Mitigation scenarios in a world oriented at sustainable development: the role of technology, efficiency and timing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two different mitigation scenarios for stabilising carbon dioxide concentration at 450 ppmv by 2100 have been developed, based on the recently developed B1 baseline scenario (part of the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios). In both mitigation scenarios, a global uniform carbon tax has been applied as a proxy of pressure on the system to induce a variety of mitigation measures—assuming the presence of some international mechanism for globally cost-efficient implementation of such measures. The two scenarios differ in the timing of mitigation action: early action versus delayed response. Analysis of the scenarios has led to the following findings. First, stabilisation at a carbon dioxide concentration of 450 ppmv from the B1 baseline scenario is technically feasible. In the first quarter/second quarter of this century most of the reduction will come from energy-efficiency and fuel switching options; later on the introduction of carbon-free supply options will account for the bulk of the required reductions. Second, postponing measures foregoes the benefits of learning-by-doing, and, as a result, an early action strategy will at low discount rates lead to reduced mitigation costs compared to delayed response. The most difficult period for the mitigation scenarios is the 2010–2040 period (exact timing depends on early action or delayed response), when ‘bending the curve’ towards a lower carbon emission system will have to be initiated. Finally, while overall costs seems to be limited, there are large differences in costs and benefits for individual regions and sectors for instance in terms of redirection of investments, changing fuel trade patterns and changing energy expenditures.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it