Seize the moment on carbon capture. That was the message yesterday to Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, on the eve of his visit to Scotland from Alex Salmond. The SNP leader's challenge to the Prime Minister over the uncertainty dogging a groundbreaking carbon capture power station earmarked for Peterhead in his Banff and Buchan Westminster constituency has to be seen in the context of political point-scoring in the run-up to May's Scottish Parliamentary elections. Mr Salmond needs votes if he is to win the neighbouring Gordon seat in the May poll and return to Holyrood. Being seen to fight for a multi-million pound project and linked jobs would help.

But his appeal has a deeper resonance and validity. Carbon capture is the only proven way to reduce carbon emissions while continuing to produce electricity from oil, coal or gas-fired power stations. However, these pump millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. As these plants will generate most electricity for the foreseeable future, it is essential that technologies which nullify the build-up of poten- tially catastrophic concentrations of greenhouse gases are developed and deployed. This is where carbon capture comes in.

The technology differs to some degree depending on whether the fossil fuel is oil, coal or gas but the end result, storing carbon in a safe and secure environment, is the same. In Peterhead's case, BP, the energy giant, plans to build a "zero-emission" plant that would convert natural gas from the North Sea into hydrogen and carbon dioxide, using the former to generate enough electricity to power 750,000 homes. The carbon dioxide would be injected into porous rock from which oil and gas had been extracted.

BP and its partner, Scottish and Southern Energy, are keen to get going but want a subsidy from the government that takes account of electricity being more expensive to produce using carbon capture technology. This could be in the form of "zero-emission" electricity being treated the same as from renewable sources; in other words, being priced more highly. There is a debate to be had about the price the public is prepared to pay in return for a cleaner environment for future generations. The ball is in the government's court but the best that can be said of ministers is that they have failed to provide wholehearted support for an initiative that deserves better.

The Treasury will not commit itself to long-term subsidies until the technology has been proved to be feasible and cost-effective. The ball has been passed to the Department of Trade and Industry to produce a report but BP needs answers before the end of this year otherwise, it warns, the oil field involved (Miller) will have to be shut down. It would be scandalous if that were the outcome.

Britain has the opportunity to take a world lead in carbon capture, not just using coal. China, hungry for energy to power economic growth, is opening a new coal-fired plant every week. Global warming demands a global response and helping the Chinese, and other energy-guzzling, heavily polluting countries such as India, to reduce emissions would make a global difference. Closer to home, the EU has set member states, including Britain, tough targets to cut emissions. Carbon capture, utilising knowledge of the geology of the North Sea to pump CO2 into oil fields, maintaining the pressure and making extraction of additional fossil fuels easier, would mean these targets were less challenging. Carbon capture will not provide all the answers but it has so much going for it that the government's apparent reticence is difficult to understand. It is time ministers gave the technology a long-overdue boost.