Economic Instruments and the Kyoto Protocol: Can Parliament Implement Emissions Trading without Provincial Co-operation
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
The ability of the federal government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol — the international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — is uncontested by provincial governments. However, the recent provincial opposition to this treaty could result in a constitutional challenge to Parliament's domestic implementation of the binding emission targets. This potential challenge is a result of the uncertainty in Parliament's authority to implement the necessary legislation. This article examines the federal authority to implement emissions trading — an economic instrument into which the federal government has invested a considerable amount of research in recent years. As possible reliance for Parliament's jurisdiction over trading, three federal powers are investigated: the peace, order and good government power, the criminal law power and the trade and commerce power. While there are difficulties with reliance on each of these powers, the peace, order and good government power is likely to provide the strongest argument for federal jurisdiction. Given the federal government's lack of clear legislative authority for trading, this article finishes by examining the alternative economic instrument of emissions taxation, concluding that Parliament's power to implement taxes is much more certain.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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