Jakarta. The recent announcement of a cooperation agreement between Pertamina New & Renewable Energy (Pertamina NRE) and China’s GCL Intelligent Energy is being framed as a major step forward for Indonesia’s energy transition. Yet beneath the optimistic language of “clean,” “sustainable,” and “innovative” solutions lies a troubling reality: this partnership risks locking Indonesia into false solutions that could delay, rather than accelerate, a genuine transition to renewable energy.

At the heart of the agreement are three pillars — gas-based power generation, waste-to-energy facilities, and limited solar integration. While these may be presented as pragmatic stepping stones toward Net Zero Emissions (NZE) 2060, they are more accurately described as distractions from the real task at hand: rapidly scaling up truly clean, renewable energy such as solar and wind.

First, the inclusion of gas-based power plants as part of an energy transition strategy is deeply problematic. Natural gas is often marketed as a “bridge fuel,” but decades of experience show that bridges have a way of becoming permanent structures. Investments in gas infrastructure — pipelines, terminals, and power plants — are capital-intensive and designed to operate for decades. Once built, they create powerful financial and political incentives to keep burning fossil fuels long past the point when cleaner alternatives are available.

Gas is not clean. While it may emit less carbon dioxide than coal at the point of combustion, methane leaks across the gas supply chain significantly undermine any claimed climate benefits. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO₂ in the short term, precisely when global emissions need to be cut most aggressively. By expanding gas power generation under the banner of energy transition, Indonesia risks locking itself into another fossil fuel dependency just as the rest of the world is trying to move beyond them.

Second, the promotion of waste-to-energy (WtE) projects as a clean energy solution deserves closer scrutiny. Burning waste to generate electricity does not eliminate pollution; it merely transforms it. Incinerators release toxic air pollutants, including dioxins, heavy metals, and fine particulate matter, which pose serious health risks to nearby communities. The ash left behind is often hazardous and requires careful disposal, creating long-term environmental liabilities.

Moreover, waste-to-energy undermines efforts to reduce waste at its source. When cities invest in incinerators, they must guarantee a steady supply of waste for decades to make the projects financially viable. This creates a perverse incentive to generate more waste, discouraging recycling, composting, and circular economy solutions that are far more sustainable. Labeling waste-to-energy as “renewable” may make it easier to secure financing, but it does not make it environmentally sound.

Third, while the agreement mentions photovoltaic integration and energy storage, these components appear secondary to gas and waste-to-energy projects. This is a missed opportunity. Indonesia has vast solar potential, with abundant sunlight across its archipelago. Solar energy is modular, rapidly deployable, and increasingly affordable. Combined with battery storage, it can provide reliable power without the pollution, fuel price volatility, or long-term lock-in associated with fossil fuels and incineration.

China, in particular, has become a global leader in solar manufacturing and deployment. If this partnership were truly focused on accelerating Indonesia’s clean energy transition, it would prioritize large-scale solar deployment, rooftop solar programs, grid modernization, and storage technologies. Instead, the emphasis on gas and waste-to-energy suggests a strategy driven more by incumbent business models than by climate science.

Indonesia’s energy transition should not be measured by the number of memoranda of understanding signed, but by how quickly it reduces emissions, protects public health, and builds a resilient energy system for the future. Gas and waste-to-energy may offer the illusion of progress, but they risk diverting scarce resources and political attention away from solutions that actually align with a 1.5-degree pathway.

If Indonesia and China are serious about climate leadership, they must move beyond false solutions and focus on what truly works. That means prioritizing solar, wind, energy efficiency, and storage—technologies that are already proven, increasingly cost-competitive, and genuinely clean. Anything less will only delay the transition Indonesia urgently needs, while the climate clock continues to tick.

---

The opinion article is authored by Bhima Yudhistira Adhinegara, Executive Director of CELIOS, and Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat, Director of China-Indonesia Desk, CELIOS.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors.