Making the case for carbon capture and storage

Carbon capture pipelines in South Dakota, US. ‘There are a diversity of opinions on the viability of CCS and scientists are not uniformly doubting.’ Photograph: Stephen Groves/AP

We were surprised to see the negative focus of the article regarding carbon capture and storage (UK government gambles on carbon capture and storage tech despite scientists’ doubts, 30 March). Far from unproven, this group of technologies is being applied on many tens of industrial CO₂ capture projects, including two operating offshore (Sleipner and Snohvit), which have been capturing a million tonnes of CO₂ a year for 27 years and 15 years respectively. The geography professor quoted in the article as being unaware of any CCS that works should perhaps take a trip to see one.

There are a diversity of opinions on the viability of CCS, and scientists are not uniformly doubting – see the Royal Society report from 2022. It is also clear from Emily Shuckburgh and Bob Ward that CCS is imperative, which flows directly from the executive summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s March 2023 sixth assessment report that mentions “Transition from fossil fuels … To very low carbon fossil fuels with CCS”.

The argument against CCS, that it is unproven – aside from being incorrect – is circular. The IPCC says we need it; everyone, including our committee on climate change, agrees we need it for industrial processes. And if it were unproven we should quickly get on with proving it in the UK, while driving up efficiency and decreasing hydrocarbon extraction.
Prof Paul Fennell Imperial College London
Tim Dixon IEAGHG
Prof Jon Gibbins University of Sheffield
Prof Stuart Haszeldine University of Edinburgh
Prof Niall Mac Dowell Imperial College London
Prof Geoffrey Maitland Imperial College London

• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.