Designing a Global Post-Kyoto Climate Change Protocol that Advances Human Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes a new formula for a post-Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The article critiques the Kyoto Protocol insofar as it allocates emissions reduction entitlements to some countries but not to others. All countries, and not just developed countries, must be allocated emissions entitlements. The article further critiques the Kyoto Protocol for imposing emission reduction obligations on only the developed countries, leaving developing countries without emission reduction and/or avoidance obligations. The article refutes the assumption underlying the Kyoto Protocol that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities necessarily exempts developing countries on account of their historically low GHG emissions from emissions reductions and/or avoidance obligations. Our proposal assigns real, common, but equitably differentiated responsibilities to all nations of the world, and requires that all countries maximize the efficiency of their use of energy. The post-Kyoto Protocol climate change mitigation regime must 1) stipulate an absolute cap on allowable GHG emissions, which the global atmospheric system can tolerate without dangerous climate change; 2) allocate GHG emissions under that cap to all countries on the based on a combination of four factors: the Human Development Index; the efficiency of energy use; historical and present per capita emissions; and projected future per capita emissions; 3) allow all countries to use flexible mechanisms in meeting reduction commitments; and 4) provide for technology transfer and capacity building to enable poor countries to embark on a sustainable development path based on low carbon, energy efficient, and renewable energy technologies.
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 | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".