Bibliographic record
Abstract
• The carbon price within the DICE model is adjusted to generate climate change scenarios. • Global physical costs increase by 5x under a 4.2°C versus a 2°C warming scenario. • Carbon pricing alone is not sufficient to reach 2°C by 2100. • Global carbon price currently estimated at $2.79 per ton of CO 2 . Global carbon pricing has been recognized as one of the most efficient mechanisms that can be used to reduce CO 2 emissions, but questions remain about the magnitude of the price and the speed of implementation. We examine this important issue by extending the Dynamic Integrated Climate and Economy (DICE) model to estimate global carbon prices that will be required to reach various warming scenarios. Our analysis suggests that while carbon pricing can play a critical role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and limiting global warming, it must be supported by other policy measures and innovations in order to reach the Paris Agreement targets. In particular, we found there was no feasible carbon pricing scenario that was high enough to limit emissions sufficiently to achieve anything below 2.4°C warming on its own. We project significant differences in global physical costs due to climate change across various warming scenarios, which range from a total (to 2100) of $152tr under a 1.5° scenario to $765tr under 4.2° warming.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
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".