Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Maritime Transport: The Science in a New Zealand and Australian Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenhouse gas emissions from international maritime transport contribute to anthropogenic global warming, as do those from international air transport. However, no liability was apportioned for these international emissions under the Kyoto Protocol when it was adopted in 1997. Instead, Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol (United Nations, 1998) stated that: “2. The Parties included in Annex 1 shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation and marine bunker fuels, working through the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization, respectively.” In recent years, there has been increasing international attention given to quantifying such emissions, with a view to possible inclusion of liabilities under future international climate agreements, particularly leading up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (Conference of Parties (COP) 15) in Copenhagen, 7-18 December 2009. This paper will review the science of greenhouse gas emissions from international maritime transport in the context of international maritime vessels passing through New Zealand and Australian ports. New Zealand and Australia are both countries with entirely maritime international borders and are geographically remote from many of their trading partners. Both nations are therefore heavily reliant on international maritime transport for the trade of goods with other countries. The implications of recent legal and policy developments in the Australasian geographic context will be briefly discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".