(2015-09-22)As Pope Francis visits the US, and the UN Summit on Sustainable Development and Climate Week kick off in New York City this week, government leaders, businesses, activists and global citizens will be discussing new ideas to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Here’s one: take up the European oil industry on their surprising, and so far largely ignored, offer to pay for the carbon their products create.

In June, six large European oil companies – BP, Shell, Statoil, Total, BG and Eni – called for an international price on carbon. Citing a desire to reduce business uncertainty, the companies asked world governments, and December’s UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris, for country-by-country carbon prices and a framework to link them into a global system.

Whatever the motives of the oil companies, when such big polluters are willing to put a price on their emissions – a practice that could cost them significantly more to do business – it’s a big deal.

The fact that some oil companies are taking this stance could prevent companies opposing a price on carbon from claiming to represent the entire industry. A year ago, such a move appeared impossible. If the European companies’ proposal receives strong support before and during the UN climate conference, it could result in a much bigger change than what might otherwise result from the summit.

The response from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, asked for details of the oil companies’ proposal, including how they plan to transition their industry to a low-carbon future. US companies didn’t join in, which analysts say reflects the different political views on climate between Europe and the US.

Europe has long run a carbon emissions trading system that compels many businesses to cut their carbon footprint by requiring them to pay for permits if they emit more emissions than are allowed. There’s no similar, national system in the US, where the existence of climate change is still hotly debated. But like their European peers, big US oil companies such as Chevron and Exxon have boosted natural gas production to compete against coal, which generates about twice as many carbon dioxide emissions as gas.

However, the European oil companies’ overture hasn’t won over environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Rainforest Action Network, who are petitioning to exclude all oil companies from participating in the upcoming climate talks in Paris. Yet fossil fuel producers will be at the table no matter what: there’s no way to evict the energy ministers and delegates representing state-owned enterprises that control a big chunk of the world’s unburned carbon resources.

Governments have largely promoted fossil fuel development. Fossil fuel companies receive $5.3tn in worldwide subsidies every year – that’s $10m a minute – exceeding global spending on health. Pricing carbon fuels to reflect their true social and environmental impacts will help to speed up the transition to renewable energy and more energy efficient living standards. Several studies have found that pollution and climate change disproportionately affect the poor, which means boosting clean energy generation and cutting pollution could also simultaneously reduce global inequality.

The world can’t tolerate a weak Paris accord, following the papered-over platitudes from the 2009 Copenhagen summit. Every delay steepens our transition to a low-carbon future. A Citibank report last month found that failing to act on climate change will ultimately cost trillions of dollars more than taking action. Pricing carbon may be the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Activists and negotiators urgently need ways to strengthen the outcome of the Paris talks. Specific international agreements remain off the table, largely because the US Senate won’t ratify them. What will be the main result of years of planning and two weeks of summit negotiations? Countries are creating what’s called “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions”, or pledges to cut emissions by 2020.

But those aspirational pledges are not legally enforceable. So far, 62 have been submitted. Even if all of those expected by December are carried out, they will not be enough to keep world temperatures at acceptable levels, Figueres warned. Another potential tool to rein in climate change, the global Green Climate Fund, which is intended to help developing countries cut their emissions and deal with climate change, faces an uphill battle to get more funding and pin down its projects in Paris.

Putting a price on carbon can shift the conversation from “can we get a global price on carbon?” to “can we do it quickly and simply?” Climate advocates who support the European oil companies’ proposal can promote solutions such as revenue-neutral carbon taxes, in which fuel purchases are taxed and the income from the tax is returned to citizens via tax breaks or used to support the transition to renewables. They can energize the World Bank’s initiative, in which more than 70 countries have agreed to launch carbon pricing systems. They can support private initiatives, such as the idea of creating a world market for carbon reductions, which has been promised by both IDEACarbon and the UN Global Compact.

Last September’s People’s Climate March – and analyses like Risky Business, and IMF Energy Subsidy Reform – have all added momentum to the effort to create a decarbonized economy. It’s now becoming common for investors and insurers to talk about carbon bubbles and stranded assets, or the idea that fossil fuel assets may be overpriced if climate policies ultimately prevent miners and drillers from tapping all their reserves.

Oil companies may be strange bedfellows in the fight against climate change, but, in this case, joining forces to put a real price on carbon presents the best chance for the world to minimize the devastating impacts of climate change.