Supporting the Paris Agreement through international cooperation: potential contributions, institutional robustness, and progress of Glasgow climate initiatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many sector-level cooperative initiatives involving both national governments and non-state actors were launched around the 2021 Glasgow climate conference (COP26). However, there have been questions about whether and to what extent these initiatives could substantially contribute to achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. To this end, this paper examines the prospects of the 14 Glasgow sector initiatives by investigating their aggregate mitigation ambition under current national signatories and the institutional robustness of each initiative. We find that the additional emission reduction ambition of the current national government signatories would, even if fully implemented, only fill about a quarter of the emissions gap in 2030 between the aggregate of existing national targets (nationally determined contributions: NDCs) and the required emission levels consistent with keeping warming below 1.5 °C, while the institutional robustness varied considerably across the initiatives. We also find that most national government signatories did not mention Glasgow initiatives in their updated NDCs submitted after COP26. Expansion of the national government participation, national government signatories’ incorporation of the initiatives’ goals into their updated NDCs by setting quantifiable domestic targets, and enhanced institutional capacity are key to successful emission reduction outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".