This week's impressive Climate Change Committee report makes a rock solid case for net zero.

BUT it recommends a major program of new fossil fuel infrastructure—giving Big Oil exactly what it wants.

Why that’s a bad mistake, and what the alternative is.

A thread 🧵1️⃣ 2️⃣ This will be lots of new gas power stations & dirty ‘blue hydrogen’ plants (making hydrogen from fossil-gas). The flawed idea is that carbon capture will make them green.

This👇means roughly 2.5 new plants the size of the Net Zero Teesside power station every year. (p210)

Shocked at this week's response from Labour's Sarah Jones MP to warnings from leading scientists that UK carbon capture plans will worsen warming.

Sarah's reply ignores one of the biggest concerns & is very misleading.

My analysis + an appeal to @LabourSJ🧵👇
Letter at end 2️⃣Sarah, only by ignoring the huge warming impact along imported gas supply chains is your dept able to pretend that these plans are 'low carbon'.

The reality? These new gas power stations & dirty “blue” hydrogen factories are as bad as coal.

https://x.com/SiOldridge/status/1873369566841319555

It's not just scientists & environmentalists warning of the huge danger of unchecked climate & nature breakdown 🧵

1️⃣ Consultants Deloitte say that:

❌ Continued inaction: will cost the 🌍 $178 trillion
✅ Accelerating net zero: a $43 trillion benefit.
deloitte.com/global/en/abou… 2️⃣ The Institute & Faculty of Actuaries—expert advisers to the insurance industry—warn we're heading for:

💀 4 billion deaths by 2050
💥 A 50% collapse in GDP from 2070


The billionaire media of course keep quiet about this...theguardian.com/environment/20…

Some Labour MPs are telling constituents they support the Climate & Nature Bill's aims but say it's not needed because existing targets are sufficient.

Here's why they're mistaken 🧵
[copy of their standard email at the end] 2️⃣They acknowledge the crisis and cite existing policies like onshore wind, solar projects, or green funding. But the truth is, these steps are nowhere near sufficient, and our targets far too weak to drive meaningful change in the vital coming years.

Brief reasons why I think Ed Miliband—whose sincerity I don't doubt—has been persuaded we need new power stations & blue hydrogen plants ('CCS plans'). 🧵 2️⃣The UK grid operator set out a scenario which virtually eliminates the need for carbon capture, but it means growing renewables faster.
That's not happening because the big energy companies aren't investing in them. Why?

1️⃣ People are asking why Labour is backing the Conservatives' carbon capture plans, which rely heavily on new gas & hydrogen plants.

I'll do a fuller thread on this, but I've just found an important new reason, and it would be laughable if not so serious.
A quick explainer 🧵 2️⃣Turns out that the computer model that DESNZ uses to find the cheapest way to net zero only accounts for emissions within UK territorial boundaries.

So that means they totally ignore the huge emissions caused along the supply chain for the LNG feeding their new 'CCS' plants!

🚨Leaked docs reveal the UK Gov is taking extraordinary financial risks to push through an £8bn gas power station & carbon capture project, despite an ongoing legal challenge & serious objections from leading climate scientists. #CCS
Here’s the story: 🧵
ft.com/content/927367… 2️⃣ The leak shows that Gov has promised to compensate developers if campaigner Dr @Andrew9Boswell’s legal challenge overturns planning permission.
Taxpayers could face £𝟲 𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 in costs if this happens late in the process, potentially much more.

Scientists are clear that UK’s carbon capture plans are disastrous for climate.

They centre around building 𝗻𝗲𝘄 gas power stations & blue hydrogen plants—and are all about extending the life of the North Sea.

Here’s the evidence 🧵👇👇 2️⃣ Leading scientists wrote to Ed Miliband explaining why the UK’s #CCS plans, devised by the Conservatives, will worsen climate change.
My thread explaining the key issues:

https://x.com/sioldridge/status/1839275170449564082?s=46&t=aeCMmLLDec254RzwjUjamQ

The UK Gov is guided on its carbon capture plans by the "CCUS Council", set up by the Conservatives, and still in place.
I uploaded all their meeting minutes to ChatGPT, asking for evidence that they may be more interested in ongoing fossil fuel profits over decarbonisation.🧵

2️⃣ I asked ChatGPT for examples with names, companies & dates from its analysis of the minutes.

Here's a selection. The intent behind UK's £22 bn carbon capture plans seems to be more about extending fossil fuels than decarbonisation.
@DoctorVive @Andrew9Boswell @GeoffreySupran

Scientists wrote to @Ed_Miliband explaining why the UK's carbon capture plans will 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙣 climate change.
My thread summarising the issues (next tweet).
Another group wrote to defend #CCS.
But just look at the conflicts of interest (in blue)....!
🧵1️⃣of4️⃣
2️⃣I explain why scientists are alarmed at the UK's #CCS plans—which are mostly about building new fossil fuel infrastructure, and account for important new science showing the terrible impact of methane leaks all along the long gas supply chain.

https://x.com/SiOldridge/status/1839275170449564082

The UK gives North Sea oil operators 91% tax relief for investment—but only for oil or gas, not renewables😲
Any incentive at all for new fossil fuels is madness.
This situation should be flipped.
But, that’s not what @RachelReevesMP is planning.
🧵1️⃣
gov.uk/government/pub… 2️⃣N Sea operators pay 3 main profits taxes. Each offers relief for oil & gas investment.
Reeves only proposes to address relief on the Energy Profits Levy:
removing the “Extra Investment Allowance” and merely reducing the “Capital Allowance”.
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…

Collapse of the #AMOC ocean current would force UK and Scandinavian citizens to flee as refugees—as agriculture fails. This could really happen in the next few decades, but we have a chance to stop it.
What can we do?
🧵1️⃣
theguardian.com/environment/20… 2️⃣Our societies face an existential threat, yet so many people are in the dark. But they deserve to know—and we need all hands on deck.
So Governments need to start being honest and brief the public.

https://x.com/SiOldridge/status/1819481287372980269

The UK’s climate targets are no longer fit for purpose. They were devised 14 years ago before scientists realised how bad extreme weather would get at 1.5°C - and ignore international ✈️&🚢until 2033.
🧵/1️⃣
zerohour.uk/downloads/ambi… 2️⃣The 4th & 5th Carbon Budgets (targets) should have been tightened when the UK adopted its new tougher 1.5°C target in 2019.
That's because it's cumulate emissions that matter.
It's no good promising future action.
Bold cuts are needed now.

If Labour proceeds with the Conservatives’ #CCS plans, the UK's climate credibility will be in tatters. This £22B is mostly about building new power stations & blue hydrogen plants powered by highly-polluting imported LNG.
Here’s how they can avert catastrophe🧵1️⃣ 2️⃣These 𝗻𝗲𝘄 fossil fuel plants will have a carbon footprint around as bad as coal, even if the #CCS works.
Leading scientists are so concerned, they've written urgently to the Secretary of State.
My thread explaining the key points👇

https://x.com/SiOldridge/status/1839275170449564082

A solution to this £22bn carbon capture row.
The proposal, inherited from the Conservatives, exempts #CCS plans from normal rules requiring that they will lower UK emissions.
What's there to worry about if #CCS works?
Labour: please subject the plans to proper scrutiny.
🧵1/3

https://twitter.com/SiOldridge/status/1841146658827936073

2️⃣But in doing so, it's vital to be honest about the powerful impact of methane (natural gas):

🛑Independent study shows N Sea methane leaks are 5 times higher than assumed by the Gov. This study actually measured emissions in the N Sea. Gov figures use theoretical leakage factors from manufacturers.
pubs.rsc.org/en/content/art…

🛑Gov still converts methane to a CO₂-equivalent based on its effect over 100 years, but methane's warming effect happens mostly in the first 10-20 years (29x CO₂). Independent experts say methane's 20-year impact is far more relevant, when we're facing deadly climate tipping points now. That's 83x CO₂ - almost 3 times what the Gov assumes.

That means methane's warming impact is underestimated in Gov figures by around 15 times! This is objective science fact.

People ask why I'm against carbon capture. I'm not.
Great - let's try retrofitting #CCS onto the likes of cement plants, power stations etc (though why should the public pay, and not the wealthy FF industry?)
But that's not what the UK's #CCS plans are about.
🧵1️⃣ 2️⃣At the heart of UK plans for #CCS is a drive to provide an ongoing market for North Sea gas. They mostly involve building 𝙣𝙚𝙬 fossil fuel infrastructure—power stations and #bluehydrogen plants and using creative accounting to pretend they're 'low carbon'.

The UK Gov is about to commit £20 billion of public money to carbon capture.
Gov wants to exempt the #CCS industry from rules requiring it to prove that its plans will lower emissions.
Their argument: because the subsidy is just for building the plants - not operating them!
🧵1️⃣

https://twitter.com/SiOldridge/status/1841146658827936073

2️⃣Leading independent scientists have warned that #CCS plans risk worsening climate change - and that advocates are ignoring important factors like leaks of potent warming gas methane all along the supply chain.

https://x.com/SiOldridge/status/1839275170449564082

This is wild! UK Gov is poised to make a decision unlocking £20 billion of public money for carbon capture #CCS based on an 'Assessment' by the previous Tory Gov.
These subsidies are meant to reduce emissions.
Just look at their excuse to avoid scrutiny😮
🧵1️⃣/ 2️⃣Leading scientists warn that #CCS plans will actually mean higher emissions.
If the Tory Gov genuinely believed the false claims about #CCS, why deploy this Orwellian doublespeak to avoid scrutiny of full life-cycle emissions? @HyNotNW @GeorgeMonbiot

https://x.com/SiOldridge/status/1839275170449564082

1️⃣15,000 scientists warn that failure to tackle climate change threatens collapse of natural and socioeconomic systems.
academic.oup.com/bioscience/art…
2️⃣Scientists agree - renewables can provide for all our energy needs, and without fake solutions from Big Oil like carbon capture.
brookes.ac.uk/about-brookes/…
3️⃣One major global study finds that shifting to 100% renewables will save over 60% on our energy costs and pay back in around 6 years.
thehill.com/opinion/energy…
4️⃣Oxford Uni say that the faster we move, the more we'll save.
ox.ac.uk/new/2022-09-14…
5️⃣We can cut our energy use by over half whilst actually improving quality of life - the fastest, cheapest way to cut emissions. Though the super wealthy will have to curb their high-carbon lifestyles - hence the kick-back.
low-energy.creds.ac.uk

Who is arguing against the transition?
❌Polluters
❌The very wealthy who don't want to give up high-carbon lifestyles
❌Billionaire media owners
❌Putin and his troll army
❌People who believe them👆
❌Politicians funded by polluters
❌Agents of the polluters embedded in government and the media
theferret.scot/revolving-door… Sorry - that Oxford Uni link was wrong

ox.ac.uk/news/2022-09-1…

Letter from leading scientists calling for the Gov to halt & re-assess carbon capture plans.
We know the previous Gov was captured by Big Oil. Labour now really needs to listen to these experts.

Key points 🧵
@campaigncc @Andrew9Boswell @KevinClimatetheguardian.com/environment/20… 2️⃣Big Oil aims to slow the transition to clean power with promises of carbon capture - capturing CO₂ from gas power stations, #bluehydrogen production (made from nat gas) etc in new CCS industrial clusters like @NetZeroTeesside.
But there are multiple show-stopper problems....

Two years ago, Sir Patrick Valance briefed MPs & Lords on the climate crisis. Incredibly, fewer than 5% attended😲

It’s time to repeat it, with attendance obligatory. Here are 3 ideas to make it better: 🧵1/4

amp.theguardian.com/environment/20… 1️⃣It should touch on all Earth’s interconnected systems, not just climate. Particular focus needed on the nature crisis which threatens to be just as deadly—there’s no food without pollinators…

resilience.org/stories/2023-0…