Modeling the Cost of Climate Policy: Distinguishing Between Alternative Cost Definitions and Long-Run Cost Dynamics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest groups and experts debate the cost of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, and policy-makers do not know whom to believe. The confusion stems from differing definitions of costs and divergent assumptions about key uncertainties, especially the role of policy in influencing the long-run evolution of technologies and consumer preferences. Analysis could be more helpful to policy-makers by combining technological explicitness with behavioral realism in hybrid models. With such a model, we demonstrate how GHG reduction cost estimates vary depending on whether the analyst focuses just on the financial costs of technologies or combines this with other relevant components of consumer and business preferences, such as option value and consumers’ surplus. We also show how this type of model can allow policy-makers to explore the uncertain relationship between policies and the evolution of technologies and preferences, which are critical factors in the long-run cost dynamics of GHG emission reduction. We explore these generic methodological issues with a case study of GHG reduction costs in Canada.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 it