The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has published a paper arguing that the UK's extended producer responsibility (EPR) framework — currently used to make packaging producers pay for end-of-life collection and recycling — should be extended to finance carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS).

The paper, titled Financing carbon capture, usage and storage: The case for extended producer responsibility, recasts producer responsibility as a fiscal tool for industrial decarbonisation. Under existing UK packaging EPR, obligated companies pay fees modulated by material type, recyclability and packaging format. IPPR's paper applies that logic to embedded carbon: producers would contribute per tonne of CO2 embodied in goods they place on the UK market.

What does the paper actually propose?

Based on its title and public framing, the paper positions EPR — the principle that producers cover the end-of-life cost of their products — as a financing route for CCUS capital and operating costs. Specific fee levels, the precise product scope and any revenue modelling are not verifiable from the headline alone; IPPR's full report would carry those numbers. The publication date and exact commissioning body within IPPR also remain to be confirmed.

Why IPPR, and why now?

IPPR is a UK-based think tank that contributes regularly to environmental and industrial policy debates. The paper arrives while the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is contracting the first CCUS clusters and while packaging EPR fee modulation is rolling out across obligated producers. IPPR publications frequently surface in select committee evidence and in opposition policy development, meaning the paper is positioned to influence both workstreams simultaneously.

How does this connect to circularity?

For the waste and recycling sector, the proposal matters because EPR has so far been a circular-economy instrument — funding collection, sorting and recycling of packaging, electricals and, soon, textiles. Extending EPR to fund CCUS stretches the principle beyond waste management into climate mitigation. That expansion would alter what EPR pays for, who pays into it, and what compliance teams at major brands are asked to administer. Producers already handling packaging EPR returns would face an additional carbon-cost layer if the model is adopted.

What does the ruling change?

Publication alone does not shift policy. What it does is insert EPR into the CCUS financing debate at a moment when both files are live. If government or industry engagement follows, the proposal moves from think-tank recommendation to consultation topic.

What happens next?

The paper's influence will turn on whether DESNZ, HM Treasury or Defra engage with its recommendations, and whether IPPR's arguments are cited in select committee inquiries on CCUS financing or EPR reform. The next material milestones will be IPPR-led dissemination events and any formal government or industry response. Circular Wire has requested the full report and will publish fee modelling and direct quotations when received.