There is a certain tragicomic quality to Britain’s current climate policy. Having long proclaimed itself a “climate leader” on the world stage, the United Kingdom is now preparing to stake tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on technologies that have failed everywhere else. At the centre of this quixotic crusade is carbon capture and storage (CCS), with a special emphasis on its most extravagant and least viable variant – direct air capture (DAC). The problem is simple: CCS has an abysmal track record, DAC is even worse and no commercial project anywhere in the world has succeeded in delivering on the promises made with such fanfare.
And yet, here we are.
The Times reports that Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is negotiating with Swiss firm Climeworks to develop Britain’s first DAC plant under the Government’s HyNet cluster. The proposal – code-named Silver Birch – would join a £21.7 billion CCS programme, with £9.4 billion earmarked for just the next four years.
It is worth pausing to consider what Britain is signing up for: paying prohibitive prices per tonne of CO₂ to bury molecules of a trace atmospheric gas essential to photosynthesis under the Irish Sea, with no evidence that the technology can be deployed at scale and with a track record of serial disappointment worldwide.
The Abysmal Record of CCS
CCS has been the subject of countless reports, academic papers and optimistic government pronouncements. Michael Cembalest, Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy for J.P. Morgan Asset & Wealth Management, observed wryly in 2021 that the number of academic papers written on CCS divided by real-life implementation of it yields “the highest ratio in the history of science”.
Despite billions spent in subsidies, tax credits and demonstration projects, the results have been paltry. After two decades of planning and conjecture, by the end of 2020 carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities stored just 0.1% of global CO2 emissions. Challenges include cost overruns, failure of bellwether projects, the US Department of Energy withdrawing support for demonstration projects, cancellations of projects in Europe, legal uncertainties about liability and a 20%-40% energy cost required to perform CCS in the first place. The UK’s own White Rose project at Drax, intended to capture two million tonnes annually, collapsed when the Cameron government cancelled its £1 billion CCS commercialisation programme in 2015.
Many of the “successes” were not climate mitigation projects at all but simply enhanced oil recovery operations, where CO₂ – typically using CO2 from naturally occurring underground deposits – is pumped into wells to squeeze more hydrocarbons out of the ground. This is pursued as a profitable practice, unrelated to the decarbonisation agenda.
Signature failures in CCS projects abound. The Kemper project in Mississippi, once hailed as a model for “clean coal”, collapsed after costs ballooned past $7 billion. The FutureGen project in Illinois, backed by the US Department of Energy, was cancelled after years of delays and escalating costs. Australia’s Gorgon LNG CCS project, designed to capture up to four million tonnes a year, failed to meet its targets and faced technical challenges and leaks. Even Norway’s Sleipner field, often cited as an exemplar, captures less than a single power station emits and functions primarily because of favourable local geology. Europe’s grand Mongstad CCS plan was abandoned after the Norwegian state auditor called it “an embarrassing failure”.
The most telling statistic: after three decades of effort, no large-scale CCS project exists that operates economically without government subsidy, outside of enhanced oil recovery where profitability drives investment.
Direct Air Capture – Even Worse
If CCS attached to smokestacks has failed, DAC is an exercise in futility. CCS concentrates on capturing emissions at the point of release – power plants, cement factories or steel mills – while DAC aims to pull carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. The challenge is obvious. CO₂ in the atmosphere is just 0.04% of the air we breathe. According to a J.P. Morgan report, sequestering 25% of global CO2 through direct air capture would require an astounding 25%–40% of the world’s electricity generation plus 11%–17% of its primary energy.
Climeworks, the world’s leading DAC company and among Fast Company’s “World’s Most Innovative Companies of 2024”, built its Orca plant in Iceland in 2021, designed to capture 4,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually. Its larger Mammoth plant, now under construction, may eventually capture 36,000 tonnes a year – minuscule compared to global emissions of 37 billion tonnes. Even at optimistic estimates of $600 per tonne, the arithmetic collapses. More realistic figures put DAC costs closer to $1,200 per tonne. Compare this with the current EU carbon price of about £60 per tonne – a tenth or even a twentieth of DAC’s cost.
To capture just 1% of global emissions at DAC’s mid-range costs would run to trillions annually and consume an energy budget larger than that of many developed countries.
Britain’s Political Theatre
Why then is the UK pursuing this dead end? The answer lies in the fact that climate-focused virtue signalling and luxury beliefs now dominate elite behaviour. Successive governments, Conservative and Labour alike, have sought to position Britain as a global “climate leader”. Hosting COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, legislating a “Net Zero by 2050” target, and promoting offshore wind as the backbone of green energy were all part of this narrative. Now, CCS and DAC are being folded into the story as evidence that Britain is “doing something” about hard-to-abate sectors such as steel, cement and aviation.
The trouble is that this virtue signalling costs astronomical sums and delivers nothing of value. The HyNet project in Northwest England is projected to capture perhaps 4.5 million tonnes annually by 2030, scaling up to 10 million tonnes. Even if it succeeds – a heroic assumption – that is less than 3% of UK emissions which itself is less than 1% of global emissions. Meanwhile, the cluster will absorb billions in subsidies, increase energy costs for consumers and hand over subsidy-laden contracts to Climeworks or other contenders in the CCS sector.
DAC, the jewel in Miliband’s plan, is worse. Climeworks’ Silver Birch project, if built, would capture at best a few tens of thousands of tonnes per year. That would be the emissions equivalent of taking perhaps 10,000 cars off the road – a rounding error in Britain’s 370-million-tonne carbon footprint. Yet taxpayers are expected to bankroll it at hundreds if not thousands of pounds per tonne, while the EU carbon market (itself a concoction of the climate alarmist establishment in Brussels) says the same ton is worth only £60.
There is something quixotic in all this. Like Cervantes’ knight tilting at windmills, Britain’s leaders are charging headlong at imaginary foes, wasting treasure and deserving ridicule. The pursuit of CCS and DAC is not about rational cost-benefit analysis – it is about symbolism. Britain wants to lead. To lead in what, precisely, is unclear. If the goal is to waste money on technologies with no commercial track record, then yes, Britain is leading.
Interestingly, Dale Vince, Britain’s most high-profile “green” tycoon, has weighed in. Vince, an eco-grifter riding the wave of lavish subsidies for unreliable wind and solar, now dismisses DAC as “ridiculous” and “a million miles off working”. His critique, however, is revealing. Vince does not object to CCS/DAC primarily because it is a costly failure littered with abandoned projects worldwide. Rather, his opposition stems from the fact that CCS and DAC, if they ever worked, would give fossil fuels a longer lease of life — precisely what he most fears. For Vince and his ilk, the goal is not rational energy policy or cost-effectiveness, but the ideological elimination of hydrocarbons altogether, regardless of the consequences.
Europe’s Failures as Warnings
Britain need only look across the Channel to see the folly. Europe has tried and failed at CCS repeatedly. Germany’s Schwarze Pumpe CCS pilot was shut down in 2014 after Vattenfall concluded it was not viable. Norway’s Mongstad project was abandoned after nearly $1 billion spent. Even Northern Lights, Europe’s new CCS flagship, faces serious questions about costs, storage capacity and customer commitments.
These are not teething problems. They are systemic failures rooted in the economics and physics of the technology. CCS is expensive, energy-intensive and operationally fragile. DAC amplifies all these drawbacks. To press ahead regardless, as Britain is doing, is to ignore lessons bought dearly with other people’s money.
Asia Gets in on the Act
Alas, Britain and Europe are not alone in chasing the CCS mirage. East Asia, too, driven by the Japanese and South Korean initiatives in emission mitigation and the Paris Agreement, is joining the fray. Malaysia’s national oil company Petronas has signed MOUs with Japan and South Korea on CCS potential projects using the depleted oil and gas fields offshore peninsular Malaysia, Indonesia and elsewhere in the region.
Singapore has “hub partnership” with ExxonMobil and Shell to collaborate in CCS projects in the Southeast Asian region. Interestingly, these plans have sparked accusations of “carbon colonialism” from climate activists, who see exporting emissions for storage in another country as a “get out of jail free” card for continued fossil fuel use.
To be sure, East Asia is not the EU. While “Net Zero” and the Paris Agreement are real considerations among policymakers in the region, most countries are unapologetically reliant on fossil fuels for their economic growth and energy security needs. Shortly after President Trump assumed office and exited the US (a second time) from the Paris Agreement, Indonesia’s special envoy for climate change and energy Hashim Djojohadikusumo said not unreasonably that he considered the Paris Agreement no longer relevant for Indonesia following the US withdrawal from the deal.
The implementation of CCS projects in East Asia will ultimately depend on the extent to which governments are willing to underwrite them with subsidies, much as what the EU and the US governments did in the past two decades. Given the litany of failures in CCS projects in the West, perhaps the lessons learnt will not go completely to waste in the planning ministries in Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore.
Tilting at Windmills
The UK’s great gamble on CCS and DAC is not leadership but delusion. After decades of global failure, with no commercial project demonstrating viability, a Britain in steep economic decline is prepared to lavish over £20 billion on burying carbon dioxide underground. And all of this is premised on the still-untested dogma that carbon dioxide is the world’s “climate control knob”.
The recently published US Department of Energy report, authored by five eminent scientists, has challenged precisely this orthodoxy, questioning the IPCC’s alarmist literature and highlighting the deep uncertainties in climate sensitivity to CO₂. Meanwhile, NASA’s own satellite data show a greening of the earth over recent decades, with higher atmospheric CO₂ acting as a natural fertiliser for plants. If anything, modest CO₂ increases is likely a net benefit for agricultural productivity and ecosystems.
The US Department of Energy (DOE) under Secretary Wright recently announced the termination of 24 funding awards from its Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), totalling over $3.7 billion in taxpayer-funded financial assistance, primarily for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and decarbonisation projects.
The Trump administration’s pragmatic stance on “energy dominance” cuts through the fog: CO₂ has economic value if deployed for enhanced oil recovery where it supports greater hydrocarbon output. No subsidies are required. The market dictates the costs and benefits, as it should. Outside of that, in the view of Energy Secretary Chris Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, pouring US taxpayers’ money into CCS is little more than virtue signalling dressed up as policy.
Future historians may indeed view this era not as the moment humankind rose to the “climate challenge”, but as one where governments squandered resources tilting at an imaginary enemy, vilifying a trace gas that sustains plant life, while ignoring the real challenges of energy security, economic growth and prosperity.
Britain’s CCS crusade championed by the climate zealot Ed Miliband, far from being a mark of leadership, may ultimately stand as a cautionary tale of how “climate leadership” ambitions and economically-illiteracy can override both science and economics.
The article was first published in The Daily Sceptic https://dailysceptic.org/2025/08/23/britains-quixotic-carbon-capture-crusade/
The best cost effective Carbon Capture scheme is Trees…Nature.
The best cost effective Carbon Capture Storage is either Lumber in buildings or burial (trees harvested and buried in tailed out open pit coal mines.
Grow fast growing trees like Poplar, harvest and replace every ten years, and sink the carbon in an anoxic environment…tailed out open pit coal mine covered by water.
Eventually those trees will become the next source of Fossil Fuel…in a few million years.
It is worth considering where most of the CO2 in the World is, and it is not the atmosphere! Trillions of tonnes are dissolved in seawater, and this is in a delicate balance with the atmosphere (Henry’s Law). Lowering the atmospheric CO2 would release more from the Oceans, so is an impossible, self-defeating process. Of course any of our brilliant scientists in Parliament and the CS will know this, but of course there are almost none and they are ignored anyway as having politically incorrect views!
Of course everything that Milliband does is absurd (or is he really not that absurdly stupid, and perhaps it should be called Treason?)
But it’s not as simple as you imagine. There is a temperature-dependent buffering reaction and diffusion constraints. The surface layer must be at equilibrium (or ‘delicate balance’ with the atmosphere, as you say), but the deep ocean is most assuredly not in equilibrium with the atmosphere multiple thousands of meters above it. An excess partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere relative to the deep ocean drives a slow diffusion that would persist until there is no excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
There was a proposed project in Hawaii a few years back whereby a landfill was to be razed to extract wood and other organic carbon materials from it to be gasified and converted to diesel and jet fuel.
My immediate thought was how much net CO2 does this £9.2bn science project remove in the land area occupied, compared to what a forest would sequester in the same space for almost no cost?
And if we consider the land area occupied by the windmills ostensibly powering it, the comparison looks increasingly bad, I’d wager.
Why throw money away in growing, harvesting and burying perfectly good trees?
The new Carbon Sink.
Please, DO NOT SINK THE CARBON!
For one thing, it’s carbon DIOXIDE. CO2 is good for you. The Holocene is experiencing a CO2 DROUGHT compared to the rest of geologic history. CO2 is the fundamental nutrient of Life. Do not spend one penny of Other People’s Money on harebrained nutball paranoid crazy SCHEMES to reduce CO2. Please.
That’s true but the Carbon Sink returns the Dioxide portion back to the atmosphere and the Carbon remains locked up in the tree
UK wind has had a holiday on a bank Holiday weekend in England, Scotland had theirs at the beginning of the month.
Raise the Colours
That’s what is on peoples minds. Miliband isn’t on the radar. The weather is the least of our worries
1 immigration
2 economy
3 NHS
In that order
Don’t forget all the outmigration to join the tens of thousands of British clubs in America.
From a piece in the Telegraph, by the historian Robert Tombs. In Britain today its only the Telegraph and the Spectator that have their heads above water in the flood of political correctness that is drowning the country.
His starting point is the recent trend for displaying British and English flags – and for local councils to take them down as being politically incorrect in the usual ways. He goes on to say:
Central to today’s crisis is the way we are governed, and the people who govern us. Scholars have analysed the disintegrative forces at work in modern society, from global capitalism to the internet. But in Britain, as in some other Western countries, we are seeing something unprecedented: the rejection of the nation by a significant part of its own elites.
In previous centuries, whether we were governed by kings, nobles or parliaments, all were committed to the good of the nation as they understood it. Their own futures depended on national success, and their achievements were often outstanding.
An insightful remark. He points out there is a growing sense in England that the present UK political class actively dislikes the country they are governing, and isn’t working to benefit it. There is a sort of malevolent spiteful childishness about many recent policies. Recent energy policy is one classic example of self-harm. Totally destructive, totally useless, no benefits to either country or world. But supported regardless by all parties but Reform, mostly in the name of climate. The general situation is working up to a real crisis, and Net Zero is working up to be a catalyst.
He is in the end optimistic in this piece – he is basically saying in a roundabout way that come the next Parliamentary elections the British will ‘send the bums home’ and there will be a peaceful pragmatic solution. I am not so sure. Four years is a long time to go, that’s one thing, and the IMF delegation are already making sure they have their bags packed. Will it last four more years?
The second thing is, in the future election the current UK electoral system is capable of delivering a Parliamentary majority to a party even more out of touch with opinion in the country than the present one, and with an even smaller minority of votes. If it happens a second time, in the middle of IMF ordered austerity, it might not be received as calmly as it was at the last election.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/25/beginning-english-revolution/
Paywalled unfortunately.
The political class…
Think we are a racist mob ready to riot. Only one national flag gets to be called a racist symbol.
I’d add Spiked and the Sceptic to the Spectator and Torygraph
Come to Glasgow. Plenty of Union flags hanging from lampposts around July 12th, with no Council interference. The other day I saw lots of Scottish flags hanging from lampposts. Not sure why. But an SNP-controlled Council isn’t going to remove them.
I was referring to the English national flag – the Cross of St. George.
Have you any of those flying there? Or are they all Saltires?
They’re all Saltires….
As an expat in Derby I can’t think there’d be many, just like you don’t see many Saltires and Dragons in England most days.
CampsieFellow did make me laugh – he chose to ignore the obvious.
I noticed on the TV news recently that some of the Union flags at so-called protest rallies were fixed to sticks upside down.
Any national flag flown upside down is a signal of distress.
Reminds me of Pulp’s song Common People;
Most of the MP’s are just posh troughers, and the few that do have some sort of honourable intentions to make lives easier for the rest of us get stymied by Whitehall’s quicksand bureaucracy. They all say whatever it is they think we want to hear, and then do the least amount possible while blaming the other side for as much as they can.
It’s well past time they all got a lesson on who the true sovereigns of England are, and it’s not Rachel from Accounts or Big “Three Houses” Ange or Mister “Two-Tier” Starmer.
Labour is a middle class outfit that deplores its former raison d’etre.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
Direct air capture of CO2 is nonsense. If a molecule of CO2 is removed from the air, a molecule of CO2 will diffuse out of surface waters to replace it. The engineers should review Henry’s Law.
CO2 will also diffuse out of porous soil and desert sand, out of caves and out of buildings.
After the EPA rescinds the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding, all the subsidy-mining companies will go out business and fade away.
They want to imprison CO2 while releasing real criminals, but CO2 is an escape artist.
Even if it works (it won’t) it will make not the slightest difference to the climate. It will however make a difference to my bank balance. Miliband needs locking up. He’s insane.
I think not insane, but caught in what we might call ‘Alinksy’s Vice’. His problem is, he’s a radical, and he had picked a subject to organize around, namely climate and energy.
But not having read or understood Alinsky, who is a sort of Machiavelli of political organization – and fully Machiavelli’s equal in intelligence and realism – he allowed himself to drift first into proposing policies and then into taking responsibility for implementing them.
The Alinsky rule is, never propose policies, always restrict yourself to criticism. And never join a government, always stay on the outside. And above all, never take individual responsibility for implementing anything. If you do these things you will end up not being a radical organizer but just doing politics as usual and your movement will run into the sand. In the end, the charge of ‘sellout’ will be inescapable.
Miliband made his first error with the Climate Change Act. However, that set dates so far out that at the time it was hard to see the error mattered. He then started to advocate for a near term, 2030, proposal. That was fatal. He is now tied to its success or failure. And its failing.
But the characteristic of having picked an issue to organize around is that you cannot just drop it. For the movement its key, talismanic. You don’t get to say, that was yesterday, now the working class or equity or whatever demand more gas plants now. Credibility will not survive.
Which is why Alinksy would say, never bet your movement on the success of some radical policy you have proposed. Because like all such policies it will be risky, subject to sabotage, require compromise which will alienate the faithful, and if it fails it will take your movement with it.
This is what is happening to Miliband. He is caught in a self created vice and there is no way out of it. So he is just taking one step at a time in the same direction, and getting closer and closer to the cliff of blackouts and bankruptcy. And people in general waking up and saying if this is the solution, and its so disastrous, then what exactly was the problem again?
We may say, we would not be there. But if we were, what would we do? Would we really have the grit to make a U-turn, denounce Net Zero, give up the miinisterial glitz and rewards? And whether or not Miliband has the grit, is he yet ready for the change of heart? Is he really able to assess the disaster objectively? Doesn’t look like it, so we have double down on carbon collection. And lots of other things.
Millivolt is the favourite minister per labour members, if Starmer falls Ed will take over regardless of how badly Net Zero is going. We are stuffed unless the IMF includes stopping Net Zero as one of its conditions for the inevitable bailout.
The whole point is not even Millibrain. It would end Labour overnight if they gave up on the “net zero” policy, therefore it has to continue. Whilst this will be economically disasterous, it is impossible for Labour to stop it. As Reform understands this and is going to stop it (and for that matter so is Trump), it is miles ahead in the Polls, today they would have a majority in the Commons of at least 350 seats. Therefore Labour HAS to continue, although any of them with any brains must realise that economics will finish them anyway, and they may as well cancel the whole project and keep themselves going for a few more months. All of the Labour voting “elite” in London would be disappointed, but this would make no immediate difference.
I think that what is really happening is that the immigration problems are being used as a diversionary shield to stop this disaster being recognised. Immigration is fairly cheap today, whereas the “net zero” is very expensive indeed. Immigration and benefits will end a government sometime in the future, stopping the nonsense and the bang would be so large that everyone would instantly see that they had been conned for years, with the aid of fake “neo-science” which is obviously wrong to all Engineers, probably on the back of WEF payments to the “perps” whoever they are.
Given power, Reform will put our electricity price back where it should be at about 7p per unit, not the 35p at the moment. The grid will not need to be significantly rebuilt, Gas will generate all the power until enough nuclear can be built. Manufacturing will in time restart and employment will surge bringing in more tax. Life may even get back to normal as all the wind and solar are consigned to the scrap heap of history.
Have you seen the analysis of vax data from Japan this week? That is another nail in the coffin of Labour, More, longer and harder (remember?) and that con is now killing millions of the vaxed, the locked up, the children with no education and the rest. Apparently most people in Western Countries now are mentally ill! That is a legacy that should never be forgotten for the entire uni-party!
“Given power, Reform will put our electricity price back where it should be at about 7p per unit, not the 35p at the moment.”
Dream on,
They may knock a few pence off to say they’ve kept the manifesto promise, but no government will give up an easy income levied on energy that everyone has to pay & is used to paying.
The next one to be caught in Alinsky’s Vice will be Torsten Bell. Having foolishly accepted the post of Pensions Minister, he now has accepted responsibility for economic policy under Reeves. This will be the end of him – when the disaster arrives, as it is inevitably going to, it will take Bell and his radical program with it. Like Miliband he will have no way out, no answer to the charge that he was in charge when it happened.
They really don’t understand. When you are out of office, advocate all kinds of crazy things, the crazier the better since that way they will never be tried and the bad results tied to you. So they are a great basis for organization and recruitment. But whatever you do, don’t take office with the remit of implementing any of them!
“The Times reports that Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is negotiating with Swiss firm Climeworks to develop Britain’s first DAC plant under the Government’s HyNet cluster.”
Will it be known as a cluster f**k?
If Miliband is in charge it’s a dead cert.
It is already, but very clever!
I kinda miss the commenter Sam. Never saw a CCS story he didn’t try to spam on.
You’ll have to make do with…
nyolci
AlanJ
Nick Stokes
The Tool Man
BigOilBob
TheFinalNail
Mr GrimNasty
ad nauseam.
From article:”Britain’s Quixotic Carbon Capture Crusade”.
Another case of using their language to describe something. This should be called oxygen capture. They will be taking out 1 molecule of CO2 which is needed for food production and 2 atoms of oxygen needed for human life.
Foolish people.
On the plus side, the absurdity of co2 sequestration is the only thing keeping me in a job now that virtually all new UK offshore oil and gas projects have been banned.
Story tip:
Retreating glaciers in Austria reveals ski lifts, from the 1970’s.
So, reading between the lines, that specific glacier is retreating to the point they were in the 1960’s?
https://www.powder.com/news/melting-glacier-reveals-ski-lift
That got a laugh out of me!
It’s the Holy Roman Empire 2.0
My wife, a historian tells me the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, Roman nor an empire.
She’s correct.
The Holy Roman Empire was a medieval and early modern state in Central Europe that lasted from 962 to 1806.
In 1512, the name was changed to the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.” Early twentieth-century German nationalists and Nazi Party propaganda identified the Holy Roman Empire as the “First Reich”.
The European Common Market was said to be neither European, common nor a market.
The fantasy of reconstructing the Holy Roman Empire has lasted, right to the present incarnation in the EU. At least they have now collectively abandoned the effort to bring it about by military force. Having spent centuries slaughtering their young men in the attempts.
The IEA didn’t publish its usual glossy update on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage , CCUS, as they call it, this year but just issued a small update as basically it is going nowhere fast.
Modest changes occurred in the year to the first quarter of 2025. There is just over 50m tonnes of co2 capture and storage capacity in operation “slightly higher than one year ago”
“Current trends are insufficient to align with a path to net zero emissions by 2050”
“Project pipeline to 2030 shows greater emphasis on moving existing projects ahead rather than announcing or planning for new ones”
“The capture capacity of projects in the early stages of the planning process declined”
“8 new projects began operation in 2024…relatively small scale…..increase in operational capture capacity was therefore marginal”
“Most, more than 60% of operational capacity, remains at natural gas processing facilities”
“The world’s largest capture project is at a cement factory in Norway”
Let’s see how many secret Swiss bank accounts get set up.
The problem is, because they are secret Swiss bank accounts … we’ll never know.
Measured water vapor increase is about 40 % more than significantly possible from just planet warming. The upper limit to water-vapor-increase from warming is bounded by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. This FALSIFIES the assumption that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase caused by CO2 increase. Verification is at recent update to https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Diverting taxpayer funds to grifters’ pockets is a never- ending diversion for those who believe they can master Gaia. Numeracy is not a requirement for such wishful delusions.
For the environmentalists and climate alarmists, none of these technologies have to be able to display a positive track record. They just have to look good on paper so that their proponents can claim they’re taking the initiative on fighting the mythical climate crisis. It’s only after they demonstrate they can’t deliver the benefits that they claim or become outright failures that they are finally abandoned, but only after their advocates have taken their share of the government/ taxpayer subsidies.
Rationalization 101. They will find a way to blame something, anything, but themselves.
Just when you think government can’t get any dumber you read about fiascos like this.
Milliband is of Polish origin, but is IN Britain. The Poles cleverly ejected his family in time.
He is not a zealot for anything but MONEY! CCUS has always been about money. It produces NOTHING, but can murder very large numbers of people. This has already happened – Lake Nios. 1500 people died from a small burp of CO2. What Milliband wants will bring a LARGE burp to Britain.
He is dangerous because he is a unscrupulous money-seeker at any cost to Britain.
Who selected him? Follow the money to know.