How Climate Action at Regional Level Contributes to the Objectives of the UNFCCC: The APEC Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) launched the Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Clean Development in 2007 (better known as the Declaration of Sydney), environmental groups, civil society, experts and academics had recently celebrated two years of entry into force of Kyoto Protocol, which despite the slowness to achieve objectives kept hopes of real results; at the same time there were concerns that the proposal of APEC (with participation of the United States and Australia) would be a boycott of the Kyoto Protocol. This paper is arguing that the climate action within APEC is an important element to reinforce the international climate action on world level under the leadership of UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). The analysis is focusing exclusively on common commitments assumed as members of APEC as regional body and not on the particular objectives of the member economies. Although it requires global commitment to address climate change, APEC has many resources to modify the process of global climate change significantly, this because besides emitting more than 60% of greenhouse gases (GHG), among its members are economies with a high degree of economic development (required for technological innovation), nations with the highest economic growth in recent decades (essential for poverty reduction and clean technology implementation) and international leaders with global influence (political hegemony: United States and China). Moreover, it is easier to agree among 21 economies than among the 200 nations of the world; but, if desired, any country can adhere to the objectives of APEC, since one of the characteristics of this forum is the open regionalism. This combination of elements makes APEC a force for success in the action against climate change in the world.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".