Source By C4 Center
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: The Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center) is extremely concerned by the government’s rapid acceptance of carbon capture technology, in light of numerous global examples of carbon capture failure and underperformance. Recently, the Minister of Economy, Rafizi Ramli announced that the government is currently working on developing a Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage (CCUS) bill to be tabled in parliament by November this year. With this law, the government aims to become a regional leader in the carbon capture industry, boosting the country’s economy.
However, carbon capture approaches have been widely criticised as unfeasible by global research institutions and environmental groups. As carbon capture technology is designed to store highly concentrated carbon dioxide, any malfunction or failure can result in major health and environmental hazards. Given the high environmental and financial risk associated with carbon capture failure, all precautionary measures must be taken before the government fully embraces the carbon capture industry and approach.
C4 Center demands that in developing the CCUS bill, the government must prioritise and address social and environmental considerations, especially through meaningful public consultation with academia and civil society. Below, C4 Center highlights three major concerns regarding CCUS and Carbon Capture Storage (CCS) approaches, namely:
-There is no evidence to prove that CCS/CCUS technology addresses climate crisis issues
-Carbon import and storage approaches hinder Malaysia’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) obligations to cut down greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and perpetuates carbon colonialism
-Carbon capture industry may exacerbate existing issues with environmental protection
No evidence to prove that CCS/CCUS technology addresses climate crisis issues
CCS/CCUS has been depicted as a clean technology, capturing carbon dioxide emissions from oil and gas extraction processes to prevent their release into the atmosphere. This process is thus deemed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and mitigate the climate crisis. However, according to a study conducted by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), the failure of carbon capture projects worldwide significantly outnumbered successful ones. The research identified several underperforming carbon capture projects including the Boundary Dam CCUS in Canada, Gorgon CCS in Australia, Illinois Industrial CCS in the United States.
In addition, carbon leakage has been reported from the In Salah CCS project located in Algeria, indicating technical risks with the technology. Worryingly, IEEFA found that over 70 percent of CCUS projects utilised the captured carbon for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to extract more oil in depleted fields. This study importantly highlights the various weaknesses and failures in implementing CCS/CCUS projects, which have also been shown to maintain status quo for the oil and gas industry.
The ongoing Sarawak-based Kasawari CCS project led by Petronas is expected to capture 3.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum (Mtpa), and is listed as one of 10 flagship projects under the National Energy Transition Roadmap (NETR). As a comparison, IEEFA’s study of the Gorgon CCS - with a similar carbon capture size capacity of 4.0 Mtpa - underperformed by 50 percent and failed to achieve its target for the first five years. Notably, both the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) for the Kasawari CCS project remain unavailable for the public, seriously hindering public comprehension and assessment of its feasibility.
Carbon import and storage approaches hinder Malaysia’s NDC obligations to cut down GHG emissions, and perpetuates carbon colonialism
Another major concern associated with the carbon capture approach is Malaysia's role as an international carbon storage hub for countries such as Australia and Japan. This has been described as carbon colonialism, as it perpetuates the dominance of high carbon production in developed countries. These countries subsequently send their carbon waste to developing countries such as Malaysia. It is important for the government to recognise that such waste should not be treated as a tradeable commodity. Furthermore, importing foreign carbon emissions will only jeopardise Malaysia’s NDC commitment to cut carbon intensity against GDP by 45 percent by 2030.
This situation mirrors the issue of waste colonialism that is currently happening in Malaysia, whereby national waste management has been overburdened by the massive amount of plastic waste imported from developed countries such as Japan, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, and the United States. Consequently, illicit dumpsites have spread throughout the country, leading to detrimental impacts on health, livelihood, and the environment. Earlier this year, C4 Center published a report titled Ending Waste Colonialism, Governing Plastic Pollution: Japan’s Opportunity to Lead Asia out of the Plastic Crisis, which outlines and analyses this aspect of waste colonialism in the country.
Carbon capture industry may exacerbate existing issues with environmental protection
As it stands, efforts to protect Malaysia’s environment are severely hindered by several major issues. Firstly, existing environmental regulations do not adequately protect the environment, nor are they sufficient for dealing with the climate crisis and its disastrous effects. Currently, the existing Environmental Quality Act 1974 urgently needs further improvement to address new issues of environmental pollution, while the long anticipated Climate Change Act is still in development.
Secondly, there is a significant lack of enforcement and monitoring - due in large part to a lack of resources - as well as a significant lack of avenues for public participation in environmental protection. Thirdly, the constitutional separation of legal jurisdiction over environmental matters between federal and state governments has led to a lack of harmonisation of laws, policies, and enforcement for environmental protection.
It is thus greatly concerning, against this uneven and problem-laden landscape, that the government intends to rapidly develop a new, unproven industry which carries serious environmental risks. In addition, the lack of a comprehensive and robust regulatory framework prior to the development of this industry also carries risks involving land abuse as well as rent seeking and profiteering activities.
It is imperative, therefore, for the government to ensure that the environmental regulatory framework is well developed before developing industries that may bring more damage than benefit. It is vital that the government thoroughly considers the long term environmental impacts over short term economic gain in this instance. Environmental damage from carbon capture failure may be even costlier to repair, alongside the social disruption it may cause.
In conclusion, C4 Center is deeply concerned by the government’s hasty decision to move forward with the CCUS bill without substantiating its viability to all relevant stakeholders and addressing the concerns above. Therefore, C4 Center urges the government to reassess the provisions in the CCUS bill and conduct the following measures:
1.Actively involve academics, reputable civil society organisations (CSO), non-governmental organisations (NGO), and concerned public to evaluate the viability of carbon capture projects and to empower meaningful public participation.
2.Conduct preliminary tests on a CCUS project and provide the real time monitoring data for public viewing.
3.Ensure transparency in the CCUS project details and publicly accessible and mandate EIA and SIA in every CCUS project, and ensure the project details are publicly available and the assessment has meaningful public participation.
4.To have a framework that minimises or prevents corruption risks such as rent seeking and profiteering activities that could jeopardise the safety and integrity of any CCUS projects.
5.Provide evidence of a comprehensive framework including mitigating solutions for potential leakages and regulatory oversight taking into account issues of liability and accountability for the next 100 years.
6.Focus on the existing renewable energy such as solar panel, hydropower, and others and invest in their monitoring and maintenance to ensure long-term utilisation.
0 Comments
LEAVE A REPLY
Your email address will not be published