MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408052063 · doi:10.1007/s13280-025-02147-3

The costs of subsidies and externalities of economic activities driving nature decline

2025· article· en· W4408052063 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Reyes‐García, Sebastián Villasante, Karina Benessaiah, Ram Pandit, Arun Agrawal, Joachim Claudet, Lucas A. Garibaldi, Mulako Kabisa, Laura Pereira, Yves Zinngrebe

Bibliographic record

VenueAMBIO · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaEuropean Research CouncilMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación
KeywordsSubsidyExternalityNatural resource economicsEconomicsGreenhouse gasPublic economicsBusinessEcologyMicroeconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economic sectors that drive nature decline are heavily subsidized and produce large environmental externalities. Calls are increasing to reform or eliminate subsidies and internalize the environmental costs of these sectors. We compile data on subsidies and externalities across six sectors driving biodiversity loss-agriculture, fossil fuels, forestry, infrastructure, fisheries and aquaculture, and mining. The most updated estimates suggest that subsidies to these sectors total between US$1.7 and US$3.2 trillion annually, while environmental externalities range between US$10.5 and US$22.6 trillion annually. Moreover, data gaps suggest that these figures underestimate the global magnitude of subsidies and externalities. We discuss the need and opportunities of building a baseline to account for the costs of subsidies and externalities of economic activities driving nature decline. A better understanding of the complexity, size, design, and effects of subsidies and externalities of such economic sectors could facilitate and expedite discussions to strengthen multilateral rules for their reform.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAMBIOSame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207