Whenever carbon capture is discussed, the debate often polarises quickly. On one side, it’s presented as essential. On the other, it’s dismissed as expensive, unproven, or simply a way to extend the life of fossil fuels. There is truth in both perspectives, but neither leaves much room for the more useful discussion in between. I don’t think carbon capture is the silver bullet to combat climate change, but I do think it will be part of the answer.
At the heart of the argument is the UK’s legally binding commitment to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Reaching net zero does not mean eliminating every source of emissions. Rather, it means reducing emissions as far as practicable and balancing the residual emissions that remain with an equivalent volume of greenhouse gas removals (GGRs). Depending on modelling assumptions adopted, the UK is expected to require between 35 and 81 MtCO₂e of greenhouse gas removals annually by 2050 to balance residual emissions from sectors that are particularly difficult to fully decarbonise.
Meeting this requirement will necessitate a portfolio of complementary greenhouse gas removal solutions, including both nature-based approaches, such as afforestation and peatland restoration, and engineered removals, such as Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage (DACCS), biochar and enhanced weathering. Underpinning many of these engineered removal pathways is Carbon Capture, Transport and Storage (CCS T&S) infrastructure. Technologies such as BECCS, DACCS, Waste-to-Energy with CCS (WECCS) and some anaerobic digestion pathways all rely on access to CO₂ transport networks and permanent geological storage. As a result, the deployment of CCS T&S infrastructure will provide the foundation upon which a significant proportion of the UK’s future greenhouse gas removal capacity will be built.
If there is clear demand why aren’t projects moving faster?
The challenge is that while there may be a clear need from emitters to decarbonise, the broader demand signal for carbon capture remains relatively weak. Most successful new technologies are adopted because customers see value in them and are willing to pay a premium. With CCS, the key question is who creates that willingness to pay for carbon abatement. At present, much of that value is created through policy interventions rather than the market itself.
Government support is also finite and stretched across a range of decarbonisation technologies. Policymakers are constantly weighing up where limited public funding can deliver the greatest emissions reduction. If government has £100 to invest, will that achieve more through additional renewable generation, electrification, energy efficiency measures, hydrogen, or CCS? CCS therefore has to compete for support alongside other technologies that may offer lower-cost carbon reductions.
Competitiveness makes the problem harder still.
There is also a broader industrial competitiveness challenge. If the UK requires domestic manufacturers to achieve net zero production, potentially through CCS, safeguards are needed to ensure this does not simply result in emissions and economic activity moving overseas. Without mechanisms that recognise and reward the lower carbon intensity of UK-produced goods, manufacturers could face higher production costs and become less competitive, particularly in international markets where customers may place limited value on embedded carbon.
This creates a difficult policy balance between decarbonising industry, maintaining manufacturing resilience, and avoiding carbon leakage. If measures such as CCS significantly increase the cost of producing cement, steel, chemicals, and other energy-intensive products in the UK without equivalent requirements being imposed elsewhere, there is a risk that production moves offshore rather than emissions being eliminated. In that scenario, UK territorial emissions may decline, but global emissions may see little benefit as the same products are imported from jurisdictions with less stringent carbon standards.
CCS is not a silver bullet but has a role to play.
This goes back to a fundamental point: CCS has an important role to play in reaching net zero, but it should be deployed where it delivers genuine value rather than being treated as a universal solution. The transition to net zero will not be achieved through electrification alone, CCS alone, or the use of low-carbon fuels and green molecules alone. It will require a portfolio of solutions, applied where they are most effective, alongside innovations that have yet to emerge.
We therefore need to be clear about where carbon capture makes sense and equally honest about where it does not. CCS should not become an excuse to delay energy efficiency improvements, electrification, renewable power deployment, or fundamental changes to industrial processes. In many cases, avoiding emissions at source will be more logical and cost-effective than capturing them after they have been created.
However, some emissions will remain extremely difficult, costly, or even impossible to eliminate through these measures alone. For sectors such as cement, chemicals and other energy-intensive industries, CCS may represent one of the few credible pathways to deep decarbonisation. Ignoring these residual emissions because carbon capture is not a perfect solution does not make the challenge disappear.
For me, the slow progress of CCS is not evidence that the technology lacks a future. Rather, it demonstrates that technical capability is only one part of the equation. We have spent years proving that carbon can be captured, transported and stored. The more pressing questions now concern the wider system around it: who pays for it, who carries the risk, how infrastructure is financed and shared, and what policy, regulatory and market mechanisms create the long-term demand needed to support investment. Getting those foundations right will ultimately be just as important as the technology itself.
Calum Westland is Apollo’s Associate Director of Industrial Decarbonisation