Legal aspects of carbon trading : Kyoto, Copenhagen, and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2005 the carbon market has grown to a value of nearly $100 billion per annum. This new book examines all the main legal and policy issues which are raised by emissions trading and carbon finance. It covers not only the Kyoto Flexibility Mechanisms but also the regional emission trading scheme in the EU and emerging schemes in the US, Australia, and New Zealand. The Parties to the 1992 UN Framework Convention are in the process of negotiating a successor regime to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol whose first commitment period ends in 2012. As scientists predict that the threat of dangerous climate change requires much more radical mitigation actions, the negotiations aim for a more comprehensive and wide ranging agreement which includes new players - such as the US - as well as taking account of new sources (including aircraft emissions) and new mechanisms such as the creation of incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. This volume builds on the success of the editors' previous volume published by OUP in 2005: Legal Aspects of Implementing the Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms: Making Kyoto Work, which remains the standard work of reference for legal practitioners and researchers on carbon finance and trading under the Kyoto Protocol. Contributors to this volume - Michael Barrett, Bennett Jones LLP Thiago Chagas, Climate Focus Claybourne Fox Clarke, attorney, Washington DC Allan Cook, formerly of the IASB Marie-Claire Cordonnier Segger, CISDL Canada Michael Coren, Climate Focus, North America Jos Cozijnsen, consulting attorney on emissions trading Kyle Danish, Van Ness Feldman P.C. Louisa Fitz-Gerald, Baker & McKenzie Markus Gehring, University of Cambridge Navraj Ghaleigh, University of Edinburgh Andrew Hedges, Norton Rose LLP Anthony Hobley, Norton Rose LLP Jelmer Hoogzaad, Climate Focus Lauren Hopkins, Beveridge & Diamond P.C. Matthias Krey, Perspectives K Russel LaMotte, Beveridge & Diamond P.C. Jolene Lin, University of Hong Kong Michael Mehling, Ecologic Institute Washtington DC Axel Michaelowa, Perspectives Maria Netto, United Nations Development Programme Robert O'Sullivan, Climate Focus North America Michelle Passero, The Nature Conservancy Markus Pohlman, The World Bank Carly Roberts, Norton Rose LLP Heike Santen, Vattenfall Carbon Fund Kai-Uwe Schmidt, Climate Change Support Team Sander Simonetti, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek Gray Taylor, Bennett Jones LLP Christopher Tung, Mallessons Stephen Jaques Christina Voigt, University of Oslo Murray Ward, Global Climate Change Consultancy Matthieu Wemaere, Climate Focus Martijn Wilder, Baker & McKenzie David M Williamson, Andrews Kurth LLP Rutger de Witt Wijnen, De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".