The Dynamic Competitiveness of U.S. Agricultural and Forest Carbon Sequestration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Society is increasingly turning attention toward greenhouse gas emission control with for example the Kyoto Protocol has entered into force. Since many of the emissions come from energy use, high cost strategies might be required until new technological developments reduce fossil fuel dependency or increase energy utilization efficiency. On the other hand biologically based strategies may be used to offset energy related emissions. Agricultural soil and forestry are among the largest carbon reservoirs on the planet; therefore, agricultural and forest activities may help to reduce the costs of greenhouse gas emission mitigation. However, sequestration exhibits permanence related characteristics that may influence this role. We examine the dynamic role of carbon sequestration in the agricultural and forest sectors can play in mitigation. A 100‐year mathematical programming model, depicting U.S. agricultural and forest sectoral activities including land transfers and greenhouse gas consequences is applied to simulate potential mitigation response. The results show that at low cost and in the near term agricultural soil and forest management are dominant sectoral responses. At higher prices and in the longer term biofuels and afforestation take over. Our results reveal that the agricultural and forest sector carbon sequestration may serve as an important bridge to the future helping to hold costs down until energy emissions related technology develops.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".