Testing the Emissions Reduction Effect of Carbon Pricing: A Predictive Analysis of the Role of Speculation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite providing some critical financial services to support the operation of Emissions Trading Systems (ETS), such as increasing market liquidity and price visibility and allowing operators to hedge against future fluctuations, there is growing concern about the potential threat of financial actors' speculation behaviour to the ETS's effectiveness. To confirm or alleviate the fear associated with such concern, we employ both ex-post and ex-ante approaches to determine the role of speculation in the emission reduction effect of the ETS and its forecasting power in predicting climate change. In addition to confirming carbon prices and the speculation behaviour of the emissions non-compliance actors in the ETS as accurate predictors of climate change, we also show that they both matter in the emission reduction effect of the ETS. We use several verifiable econometric approaches to select the Feasible Quasi Generalised Least Squares (FQGLS) as the best estimator for addressing some of the biases in climate change predictability. We demonstrate that a predictive model combining the complementing dynamics of the EST emissions compliance and emissions non-compliance features forecasts climate change more accurately. We demonstrate the robustness of our findings for both in-sample and out-of-sample forecasts and across different forecast horizons by using alternative approaches to evaluate forecast performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".