Those with a desire to see a reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions from fossil fuels could do worse than to buy up
reserves, according to a paper published this month. Researcher
Bard Harstad argues that buying and holding extraction rights to
fossil fuels is a more effective means of curbing their use than
legislating to reduce demand. At first glance it looks like a
novel approach, though perhaps an obvious one when you think of
it. For example, coal left in the ground cannot emit greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere, so the more you buy and leave there,
the more emissions are prevented. But tempting as it is to
present the research in these terms, Harstad's argument is
actually rather more subtle, and involves influencing fossil
fuel markets—and not necessarily by buying in bulk. The problem
with demand- and supply-side policy A fundamental problem with
adopting a "demand-side mindset" that implements policy to
reduce fossil fuel consumption is that not everyone takes part,
Harstad argues. An international