Global criticism against Japan's CO2 export plan rising - Global petition submitted to demand Japan not to export CO2


May 8th 2024, Tokyo – Today, 90 civil society organizations from 26 countries submitted a petition letter to the Japanese government demanding it not to export CO2 to other countries. 

The Japanese Diet is currently debating the CCS Business Bill to set a legal framework for CCS business. Meanwhile, Japanese corporations are already pushing CCS projects in the region. Since 2022, they have signed at least 15 agreements to export CO2 to other countries in the region such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Australia, often with oil and gas giants such as ExxonMobil. 

Climate experts say, CCS is an unproven technology with high risks and costs, and comes with long-term liabilities. They say relying on such a technology will only delay real climate action in Japan and in Asia.

Leaks in CCS projects – which can cause asphyxiation in huge concentrations – have already occurred with dire consequences for surrounding communities. A carbon dioxide pipeline rupture in 2020 in Mississippi, USA resulted in the evacuation of more than 200 people and the hospitalisation of at least 45 people with carbon dioxide poisoning. In early April, there was also a leak in a high-pressure carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline owned by Denbury Inc. and ExxonMobil in Sulfur, Louisiana. 

Environmentalists say CCS projects not only exacerbate the climate crisis but are fundamentally against the principle of climate justice, particularly as they result in the dumping of CO₂ in countries in the Global South like Malaysia:

Meenakshi Raman, President of Sahabat Alam Malaysia says, “The climate crisis we are in now is the consequence of historically high carbon emissions of developed countries such as Japan. For the world to even have a remote chance of meeting the 1.5 degree Celsius target, developed countries must take the lead in rapidly phasing out fossil fuels. This push for CCS by the Japanese government is just another smokescreen for them to continue fossil fuel exploitation. To make matters worse, instead of taking in the carbon produced by Japanese industries on Japanese soil, it seeks to dump the burden of storing carbon in a developing country such as Malaysia. We demand that the Japanese put a stop to this ugly manifestation of waste colonialism through the dumping of carbon in developing countries like Malaysia, and we call upon the Government of Malaysia not to let the country be the carbon waste bin of the developed world.”

Mr. Fanny Tri Jambore, Head of Campaign Division, WALHI, Indonesia commented that “Several CCS projects have been proposed for oil and gas fields in Indonesia, where residents have suffered major environmental, livelihood, and human rights repercussions. For example, indigenous people in Tangguh LNG project area in West Papua Province were displaced from the customary land, and have been prevented from their free and traditional way of life due to limited access to hunting and fishing grounds. BP as the project operator in the Tangguh LNG project has been working on enhanced gas recovery/CCUS, hence, the Chubu Electric’s intention to export CO2 from Japan to Tangguh will extend the life of the fossil gas project and prolong such repercussions. Where is the justice for local communities in Indonesia, who have never been informed about such CCS plans? This is nothing but carbon colonialism.”

Ayumi Fukakusa, Climate Change and Energy campaigner and Deputy Executive Director of FoE Japan says “The Japanese government’s CCS policy is totally unrealistic. Its current policy aims to store 120-240 million tons of CO₂ by 2050 which is equivalent to approximately 10-20% of Japan’s current emissions. There is no commercially viable project that exists in Japan yet Japanese companies are making agreements to export CO2 to other countries. The Japanese government must set a stronger emission reduction target, based on the principles of equity and its historical responsibilities and must stop promoting these false solutions”. 

Please read the petition text for more details.

One signatory was added on May 9th 2024.

Notes to editors;

Carbon capture and storage is not a solution to the climate crisis, but a dangerous distraction

2024 May 8th

Dear Mr. Ken Saito, Minister of Trade, Economy and Industry in Japan

We 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) Business Bill to set a legal framework for CCS projects in Japan and overseas. Meanwhile, Japanese corporations are already recklessly pushing CCS projects in the region as they sign related agreements 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 and corporates 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 most agreements 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 of climate justice, particularly as it results in the dumping of CO₂ in Global South countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. CCS is a high-risk and high-cost[1] and proven failure that comes with long-term 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, and gas.

We also urge the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, and other countries in the region to stop providing, extending, or channeling government support, including funding and subsidies for CCS/CCUS and related infrastructure. Public resources must be invested in sustainable infrastructure and community-based initiatives that serve the people, not polluters.

CCS has had a long history of problems – including significant technical and financial challenges.

Most CCS projects have had unique engineering challenges which resulted in underperformance and cost blow-outs, as happened to the Gorgon CCS project in Australia. Gorgon agreed to pay to offset its target shortfall of 5.23 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is estimated to cost between US$100 million and US$184 million[2].

Additionally, a CCS project in Algeria where CO₂ had been injected into depleted gas fields from 2004 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 leakage[3]. 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 leakage[5], 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 and gas production[6].

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, USA was damaged, resulting in the evacuation of more than 200 people, and the hospitalisation of 45 people with carbon dioxide poisoning[8].

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 additional amounts needed for transportation and storage. CO₂ liquefaction is essential for efficient transportation and storage[9]. Capture and compression alone require 330–420 kWh per tonne of CO2 captured. CCS projects increase the energy demand of the facility they capture carbon from by 15%–25% on average[10].

The fourth challenge is the issue of ensuring permanent storage. For CCS to be a viable option for decarbonisation, 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 years[11]. A legal system that can guarantee the maintenance of sequestered carbon for such a long period is not feasible in practice. After the monitoring period conducted by the utility company ends, the government 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 in practice a dumping of waste. Exporting CO₂ for a country like Japan that does not have sufficient suitable 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 need rich countries like Japan to undertake deep, rapid, and sustained emission reductions at home and at 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 the environment and communities on the frontlines. To conclude, CCS is a dangerous distraction, a false climate solution, ineffective, exceptionally risky, and against the principles of climate justice.

Therefore, we, the undersigned organisations, urge the Japanese Government to recognise the grave 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 stay in line with its international climate commitments. We also call on potential “recipient" countries to reject CCS projects and instead urge for collaboration on the region’s vast renewable energy potential[12].

List of CCS Projects involved with the export of CO₂ from Japan (From June 2022 to April 2024, non-exhaustive)

 AgreementsSignedCompaniesSources of CO₂Storage Location
1Joint Study Agreement with PETRONAS to Explore Feasibility of the Entire Carbon Capture and Storage Value Chain between Japan and MalaysiaApril  2024PETRONAS, JERACO₂ emitted by JERA in JapanMalaysia
2MOUs Concluded on Joint Studies with Mitsubishi UBE Cement and Resonac Concerning CCS Value Chain Development between Malaysia and JapanApril 2024Mitsui & Co., Ltd.,  Resonac’s Oita, Ube CementCO₂ emitted at MUCC’s Ube Cement Plant and Resonac’s Oita ComplexMalaysia
3Establishment of potential CCS value chains from CO₂ capture and accumulation in Tokyo Bay, shipping, and CO₂ storage in Malaysia  Mar 2024Mitsubishi Corporation, JX Nippon, ENEOS, and PETRONASCO₂ emitted in Tokyo BayMalaysia
4Evaluating the export of (CO₂) from Japan to (CCS) projects in Australia and other countries in AsiaMar 2024JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation, Chevron New EnergiesCO₂ emitted from industries in JapanAustralia, Asia (unspecified)
5Memorandum of Understanding with Chugoku Electric Power on the Creation of a CCS Value Chain between Malaysia and JapanFeb 2024Mitsui & Co., Chugoku Electric Power Co.CO₂ emitted by a coal-fired power plant operated by Chugoku Electric PowerMalaysia
6Agreement to conduct a feasibility study covering on (1) CO₂ capture in Japan, (2) shipping the CO₂ to Australia, (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 AustraliaFeb 2024ITOCHU, HIF Asia Pacific, Mitsui OSK, JFE SteelCO₂ emitted in JapanAustralia
7Establish a CCS value chain by capturing CO₂ emitted from industrial emitters in JP (incl Eneos refinery), transporting it by CO₂ carrier to the Port of Bonython in Australia, and injecting and storing it at a storage siteFeb 2024JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation, Mitsui OSKCO₂ emitted from ENEOS refinery and nearby various industries in JapanAustralia
8MoU for a joint feasibility study that will evaluate the potential to capture, transport and sequester emissions from Japan, supporting expansion of the Moomba CCS project in AustraliaDec 2023Santos, JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration Corporation and ENEOS CorporationCO₂ emitted from JapanAustralia
9MOU for Feasibility Study to Realize “Setouchi / Shikoku CO₂ Hub ConceptDec 2023Sumitomo, JFE Steel, Sumitomo Osaka Cement, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Woodside EnergyCO₂ emitted from the Setouchi and Shikoku regionsAustralia
10MoU to study cross boundary CCS projects between Japan and MalaysiaOct 2023METI, JOGMEC, PetronasCO₂ emitted in JapanMalaysia
11MoU for feasibility study of an international CCUS value chain from Port of Nagoya, Japan, using CO₂ storage at the Tangguh* field in IndonesiaSep 2023Chubu, BPCO₂ emitted from Port of Nagoya, JapanIndonesia
12MOU for Feasibility Study to Establish a Japan-Australia CCS Value ChainSep 2023Sumitomo, Toho Gas, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, WoodsideCO₂ emitted from various industries and companies in the Chubu region, JapanAustralia
13Mitsui, PETRONAS and TotalEnergies have selected offshore Peninsular Malaysia as the location of underground sequestration of CO₂ … Under this collaborative framework, Mitsui, together with PETRONAS and TotalEnergies, will work together on technical evaluation and development concept of depleted field  June 2023Mitsui & Co, Petronas, TotalEnergies  
14MoU to Evaluate and establish CCS value chains in the Asia Pacific RegionJan 2023Nippon Steel, Mitsubishi Corporation, ExxonMobilCO₂ emitted from Nippon Steel’s steelworks in JapanMalaysia, Indonesia and Australia
15The 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 from Japan by shipJun 2022JERA, Tokyo Gas and INPEX, and Santos Australia


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
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 Electric Power 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 Group
Mr. Hironori Kamezawa, President & Group CEO of MUFG
Tan Sri Tengku Muhammad Taufik Tengku Kamadjaja Aziz, President & Group Chief Executive Officer, Executive Director of Petronas

Signatories (90 organizations from 26 countries)


  • Forum Kedaulatan Makanan Malaysia (FKMM)
  • Aliran
  • Gabungan Darurat Iklim Malaysia (GDIMY)
  • KAMY
  • RimbaWatch
  • Greenpeace Malaysia
  • Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center)
  • Consumers’ Association of Penang
  • SAVE Rivers
  • Jaringan Ekologi dan Iklim (JEDI)
  • Treat Every Environment Special Sdn Bhd
  • Climate Action Network Southeast Asia (CANSEA)
  • Gabungan Bertindak Malaysia (GBM)
  • Malaysian Youth Delegation (MYD)
  • Alliance Of River Three
  • Gerakan Belia Sepunjabi Malaysia
  • Sahabat Alam Malaysia / Friends of the Earth Malaysia
  • Monitoring Sustainability of Globalisation


  • Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI) / Friends of the Earth Indonesia
  • Kampoeng Tjibarani
  • World March of Women Indonesia
  • Yayasan PIKUL
  • KRuHA
  • AEER (Action for Ecology and People Emancipation)
  • Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia
  • greenpeace indonesia
  • Humanis (affiliated with Hivos)
  • Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Pijar Harapan Rakyat
  • WALHI East Java
  • WALHI Riau
  • Eksekutif Daerah WALHI Aceh
  • Jala PRT
  • WALHI Sulawesi Tengah
  • WALHI Papua


  • Solutions for Climate Australia
  • Friends of the Earth Australia
  • Australian Conservation Foundation


  • Kiko Network
  • Mekong Watch
  • Friends of the Earth Japan
  • Oiso Ene-shift


  • Friends of the Earth International
  • Oil Change International
  • Hawkmoth
  • Senik Centre Asia
  • Asian People’s Movement on Debt and Development
  • SteelWatch


  • Coastal Livelihood and Environmental Action Network (CLEAN)
  • Dhoritri Rokhhay Amra
  • Waterkeepers Bangladesh

Bosnia and Herzegovina

  • Center for Environment / FoE Bosnia and Herzegovina


  • NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark
  • Miljøforeningen Havnsø-Føllenslev
  • Fossil Free Future in Denmark

DR Congo

  • Congo Basin Conservation Society CBCS network DRC
  • Innovation pour le Développement et la Protection de l’Environnement

England Wales and Northern Ireland

  • Friends of the Earth England Wales and Northern Ireland


  • Friends of the Earth Finland


  • Buergerinitiative gegen CO2-Endlager e.V.
  • Andy Gheorghiu Consulting


  • AbibiNsroma Foundation


  • Integrated Rural Development Society


  • ReCommon


  • WMW Kenya


  • Forum for Protection of Public Interest (Pro Public)


  • Policy Research Institute for Equitable Development (PRIED), Pakistan
  • Indus Consortium
  • Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum

Papua New Guinea

  • Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights Inc.


  • 350 Pilipinas
  • Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center – Friends of the Earth Philippines
  • People of Asia for Climate Solutions
  • Youth for Climate Hope (Y4CH)


  • Citizens’ Institute for Environmental Studies (CIES)


  • Friends of the Earth Scotland

South Africa

  • South Durban Community Environmental Alliance
  • groundWork/ Friends of the Earth South Africa

Sri Lanka

  • Centre for Environmental Justice/ FoE Sri Lanka


  • Les Amis de la Terre-Togo


  • Centre for Citizens Conserving Environment & Management (CECIC)


  • Friends of the Earth US
  • Indigenous peoples of the coastal bend
  • Ingleside on the Bay Coastal Watch Association
  • Texas Campaign for the Environment
  • Healthy Gulf
  • Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
  • Vessel Project of Louisiana
  • For a Better Bayou

[1] Rupert 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 2024

[3] MIT, In Salah Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project, Last accessed February 2024.

[4]  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 Capture and 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

[8] Huffington Post, ”The Gassing Of Satartia”, August 2022; The Intercept, “Louisiana rushes buildout of carbon 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 more cost-effective to transport over long distances.

[10] Angela 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.

[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


Related Projects