Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) calls upon the federal government and the minister of the economy in particular, to not rush the passing of the Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) Bill, without more thorough and informed debate and consultations among parliamentarians, including with environmental and public interest groups.
SAM questions the haste and rush when CCUS technology is controversial, and its implementation entails serious economic, environmental and social risks with grave consequences.
Good governance and transparency in the process would entail at the very least, an opportunity for proper debate and meaningful consultations on the bill to provide the ability to make improvements and assess the overall direction and substance of the bill, whilst obtaining further clarity.
The CCUS Bill was tabled in Parliament for first reading on 4 March by the Minister of the Economy, Rafizi Ramli. Indications were that the second and third reading of the bill would take place on 5 March, which would also see a vote being held on whether the bill will be passed. [The House of Representatives approved the Bill on 6 March through a voice vote.]
Proper public consultation on the full bill had not taken place, despite civil society groups raising many concerns. One consultation with the Ministry of the Economy was held last year, and that was limited to a vague and rudimentary framework of the bill without further details.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
This rush and haste to approve the bill is completely unacceptable, given the critical concerns that have been raised on the risks and dangers of CCUS implementation.
The bill tabled raises many questions that need to be addressed. It is mainly focused on the setting up of an agency, provides for licensing or permits, and deals with the setting up of a fund after closure of a facility.
The bill alludes to the issues of CO2 leakage and environmental risks, but does not adequately provide for how these matters will be dealt with, including the issue of who will bear the liability for any accidents that will result, since the lifetime of the CO2 gas is at least hundreds to a thousand years.
There is no provision for detailed environmental and social impact assessments and for public participation prior to approvals, despite the risks involved.
SAM has done a study on the technology which reveals many concerns, which we are forwarding to the Ministry of the Economy, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the Department for the Environment.
Among the risks of carbon capture raised include:
Public and environmental hazard
A UN report on the toxic impacts of some proposed climate change solutions emphasised that the carbon capture process relies on large amounts of chemicals and can release significant quantities of highly toxic ammonia into surrounding communities.
At high concentrations, CO2 is a toxic gas and an asphyxiant which can cause circulatory insufficiency, coma and death.
There are also risks relating to leakage where leakage to adjacent geological formations may cause geochemical reactions, including stimulation of seismic activity and mobilisation of potentially polluting elements, such as heavy metals, which can contaminate drinking water and underground water.
Integrity and permanence of disposed carbon
There are huge concerns regarding integrity and the permanence of disposed carbon.
Instances of leakage occurred at a carbon storage facility in Illinois, US, in September 2024 that resulted in 8,000 tonnes of CO2 escaping the underground rock formation where it was supposed to be stored, affecting groundwater area to the extent it violated safe drinking water rules.
In the Cogdell oil field in Texas, ever since it started the injection of CO2 into the subsurface, 18 earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude upwards have occurred in the vicinity over five years, with one almost reaching 5.0. The area had faced no earthquakes in the 20 years prior to CO2 injection in its subsurface.
Project failure and cancellation risks
Carbon capture projects are deemed high risk with low returns, with projects larger than one tonne of CO2 per year very likely to fail within the first 10 years.
As a consequence of the high risks and failure rates, it is difficult to attract financing, which makes them heavily reliant on public funding.
Other critiques of carbon capture include:
Overpromising and underperforming
Despite the ambitious promise of a 90% capture rate by proponents, the global average capture rate of carbon capture projects is around 49%, with rates even going as low as 10%.
Most expensive yet least effective
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), when compared to the adoption of more proven climate change mitigation measures – such as the mass adoption of renewables like wind and solar – carbon capture is the most expensive. Yet it delivers the least reduction of CO2 emissions.
Carbon capture is expected to reduce only 1.1% of current global annual emissions from fuel combustion and industrial processes.
Despite this meagre sum, it is projected that dependence on carbon capture to reach net zero targets would be “highly economically damaging”, costing at least $30tn (RM133tn) more than a route based primarily on renewable energy, energy efficiency and electrification.
No evidence of technological learning or associated cost reductions
Despite over 40 years of significant effort and investment in research and development programmes, carbon capture technology has not improved. Costs have not declined at all, and there is no evidence costs will fall in the future to a level that allows for carbon capture to contribute seriously to emissions mitigation.
Instead, it is forecasted that carbon capture will get even more expensive
Capital, energy and water-intensive, potentially worsening electricity-generation and transport costs
According to the IPCC, carbon capture costs present a key challenge, remaining higher than $50 (RM220) per tonne of CO2 for most technologies and regions, with the capital cost of coal or gas electricity generation facilities with CCS being almost double that of facilities without CCS.
The high use of capital, energy and water from the implementation of carbon capture can have environmental implications and potentially exacerbate the cost of electricity and oil and gas production, which would be later passed down to consumers or subsidised by the government using taxpayers’ money.
We believe that these concerns have not been adequately addressed by the Ministry of the Economy, and the passing of this bill should be halted until and unless such concerns have been adequately considered and clarified. – SAM
Meenakshi Raman is president of Sahabat Alam Malaysia.
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
