A methodological framework for the economic evaluation of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY As the main cause of the global warming, CO 2 emissions are a relevant externality in the transport sector. However, feasibility assessments do not always take these effects into adequate account, because a number of scientific and economic uncertainties make it difficult to determine a reliable estimate for a unitary CO 2 cost. This paper first analyses the methods generally used to determine the cost of CO 2 emissions, showing that market‐based prices are not always suitable for this aim. Avoidance and damage cost methods are then thoroughly discussed, evaluating their pros and cons, including an extensive review of previous studies of methods for comparing costs. To determine the most reliable values, a method based on both avoidance and damage costs is proposed here. This method is then applied to the case study of the Brenner Base Tunnel, comparing the outcomes of three different scenarios: ‘minimum’ suggests the maintenance of the ‘do‐nothing’ option (no tunnel realisation), whereas ‘trend’ and ‘consensus’ both imply the construction of the tunnel with different political choices, namely, a complete market liberalisation in trend and sustainable interventions in consensus. Results up to 2035 reveal that, in comparison with the do‐nothing option, the enlightened transport policy shown in consensus could bring about a CO 2 economic saving of up to around €331m for the community, whereas a simple liberalisation (trend) increases the costs derived from global warming by about €228m. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".