I have a proposal that resolves these and other problems.

We could oblige fossil fuel producers and importers to contract for the capture and sequestration of a quantity of carbon dioxide equivalent to a proportion of that produced from the fuel they supply. The proportion could start at a few percent and build up over the years. This would gradually increase fuel price thus encouraging energy saving, nuclear, renewables, electric cars and the like while providing immediate full funding for carbon capture.

Why give special treatment to carbon capture and storage? Because energy saving, nuclear, renewables, electric cars and the like are merely ways of filling the energy gap that cutting carbon dioxide emissions will create and mankind has been very effectively filling energy gaps for centuries without the aid of agreed national or global strategies, taxes or caps. Carbon capture is different. It is a way of stopping pollution. If we stop the pollution the free market will fill the energy gap. You can legislate to stop pollution (which is economically inefficient) or you can use market forces by giving credits in a cap and trade system, credits against a carbon tax or by paying directly as in my proposal.

Some time flexibility could be allowed in capturing the carbon dioxide. For example the contract might permit capture to be delayed for a year if the quantity captured were increased by 10%, and for another year for another 10% etc. This would not only help with plant problems or construction delays in the early days when there might only be a few plants, but would also allow contracts to be placed today thus providing a huge incentive to get plants up and running as soon as possible. It would also stabilise the traded contract price by extending the options for fulfilment.

One way or another we must very soon stop carbon emissions from power generation, cement manufacture etc. and substitute electricity for fuel use in many domestic, industrial and transport applications. Taxing carbon, capping emissions or contracting for carbon capture when fuel is produced could all provide the economic incentive but unless applied globally will not be sufficient.

I prefer carbon capture. It is guaranteed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuel to whatever annual target is set and is the easiest option to apply globally because:

 It will appeal to rapidly growing and mature countries alike. There are no national caps to restrict relative growth.

 It will allow all industries in all countries to compete on a level playing field. There are no tax or carbon credit differentials and no allowances for governments to give out or auction.

 Because there is only one number to agree, the global annual target, extensive international negotiations will be unnecessary. There will be no national targets to haggle over and perhaps never meet, and no issue about who gets the revenue from a carbon tax, consumer or producer nation, or what the tax rate should be for each country.

 Enforcement is straightforward and does not rely on the co-operation or even the consent of every country. The contracts would be traded and recorded centrally, mostly placed and paid for by the international energy companies. If countries were uncooperative and used their own fuel internally without contracting for carbon capture, a central monitoring organisation could impose an increased capture proportion on imports or exports of fuel for that country to compensate.

I would hope that within as little as twenty years we could move to a system that defined the proportion of carbon to be captured, based on fossil fuel production at the time, such that global emissions were contained at the level that the oceans absorb annually, i.e. about 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon per year. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would then stop rising.