We need to stop wasting time relying on a hypothetical solution instead of grasping the political task of stopping fossil fuel buring and going all out for socially just, nature-based capture solutions too.

Bear in mind that the IPCC reports are also subject to political influence from oil states. Plus, saying that CCS is needed is an abstract conclusion about the difficulty of getting to net zero without it - not a technologically-grounded conclusion that CCS can actually achieve this.

On the surface it looks rational to apply even an inefficient CCS to process emissions where there is currently no alternative, but the case is weaker when seen in a wider context.

Also, scientists may be likely to look at each application of CCS individually, without factoring in knock-on effects on other industries, or on industrial and technological development over time.

Given the inefficiency of CCS, recycling, elimination of unnecessary construction projects and development of alternative materials should be the priority.

I too have doubts about CCS for cement. Yes, we will need a lot of of concrete in the near future, but lock-in and drawing in of other industries into shared infrastructure, thereby locking in a wider use of CCS, are a big danger.

Find out more at this meeting next Wednesday: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/not-a-solu...

So why do we think carbon capture should NOT be funded at the expense of genuine climate solutions?
First, there are technical issues and it is still unproven - it is a massive gamble!
Second, new gas projects (including 'blue hydrogen') + CCS bring big problems with methane emissions.
Briefing 👇

Also Drax [pocketing £1 billion from public subsidies in profits]: We really need the money...

👉Background👈
Last July,Andrew Boswell took the government to court over its decision to consent Net Zero Teesside Power (gas power with carbon capture and storage) despite total emissions being incompatible with meeting the UK emissions reduction targets

See: actionnetwork.org/events/stop-...
4/