Subscribe
Asia’s reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a climate solution may backfire, locking the region into prolonged fossil fuel use.
This can increase CO2 emissions by 25 billion tonnes by 2050.
The study suggested that CCS projects are more about extending fossil fuel life than reducing emissions, threatening global climate goals.
Asia’s rush to embrace carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a climate fix could dangerously backfire, locking the region into decades of fossil fuel use and adding nearly 25 billion tonnes of extra CO2 emissions by 2050, a new report by Climate Analytics, a global science and policy institute, warned.
The study found that most CCS projects across China, India, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and others are designed less to cut emissions and more to extend the life of coal, oil and gas. Together, these countries make up more than half the world's fossil fuel and greenhouse gas emissions.
“If Asia’s CCS ambitions unfold as planned, they will fatally undermine the Paris Agreement,” said James Bowen, the report’s co-author and Climate Analytics’ analyst. “High-CCS pathways mean high emissions, high costs, and low climate gains.”
CCS is being marketed across Asia as a cornerstone of “clean growth”. But in practice, it has failed to live up to its promise. Globally, CCS facilities capture less than 0.1 per cent of annual CO2 emissions, and often re-inject the gas to extract more oil.
“CCS has been used more as a fossil fuel subsidy than a climate solution,” says Neil Grant, co-author of the report. “Most projects capture less than 50 per cent of emissions and rely on public funds, yet governments keep promoting them as if they were zero-carbon technologies.”
Japan and South Korea, for instance, are bankrolling CCS-linked hydrogen and ammonia ventures across Asia, even as renewables become cheaper and more efficient. Australia and Indonesia are positioning themselves as regional CO2 storage hubs, while Malaysia and Thailand have amended laws to attract CCS investment.
According to the International Energy Agency’s Global Hydrogen Review 2024 report, in 2023, global hydrogen production emitted 920 tonnes of CO2. For hydrogen from steam methane reforming (natural gas), abatement costs are estimated at around $60-85 per tonne CO2 for capture rates of 55-70 per cent, and $85-110 per tonne CO2 for rates above 90 per cent. However, carbon capture alone is not sufficient; upstream and midstream emissions must also be tackled.
The report estimates that if Asia follows a “high-CCS” trajectory with poor performance, it could add emissions equivalent to the lifetime CO2 output of South Korea and Australia combined. Even if CCS deployment fails to scale, the region risks wasting billions and delaying investment in renewable power, batteries and electrification.
“This isn’t just a climate risk — it’s an economic trap,” warned Michiel Schaeffer, chief scientist at Climate Analytics. “Asian economies could lose competitiveness to countries betting on cheaper, proven renewable technologies.”
CCS also threatens to crowd out carbon removal efforts and strain geological storage capacity. “Every tonne of CO2 pumped underground for fossil fuels is one less tonne that could be used for genuine carbon removal,” said Schaeffer.
The report underscored that Asia’s energy transition doesn’t need to rely on CCS. Renewables already outcompete fossil fuels across most of the continent. Solar power in India, China and Vietnam costs up to half as much as new coal or gas plants. Battery prices have plunged nearly 70 per cent in four years, making firmed renewable power increasingly viable.
“Asia’s cheapest, safest and fastest route to net zero is a low-CCS pathway,” said Bill Hare, chief executive of Climate Analytics. “That means massive renewable buildout, rapid electrification, and phasing out fossil fuels — not capturing carbon just to burn more of it.”
In steel, cement, and fertilisers — sectors often labeled “hard-to-abate” — clean alternatives like green hydrogen, recycled steel, and carbon-neutral cement are emerging. “CCS should be the last resort, not the first line of defence,” stressed Hare.
The study called CCS a “false climate solution” when used to prolong fossil energy. High-CCS strategies could double the cost of power generation compared to renewables backed by storage. Analysts estimated that choosing a low-CCS pathway could save the region over $30 trillion by 2050.
Still, CCS is being aggressively marketed through regional alliances like Japan’s Asia CCUS Network and Asia Zero Emission Community, often tied to gas and LNG trade. “It’s climate diplomacy in fossil disguise,” said a senior analyst with Climate Analytics Australia, adding that “the region risks repeating a 20-year pattern of greenwashing through unproven technology.”
The report concludes that Asian governments must treat CCS as a niche, last-resort option — used only where direct emissions cuts are technically impossible — and immediately pivot to renewable-heavy systems.
“Asia’s choices this decade will decide whether the world keeps 1.5°C alive,” said Bowen. “Doubling down on CCS is like trying to mop up the floor while the tap is still running.”
Experts agree the region has everything to gain by taking a deliberate low-CCS route. “Asia can lead the clean energy revolution — or lock itself into another fossil century,” says Hare. “It’s time to choose.”