Labour’s Welsh factory plan masks troubling contradictions in its climate crusade
The British public, battered by energy bills that climb faster than Snowdon’s slopes, might have raised a weary eyebrow at Ed Miliband’s latest eco-sermon. On September 25, the Energy Secretary descended upon Padeswood in North Wales to anoint a carbon capture retrofit at the Hanson cement works with up to £60 million in taxpayer pounds, heralding it as a flagship for the UK’s first low-carbon cement production. With carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology integrated into the plant’s operations, this facility would, we were told, slash cement’s carbon emissions significantly and support hundreds of jobs, proof of Labour’s “green industrial revolution.” It was a moment for eco-activists to rally and devolution enthusiasts to wave their daffodil flags.
But beneath this green rhetoric lies a troubling contradiction. In October 2024, the UK government pledged £21.7 billion for carbon capture, usage, and storage (CCUS) over 25 years, targeting decarbonisation in sectors like cement, as part of DESNZ’s industrial strategy. Yet this dovetails with an estimated £17.5 billion in annual fossil fuel supports for 2024-25, including tax breaks and unpriced externalities. This isn’t mere muddle it’s a calculated framing, cloaking cement sector protections as climate imperatives. Labour’s media blitz touting “affordable net zero” in glossy press releases and Miliband’s X posts , papers over the fossil reliance while households face lingering price pressures from prior surges and net zero costs, with OBR forecasting stable but high bills (~£1,700/year) into 2026. The beneficiaries? Industrial giants and union-backed jobs, leaving voters to wonder who’s bankrolling this green charade.
A Welsh Dream, or a Subsidy Swamp?
Let’s examine the plant. Heidelberg Materials UK promises to integrate carbon capture and storage (CCS) into its Padeswood operations, capturing around 800,000 tonnes of CO₂ annually from cement production to enable low-carbon output by 2029. The pitch is compelling, cement, responsible for 8% of global CO₂, gets a sustainable overhaul, and North Wales, far from a tech hub, gains a green credential. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband welcomed the September 25, Final Investment Decision as a milestone in the government’s Clean Power 2030 Mission, with DESNZ touting up to 50 permanent jobs and 500 during construction, alongside “affordable” net zero pathways. Welsh ministers, eager for devolved prestige, endorsed the vision as part of the HyNet North West CCS cluster, imagining a greener industrial future.
Yet the figures expose a stark contradiction. The project, backed by government contracts within a £9.4 billion CCUS funding package over the Spending Review period, is a step forward but dwarfed by the scale of remaining challenges. The Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) June 2025 progress report warns that delays in phasing out fossil infrastructure, such as ongoing unabated gas generation and new homes with gas boilers, could add significant emissions, estimating, for example, around 0.8 MtCO₂e annually from continued boiler installations if the Future Homes Standard is not fully implemented. The Padeswood CCS retrofit, like other industrial projects, will increase electricity demand on the grid, contributing to broader net zero transition costs that could pressure wholesale prices, as analyzed in Watt-Logic’s May 2025 report on affordability. For the estimated 12 million households struggling with energy costs in 2025, per the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, such pressures exacerbate vulnerabilities, with average bills still ~£1,700 annually despite recent stabilizations.
The hypocrisy deepens. Miliband’s July manifesto rejected “fossil handouts,” yet DESNZ’s projected budget, reaching £12.6 billion by 2028-29, includes substantial allocations for CCS as “net zero enablers” within hard-to-abate sectors. While no specific leaked documents were uncovered in recent investigations, CCC assessments highlight the risk of such supports extending fossil dependencies, potentially delaying Carbon Budget 6’s 2033-37 targets.
The Cronyist Core: Heidelberg Materials and Union Influence
The deal’s beneficiaries raise questions of impropriety. Heidelberg Materials, a €35 billion global player, spends millions annually lobbying for CCS supports, securing preferential access to public funds. This isn’t innovation, it’s protectionism cloaked in environmental rhetoric, propping up a sector outpaced by China’s state-backed low-carbon cement producers, which achieve emissions cuts at half the cost.
The cost of Miliband’s “British jobs” narrative is steep. While the Padeswood retrofit safeguards roles, legacy cement sites face over 1,000 job losses amid declining production, the UK’s lowest since the 1950s, with no DESNZ retraining support. Byline Times’ reports suggest a deeper scandal, Labour’s union allies, including Unite and GMB, lobbied for “industrial” net zero policies, ensuring benefits for their members while consumers bear the cost.
The Chinese Advantage: A Global Green Mismatch
A critical perspective reveals Labour’s broader misstep, this isn’t just environmental hypocrisy, it’s a revival of 1970s industrial policy, propping up Britain’s uncompetitive cement sector while China edges ahead in low-carbon efficiency. Beijing’s cement giants, supported by around £2 billion in targeted tech subsidies under the 14th Five-Year Plan, have reduced emissions intensity by around 10-15% since 2020, to roughly 5-10% below UK levels, largely through scale and measures like alternative fuels and waste heat recovery, per Carbon Brief analyses. Their advantage lies in such efficiencies, qualities Britain’s fragmented, subsidy-reliant industry lacks. Rather than mandating CCS across all plants, DESNZ channels funds into a single Welsh showcase, effectively outsourcing true decarbonization to foreign rivals who could supply cheaper, lower-intensity cement to UK markets by 2030.
Labour, once a critic of Thatcher’s market reforms, now masks its protectionism in net zero zeal, claiming a Welsh plant can compete globally while relying on the fossil fuels it condemns. The OBR estimates net zero’s £3 trillion cost by 2050 grows with such missteps, as public funds bolster uncompetitive firms instead of cutting VAT on solar or wind. The propaganda lies in the claim of “affordable” climate action, when CCS power demands tether Britain to gas grids, and lingering price pressures.
Parliamentary Silence and Rising Tensions
Westminster’s response has been notably subdued. Miliband’s September 25 announcement faced no Tory opposition, likely due to shared donor interests in the subsidy pool. Hansard records no debates on the £21.7 billion CCS carve-out, fast-tracked under the Enterprise Act while the carbon budget consultation, closing in October 2025, conceals fossil-friendly clauses.
Yet public discontent is stirring. Eco-forums like EcoWatch UK signal growing activist anger over Miliband’s perceived betrayal. The 2022 bill protests, which drew 10,000 to Whitehall, could be dwarfed by 2026’s potential energy riots if OBR’s price spikes materialise. Police crackdowns on eco-demonstrations, enabled by the Public Order Act 2023, risk escalating tensions, particularly if enforcement disproportionately targets net zero critics, as seen in 2024 XR arrests.
The Stakes: Bills, Trust, and a Dirtier Future
The impacts are severe. Beyond stabilising bills, CCS grid demands threaten blackouts for small businesses. Environmentally, the delayed emission cuts by 2030 exacerbate heatwaves and health risks. Public Health England ties PM2.5 from cement plants to 40,000 premature deaths annually which in turn, erodes public trust as taxes are seen to fund corporate welfare disguised as climate salvation.
A Green Mirage Built on Fossil Lies
Miliband’s Padeswood CCS retrofit, sold as a net zero triumph, masks a £21.7 billion subsidy bonanza that props up an uncompetitive cement sector while households face lingering fossil-driven pressures. Backed by crony contractors like Heidelberg Materials and union influence, this Welsh “green” showcase revives 1970s protectionism, ceding low-carbon cement to China’s efficient giants. Parliamentary silence and fast-tracked budgets conceal the deceit, risking million-tonne CO2 spikes and public trust. As eco-protests gather storm clouds over Westminster, a dilemma burns, Will Labour’s green posturing crumble under the fury of a public stung by persistent energy costs, or will voters swallow another charade that funnels their hard-earned cash to fossil giants cloaked in net zero zeal? Time will tell.
*****
The Rational Forum is a reader-supported publication. If you like our work consider becoming a free or paid subscriber, failing that you can always buy us a beer to keep us going. That always helps…
This article (Is Miliband’s Net Zero Cement Pledge a Green Dream or a Fossil Facade?) was created and published by The Rationals and is republished here under “Fair Use”
Featured image: The Rationals
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Best Sad Shayari I do not even understand how I ended up here, but I assumed this publish used to be great