Stop approving new oil fields, gas fields, and coal mines, and close existing ones on a planned schedule
In short
- Governments stop giving permits for new places to dig coal, oil, and gas.
- Each existing oil field and coal mine gets a closing year, and they are shut down one after another.
- Countries that dig up fuel, not only countries that burn it, take on promises to cut emissions.
- Public money supports the jobs and incomes of people in mining regions during the shift.
If this comes true
In a town whose mine had a closing year set ten years ago, a former coal miner pulls on new work clothes to inspect rows of solar panels on the slope of the very same mountain.
Perhaps
Countries that don't join the promise might dig more at high prices to fill the gap left by countries that stopped, and the amount released into the air might hardly change.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
The plan covers permits for exploring and developing new coal, oil, and natural gas, expansions of areas that already have permits, and extensions of how long digging may continue. Each country sets in law that it will stop giving these new permits. For sites already operating, each gets a closing year, and the country makes a plan to cut its total output step by step in line with climate goals, setting a cap on yearly output. Areas that have permits but have not yet started digging mostly have their permits canceled, and companies are paid back only part of what they have already spent. In regions that depend on mining for their living, from the time a closing year is set, there are systems that guarantee workers' wages for a set period, pay for retraining, and provide public funds to attract new industries, with part of the money coming from taxes on the digging that remains. For lower-income countries whose budgets depend heavily on mining revenue, an international agreement is made in which wealthy countries support part of the lost income over the long term, in exchange for those countries ending new permits. In an emergency when fuel supply is cut off, the only exception allowed is a temporary increase in output with a fixed end date.
BenefitsIt stops emissions at the entrance, before they are locked in
Once a new oil field or mine is opened, it keeps producing fuel for decades and decides the emissions in advance. Stopping before it opens is the cheapest and surest way to prevent those long emissions. If a huge facility is built and then stopped partway, workers and investors take big losses, but if it is stopped before it is built, far less is lost. When the cap on how much will be dug is visible, power companies, factories, and investors can be sure that fossil fuels will eventually become harder to get, and they move up their switch to renewable energy and energy saving. Deciding whether to give a permit is a power that national governments already hold, so this can be done without building new markets or complicated systems. Because closing years are set in advance and support for the region is prepared, a town is not wrecked by a sudden closure one day, and the change can happen over time. By building in support for lower-income producing countries, the plan ties the promises of wealthy countries to the livelihoods of poorer ones and also answers the question of fairness in who bears the burden.
DrawbacksIt brings higher fuel prices and pain for the places that dig
If new digging is stopped, the supply of fossil fuels shrinks and prices tend to rise. When the cost of fuel, electricity, and goods goes up, life becomes harder especially for low-income households and for people in cold or remote areas who cannot do without fuel for heating and travel. In countries that depend on mining for their budgets, tax revenue falls and money for schools and hospitals is cut, and in mining and oil towns, no matter how much support is prepared, the work they were proud of and their community are lost. There is no guarantee that support from wealthy countries will arrive as promised, and if it doesn't, only the poor producing countries will bear the pain. The heaviest problem is the risk that countries outside the promise will dig more to fill the gap left by those that stopped. In that case emissions hardly fall, and only the industries and jobs of the countries that kept their promise are lost. If supply shrinks before replacement energy has grown enough, blackouts and shortages could occur, and worry about relying on other countries for energy could even push a country back toward its own coal.
Learn the background
Efforts to limit climate change have so far focused mainly on cutting emissions on the side that uses fuel. We have made cars and appliances more efficient, increased renewable energy, and put a price on emissions. Even so, it is pointed out that the amount of coal, oil, and gas that countries around the world plan to dig, added together, is far above the amount that would let us keep to the goal for limiting temperature rise. However hard the users try, if the diggers keep opening new oil fields and mines, cheap fuel pushes up how much is used, and the goal is out of reach. Promises on the digging side have still not moved forward because mining strongly supports national budgets and local jobs. An oil field or mine that has been opened keeps running for decades, so today's permit locks in future emissions. And because every country thinks that if it doesn't dig, some other country will, each is caught in a bind where stopping first looks like a loss. The fact that international agreements have barely touched on how much gets dug has also kept this problem hard to see.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23b) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes