The Comparative Politics of Carbon Taxation
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
Cap and trade and carbon taxes offer the prospect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a lower cost to society than conventional regulation. Between these two market-based approaches, however, carbon taxes offer significant advantages, including transparency and predictability of costs, ease of implementation, and application to small and large sources alike. This article thus seeks to inform our understanding of the conditions under which carbon taxes are politically viable by comparing the experience of four jurisdictions: Finland and Denmark, which adopted carbon taxes; Germany, which adopted a related energy tax; and Canada, which rejected a carbon tax. The cases highlight the role of policy entrepreneurs in advancing academic theories about environmental taxation. However, the impact of those ideas was conditional on voters' attention to either the environmental or economic benefits of carbon taxes. Even then, business tended to be more attentive, thus winning tax concessions relative to households. Proportional electoral systems tended to facilitate adoption of carbon taxes, whereas international institutions had mixed effects, in some cases advancing harmonization and in others undermining resolve for unilateral taxation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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