Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The case for mandatory sequestration

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

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: SAFE carbon futures.

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Myles R. Allen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo709

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing