Optimal use of carbon sequestration in a global climate change strategy : is there a wooden bridge to a clean energy future ?

s. Whether it should be part of a global climate mitigation strategy, however, remains controversial. One of the key issues is that, contrary to emission abatement, carbon sequestration might not be permanent. But some argue that even temporary sequestration is beneficial as it delays climate change impacts and"buys"time for technical change in the energy sector. To rigorously assess these arguments, the authors build an international optimization model in which both sequestration and abatement can be used to mitigate climate change. They confirm that permanent sequestration, if feasible, can be overall part of a climate mitigation strategy. When permanence can be guaranteed, sequestration is equivalent to fossil-fuel emissions abatement. The optimal use of temporary sequestration, on the other hand, depends mostly on marginal damages of climate change. Temporary sequestration projects starting now, in particular, are not attractive if marginal damages of climate change at current concentration levels are assumed to be low.Montreal Protocol,Environmental Economics&Policies,Climate Change,Economic Theory&Research,Global Environment Facility,Energy and Environment,Environmental Economics&Policies,Montreal Protocol,Carbon Policy and Trading,Climate Change