Home

Requiring fossil fuel producers to sequester a proportion of the carbon they extract could be a fairer way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to UK and US scientists.

Writing in a special issue of the journal Nature Geoscience, the climate scientists from the Universities of Oxford and Wyoming suggest that SAFE (sequestered adequate fraction of extracted) carbon would be a simpler, more effective single policy to reduce emissions and share the burden of the costs.

Under the scheme, it would be mandatory for producers to sequester a steadily increasing fraction of the carbon extracted, with costs being passed onto fossil fuel consumers.

“The neat thing about SAFE carbon is that is breaks the apparent conflict between short-term economic development and long-term climate protection,” says co-author Myles Allen of Oxford University.

“We would no longer be asking a country like India to accept limits on their consumption. Instead, we would be saying that as long as you use SAFE carbon, you can go ahead and consume as much as you like,” he adds.

The SAFE concept differs from emission permit or carbon tax schemes in that it would not generate revenues for governments or provide a framework for modifying consumer behaviour.

“[But] we didn’t save the Ozone Layer by rationing deodorant,” says Allen.

For further information:
Myles R. Allen, David J. Frame and Charles F. Mason. The case for mandatory sequestration. Nature Geoscience (2009) 2 (12), 813
www.ox.ac.uk/
www.uwyo.edu/