The French carbon tax system : a failure compared to the swedish example? The case of road freight transport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Launched within the French PLF in 2010 in the form of a Contribution Climat-Energie, the carbon tax has now been withdrawn. Without mentioning the political reasons for the law’s repeal, we will examine the ecological and economic efficiency that this new tax could have had in particular as carbon taxation has been successfully introduced in Sweden. Taking the example of freight road transport, which was a particular focus of the law, we refer to the swedish example, the advice of experts (through different simulations stemming from macroeconomic models, or the recommendations of the Rocard Commission), and from actors concerned (loaders, truckers, unions). The carbon tax was rejected by a majority of the freight road transport sector, largely because, according to them, it targeted their competitiveness and related to an over taxation of the sector. Was it withdrawn advisedly? Insérée au sein du projet de loi de finances (PLF) français 2010 sous la forme d’une Contribution Climat-Energie (CCE), la taxe carbone en fut ensuite retirée. Sans s’attarder sur les raisons politiques de ce retrait, c’est sur l’efficacité qu’elle aurait pu avoir tant sur le plan écologique qu’économique que nous nous interrogeons. Prenant l’exemple du transport routier de marchandises (TRM) spécifiquement visé par la loi, nous nous référons aux prévisions des experts (via différentes simulations réalisées à partir des modèles macroéconomiques, ou les préconisations de la commission Rocard), et aux discours des acteurs français concernés (chargeurs, transporteurs, fédérations,…). La taxe carbone si majoritairement rejetée par ces derniers au nom d’une atteinte de leur compétitivité et d’une surfiscalisation du secteur a t-elle été abrogée à bon escient?
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".