Climate funds must empower families, not the the companies who created the climate crisis

As temperatures drop, millions of households across the UK will be reaching for the thermostats in dread, with energy bills yet again set to skyrocket. But as families are counting every pound, the government is deliberating pledging taxpayer money either to oil and gas giants that get richer from high bills – or to support families to reduce bills in the long term with greener heating systems. The choice should obviously be an absolute no-brainer.

According to media reports ministers are looking to find more than £2 billion in savings from the energy department’s budget, with funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen and household heat pumps all potentially facing the axe.

We all know that public money is under pressure, and difficult decisions are unfortunately inevitable. But not all climate spending is created equal. Although the UK’s progress on heat pumps is far more modest than many other countries, the Boiler Upgrade Scheme is delivering emissions reductions, helping households move away from fossil fuels and building the foundations of a cleaner energy system. Meanwhile carbon capture and storage (CCS) has attracted billions in public commitments despite a troubling record of ongoing delays, undoubted failures and uncertain results.

Clearly Ministers should be asking just one fundamental question; which investments can actually demonstrate that they deliver meaningful emissions reductions and genuine value for taxpayers’ money?

New research from Oil Change International reveals just how chronically skewed the UK’s climate spending priorities have become. The UK is now the world’s biggest public funder of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fossil fuel-based hydrogen, with a staggering £24 billion in pledged support — that’s more than double the $15 billion (£11 billion) committed by the United States. It’s absurd .

In 2024, the government announced £22 billion in support for CCS over 25 years, much of it destined for projects involving some of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies. Yes, it’s true! And it’s just the beginning. Billions more could be needed if the UK is to deliver its wider carbon capture ambitions.

Consider Net Zero Teesside, a gas-fired power station being developed by BP and Equinor, which Oil Change International show as receiving £10 billion in government support. The project promises to capture and store a mere two million tonnes of CO2 annually, yet estimates suggest it could still produce between 28 and 41 million tonnes of emissions over its 25-year lifetime. A full bath with two cups of water taken out, is still a full bath. 

Not only is the fundamental effectiveness of CCS in doubt, the practical reality is that it has rarely matched anything like its ambition. A 2024 study published in Nature Climate Change found that 88% of planned carbon capture capacity between 1972 and 2018 completely failed to materialise. Even projects that do get off the ground have struggled to deliver on their promises, raising very serious questions about relying on the technology to meet our urgent climate targets. 

The insane tragedy of this funding fiasco risk is that taxpayers are left underwriting expensive projects that deliver far less than promised, if at all. It’s billions of pounds for pie in the sky.

But then contrast this with heat pumps, a proven technology already heating millions of homes across Europe. In countries like Norway, Sweden and Finland, they have become a mainstream alternative to fossil fuel heating, cutting emissions and reducing dependence on the volatile global gas markets that fuel our escalating energy bills. Across these three countries more than half of households use heat pumps – this is what real world leadership truly looks like. Unlike the tech fairytale of carbon capture, this is a technology that is already working at scale.

Meanwhile here at home the Boiler Upgrade Scheme is helping households make that transition, offering people grants to overcome the high upfront costs of installing heat pumps. Its £2.7 billio we n budget over five years represents a tiny fraction of the long-term sums committed to carbon capture, and yet it supports a technology that can deliver emissions reductions right now.

At a time when millions of families are struggling with energy costs, cutting this important support would risk making cleaner heating even less accessible. The answer to Britain’s dependence on expensive fossil fuels should obviously be to help more households escape it, not make that transition harder.

This is also a fundamental question of fairness. As millions of households face another winter of punishing energy bills, some of the biggest beneficiaries of Britain’s carbon capture subsidies are the very fossil fuel companies that have helped fuel the climate crisis. BP, Equinor and Eni are all involved in major projects backed by billions in public money, and are the companies that will once again record eye-watering profits through this very energy crisis. And who benefits? Their shareholders . 

Worse still, Parliament’s own Public Accounts Committee has found that around three-quarters of the government’s initial £22 billion carbon capture commitment is expected to be funded through levies on consumers. In other words, households already struggling with energy costs could end up footing much of the bill. You just couldn’t make it up, and you don’t have to.

Big oil and gas continue to profit from the biggest threat our species has ever had – why then should we the public now shoulder the financial risks of their latest unproven tech, particularly when support for households to move away from fossil fuels immediately is itself under threat?

This Budget is a chance to put things right. Ministers have the opportunity to safeguard measures that empower households to lower bills and invest in a cleaner future instead of bankrolling exorbitantly expensive projects with ludicrously uncertain results. Look, with public finances stretched and households struggling, every pound matters. That’s what proper budgets are about isn’t it?

The choice should be clear; protect the technologies like heat pumps that work, stop writing lots of zeros on cheques for those that don’t, like carbon capture, and ensure that the costs of tackling climate breakdown falls on those who helped create it and are still full on fuelling it, not us, all the people already paying the price. It’s time for informed decisions based upon science, not reckless fantasy, it’s time for bold brave leadership not dangerous short-termism, it’s time we got what we voted for.

Chris Packham is a naturalist, environmental and animal welfare campaigner, author and television presenter on BBC Two’s Springwatch.