MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409591608 · doi:10.1177/01956574251322722

What Can We Learn About Carbon-reducing Innovations From the Joint Dynamics of CO <sub>2</sub> Emissions and GDP?

2025· article· en· W4409591608 on OpenAlexaff
Soojin Jo, Lilia Karnizova

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Energy Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJoint (building)Dynamics (music)EconomicsCarbon fibersEnvironmental economicsGreenhouse gasNatural resource economicsEconometricsComputer scienceEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Technological innovations targeting energy efficiency, carbon storage, and clean energy are often promoted as solutions to reduce emissions without sacrificing economic growth. However, theoretical studies offer conflicting views on the feasibility of this approach, and empirical assessments at the aggregate level are sparse. This paper contributes new evidence on the macroeconomic implications of carbon-reducing technological innovations. We analyze the joint dynamics of U.S. per capita emissions and GDP and identify a novel shock that lowers emissions without reducing economic output. This statistical shock is uncorrelated with past macroeconomic variables, energy prices, estimates of the leading macroeconomic shocks, and measures of environmental policy stringency. Our novel shock exhibits characteristics of an energy demand-reducing shock specific to the U.S. energy market, with pronounced effects concentrated in the residential and commercial sectors. This shock appears to be linked to improvements in energy efficiency, possibly stemming from changes in energy requirements for homes and buildings. These improvements may result from energy policies, occur exogenously, or reflect shifts in preferences for energy conservation. JEL Classification: E32, Q43, Q50, Q55

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Energy JournalSame topicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFrench-language works237,207