Carbon Sequestration Credits, Trading Mechanisms and the Kyoto Protocol: The Canadian Forestry Experience Carbon Sequestration Credits, Trading Mechanisms, and the Potential Role of the MNR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1992, representatives from most of the countries in the world met in Rio de Janeiro to adopt a framework for international action on the issue of the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The accepted scientific view is that the increasing anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases (most notably, CO2, methane, and NOx, CFCs, and water vapour) will result (and may have already) in significant changes to the Earth’s climate system, including a substantial warming at the Earth’s surface. It was felt that efforts must be made to reduce both the level of emissions and the overall concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The resulting framework – the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – provided an initial step toward this emission reduction goal. The UNFCCC has now been ratified by over 180 countries and entered into force in March 1994. Subsequent to this, the Convention was supplemented with the Kyoto Protocol (agreed to at a meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997), which identified specific emission reduction targets for 39 developed countries (so-called Annex B countries, since these commitments are listed in Annex B of the Protocol). The Protocol represents a binding agreement to reduce the global emission of greenhouse gases. To date, the Protocol has been signed by 84 countries and ratified by 37. To take the force of international law, 55 countries representing over 55% of the total greenhouse gas emissions globally must ratify the Protocol. However, in the spring of 2001, the Bush administration in the US announced that it would not ratify the Protocol and would not be bound by its provisions. At the time of this writing, the Parties to the Convention have just completed a two-week meeting in Bonn (officially the Conference of the Parties 6, part II or COP 6.II) in an attempt to revise the Protocol to a point where it is acceptable to most, if not all, countries in the world. The Earth Summit in Durban, South Africa, in September 2002, however, failed to ratify the Protocol.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".