Why we should say ‘No’ to Peak Cluster

Across Cheshire, one issue has united residents, farmers, landowners and rural communities: the proposed Peak Cluster carbon capture pipeline. The project would transport carbon dioxide from cement and lime plants in Staffordshire and Derbyshire through Cheshire, across the Wirral and out to storage sites beneath the Irish Sea.

The scale of the proposal is enormous, and so too are its economic, environmental and social consequences. Opposition to the project is therefore widespread. Last week, during an adjournment debate, I conveyed to the Minister the concerns of hundreds of constituents who responded to my survey. I also outlined a different approach to reducing industrial emissions: one that is practical, innovative, cost-effective and focused on delivering long-term results.

On paper, Peak Cluster promises environmental progress. In practice, however, it reflects a familiar tendency in public policy: prioritising expensive and unproven solutions over approaches that address problems at their source. After reviewing the evidence and engaging with stakeholders, I have concluded that this project is the wrong choice for Cheshire and the wrong choice for the country.

Cost vs. Benefit

The economics alone should give policymakers pause. Around £60 million has already been spent developing the project, including support from the National Wealth Fund. Yet construction is expected to cost at least £5 billion, with the final figure likely to rise.

For Cheshire, the benefits are minimal. We do not gain jobs from the cement and lime industry, yet our rural economy would bear the disruption. Farmers would face additional costs, local communities would experience years of construction activity, and valuable agricultural land would be affected.

Supporters argue that the project should be viewed through the lens of the national interest. That is a fair challenge. However, even from a national perspective, serious questions remain.

The financial viability of Peak Cluster depends heavily on future carbon prices and government policy. If those assumptions change, the risks fall on taxpayers. Committing billions of pounds to a project whose success relies on uncertain future conditions is a significant gamble.

More fundamentally, Peak Cluster seeks to manage emissions after they have been produced rather than preventing them in the first place. It assumes cement production will continue largely unchanged and that we must build vast infrastructure to capture and bury the resulting carbon dioxide.

Yet alternative technologies are already emerging. Just across the border in Wrexham, Material Evolution has developed an ultra-low-carbon cement capable of reducing emissions by up to 85 per cent. The technology is already being used commercially and demonstrates the potential of innovation to tackle emissions at source.

Rather than investing billions in pipelines and storage infrastructure, government should prioritise research, development and the commercialisation of cleaner industrial technologies. If we are serious about long-term decarbonisation, we should back innovation that reduces emissions directly, not lock ourselves into a costly project that may become outdated before it delivers its promised benefits.

Prevention, after all, is better than cure.

Protecting Cheshire’s Countryside

Peak Cluster has committed to delivering biodiversity net gain, but no amount of mitigation can disguise the reality of the project’s impact on Cheshire’s countryside.

The proposed route would cut through ancient woodland, hedgerows and productive agricultural land that have shaped our landscape for generations. Ancient woodland cannot simply be replaced, and historic hedgerows are an integral part of both our natural environment and rural heritage.

Farmers have raised serious concerns about the consequences for their businesses. Construction and maintenance work could disrupt grazing patterns, access routes and day-to-day operations. For a county whose economy and identity are closely tied to agriculture, these concerns cannot be dismissed.

It is difficult to argue that digging up large areas of countryside and productive farmland is the most environmentally responsible way to address an environmental challenge.

The people I represent are not anti-environment and they are not opposed to innovation. What they are asking for is simple: evidence. Evidence that this is the best available option, that the costs and risks have been fully assessed, and that alternatives have been properly considered.

Having examined the case for Peak Cluster, I do not believe that standard has been met. The project offers significant disruption, substantial cost and considerable uncertainty while providing little direct benefit to Cheshire and raising serious questions about national value for money.

Instead, we should focus investment on cleaner industrial technologies that reduce emissions at source, support domestic cement and lime production, create high-quality jobs and strengthen the UK’s long-term competitiveness.

That would be a genuinely forward-looking approach to decarbonisation. For those reasons, I believe Peak Cluster should not proceed.