{"title":"在与气候相关的时间尺度上,碳封存应该是永久性的","authors":"Stephanie H. Arcusa , Klaus S. Lackner","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Markets for durable carbon removal credits are expanding despite conflicting rules and standards. A major unresolved issue surrounds the permanence of sequestration and what it means. We draw from the principles of ‘intergenerational equity’ and the ‘polluter-pays’ to argue that sequestration ought to be permanent on climate-relevant timescales which geoscience has determined to be in excess of 10000 years. This is far longer than the typical durability of carbon credits. In this perspective, we examine the implications of having to guarantee the permanence of carbon removal either by permanent sequestration or by a sequence of temporary storage. We will review the science underlying the definition of climate-relevant permanence. We will ask why we should care, who gets to reap the benefits from not guaranteeing permanence, who will suffer the consequences, who pays for permanence, and who gets to decide.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"173 ","pages":"Article 104223"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Carbon sequestration ought to be permanent on climate-relevant timescales\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie H. Arcusa , Klaus S. Lackner\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104223\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Markets for durable carbon removal credits are expanding despite conflicting rules and standards. A major unresolved issue surrounds the permanence of sequestration and what it means. We draw from the principles of ‘intergenerational equity’ and the ‘polluter-pays’ to argue that sequestration ought to be permanent on climate-relevant timescales which geoscience has determined to be in excess of 10000 years. This is far longer than the typical durability of carbon credits. In this perspective, we examine the implications of having to guarantee the permanence of carbon removal either by permanent sequestration or by a sequence of temporary storage. We will review the science underlying the definition of climate-relevant permanence. We will ask why we should care, who gets to reap the benefits from not guaranteeing permanence, who will suffer the consequences, who pays for permanence, and who gets to decide.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"173 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104223\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125002394\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125002394","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Carbon sequestration ought to be permanent on climate-relevant timescales
Markets for durable carbon removal credits are expanding despite conflicting rules and standards. A major unresolved issue surrounds the permanence of sequestration and what it means. We draw from the principles of ‘intergenerational equity’ and the ‘polluter-pays’ to argue that sequestration ought to be permanent on climate-relevant timescales which geoscience has determined to be in excess of 10000 years. This is far longer than the typical durability of carbon credits. In this perspective, we examine the implications of having to guarantee the permanence of carbon removal either by permanent sequestration or by a sequence of temporary storage. We will review the science underlying the definition of climate-relevant permanence. We will ask why we should care, who gets to reap the benefits from not guaranteeing permanence, who will suffer the consequences, who pays for permanence, and who gets to decide.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.