The GATT-Legality of Border Adjustments for Carbon Taxes and the Cost of Emissions Permits: A Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of this analysis was initially presented at a conference on “U.S. Energy Tax Policy” sponsored by the American Tax Policy Institute held in Washington, D.C., Oct. 15-16, 2009.“Russia . . . is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” – Winston Churchill“The application of BTAs to energy taxes under the GATT/WTO rules is clouded with uncertainty.” – OECDWith the notable exception of the United States (and, until recently, Australia), developed nations and many nations in transition from socialism made commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions of CO2, the most important greenhouse gas thought to be responsible for global warming. By comparison, the Protocol excused developing countries from the need to cap emissions. Both countries making commitments to reduce emissions and those that have not made commitments, but are considering doing so, are concerned that policies adopted to meet targets for emissions reductions will place their carbon-intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage relative to those in countries not making commitments and induce carbon leakage to those nations which they see as “free riders” in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, developing countries resist carbon pricing, both because they do not want to hamper economic development and because they believe that primary responsibility for reducing emissions should lie with the developed countries that emitted virtually all the greenhouse gases now in the environment.2 Moreover, the statement in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development that “States have common but differentiated responsibilities” underlies the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and thus the Kyoto 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".