From Policy to Prices: How Carbon Markets Transmit Shocks Across Energy and Labor Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the changing role of emissions trading systems (ETSs) within the macro-financial framework of energy markets, emphasizing price dynamics and systemic spillovers. Utilizing monthly data from seven ETS jurisdictions spanning January 2021 to December 2024 (N = 287 observations after log transformation and first differencing), which includes four auction-based markets (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, South Korea), two secondary markets (China, New Zealand), and a government-set fixed-price scheme (Germany), this research estimates a panel vector autoregression (PVAR) employing a Common Correlated Effects (CCE) model and augments it with machine learning analysis utilizing XGBoost and explainable AI methodologies. The PVAR-CEE reveals numerous unexpected findings related to carbon markets: ETS returns exhibit persistence with an autoregressive coefficient of −0.137 after a four-month lag, while increasing inflation results in rising ETS after the same period. Furthermore, ETSs generate spillover effects in the real economy, as elevated ETSs today forecast a 0.125-point reduction in unemployment one month later and a 0.0173 increase in inflation after two months. Impulse response analysis indicates that exogenous shocks, including Brent oil prices, policy uncertainty, and financial volatility, are swiftly assimilated by ETS pricing, with effects dissipating completely within three to eight months. XGBoost models ascertain that policy uncertainty and Brent oil prices are the most significant predictors of one-month-ahead ETSs, whereas ESG factors are relevant only beyond certain thresholds and in conditions of low policy uncertainty. These findings establish ETS markets as dynamic transmitters of macroeconomic signals, influencing energy management, labor changes, and sustainable finance under carbon pricing frameworks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".