Bubble in Carbon Credits during COVID-19: Financial Instability or Positive Impact (“Minsky” or “Social”)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incentivizing businesses to lower carbon emissions and trade back excess carbon allowances paved the way for rapid growth in carbon credit ETFs. The use of carbon allowances as a hedging alternative fueled this rally further, causing a shift to speculation and forming repetitive bubbles. Speculative bubbles are born from euphoria, yet, they are relatively predictable, provided their pattern matches the log periodic power law (LPPL) with specific stylized facts. A “Minsky moment” identifies a clear speculative bubble as a signal of financial system instability, while a “Social bubble” is regarded as relatively positive, increasing in the long run, infrastructure spending and development. The aim of this paper is to investigate whether various carbon credit bubbles during the pandemic period caused financial instability or had a positive impact (“Minsky” or “Social”). Particularly, we investigate the carbon credit bubble behavior in the ETF prices of KRBN, GRN (Global Carbon Credit tracking ETFs), and the SOLCARBT index during the COVID-19 pandemic period by adopting the log-periodic power law model (LPPL) methodology, which has been widely used, over the past decade, for detecting bubbles and crashes in various markets. In conclusion, these bubbles are social and propelled by the newfound interest in carbon credit trading, for obvious reasons.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".