#### will be Starmer’s white elephant - a terrible mistake costing billions Carbon capture and storage (CCS), as presented in this [Gaurdian article on 11th Oct 2024](The supposedly green project – brainchild of the previous Tory [[Government]] – will increase emissions, not reduce them) by [[George Monbiot]], is critiqued as a misguided, profit-driven initiative that benefits the fossil fuel industry more than the environment. This high-cost project, with a projected budget of £21.7 billion, is seen as financially unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible. It prioritises a scheme to capture emissions from industrial sources and bury them under the North Sea over more cost-effective and [[Sustainable]] solutions, such as renewable energy expansion, nature restoration, and insulation of homes. The project’s fiscal burden is expected to escalate, yet the government insists on pushing CCS, likely driven by fossil fuel industry lobbying. ![[carboncapture.jpg]] The promotion of CCS is symbolic of how fossil fuel interests shape government policies, often undermining scientific recommendations and public interests in favour of corporate profit. For example, Labour cut funding for greener infrastructure projects, like its “green prosperity plan,” which would have reduced emissions through various avenues and improved public welfare. Instead, funds were directed to CCS, despite its questionable environmental efficacy and high cost. Further, CCS does not contribute to genuine decarbonisation; by enabling continued fossil fuel extraction, it may even worsen emissions. As the article points out, the additional fossil fuel demand for CCS operations could exhaust domestic gas supplies, leading to reliance on highly polluting liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports, further entrenching dependency on fossil fuels. Hierarchical power structures are criticised for their tendency to favour the wealthy and influential over the public or environmental needs. Governments’ prioritisation of profit over people and ecosystems is highlighted as a flaw of [[hierarchical]] governance. An anarchist [[Society]], by contrast, with decentralised and participatory decision-making, could foster direct accountability, resisting the influence of [[Corporations]]. An anarchist [[Society]] could prioritise community-driven projects, focusing on local solutions, sustainable [[Agriculture]], renewable energy, and circular economies that tackle climate change [[holistically]] rather than relying on profit-motivated schemes. In sum, CCS is critiqued as a misallocation of resources benefiting fossil fuel interests, revealing systemic corruption within hierarchical governance. An alternative, decentralised society might more effectively address climate challenges by prioritising environmental and community health over corporate gain. - [[George Monbiot]] `Concepts:` [[Ecology]], [[Politics|Politics]] `Knowledge Base:` [[Digital index]] [[Articles]]