Environmental, economic, and social impact of five COP26 policies: A computable general equilibrium analysis for Canada
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 Along with the main objective of politicians, other economic variables are variously affected by the environmental taxes, policies, and limitations like a price on pollution, clean electricity, the cap on emissions, methane emissions, and nature‐based solutions. The objective of the environmental solutions is to decrease pollutant emissions and energy consumption while reducing labor costs and taxes as the incentives for creating new occupations. An overall equilibrium model was considered in the present study as a nonlinear equations system, which was calibrated for the reference year of 2018 utilizing Canada's economy's data table. The effects of utilizing these environmental policies considered by Canada in COP26 are examined. In all scenarios, minimum, maximum, and optimum values for reducing pollutant emissions are calculated under these policies. According to the simulation results, welfare is reduced by the price of pollution policy. Moreover, the actual consumed budget of the household is reduced by 8%. However, such indices will be incremented by 2% in the nature‐based policy. In all scenarios, the gross domestic product is decreased. However, in the methane emission policy, this reduction is 1.05% in the lowest state. In all scenarios, the consumer price index will be incremented by 3.8%–9.8%. It is concluded that the clean electricity policy is an appropriate policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time adhering to international commitments.
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 | 0.000 | 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