Carbon capture and storage is not a solution to the climate crisis,
but a dangerous distraction
2024 May 8thDear Mr. Ken Saito, Minister of Trade, Economy and Industry in JapanWe are writing to express our deepest concerns over recent developments regarding plans to export
Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) emissions from Japan to other countries.
The Japanese parliament is currently discussing the Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) BusinessBill to set a legal framework for CCS projects in Japan and overseas. Meanwhile, Japanesecorporations are already recklessly pushing CCS projects in the region as they sign relatedagreements with oil and gas giants such as Petronas and ExxonMobil.
As of April 2024, there are at least 15 agreements signed by Japanese government entities andcorporates to explore the feasibility of exporting carbon dioxide to be stored in Indonesia, Malaysia,
Australia, and other unspecified countries in the region. Of these, Malaysia had the mostagreements signed with Japanese companies (please see the table on page 3).
This practice not only exacerbates the climate crisis but is fundamentally against the principle ofclimate justice, particularly as it results in the dumping of CO₂ in Global South countries likeMalaysia and Indonesia. CCS is a high-risk and high-cost1 and proven failure that comes with longterm liabilities and risks. Relying on such a technology will only delay real climate action and harm
our environment and society.
We call on the Japanese government as well as private companies who are promoting CCS to stop
doing so and reduce the emissions at the source by phasing out fossil fuels such as coal, oil, andgas.
We also urge the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, and other countries in the region tostop providing, extending, or channeling government support, including funding and subsidies for
CCS/CCUS and related infrastructure. Public resources must be invested in sustainableinfrastructure and community-based initiatives that serve the people, not polluters.
CCS has had a long history of problems – including significant technical and financialchallenges.
Most CCS projects have had unique engineering challenges which resulted in underperformanceand cost blow-outs, as happened to the Gorgon CCS project in Australia. Gorgon agreed to pay tooffset its target shortfall of 5.23 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is estimated to cost between
US$100 million and US$184 million2.

1Rupert Way et al. “Heavy dependence on Carbon Capture and Storage ‘highly economically damaging’,says Oxford report” 4 Dec 2023
2
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) “Gorgon Carbon Capture and Storage: The
Sting in the Tail” April 20241

Additionally, a CCS project in Algeria where CO₂ had been injected into depleted gas fields from2004 was suspended in 2011 when movement was observed in the layers of the ground that was
supposed to prevent CO₂ from leaking out, provoking concerns of leakage3. A similar event
happened with Norway’s Sleipner CCS project, where CO₂ migrated upwards faster than expected.4
Second, environmental and health risks are an additional major concern, including the risk of CO₂
leakage5, increased water stress, ocean acidification, and the possibility of CCS projects inducing
earthquakes as a result of ground injections.
While CCS technology has been developed since the 1970s, its use globally has mainly been
confined to enhanced oil recovery (EOR), a process in which captured CO₂ is injected into oil fields
to increase the amount of crude oil extracted. This promotes increased fossil fuel production,leading to additional carbon emissions. Over 80% of CCS projects are used for EOR, or for oil andgas production6.
Compressed CO₂ is highly hazardous upon release and can result in the asphyxiation of humans
and animals.7 In 2020, a CO₂ transport pipeline that was part of an EOR project in Mississippi, USAwas damaged, resulting in the evacuation of more than 200 people, and the hospitalisation of 45people with carbon dioxide poisoning8.
Thirdly, exporting CO₂ emissions perpetuates energy inefficiency as there is a significant
increase in energy consumption associated with certain phases of CCS.
The most energy-intensive part is for the capture and compression of carbon, with additionalamounts needed for transportation and storage. CO₂ liquefaction is essential for efficienttransportation and storage9. Capture and compression alone require 330–420 kWh per tonne ofCO2 captured. CCS projects increase the energy demand of the facility they capture carbon from by
15%–25% on average10.
The fourth challenge is the issue of ensuring permanent storage. For CCS to be a viable option fordecarbonisation, it is important to make sure that carbon can be stored in a stable state
permanently. IPCC uses the word “durably” to describe the storing of CO₂ in geological, terrestrial,or ocean reservoirs, or in products for Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) . There is no clear definition
for the length that “durably" entails, but some have suggested at least 200-300 years11. A legal
system that can guarantee the maintenance of sequestered carbon for such a long period is not3MIT, In Salah Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project, Last accessed February 2024.
IEEFA “Norway’s Sleipner and Snøhvit CCS: Industry models or cautionary tales?” June 2023
5
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) “Deep Trouble: The Risks of Offshore Carbon Captureand Storage” November 2023
6
Zero Carbon Analytics “A closer look at CCS: Problems and potential” 29 Feb 2024
7
Center for International Environmental Law “Carbon Capture and Storage” last accessed March 7th 2024
8Huffington Post, ”The Gassing Of Satartia”, August 2022; The Intercept, “Louisiana rushes buildout ofcarbon pipelines, adding to dangers plaguing cancer ally”, August 2023.
9
According to CCS proponents, CO₂ liquefaction reduces the volume of the gas, making it easier and morecost-effective to transport over long distances.
10Angela Carter, Laura Cameron ”Why Carbon Capture and Storage Is Not a Net-Zero Solution for Canada’s
Oil and Gas Sector The Bottom Line: Unpacking the future of Canada's oil & gas”, February 9, 2023,
11
Information note, Removal activities under the Article 6.4 mechanism.
42

feasible in practice. After the monitoring period conducted by the utility company ends, thegovernment is likely to take over that responsibility and finance the management of the large
amount of carbon at the public’s expense – leaving this problem for future generations to deal with.
Cross-border transport of CO₂ for permanent geological storage below the seabed is inpractice a dumping of waste. Exporting CO₂ for a country like Japan that does not have sufficientsuitable geological storage capacity, but still wishes to use CCS to reduce emissions domestically,is unjustifiable. The current bill does not pinpoint a clear entity to take responsibility for monitoring
the CO₂ for any leaks that occur at the export destination, or during the overseas transfer. We needrich countries like Japan to undertake deep, rapid, and sustained emission reductions at home andat the source.
Dumping CO₂ elsewhere is irresponsible and a form of waste colonialism. There is no way to deploy
CCS in a way that is compatible with the 1.5 degree target, without posing substantial risks to theenvironment and communities on the frontlines. To conclude, CCS is a dangerous distraction, afalse climate solution, ineffective, exceptionally risky, and against the principles of climate justice.
Therefore, we, the undersigned organisations, urge the Japanese Government to recognise thegrave consequences of exporting CO₂ emissions overseas and stop promoting CCS. Instead,Japan should undertake deep emission reductions at home by investing in renewable energy to stayin line with its international climate commitments. We also call on potential "recipient" countries toreject CCS projects and instead urge for collaboration on the region’s vast renewable energy
potential12.
List of CCS Projects involved with the export of CO₂ from Japan (From June 2022 to April 2024, nonexhaustive)
Agreements
1SignedCompanies

Sources ofCO₂Storage
Location

PETRONAS,
JERA

CO₂ emittedMalaysia

Joint Study Agreement with PETRONAS to Explore
Feasibility of the Entire Carbon Capture and Storage
Value Chain between Japan and Malaysia

April 2024

2MOUs Concluded on Joint Studies with Mitsubishi
UBE Cement and Resonac Concerning CCS Value
Chain Development between Malaysia and Japan

April 2024

Mitsui & Co.,
Ltd.,
Resonac's
Oita, Ube
CementCO₂ emitted Malaysia
at MUCC'sUbe Cement
Plant andResonac's
OitaComplex

3

Establishment of potential CCS value chains fromCO₂ capture and accumulation in Tokyo Bay,shipping, and CO₂ storage in Malaysia

Mar 2024

Mitsubishi
Corporation,JX Nippon,ENEOS, andPETRONAS

CO₂ emitted
in Tokyo Bay

by JERA inJapan

Malaysia

12

Carbon Brief “Wind and solar capacity in south-east Asia climbs 20% in just one year, report finds” 17
January 2024, Renewable Energy Institute “Renewable Energy: The Top-Priority for Southeast Asia to Fully
Blossom” September 2023

3

4

Evaluating the export of (CO₂) from Japan to (CCS)
projects in Australia and other countries in Asia

Mar 2024

JX Nippon
Oil & Gas
ExplorationCorporation,
ChevronNewEnergies

CO₂ emitted
fromindustries inJapan

Australia,Asia(unspecified)

5

Memorandum of Understanding with Chugoku
Electric Power on the Creation of a CCS Value
Chain between Malaysia and JapanFeb 2024

Mitsui & Co.,
ChugokuElectricPower Co.

CO₂ emitted
by a coalfired power
plant
operated byChugoku
ElectricPowerMalaysia

6Agreement to conduct a feasibility study covering on(1) CO₂ capture in Japan, (2) shipping the CO₂ toAustralia, (3) production and storage of synthetic fuel(e-fuel) derived from the CO₂ in Australia, and (4)establishment of a comprehensive supply chain,including export of e-fuel from Australia

Feb 2024

ITOCHU,HIF Asia
Pacific,
Mitsui OSK,JFE Steel

CO₂ emittedin Japan

Australia

7

Establish a CCS value chain by capturing CO₂
emitted from industrial emitters in JP (incl Eneos
refinery), transporting it by CO₂ carrier to the Port ofBonython in Australia, and injecting and storing it ata storage site

Feb 2024

JX Nippon
Oil & Gas
ExplorationCorporation,
Mitsui OSK

CO₂ emittedfrom ENEOS
refinery andnearby
variousindustries inJapanAustralia

8MoU for a joint feasibility study that will evaluate thepotential to capture, transport and sequester
emissions from Japan, supporting expansion of theMoomba CCS project in Australia

Dec 2023

Santos, JX
Nippon Oil &Gas
Exploration
Corporationand ENEOS
Corporation

CO₂ emitted
from Japan

Australia

9MOU for Feasibility Study to Realize "Setouchi /Shikoku CO₂ Hub Concept"

Dec 2023

Sumitomo,
JFE Steel,
Sumitomo
Osaka
Cement,Kawasaki
Kisen
Kaisha,Woodside
EnergyCO₂ emitted
from theSetouchi andShikoku
regions

Australia

10 MoU to study cross boundary CCS projects between
Japan and Malaysia

Oct 2023

METI,
JOGMEC,Petronas

CO₂ emittedin Japan

Malaysia

11 MoU for feasibility study of an international CCUS
value chain from Port of Nagoya, Japan, using CO₂storage at the Tangguh* field in Indonesia

Sep 2023

Chubu, BP

CO₂ emitted
from Port ofNagoya,JapanIndonesia

412 MOU for Feasibility Study to Establish a JapanAustralia CCS Value Chain

Sep 2023

Sumitomo,
Toho Gas,
Kawasaki
Kisen
Kaisha,Woodside13 Mitsui, PETRONAS and TotalEnergies have selected
offshore Peninsular Malaysia as the location ofunderground sequestration of CO₂ ... Under thiscollaborative framework, Mitsui, together with
PETRONAS and TotalEnergies, will work together
on technical evaluation and development concept ofdepleted fieldJune 2023

Mitsui & Co,Petronas,
TotalEnergies

14 MoU to Evaluate and establish CCS value chains in
the Asia Pacific Region

Jan 2023

NipponSteel,MitsubishiCorporation,
ExxonMobil

15 The three Japanese energy companies plan to store(CO₂) emitted during the production of liquefied
natural gas (LNG) at projects in northern Australia
and they also hope to eventually transport CO₂ fromJapan by shipJun 2022

JERA, TokyoGas andINPEX, andSantos

CO₂ emitted
from various
industries
andcompanies inthe Chubu
region,Japan

Australia

CO₂ emitted
from Nippon
Steel'ssteelworks inJapan

Malaysia,Indonesia
andAustralia
Australia

CC:
Mr. Fumio Kishida, Prime Minister of Japan
Ms. Yoko Kawakami, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs
Ms. Shintaro Ito, Japanese Minister of Environment
Mr. Shunichi Suzuki, Japanese Minister of Finance
Mr. Nobumitsu Hayashi, Governor of Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)
Mr. Ichiro Takahara, Chairman and CEO of Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security
Mr. Atsuo Kuroda, Chairman and CEO of Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI)
Mr. Chris Bowen, Australian Minister for Climate Change and Energy
Ms. Penny Wong, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs
Ms. Madeline King, Australian Minister for Resources
Mr. Arifin Tasrif, Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources of Indonesia
Mr. Bahlil Lahadalia, Minister of Investment/Head of Indonesia Investment Coordinating Board
Mr. Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, Coordinating Minister for Maritime and Investment Affairs of Indonesia
Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim, Prime Minister of Malaysia and Minister of Finance
Dato' Sri Haji Fadillah bin Haji Yusof, Ministry of Energy Transition and Water Transformation
Mr Nik Nazmi bin Nik Ahmad, Malaysian Minister of Natural Resources and Environmental
Sustainability
Mr Mohd Rafizi bin Ramli, Malaysian Minister of Economy
Datuk Patinggi Tan Sri (Dr) Abang Haji Abdul Rahman Zohari Bin Tun Datuk Abang Haji Openg,
Premier of Sarawak
Mr. Katsuya Nakanishi, Representative Director, President and CEO of Mitsubishi Corporation

5

Mr. Tomohide Miyata, Representative Director and Executive Vice President of ENEOS Corporation
Mr. Toshiya Nakahara, President and CEO of JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation
Mr.Kenichi Hori, Representative Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mitsui & Co.
Mr. Yukio Kani, Global CEO of JERA
Mr. Hayashi Kingo, President and Director of Chubu Electric Power Co.,
Mr. Ashitani Shigeru, Representative Director, Chairperson of the Board of The Chugoku ElectricPower co.
Mr. Masahiro Kihara, Masahiro Kihara, President & Group CEO of Mizuho Financial Group, Inc.
Mr. Toru Nakashima, President and Group CEO of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial GroupMr. Hironori Kamezawa, President & Group CEO of MUFG
Tan Sri Tengku Muhammad Taufik Tengku Kamadjaja Aziz, President & Group Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Executive Director of Petronas
Signatories (90 organizations from 26 countries)
Malaysia
1. Forum Kedaulatan Makanan Malaysia (FKMM)
2. Aliran
3. Gabungan Darurat Iklim Malaysia (GDIMY)
4. KAMY
5. RimbaWatch
6. Greenpeace Malaysia
7. Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center)
8. Consumers' Association of Penang
9. SAVE Rivers
10. Jaringan Ekologi dan Iklim (JEDI)
11. Treat Every Environment Special Sdn Bhd
12. Climate Action Network Southeast Asia (CANSEA)
13. Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM)
14. Alliance Of River Three
15. Gerakan Belia Sepunjabi Malaysia
16. Malaysian Youth Delegation (MYD)
17. Sahabat Alam Malaysia / Friends of the Earth Malaysia
18. Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation
19. MYDCLIMATEIndonesia
20. Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI) / Friends of the Earth Indonesia
21. Kampoeng Tjibarani
22. World March of Women Indonesia
23. Yayasan PIKUL
24. KRuHA
25. AEER (Action for Ecology and People Emancipation)
26. TREND ASIA
27. Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia
28. greenpeace indonesia
29. Humanis (affiliated with Hivos)
30. Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Pijar Harapan Rakyat
631. WALHI East Java
32. WALHI Riau
33. Eksekutif Daerah WALHI Aceh
34. Jala PRT
35. WALHI Sulawesi Tengah
36. DEWAN MAHASISWA UNIVERSITAS ISLAM NUSANTARA
37. WALHI Papua
Australia
38. Solutions for Climate Australia
39. Friends of the Earth Australia
40. Australian Conservation FoundationJapan
41. Kiko Network
42. Mekong Watch
43. Friends of the Earth Japan
Regional/International
44. Friends of the Earth International
45. Oil Change International
46. Hawkmoth
47. Senik Centre Asia
48. Asian People’s Movement on Debt and Development
49. SteelWatch
Bangladesh
50. Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN)
51. Dhoritri Rokhhay Amra
52. Waterkeepers Bangladesh
Bosnia and Herzegovina
53. Center for Environment / FoE Bosnia and Herzegovina
Denmark
54. NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark
55. Miljøforeningen Havnsø-Føllenslev
56. Fossil Free Future in Denmark
DR Congo
57. Congo Basin Conservation Society CBCS network DRC
58. Innovation pour le Développement et la Protection de l'Environnement
England Wales and Northern Ireland
59. Friends of the Earth England Wales and Northern Ireland
Finland60. Friends of the Earth Finland
7Germany
61. Buergerinitiative gegen CO2-Endlager e.V.
62. Andy Gheorghiu ConsultingGhana
63. AbibiNsroma FoundationIndia
64. Integrated Rural Development SocietyItaly
65. ReCommon
Kenya
66. WMW Kenya
Nepal
67. Forum for Protection of Public Interest (Pro Public)
Pakistan
68. Policy Research Institute for Equitable Development (PRIED), Pakistan
69. Indus Consortium
70. Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum
Papua New Guinea
71. Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights Inc.
Philippines
72. 350 Pilipinas
73. Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center - Friends of the Earth Philippines
74. People of Asia for Climate Solutions
75. Youth for Climate Hope (Y4CH)
Korea
76. Citizens' Institute for Environmental Studies (CIES)
Scotland77. Friends of the Earth Scotland
South Africa
78. South Durban Community Environmental Alliance
79. groundWork/ Friends of the Earth South Africa
Sri Lanka
80. Centre for Environmental Justice/ FoE Sri Lanka
Togo
8

81. Les Amis de la Terre-Togo
Uganda82. Centre for Citizens Conserving Environment & Management (CECIC)
US
83. Friends of the Earth US
84. Indigenous peoples of the coastal bend
85. Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch Association
86. Texas Campaign for the Environment
87. Healthy Gulf
88. Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
89. Vessel Project of Louisiana
90. For a Better Bayou9

1011