MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524718611

Setting the NAFTA Agenda on Climate Change

2009· preprint· en· W1524718611 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey J. Schott, Meera Fickling

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasClimate changeCarbon offsetInternational tradeEmissions tradingClimate change mitigationRenewable energyRevenueBusinessNatural resource economicsPortfolioCommitEconomicsFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After years of inaction, the three partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)--Canada, Mexico, and the United States--now recognize the imperative to start the long-term process of substantially reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The American Climate and Energy Security Act (ACESA) passed by the US House of Representatives in June 2009 cuts emissions, sets new standards for the use of renewable energy sources, and provides support to ease the transition to a low-carbon economy and to mitigate concerns about trade competitiveness of carbon-intensive industries and increased energy costs to consumers. The policy brief assesses the implications of the ACESA for North American trade and investment, particularly the free distribution of emissions permits, the allocation of revenues generated by the limited auctioning of emissions permits, the impact of renewable portfolio standards on US-Canada electricity trade, and the international offset provisions (that could be available to support Mexican policies seeking to cut GHG emissions in half by 2050). In light of ACESA's trade implications, the authors offer a pragmatic NAFTA agenda for near-term action on climate change issues. First, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation should be used as a clearinghouse for climate change-related data. Second, Canada and the United States should standardize definitions of renewable energy and coordinate their policies. Third, NAFTA members should commit not to impose border measures to address competitiveness concerns arising from new climate change policies (i.e., a temporary "peace clause") until a framework for such measures is developed under the WTO. Fourth, NAFTA members should study options for coordinating or integrating the evolving carbon regimes in each country. Fifth, NAFTA partners should establish a "safe harbor" to shield climate change taxes and regulations from claims under the indirect takings provisions of NAFTA Chapter 11. Finally, capacity building in Mexico will be essential to North American coordination on climate change. The North American Development Bank should be used to provide finance and technical assistance for energy-saving and pollution control projects in Mexico in support of its ambitious climate change policies. North American cooperation could serve as a model for how developed and developing countries can mutually benefit from an international climate change agreement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0150.014
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0450.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.147 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207