Commercializing International Environmental Protection: A Review of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Its Market-Based Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most current pressing environmental problems threatening the well-being and survival of the global community is climate change. The change in the Earth's climate is believed to be caused by human-induced activities such as the several decades of uncontrolled emissions of greenhouse gases. There is now a universal consensus that climate change is a global problem that needs urgent global attention and response. The need to compel a paradigm shift in the emissions of several gases accountable for global warming with the resultant effect of climate change led to the negotiation of an international agreement known as the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol commits industrialized nations and nations with economies in transition to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and achieve their reductions targets. To achieve its aim, the Kyoto Protocol initiated three innovative market-based mechanisms, now known as the carbon market, designed to help Parties meet their national greenhouse emissions reduction targets. This paper reviews the market-based mechanisms (Carbon Market) of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to ascertain whether the Kyoto Protocol has achieved significant global greenhouse gas emissions reduction through its carbon market. The paper also examines the compliance mechanism, the successes, and failures of the Kyoto Protocol. The paper concludes with a recommendation that both the developed and developing countries must be involved in greenhouse gas emissions reduction if any significant global greenhouse gas emissions reduction is to be achieved. Keywords: Kyoto Protocol, Kyoto Protocol market-based mechanisms, Kyoto compliance mechanism, Kyoto Protocol successes, Kyoto Protocol failures. DOI: 10.7176/IAGS/86-03 Publication date: September 30 th 2020
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".