Economic and environmental impacts of the Kyoto Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2003 the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes legally binding greenhouse gas emission constraints on industrialized countries, is likely to enter into force. The Protocol has been celebrated as a milestone in climate protection, but standard economic theory casts doubt that it will go beyond symbolic policy. In this paper, we show that the final concretion of the Kyoto Protocol is consistent with the theoretical prediction: Kyoto more or less boils down to business‐as‐usual without significant compliance costs to ratifying parties. JEL Classification: D58, Q43, Q58 Conséquences économiques et environnementales du protocole de Kyoto En 2003, le protocole de Kyoto, qui impose aux pays industrialisés l’obligation de réduire leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre, entrera probablement en vigueur. Si le protocole a été accueilli comme un grand pas en avant dans le combat pour protéger l’environnement, la théorie économique jette un regard sceptique sur la portée réelle d’un tel accord et le considére comme un geste symbolique. Dans ce mémoire, on montre que la concrétisation finale de l’accord de Kyoto s’arrime aux prédictions théoriques : Kyoto n’est rien de plus que « business‐as‐usual » et n’impliquera pas de coûts significatifs pour les parties qui ont signé le protocole.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".