK’s energy security massively.

“The UK shale-gas unicorn which has so beguiled the recent generation of energy ministers has been laid to rest by the outstanding work from Nottingham University and the BGS*.  We don’t have a significant shale gas resource (let alone reserve) but the combination of nuclear and a suite of renewables (geothermal, wind, solar – both on and offshore) coupled with CCS to mitigate unavoidable combustion of petroleum can deliver the UK a sustainable and secure energy future.  And if we are really smart we will sell the pore space in evacuated North Sea oil and gas fields for other countries to store their CO2.”

* https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11653-4

David Symons, UK Director of Sustainability at WSP, said:

“Who said August was silly season? Today’s report by the Commons Science and Technology Committee provides a reality check to Government on the need to deliver a step change in the pace of decarbonisation across the economy if the UK is going to be carbon free by 2050. 

“Technology has a key role to play – from electric cars which will be cheaper than petrol and diesel in less than six years, to heat pumps which are already cheaper to install than gas boilers for offices. Government has a role to play too, both in supporting these emerging technologies and making sure that it’s UK jobs which are created. The global race for such jobs means faster action is needed for the UK to win, rather than others with similar zero carbon strategies such as Sweden.

“Ultimately, as championed by WSP, the key focus must be on supporting local authorities to drive this agenda locally, whether it be via access to low-cost, long-term finance or through a statutory duty to develop emission reduction plans. We know they are eager to play their part.”

Prof Barry Marsden, Professor of Nuclear Graphite Technology at the University of Manchester, said:

“The Government’s support for small modular nuclear reactors in the Nuclear Sector Deal is welcome. The Government must ensure that it delivers on the recommendations from the Expert Finance Working Group on Small Nuclear Reactors, including on regulatory developments, without undue delay. The Government should set out, in its response to this Report, what steps it has taken since the publication of the Group’s report and propose a pathway—with indicative dates for key milestones—for the deployment of a first-of-a-kind small modular nuclear reactor by 2030.

“Support for small modular nuclear reactors, at last, a sensible proposal from both the nuclear industry and government to develop an achievable reliable, safe, clean, affordable non-intermittent power supply. This could be a UK led achievable goal that also has international sales potential. Should have been strongly pursued years ago, particularly with the UK expertise in nuclear graphite technology and high temperature systems.”

Prof Duncan McLaren, Professor in Practice and Research Fellow at the Lancaster University Environment Centre, said:

“The Committee’s recommendations for greater support for, and wide consultation on, negative emissions techniques are valuable but inadequate.

“The Committee has overlooked a fundamental problem with negative emissions techniques – that the promises of future carbon removal can undermine action to reduce emissions today, while the techniques themselves can generate unanticipated emissions rebounds from offsets, leakage or carbon utilisation (for example in enhanced oil recovery). Alongside more support for negative emissions, there is an urgent need for a governance framework to prevent such mitigation deterrence. In particular, we recommend a clear separation in the policy regimes for negative emissions and emissions reduction, to ensure that the two are genuinely additive.

“Net-zero is an important goal, but the terminology implies that any shortfall in emissions reduction can be compensated for by more negative emissions. This report makes clear that carbon removal is limited in scope, so promises of future removals cannot be allowed to substitute for urgent action to accelerate emissions reduction. To stop politicians or businesses hiding behind a rhetoric of ‘net-zero’ requires not only a separate target for negative emissions, but also a separate, strong and transparent regime of support, monitoring and accounting for negative emissions.”

Dr Peter Connor, Senior lecturer in Renewable Energy Policy at the University of Exeter, said:

“Despite Theresa May’s last-minute commitment to the UK achieving net zero emissions by 2050, her government and David Cameron’s government of 2015-17 acted to directly roll back much of the progress made in decarbonising the UK’s energy consumption. Support for growth in the two most important renewable energy technologies, onshore wind and solar PV were undermined just as the technology became the cheapest available.

“Decarbonising how we heat our homes is a priority – it is essential to move away from natural gas by building and retrofitting for more efficient homes, heated from renewable resources. The Government has done very little to enable this change. Commitments on building standards have been watered down, so that houses keep being built which may never hit the energy targets we need. Little has been done to improve housing stock, even though most of the houses we will live in 2050 have already been built. Financial incentives to install renewable heat technologies through the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) have floundered and need reform to offer proper support across multiple technologies. The Government has failed to do this and it is not clear what, if anything, will be introduced when the current programme ends in 2021.

“The Government needs to adopt a much more aggressive set of policies on heat as well as low carbon electricity. They need to move away from allowing the incumbency of the gas suppliers to dominate how the UK is heated and have the courage to imagine a low carbon infrastructure which goes beyond natural gas and which offers a real chance at zero carbon for homes.”

Prof Stuart Haszeldine. Professor of Carbon Capture and Storage at the University of Edinburgh, said:

“This illustrates the continual and widening UK gap between political top-down ambition, Government delivery by the risk-averse civil service, and disconnect to conventional commercial un-charitable reason from the bottom-up.  Fundamental change is required, but government keeps papering the cracks instead of fixing the foundations. UK government has been excellent at commissioning ever more detailed reports. But has been terrible about creating commercial imperatives to pull-through innovations into new globally leading low carbon businesses.

“Grasping the nettle of a Net Zero carbon milestone in 2050, leading to a sustained net-negative economy thereafter, means UK storage of more than 10 million tonnes each year of CO2 operating by 2030 and increasing towards 180 million tonnes per year in 2050. Government cannot subsidise this fundamental change by a myriad complexity of grants. 

“Policy decisions need to create a market where conventional profits can be made. This also creates value for the UK, not liability. The simplest method, as recommended by many reports to Government, is to legally require all producers and importers of fossil carbon into the UK, to store a small percentage of the CO2 liability from their product. That percentage increases every year to 2050. Business then finds the quickest and cheapest reliable remedies. Of course, oil companies will object. But the producer then pays, and efficient costs are passed to consumers with social justice. Job done.”

Prof Richard Templer, Hofmann Professor of Chemistry & Director of Innovation, Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, said:

“To achieve net-zero by 2050 it is now clear that we will need ways of removing CO2 directly from the atmosphere. This report acknowledges that and points to the enormous scale of atmospheric CO2 removal we will need. However, the report leaves me unconvinced that the government appreciates the urgency with which we need to commence work on determining and developing a range of viable and scalable techniques if we are to commence atmospheric CO2 removal in good time. Growing trees and other woody species to remove atmospheric CO2 is straightforward and has enormously important additional environmental benefits. However, there are physical and human constraints on its application – there is competition for land use and a forest’s ability to remove CO2 limits with age. Other approaches are needed to match the scale and duration of the challenge that faces us. Their invention and development have been severely hampered by the absence of commercial drivers for atmospheric CO2 removal. This is a market failure in the face of physical realities. The development and subsequent deployment of appropriate technologies will take 10-15 years. These technologies need to address the challenge environmentally, economically and socially. We do not have time to waste.  Government intervention, at scale is needed, now.”

Dr Richard Lowes, Energy Policy Research Fellow at the University of Exeter and UK Energy Research Centre, said:

“While the report contains some sensible suggestions on heat, the proposals, while required, simply won’t drive the transformation of heating in the UK at the required speed. So-called ‘low carbon gases’ may appeal to policy makers, but, hydrogen remains a deeply uncertain pipe dream promoted by incumbent interests; the idea of blending hydrogen into natural gas provides minimal carbon reductions and doesn’t support longer term changes. Government must focus on the rapid deployment of known low carbon heating technologies alongside energy efficiency upgrades for buildings.

“If the Government is serious about cleaning up heating, making buildings green should become a national infrastructure priority. This requires a national energy efficiency programme, zero interest loans for householders to update properties, heat networks replacing gas in urban areas and the mass deployment of heat pumps. How heat is governed and managed must also be transformed with a much bigger role for local authorities and organisations.”

Prof Ian Fells, Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, said:

“80 percent of UK energy requirement is for heat, not electricity. Our rundown nuclear industry must be reinvigorated and extended with new high temperature reactors to provide carbon free heat for industry and carbon free hydrogen for transport.”

Dr Philippa Parmiter, spokesperson for the Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage partnership, said:

“The UK Government’s action to address the climate emergency is too slow to achieve its stated target of net zero carbon by 2050. Carbon capture and storage offers a lifeline and the means to lock away millions of tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 permanently and securely. It can also deliver negative emissions, and the means of decarbonising heat through links with hydrogen production. As the Science and Technology Committee has urged today, we desperately need clear direction and policy from the UK Government, not procrastination. The Acorn CCS project in north-east Scotland is ready and waiting. With the right Government backing, and policy support, it could be injecting and storing large-scale volumes CO2 by the early 2020s, and feeding blue hydrogen to the UK’s gas grid.”

Declared interests

Stuart Haszeldine is funded to research on Carbon Capture and Storage by EPSRC, NERC, and Scottish Government. He also receives funding from Scottish Gas Networks, to research the transition from methane to hydrogen. He is Director of the academic research partnership Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage.

SCCS is funded to work on CCS by Scottish Government, Scottish Enterprise, the European Commission/EU. We are part of joint collaborations with other research institutes and industry, which have funding from national governments, including UK, and the EC.

Prof Reay is an expert advisor on rural policy for the Scottish Government. No other interests declared.

Prof Chalmers is an employee of the University of Edinburgh with research interests in low carbon energy including CCS and low carbon power generation.  Research funding from UK and European public funding and also historical funding from energy industry (co-funding within public funding programmes).

Phil Purnell: I have received funding from UKRI and DEFRA

No others received.