The case for mandatory sequestration (original) (raw)

Nature Geoscience volume 2, pages 813–814 (2009) Cite this article

The fact that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions are more important than annual emission rates calls for a fresh approach to climate change mitigation. One option would be a mandatory link between carbon sequestration and fossil fuel extraction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

$259.00 per year

only $21.58 per issue

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Figure 1: SAFE carbon futures.

The alternative text for this image may have been generated using AI.

References

  1. Hansen J. E. et al. Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2, 217–231 (2009).
    Google Scholar
  2. Solomon, S., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R. & Friedlingstein, P. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 1704–1709 (2009).
    Google Scholar
  3. Allen, M. R. et al. Nature 458, 1163–1166 (2009).
    Google Scholar
  4. Meinshausen, M. et al. Nature 458, 1158–1162 (2009).
    Google Scholar
  5. Matthews, H. D. et al. Nature 459, 829–832 (2009).
    Google Scholar
  6. Zickfeld, K. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 16129–16134 (2009).
    Google Scholar
  7. German Advisory Council on Global Change Solving the Climate Dilemma: The Budget Approach (WGBU, 2009).
  8. Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
    Google Scholar
  9. International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook 2009 (IEA, 2009).
  10. Jackson, T. Alternatives to Growth (Sustainable Development Commission, 2009).
    Google Scholar
  11. IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage (eds Metz, B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).
  12. Tickell, O. Kyoto 2: How to Manage the Global Greenhouse (Zed Books, 2008).
    Google Scholar
  13. Victor, D. Nature 459, 909 (2009).
    Google Scholar
  14. Keith, D. W. et al. in Geo-Engineering Climate Change (eds Launder, B. & Thompson, M.) Ch. 6 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).
    Google Scholar
  15. IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (eds Nakicenovic, N. & Swart, R.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
  16. Prins, G. & Rayner, S. Nature 449, 973–975 (2007).
    Google Scholar
  17. Tol, R. S. J. Economics E-Journal 2, 2008–25 (2008).
    Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge support from the Smith School Associates and Visitors Programme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3PU, UK
    Myles R. Allen & David J. Frame
  2. Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 2BQ, UK
    David J. Frame & Charles F. Mason
  3. Department of Economics and Finance, University of Wyoming, Laramie, 82071, Wyoming, USA
    Charles F. Mason

Authors

  1. Myles R. Allen
  2. David J. Frame
  3. Charles F. Mason

Corresponding author

Correspondence toMyles R. Allen.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allen, M., Frame, D. & Mason, C. The case for mandatory sequestration.Nature Geosci 2, 813–814 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo709

Download citation

This article is cited by