MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413820612 · doi:10.1139/er-2025-0064

Is clean growth really all that clean? A review of the cumulative effects associated with renewable energy clean growth initiatives in Canada and beyond

2025· article· en· W4413820612 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Steven J. Cooke, Lauren J. Stoot, Benjamin L. Hlina, Joel Zhang, Michael MacLeod

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClean-upClean energyRenewable energyNatural resource economicsClean waterClean technologyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionEconomicsEngineeringPolitical scienceWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clean growth (also known as green capitalism, green economy, or green growth) is an economic theory in which economic expansion occurs in an environmentally and ecologically sustainable manner. Technologies such as hydropower, wind energy, small nuclear reactors, and solar power have been championed as important aspects of the transition and transformation needed to address the climate crisis. Although many of these projects are inherently more environmentally friendly than traditional approaches to energy development, the cumulative effects of clean growth technologies have not been reviewed before. Cumulative effects (the additive impacts of multiple minor stresses such as many small wind turbines or their complex synergistic effects) can create significant threats to the environment. This review aimed to understand the individual and cumulative effects of clean growth technologies, and provide examples of how these cumulative effects are being quantified and mitigated in Canada and beyond. In general, cumulative effects in clean growth technologies are understudied with little knowledge regarding how they are impacting the environment and society. Understanding the societal and cultural impacts of multiple clean growth projects, in addition to the environmental impacts, particularly in traditional Indigenous lands and territories, is a necessity prior to undertaking further development. We recommend investing in long-term monitoring of clean growth technologies as well as ensuring adequate baseline data to better understand potential impacts. Furthermore, we recommend that impact assessments consider long-term and future stressors to allow managers to understand how cumulative effects will manifest in a changing world. Ensuring the use of consistent terminology and varied indicators and/or endpoints for research involving cumulative effects and clean growth, and considering the activity in its broader context (e.g., considering spatial and temporal aspects), will enable more robust research and more comprehensive understanding of impacts. Finally, we suggest documenting best practices for evaluating and monitoring the cumulative effects in clean growth to support decision makers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207