Cross Country Fairness Considerations and Country Implications of Alternative Approaches to a Global Emission Reduction Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The UNFCCC process of negotiating multilateral carbon emissions reductions thus far has focused on approximately equiproportional cuts in annual carbon emissions by country along the lines of the Kyoto Protocol agreement.But now, with the objective of involving large developing countries such as China and India in a post 2012 regime, broader considerations imply alternative approaches to emissions reduction arrangements by countries be considered.Here we consider the implications of alternative cross country fairness considerations entering the global negotiation process using a numerical simulation model which captures the potential impacts of alternative emission reductions across major economies which in turn reflect different fairness arguments.We put other fairness considerations, such as intergenerational equity, on one side.We use a global equilibrium emissions and trade model with transfers which are calibrated to a 2005-2050 BAU scenario and treats damage from climate change as utility damage.It thus captures the benefit side of emissions reduction agreements as well as the implications of such considerations for financial transfers agreed as a part of the process.Our analyses consider four alternative justices formulations.One is equal per capita allocation of absorptive capacity of the atmosphere given a temperature change target for global emissions.Yet another is where cuts by countries yield equal benefits per capita to other countries.A third is where there are equal costs per capita to countries making cuts.Finally, we also consider financial transfers to developing countries to compensate them for the costs of meeting emission restraints.The impacts of alternative emissions reductions differ sharply from the equi-proportional cuts of annual emissions implied by a continuation of the Kyoto process.These impacts emphasize the large and ill defined bargaining set for a post Kyoto Process involving large developing countries in a significant way.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".