Putting Carbon Back Where It Came From?

Thw authors of a paper in Environmental Research Letters advocate adopting a carbon takeback obligation scheme (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/12/fossil-fuel-producers-must-be-forced-to-take-back-carbon-say-scientists). The carbon takeback obligation scheme would require all fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) extracted or imported into a nation or group of nations, to be offset by storing carbon dioxide underground. The amount of gas stored would be equivalent to that generated by burning the fuel. Carbon capture and storage would be used, technologies that are getting progressively cheaper. The scientists suggest that carbon storage, could be gradually phased in. The cost of carbon storage would be added to the cost of the fossil fuel. This would support the principle of 'the polluter pays'. The authors of the scheme believe it will help us reach carbon zero by 2050. There are a number of potential objections to the carbon takeback obligation scheme. Firstly, all producers of coal, oil and gas in all countries would have to follow the scheme. There are always people willing to make a fast buck and/or who regard themselves as exceptions. Secondly, extraction of fossil fuels also liberates methane. Methane is another very potent 'greenhouse gas'and the scheme would do nothing to compensate for this. Thirdly, the scheme implies that fossil fuels are fundamentally different from biomass and wood. It's arguable as these 'alternatives' also add to atmospheric 'greenhouse gas' levels. Fourthly, seismic events or technological faults, might cause a dangerous release of the stored carbon dioxide. Fifthly, carrying on using albeit more expensive coal, oil and gas might still reduce the urgent imperative to develop and roll out 'green' alternatives. It seems easier, to simply leave the fossil fuels in the ground.