A Trade and Climate Agenda for Promoting CO2 Management through Carbon Markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the importance of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies in achieving the Paris Agreement ’s climate goals. The document highlights possible pathways for the integration of CCS into emission trading systems (ETS) to incentivize CCS deployment. The document identifies Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) as a promising support tool to bridge the cost gap for CCS by stabilizing revenues through government contracts based on carbon prices and looks into ways to implement a Carbon Storage Obligation (CSO), which would require entities to sequester a percentage of embedded carbon, creating demand for carbon storage units (CSUs) to finance storage infrastructure. The document also offers some insights on how these instruments may comply with or come into conflict with WTO rules. In short, this study emphasizes the need to design ETS-CCS integration policies that support investment while ensuring WTO compatibility.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.001 |
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".