The idea is based on nuclear non-proliferation agreements to phase out weapons of mass destruction and reduce existing stockpiles of these weapons while encouraging the peaceful use of the technology. The effectiveness of nuclear non-proliferation reduced weapon stockpiles from almost 65,000 in 1986 to less than 10,000 today.

Just as nuclear weapons represent an existential threat to the planet, so too, argue the proposers of fossil fuel non–proliferation does the continued production and use of fossil fuels. Instead of mushroom clouds, we will leash upon the planet atmospheric warming that will cause enormous environmental and societal harm.

So far all the efforts by the United Nations to negotiate GHG reductions have failed to produce rapid decarbonization, the key to mitigating global warming. That’s why the Atomic Scientists are calling for an international treaty to address fossil fuel supply. The treaty would be constructed around the same constructs of nuclear non-proliferation.

The first stage, equivalent to non-proliferation, would be to prevent any new exploration and production while protecting those communities and workers impacted by the ban. The second stage, equivalent to disarmament, would phase out existing production to align supply with the climate goals of the Paris 2015 agreement. The third stage, equivalent to peaceful use, would create clean, renewable energy for poorer countries while supporting economic diversification for the workers and communities in these fossil-fuel dependent nations.

The money needed for this new non-proliferation agreement would come from a reallocation of the trillions of dollars in subsidies that wealthy nations continue to hand out to the fossil fuel industry. Instead of going into new exploration and development projects, the money would be spent to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

In their editorial, the Atomic Scientists write:

“History shows that rapid, dramatic change is possible when a handful of countries are committed to lead. Imagine if wealthy nations were to step up and provide Ecuador and Peru an alternative to drilling in the heart of the region known as the Amazon’s Sacred Headwaters. This would avoid the release of 60 million tons of carbon while respecting the rights of indigenous nations—and protect a vital organ of the Earth’s biosphere that is key to regulating the climate.”

Through agreement on the non-proliferation of fossil fuels, we can reap the benefits of seeing consumer demand fall dramatically. We, as citizens of the world, would now understand that fossil fuels are a finite resource and that our use of them has to alter. Instead of internal combustion engines driving our transportation options, we will need to find other ways. Instead of fossil fuels being our primary heating source, we will need to find reliable and affordable low-carbon solutions.

The Atomic Scientists write: “Our current path, in which we expand the production of fossil fuels, is akin to the fire department showing up with gasoline to save a planet on fire. This cannot continue.”

They couldn’t be more plain-spoken.