A MODEL INTERCOMPARISON OF THE WELFARE EFFECTS OF REGIONAL COALITIONS FOR AMBITIOUS CLIMATE MITIGATION TARGETS
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
This paper presents the overall and distributional welfare effects of alternative multi-regional emissions trading coalitions relative to unilateral action. It focusses on meeting Paris Agreement pledges and more emissions reduction targets consistent with 2 ∘ C and 1.5 ∘ C temperature pathways in 2030. The results from seven computable general equilibrium (CGE) models are compared. Across all models, welfare gains are highest with a global market and increase with the stringency of targets. All regional coalitions also show overall welfare gains, although lower gains than the global market. The models show more variability in the gains by a participant. Depending on the model, participants may benefit more from some regional arrangements than from a global market or face modest losses compared to the domestic reductions alone, due to interactions between carbon targets and fossil fuel markets. The scenario with a joint China–European Union emissions trading system in all sectors is consistently favorable for participants and provides the highest economic gains per unit of emissions abated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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