Can the G-20 Save the Environment? Potential Impact of the G-20 on International Environmental Policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The G-20 was created to deal with the global financial and economic crisis of 2008. G-20 leaders were successful – the crisis was contained. Should the G-20 leaders move on to deal with the most difficult and hitherto intractable global environmental policy issues? The United Nations has not been up to the task; can the G-20 fill the vacuum? This paper reviews the criteria for issues to be included on the G-20 leaders’ agenda and provides a tour d’horizon appraising the state of the global environment. It also includes some “Global Footprint” statistics demonstrating the current global unsustainable rates of consumption. Based on the G-20 agenda criteria, of ten global environmental issues, only climate change qualifies for consideration. Annex I canvasses the status of nine other specific dimensions of the global environment – Water, Forests, Biodiversity and Land Use Management, Air Pollution, Waste Management, Ozone Layer Depletion, Oceans, Fisheries and Population. The paper describes the inadequacy and fragmentation of present institutional arrangements. The concluding section provides conjectures and recommendations on a pragmatic approach for G-20 engagement with climate change and outlines a package of initiatives, with each element arguably being in every G-20 country’s national interest. Elements of the package include “no regrets” actions, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, standards, R&D collaboration and security of supply arrangements. The G-20 could also help rationalize the jumbled melange of international environmental organizations and catalyze the creation of effective governance institutions and mechanisms.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".