Climate Change Plans for Canada: A Full Net Present Value Framework for Evaluating Options at the Provincial Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstracts V. LANTZ AND D. MURRELL: Climate Change Plan for Canada: A Full Cost-Benefit Framework for Evaluating Options at the Provincial Level. This paper examines the provincial economic impacts from implementing the Kyoto Protocol in Canada under two policy options currently being considered by the federal government: the Broad-as-Practical and Reference-Package options. Using information from federal documents and academic literature, we find that the federal forecasts of undiscounted GDP changes to provincial economies represent misleading indicators of true economic impacts. We suggest that a more accurate provincial impact analysis of GHG policy options would be based on a net present value framework that incorporates discounted costs and ancillary benefits over the time-frame of the program. Once these elements are accounted for, we find that most provinces will benefit under both policy options, and prefer the Reference-Package. Specifically, the Reference-Package option reduces provincial burdens of achieving Canada's Kyoto commitment, and may do so at virtually no net efficiency cost relative to the Broad-as-Practical option. These findings emphasize the importance of incorporating both market and non-market values into the policy-making arena. Resumes V. LANTZ et D. MURRELL: [Climate Change Plan for Canada: A Full CostBenefit Framework for Evaluating Options at the Provincial Level]. > Dans cet article nous examinerons les impacts economiques provinciaux de la mise e execution du Protocole de Kyoto sous deux options de politique presentees dans le livre blanc federal concernant un plan pour le changement climatique du Canada : les options Broad-as-Practical et Reference-Package. Le plan Broad-as-Practical implique un plan de plus grande envergure pour l'echange des emissions domestiques et l'achat de permis internationaux, et donne lieu e une reduction plus grande d'emissions de [CO.sub.2]. L'option Reference Package est associe avec un plan de moins grande envergure pour les emissions et l'achat de permis, et des reductions d'emissions [CO.sub.2] plus petites. Pourtant, dans le livre blanc, le gouvernement prefere l'option Reference Package, malgre que celle-ci implique des couts plus eleves en termes de PIB non realise, etant donne tes couts en termes de PIB non realises sont repartis de facon plus egale entre les provinces. En utilisant de l'information provenant de documents federaux et de la literature academique, nous avons trouve que les previsions federales des changements non escomptes du PIB aux economies provinciales representent des indicateurs errones of des impacts economiques veritables. Nous suggerons qu'une analyse provinciale plus precise des options de politique concernant les EGS devrait etre fondee sur l'approche de valeur presente nette au cours de la periode pendant la programme serait en vigueur. Une telle approche inclurait des couts additionnels en plus du PIB non realise : des couts energetiques de production plus eleves, les couts d'investissement afin de changer les technologies d'utilisation du fuel, et les couts de permis domestiques et internationaux. Notre approche introduit egalement des benefices ancillaires provenant des reductions de [CO.sub.2] : sante, economique, sociale et conservation des ecosystemes. Notre evaluation des benefices gagnees se base sur des evaluations basses et moyennes empruntees de la litterature. Une fois que les couts et benefices complets des options Broad-as-Practical et Reference-Package sont pris en consideration, on trouve que la plupart des provinces beneficeront sous les deux options de politique, et prefereront l'option Reference-Package. Specifiquement, l'option Reference Package reduit les fardeaux provinciaux pour atteindre l'engagement du Canada par rapport e Kyoto, et puissent le faire avec pratiquement aucun cout d'efficience par rapport e l'option Broad-as-Practical. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".