Property Rights and the Legal Framework for Carbon Sequestration on Agricultural Land
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kyoto Protocol Annex 1 Parties can elect to include carbon sequestered on agricultural land in calculating their net greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has proposed in its Climate Change Plan to include such carbon sinks as a source of greenhouse gas offsets. This raises questions about the design of a Canadian legal and institutional framework necessary to facilitate investment in sequestration projects on agricultural land. Focus of the article is on (1) definition of underlying legal rights to sequestration potential and sequestered carbon and (2) establishment of a property rights regime for sequestered carbon. A major conclusion is that common law property rights and the statutory regime for conservation easements do not provide an adequate legal basis for sequestration transactions, with the consequence that specific property rights legislation is required. Clarity is necessary on initial ownership of sequestration potential and sequestered carbon, and a property rights regime is needed to facilitate transfer of interests in carbon assets. Criteria are identified to guide the design of such a property rights regime.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".