Investing in the Wrong Carbon Capture: UK' Billions for CCS but Nothing for the World's Tropical Forests

As COP30 approaches in Belém, Brazil — a summit likely to hinge on climate finance and forest protection — the UK has declined to pledge new bilateral public funding to Brazil’s Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF), a proposed $125 billion global fund to pay countries for preserving standing forests.

Instead, the government is committing over £21.7 billion in public funds (with total investment projected at £40+ billion including private capital) to domestic carbon capture and storage (CCS) — a technology yet to scale economically despite decades of development.

This is not mere oversight. It is a strategic miscalculation that prioritises speculative engineering over proven natural climate solutions.

A Stark Contrast

UK CCS Programme	TFFF (Brazil-led)
£21.7 billion public commitment (2024–2040) for 4 clusters (Teesside, Humberside, Merseyside, Scotland)	No new UK bilateral pledge
Targets ~20–30 MtCO₂/year stored by 2030	Aims to protect forests sequestering 7–10 GtCO₂/year globally
Cost: ~$100–300/tonne CO₂ (IEA)	Cost: ~$10–50/tonne CO₂ protected (Griscom et al., 2017)
Track record: <50 MtCO₂/year captured globally (2024)	Track record: Amazon Fund reduced deforestation 40% (2004–2012)

What the UK Says

A DEFRA spokesperson:

“The UK is incredibly supportive of the TFFF in principle but cannot commit public funding at this early stage due to budget priorities.”

Translation: Strong words, no new money.

Yet the same government found £21.7 billion for CCS — marketed as a “jobs and growth” story in Red Wall constituencies — while tropical forests deliver global public goods with no domestic photo-ops.

Why This Matters

1. Forests are the world’s cheapest carbon sink: Tropical forests absorb ~25–30% of annual human CO₂ emissions for free! Every $1 billion invested in protection avoids 5–10x more emissions than the same spent on CCS (Stern/NHM, 2021).

2. CCS is necessary, but not sufficient: CCS has a role in hard-to-abate sectors. But globally, it captures 0.1% of emissions. The UK’s 2030 target (30 Mt) equals <1 week of Amazon carbon uptake.

3. Diplomatic Damage: The UK co-designed TFFF concepts at COP26. Now, with the US, EU, and Norway preparing contributions, Britain’s absence undermines trust ahead of Brazil’s presidency.

4. A Question of Priorities: If “budget pressures” block £100 million for rainforests, how do they permit £870 million/year for CCS? The answer lies in political geography, not planetary science.

A Credible Path Forward

The UK does not need to abandon CCS. It needs balance, unfortunately the government's stance across the whole net zero piece is a mismatch of objectives and ideas that is lacking credibility. Redirecting just 5% of the £21.7 billion CCS budget (£1 billion) to TFFF and multilateral forest funds, would protect 50-100 million hectares, equivalent to 10 years of planned UK CCS storage!

Conclusion

Carbon capture and storage technologies will undoubtedly help in the future, but the world's tropical forests are under enormous threat and are in urgent need of long-term, coordinated protection from world leaders. The carbon protection above the ground, offered by living rainforests, is working right now, at a fraction of the cost, with co-benefits for biodiversity, water, and indigenous communities.

If the UK wants to lead at COP30, it must match its domestic ambitions with global responsibility. Otherwise, its net zero strategy risks being remembered not as leadership, but as carbon capture of the political imagination.