Treaty Rights to Carbon Offsets within the Proposed Cap-and-Trade Regime in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Government of Ontario has announced that it will join the Western Climate Initiative's cap-and-trade program, with the first compliance period starting as soon as January 1, 2017. The program will include the use of carbon offsets and establish an offset registry. This paper examines the question of whether Ontario's treaties with First Nations in Northern Ontario create a right to ownership and control of carbon offsets situated on traditional territories. First, I discuss the cap-and-trade regime as a whole, and the criteria for carbon offsets specifically. Then I explore some of the overarching obligations of the Crown in relation to aboriginal communities generally and the more specific rights of First Nations communities in Northern Ontario. Finally, I provide three arguments that First Nations could use to assert a right to a sui generis ownership of the carbon sequestration capabilities of their traditional territories. The first argument relies on an incidental right to the enumerated treaty rights, the second is framed as a right to harvest carbon offsets, and the third deals with the expansion of the interpretation of the treaties to include sharing in the benefits of the land. Though tenuous, these arguments provide some tools for First Nations to use in negotiations with the Crown during the development of offset protocols and regulations surrounding the offset market.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".