Will Carbon Tax Constrain Oil Production in Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article aims to assess how introduction of carbon tax will impact oil production in Canada in the long run. Two oil exporting countries, Norway and Canada, introduced carbon tax in 1991 and 2018 respectively. In Norway carbon tax has not constrained oil production and development of costly hydrocarbon reserves in the Arctic areas. We build a simple econometric model for Canada’s oil demand and supply until 2040 in reference and low carbon scenarios. Carbon tax is explicitly inbuilt into the model based on the assumption that producers fully pass costs of carbon tax onto consumers of petroleum products. Demand is modelled bottom-up individually for economic sectors, including road transport, air transport, marine and water transport, industry, commercial sector, etc. On the basis of modelling results we argue that in the projection period carbon tax will have a minor constraining impact on oil production growth in Canada. Demand for petroleum products will contract more deeply compared to crude oil production. The continuously increasing export orientation of the Canadian oil sector will partially shield it from the carbon tax. Given the global advancement of low carbon paradigm, analysis of Norway and Canada experience with carbon tax is crucially important for all large oil producing countries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".