After decades of producing planet-heating fuels, depleted oil and gas fields in Malaysia and Indonesia may have a new purpose: putting carbon dioxide from some of Asia’s top emitters back underground, in a big but risky bet by state oil giants and governments.
Malaysia’s oil company Petronas has signed at least 24 memoranda of understanding with nine countries – among them Japan and South Korea – to store their excess CO2 emissions in exploited fossil fuel sites off the coast of peninsular Malaysia and Borneo island, in the gas-producing region of Sarawak.
These plans have sparked accusations of “carbon colonialism” from climate activists, who see exporting emissions for storage in another country as a “get out of jail free” card for continued fossil fuel use.
Canada’s new leader culls carbon tax seen as burden on voters
While large carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities exist all over the globe, with many new ones under development, the scale of Petronas’ ambition is untested in the region.
The state-run company is looking to develop three CCS hubs and two flagship projects across Malaysia, for a total storage capacity of 15 million tonnes of CO2 per annum (mtpa) by 2030 – equivalent to Senegal’s emissions in a year. All the world’s CCS plants combined can currently hold about 51 mtpa.
Petronas plans to put 20% of its capital expenditure into decarbonisation projects between 2023 and 2026, with CCS making up a significant portion of the billions of dollars it wants to invest.
These projects are part of Malaysia’s broader energy transition strategy and its bid to become a carbon capture and storage (CCS) hub for Asia, a goal shared by neighbouring Indonesia.
Some of Asia’s top emitters are set to become key clients, with the Japanese government deeming CCS as “indispensable” for reducing power-sector emissions. Out of nine projects Japan has selected to test the viability of CCS, four aim to export carbon overseas, including to Malaysia and Indonesia.
While the International Energy Agency says a small amount of carbon capture will be needed in sectors where emissions are hard to reduce, like cement production, campaigners criticised Indonesia, Malaysia and Japan’s bet on carbon capture as a bid to prolong the lifespan of fossil fuel infrastructure.
Exporting emissions
Some experts consider both Indonesia and Malaysia as favourable locations to store captured CO2 because of their abundance of depleted oil reservoirs and saline aquifers, which could in principle hold the gas below ground.
Under the proposed deals, big industrial emitters in Asia would capture CO2 released when burning fossil fuels in their plants and factories, turn it into a liquid form, and ship it to Southeast Asia for storage.
Last September, Petronas agreed with eight Japanese companies and the Japan Organization for Metals and Energy Security, a government body, to design a project to capture and ship CO2 from Japan, then store it in a compressed “supercritical state” in a depleted gas field off the Sarawak coast.
The Japanese entities will be responsible for capturing and liquefying the carbon emitted from power plants and industrial facilities, including steelworks and chemical plants, in Japan’s Setouchi region. Together with Petronas, they will also design the transport, injection and storage stages.
Meanwhile in Indonesia, Japanese utility Chubu Electric Power has expanded its CCS collaboration with energy giant BP to connect Japan’s Nagoya port with the BP-owned Tangguh gas field in West Papua.
Through initiatives like the Asia Zero Emission Community, Japan has pushed fossil fuel developments in Southeast Asia, including exporting and storing overseas the equivalent of around one-tenth of its current emissions by 2050, according to a report by Japan’s Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth.
In shifting their climate burden and responsibilities to tackle it onto lower-income nations, Japan and other developed countries are engaging in “carbon colonialism”, campaigners say – mimicking a pattern seen in the export of plastic waste from the Global North to the Global South.
“Wealthy, high-emitting countries get to keep burning fossil fuels while offloading their carbon onto nations that have done far less to cause the crisis,” said Sisilia Nurmala Dewi, 350.org Indonesia team lead.
This Australian coal community is co-designing its own green future
Risky business
Oil and gas giants like Petronas, BP and Indonesian state oil firm Pertamina, as well as the Malaysian and Indonesian governments, have proposed projects worth billions of dollars, anticipating growing demand for CO2 storage. But analysts are more cautious, citing high uncertainties in the CCS market and technical difficulties in keeping the carbon below ground.
Given its high cost, CCS is largely unfeasible in Malaysia and Indonesia without the existence of cross-border projects, said I Gusti Suarnaya Sidemen, CCUS research fellow at the Jakarta-based Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA), which founded the Asia CCUS Network together with the Japanese government. These are the kind of projects Japan and South Korea are keen to develop.
By financing projects in Indonesia, Japan is creating a strong incentive for Jakarta to pursue these ventures, said Dwi Sawung of WALHI Indonesia, an environmental NGO. “It’s really Japan who will pay.”
On the back of that, both Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta are providing incentives for developers – with the Indonesian government even bearing some of the expense of enhanced gas recovery, a method that uses the captured CO2 to extract more fossil fuels, said ERIA research associate Ryan Wiratama Bhaskara, adding that these investments are potentially risky for both countries.
Grant Hauber, strategic energy finance advisor for Asia at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), a US-based think tank, said there is a “dangerous lack of knowledge in decision-makers worldwide” about the capabilities, risks and costs of CCS.
Hauber said even widely cited success stories, such as the Sleipner and Snøhvit projects in Norway, have struggled with the unpredictable nature of CO2 storage, as the captured carbon has been found to leak and is difficult to measure. Gas giant Equinor’s Sleipner project, for example, overreported its carbon savings by 28% from 2017 to 2021, due to defective monitoring equipment, according to DeSmog.
Injecting carbon into depleted oil and gas fields, where there are many potential paths for leakage or failures, is particularly tricky, Hauber noted, adding that geologies change across regions, making it more complex. “The chemistry is different. The conditions are different. Storage sites will perform differently. It’s what makes it so expensive,” he said.
To date, the vast majority of captured carbon has been used for a process known as enhanced oil recovery, which uses the CO2 to squeeze out hard-to-get oil in depleted fields. But 78% of new projects planned globally are destined for CO2 storage, according to the Global CCS Institute.
The risk of these high-cost abatement schemes, experts say, is that they divert funds away from proven climate solutions, prolong the burning of fossil fuels and, ultimately, cause more emissions. “The real solution isn’t to bury carbon; it’s to stop digging up more,” said 350.org’s Dewi.
“Not silver bullets”: COP30 CEO downplays impact of yearly climate summits
Tool for meeting climate goals?
Malaysia and Indonesia, however, view CCS as essential to meeting their net zero goals while they remain dependent on fossil fuels. For example, by mid-century, Indonesia plans to fit 76% of its coal-fired power plants with CCS technology.
According to ERIA’s estimates, Malaysia has the highest storage potential – around 130 billion tonnes of CO2 – out of all assessed Southeast Asian countries, followed by Indonesia with 49 billion tonnes of CO2.
Both countries are building up their legal frameworks in preparation. Last year, Indonesia adopted regulation that allocates 30% of storage capacity for imported CO2. Malaysia’s parliament approved its first CCS bill this month. In both cases, critics point to a lack of clarity around who is responsible for ensuring CO2 storage in the long run, and whether companies would be liable for damages.
Some projects have already moved forward. The Kasawari gas field off the Sarawak coast is set to become the world’s biggest offshore CCS facility as early as this year and Malaysia’s first large-scale project of its kind.
Kasawari’s gas reserves contain high levels of CO2 and Petronas, the plant’s owner, aims to remove the carbon and inject it under the sea in a depleted gas field to cut the emissions of its extractive activities.
Yet, even if the facility meets its target of storing 3.3 mtpa of CO2, this would amount to only a 1% reduction in Petronas’ current emissions, says a group of Malaysia-based NGOs.
The projects have also received criticism for their lack of transparency. “The environmental impact assessment for Kasawari was approved with absolutely no consultation,” said Meenakshi Raman, president of environmental justice non-profit Sahabat Alam Malaysia. Pollution threats to fishing communities are among the concerns.
Raman also cited a 2023 report pointing to a “huge gap” between the optimistic goal of CCS plants capturing 90% of emissions and real-world results, which show capture rates of around 50%.
The report by policy institute Climate Analytics warned that under-performing plants could become a source of increased emissions for many countries, Raman said, making CCS a “false solution” to the climate crisis.
The post Carbon colonialism? Malaysia and Indonesia plan storage hubs for Asian emissions appeared first on Climate Home News.
Carbon colonialism? Malaysia and Indonesia plan storage hubs for Asian emissions
In the shadow of Ankara’s new international football stadium, a group of visiting journalists – including Climate Home News – perched on tiny chairs watched over by mannequins dressed in old mobile phones, newspapers and bottle tops.
As they sipped Turkish tea in a room meant to educate visitors – mostly schoolchildren – about recycling, they were addressed by Ekrem Yıldırım, lead on zero waste at Türkiye’s environment ministry.
After Yıldırım spoke of Türkiye’s plans to pursue “zero waste”, one journalist asked why the sugar cubes for the tea were individually wrapped in plastic and why water had been served in single-use plastic pots.
Yıldırım accepted that this kind of packaging is a problem and glass or porcelain is preferable. He added that legislation to ban single-use packaging has been introduced to parliament, but is not yet finalised.
The situation symbolised what Turkish experts and environmental campaigners flag as a contradiction between the “zero waste” image that the government – represented by First Lady Emine Erdoğan – presents to the world and the reality of rising Turkish waste generation, significant climate-wrecking methane emissions from landfills and a politically influential industry producing plastics from oil and gas.
International campaign lacks domestic punch
Türkiye’s Zero Waste initiative – which is a vague plan to reduce waste generation and increase recycling, rather than a specific goal to reach zero waste by any specific date – was launched in 2017.
It came at a time when the Turkish government was under fire for its coal mines, its refusal to ratify the Paris Agreement and its brutal response to protests against plans to turn Gezi Park in Istanbul into a barracks and shopping mall.
Ümit Şahin, climate lead at Sabancı University’s Istanbul Policy Center, said the Turkish government saw then, and still sees, the initiative as “a way to build its international reputation on environmental issues”.
“Recycling gives the government something visible to point to,” he said. “It can promote the campaign without taking on powerful fossil fuel interests or changing its development priorities in mining and energy.”
The campaign has been led by Emine Erdoğan, the wife of Türkiye’s long-time president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In 2022, she convinced countries at the UN General Assembly to create an annual International Day of Zero Waste on March 30.
COP31 President Murat Kurum has picked up on the theme, saying that zero waste is “one of the main pillars” of Türkiye’s COP31 presidency. In September, he reminisced at a press briefing in the northern city of Trabzon about old-fashioned Turkish rural life where food waste would be given to animals, ripped clothes would be mended, and new attire was only for religious festivals.
President Erdoğan told leaders at September’s UN General Assembly in New York that an “incredible desire for consumption” was fuelling a “culture of waste”. “We cannot speak of justice in a world where tonnes of food are thrown into the garbage on one side while hundreds of millions of people collect food from garbage containers on the other,” he railed.
Sedat Gündoğdu, a marine biologist and environmental researcher at Türkiye’s Çukurova University, told Climate Home News that zero waste is a worthy concept. But when it comes to putting words into action at home, he said, the government has failed. Official statistics show the amount of waste each person in Türkiye generates has remained broadly unchanged since 2010 and the total annual amount has increased by 15%.
Single-use plastics ban
To help fix this, an European Union-style ban on single-use plastics – like plastic cutlery, cups and stirrers – was reported by state media in March to be working its way through parliament and expected to come into effect on September 1.
But PAGEV, a Turkish plastics industry trade association, argued that such “restrictive” policies had failed in the EU and would damage the Turkish economy and take away jobs.
Despite COP31 shining an international spotlight on the Turkish waste sector, the ban has yet to be approved by President Erdoğan. Gündoğdu and Greenpeace Türkiye campaigner Berk Butan fear that, if it is approved, it will be watered down so that Turkish companies can make single-use plastics in Türkiye even if they can no longer sell them in the country.
The latter restriction, Gündoğdu argued, would be “meaningless” because it cannot be enforced. Similar measures in Germany and Italy have failed, he said, because manufacturers just relabelled single-use products like plastic straws as multiple-use straws.
To close these loopholes, he said, strict definitions and design criteria are needed, which the Turkish legislation does not have. Butan added that single-use plastics could still be made in Türkiye, and then exported, used and dumped abroad, causing the same environmental damage somewhere else.
Türkiye’s other flagship waste prevention measure is a tax on plastic bags, which led to an immediate drop in usage when introduced in 2019. But, despite rampant inflation, the tax has risen from 0.25TL in 2019 to just 1TL ($0.02), meaning it’s several times less in real terms than in 2019.
“You can’t even buy chewing gum with one lira,” said Gündoğdu. “If you see one lira on the ground, you will not take it. So that’s why it’s meaningless.” Butan added that the government did not invest in creating behavioural changes among the public, such as encouraging them to shop with reusable textile tote bags. “They just put in the tax and they didn’t do the rest,” he said.
Landfills tidied up but still leaking methane
While the amount of waste generated keeps rising, there has been progress in dealing with the waste so that it is at least out of sight. Official statistics suggest more and more of it is being collected and, while the vast majority is still sent to landfill rather than recycled, those landfills are now covered and more advanced than they used to be.
On the outskirts of Ankara, waste management company ITC gave Climate Home News a presentation showing one such transformation. A before image shows what the nearby Mamak landfill looked like in 2006 – a huge open pile of garbage known in Türkiye as a “wild landfill”.
Another image shows what the site looks like now with the rubbish covered up with soil. ITC says that Ankara’s garbage is brought to them on trucks, and sorted into recyclables and biodegradable waste, which is then turned into compost or burned for energy. Waste heat is used to grow blueberries, tomatoes and lavender or to warm shoppers in a nearby branch of the Swedish furniture giant Ikea.
But despite this progress, satellite observations from Carbon Mapper shows the site is still leaking methane – a particularly potent greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere. Exactly how much is unclear from Carbon Mapper’s limited observations but the nearby Sincan landfill leaks about 1,200 kilogrammes of methane an hour into the atmosphere. Climate Home News analysis suggests this does similar damage to the climate as 73,000 petrol cars. ITC did not respond to a request for comment.
In October, a Guardian investigation showed these methane leaks were happening at landfills across Türkiye and are some of the worst in the world. Researchers from the University of California (UCLA) said they were “mind-boggingly large”. Aside from the climate damage, local residents near one Istanbul landfill report a smell so bad they told the Guardian they have to sleep with their windows closed even on hot summer nights.
Waste imports from Europe
Dealing with its own growing waste is difficult enough, but Türkiye also imports mountains of plastic from its European neighbours too. Ever since China restricted waste imports, the European Union has exported more plastic waste to Türkiye than to any other nation by far.
Despite European Commission concerns about how well Türkiye deals with the waste, the trade is expected to grow as an EU ban on exports to non-OECD countries – a category that does not include Türkiye – comes into force on November 21.
The export of waste to Türkiye has seen European countries accused of waste imperialism. Butan and Gündoğdu said Türkiye should ban waste imports. But COP31 President and Turkish environment minister Kurum pushed back on this during a press conference in Trabzon in September.
“You called it waste imperialism,” he said through a translator, but “nobody is forcing anyone” to import waste. He added that handling the waste creates jobs in Türkiye and that it doesn’t matter to the environment where the waste is recycled as long as it is.
But most of Türkiye’s municipal waste is currently not recycled. Turkish official Yıldırım said that the country’s recovery rate is currently around 30%. The most recent statistics available from the EU suggest Türkiye in 2020 had a recycling rate of 12%. The EU country average in 2024 was about 50%.
At the zero waste centre in Ankara, Yıldırım said Türkiye is improving its recycling rate and wants to do even more. The aim, he said, is to reach a rate of 70% by an unspecified date, up there with global frontrunners like Germany.
To achieve that, he said Türkiye is raising awareness of the importance of recycling including through cartoons for children and initiatives for football supporters to collect and redistribute unwanted toys.
As he spoke to journalists, a portrait of the ‘Girl with a Pearl Earring’ made from buttons, a sultan made from old plastic straws and a horse and wolf made from metal cogs and screws looked on. “The world is something that has been entrusted to us, and waste is something you steal from the future,” said Yıldırım.
Climate Home News’ travel and accommodation for the trip on which much of this article was reported was funded by the Turkish government.
The post Türkiye pushes “zero waste” at COP31, but is it delivering at home? appeared first on Climate Home News.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2026/11/11/turkiye-pushes-zero-waste-at-cop31-but-is-it-delivering-at-home/
More than 92,000 people have registered to attend the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, Turkey, potentially making it the largest COP in history.
Carbon Brief analysis of the provisional lists of delegates, published by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), reveals that more than 14,000 delegates have been registered as “host country guests”.
For comparison, the provisional list for COP30 in Belém, Brazil, last year included only around 1,000 delegates in this category.
As with COP30, Donald Trump’s US government has not sent a delegation. Other no-shows include Israel and Myanmar.
It was reported ahead of the summit that Taliban officials from Afghanistan had been registered for the event as observers; however, there are no delegates from observer states in the provisional lists.
With more than 3,000 “virtual” delegates signed up to attend the summit online, the total number of people registered for the event surpasses 95,000.
Further analysis of the participant lists will be added to this article in due course.
Party delegates
With 92,934 participants registered, COP31 is provisionally the largest COP in history – topping COP28 in Dubai, which was attended by more than 80,000 people.
This total is based on the delegates that have registered to be at the summit in person. The UNFCCC releases the final figures – based on participants collecting a physical badge at the venue – after the summit has ended.
The chart below shows how the provisional figures for COP31 compare to the final totals in previous COPs – going back to COP1 in Berlin in 1995.
The participant lists provided by the UNFCCC are divided between the different types of groups and organisations attending the summit. The largest group at COP31 is for delegates representing parties. These are nation-states, plus the European Union, that have ratified the convention and play a full part in negotiations.
This group adds up to 18,812 delegates – the second largest after COP28.
Membership
Support award-winning climate journalism
(In keeping with recent COPs, the UNFCCC has published spreadsheets that name every single person that has registered for the summit – excluding support staff. Previously, COPs have typically included thousands of “overflow” participants in which countries and UN agencies could nominate delegates without their names appearing on their official lists.)
For consistency with Carbon Brief’s analysis of previous COPs, the above chart includes overflow delegates as a single group. However, the participant lists do divide the overflow delegates between parties and observer groups. Including the overflow numbers takes the total for party representatives to more than 34,000.
Nations
The map and table below present the delegation size – split between party and overflow badges – for all the countries registered for COP31. The darker the shading, the more delegates that country has signed up. Use the search box to find the data for a specific party.