Non-additionality, Overestimation of Supply, and Double Counting in Offset Programs: Insight for the Mexican Carbon Market

Mexico utilizes an emissions trading system as one of its carbon pricing instruments. Mexico’s planning, like that of other countries, includes flexible mechanisms such as offsets. Offsets allow market participants to compensate for their emissions through mitigation projects. Offsetting via participation in the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation was fundamental to the Kyoto Protocol. In contrast, the Paris Agreement is ambiguous about its use. Other national or regional offset programs, such as the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, or Korea, work within emission trading systems. Subnationally, the California-Quebec program has been in effect since 2014. As Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) are global, offsetting allows market participants to compensate for their emissions through mitigation projects, whether domestically or abroad. Given their global scope, such programs present a wide variability in quality. This chapter presents an overview of offset programs worldwide and argues that non-additionality, overestimated supply, and double counting are their three most pressing quality problems. This analysis sheds light upon the nascent Mexican system and its offset program.

PP254 Double-Counting In Evidence Synthesis Including Routinely Collected Data: Methodological and Practical Considerations

IntroductionThe use of real-world data, as an alternative to randomized controlled trials, is becoming increasingly common in the evaluation of new health technologies. With this rise in real-world literature, such data will also enter evidence synthesis models. While it can be beneficial to utilize data from all available sources, this can introduce the problem of double-counting of participants.MethodsUsing a number of case-studies, we discuss and illustrate various issues around double-counting. These include synthesis of studies using the same database or the same subset of participants, overlapping use of intervention arms across studies and the use of registry data from the participants overlapping with those in randomized controlled trials. The implications in research are considered along with common methods used currently to overcome these issues.ResultsDouble-counting of participants in evidence synthesis can artificially inflate precision, potentially leading to inappropriate conclusions. Common methods currently used to help mitigate the impact of double-counting includes stratifying analysis to different timelines, using the most comprehensive study in the evidence synthesis model or using the study that has the largest sample size. However, in all of these cases, sensitivity analyses would need to be considered to ensure robust results.ConclusionsCurrently, there are no published guidelines on how to address the issue of double-counting. With the increased use of real-world data in evidence synthesis, double-counting has the potential to become a significant issue. Therefore, it is of significant importance that methodologies and guidelines are developed to address this.

The results of the 1939 Soviet census: two problems of adequacy

The article examines the adequacy of contemporary estimates of the total population of the Soviet Union based on the 1939 census. To do so, it analyzes the instructions for filling in the census form. Comparison of the better worded 1959 census instructions with the poorly worded instructions of the 1939 census shows that the latter created possibilities for double counting of the population. These findings confirm the validity of the lowest estimate of the total population of the USSR based on the 1939 census, given by the famous Russian demographer Andrei G. Volkov, which stood at only 167.6 million people. The impact of the inter-republic reallocation of prisoners’ census forms was also estimated. For the entire population of Russia these estimates do not, for most indicators, change the picture previously known from the official census results. On the other hand, for Ukraine and especially Kazakhstan, the recalculations produced noticeable changes, in some cases resulting in significant corrections of the composition of the pre-war population.

Unresolved Issues of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement – Is a Compromise Possible in Glasgow

Article 6 of the Paris Climate Agreement, adopted in 2015, defines three mechanisms that stimulate reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These are the trading of the results of emission reductions, the implementation of climate projects, and so-called non-market approaches. However, the rules for the application of Article 6 have not been agreed so far. Among the remaining contradictions in the positions of the participating countries are different understandings of approaches to prevent double counting of the results of project activities, mandatory deductions for adaptation purposes, and the transfer of unused carbon units under the Kyoto Protocol. At the same time, some countries have already initiated pilot projects under Article 6 with the intention that, in the coming years, they will become Article 6 projects. In November 2021, the 26th United Nations (UN) Climate Conference will be held in Glasgow. Experts link the effectiveness of forthcoming forum with completion of Article 6 negotiations. In this article, the main problematic issues in the negotiations are considered and proposals for the Russian position at the upcoming conference are formulated.

The Extended-Expert-As-Teacher (EEAT) Model

Recently, social epistemologists have sought to establish what the governing epistemic relationship should be between novices and experts. In this article, the author argues for, and expands upon, Helen De Cruz’s expert-as-teacher model. For although this model is vulnerable to significant challenges, the author proposes that a specifically extended version can sufficiently overcome these challenges (call this the “extended-expert-as-teacher” model, or the “EEAT” model). First, the author shows the respective weaknesses of three influential models in the literature. Then, he argues the expert-as-teacher model can overcome its weaknesses by adding what he calls the “Authority Clause”, “Advisor Clause”, and “Ex Post Facto Clause” of the EEAT model. After developing a robust account of these clauses, the author entertains three major objections. First, he responds to the charge that the EEAT model is little better than the expert-as-authority model. Second, he responds to a double-counting objection. Lastly, he responds to a pragmatic objection from complexity.

The Transformation Problem of Values into Prices of Production: Marx Errors or an Inattentive Reading of 'Capital'?

The author presents the results of the discovery in Marx's works of the disparate elements of the theory of the original transformation of value into prices and the establishment of the general rate of profit. These results show:(a) Marx's tables in Chapter 9 of Volume III of Capital do not represent the usual interrelated branches of the economy, but particular spheres of production, exempt from the double-counting of profits and wages, and producing only final commodities. The total value of these commodities is equal to the net social product.(b) Marx carried out the original transformation of values into prices under the condition that wages remain unchanged. As a result, the first (chief) macroeconomic equality is fulfilled—the sum of the production prices for all net social products must be equal to the sum of its values. Also is fulfilled the second macroeconomic equality—the sum of profits of all sectors forming separate spheres of production must be equal to the sum of surplus values.(c) Marx assumed that the original transformation takes place in two stages: in the first stage, average rates of profit are formed in separate spheres of production, comprising two sectors of production: A and B. Sector A produced of constant capital for the sphere's own need. Sector B releases the final product for an exchange with other particular spheres. In the second stage, is established the general rate of profit in sectors B. A property of the original conversion is some change in the level of real wages, especially noticeable when using numerical models with a few spheres of commodity production. Therefore, Marx introduces the hypothesis of mutual compensation of positive and negative deviations of prices from the values of commodities. The hypothesis is fully confirmed under the conditions of the law of large numbers.(d) Marx also explains that non-equilibrium original prices of production, in which demand and supply of final goods do not coincide, can be transformed into equilibrium prices of production. For this to happen, corresponding changes in monetary wages, prices of constant capital, and the general rate of profit are necessary. However, the attainment of equilibrium prices was regarded by Marx as a secondary issue. At equilibrium prices, only the first (chief) macroeconomic equality is fulfilled.The author in developing alternative methods of transforming value into original and equilibrium prices of production uses all of the above elements of the theory of transformation of values into production prices. First, he restores the double counting of profits and wages in Marx's table. Second, he applies an iterative procedure of sequentially establishing the average and general rate of profit in the sectors and spheres of commodity production.The paper proposes new iterative calculation algorithms in the Excel program for the original and equilibrium transformation of values into production prices. The author tested the algorithms using the Wolfram Mathematica software. He also developed a method for converting the equilibrium production prices of goods back to their initial absolute values. This method refutes the well-known “eraser algorithm” by P. Samuelson. Ultimately, the author argues that Marx does not have the errors of transformation that his critics have attributed to him for so long.

The Transformation Problem of Values into Prices of Production: Marx Errors or an Inattentive Reading of 'Capital'?

The author presents the results of the discovery in Marx's works of the disparate elements of the theory of the original transformation of value into prices and the establishment of the general rate of profit. These results show:(a) Marx's tables in Chapter 9 of Volume III of Capital do not represent the usual interrelated branches of the economy, but particular spheres of production, exempt from the double-counting of profits and wages, and producing only final commodities. The total value of these commodities is equal to the net social product.(b) Marx carried out the original transformation of values into prices under the condition that wages remain unchanged. As a result, the first (chief) macroeconomic equality is fulfilled—the sum of the production prices for all net social products must be equal to the sum of its values. Also is fulfilled the second macroeconomic equality—the sum of profits of all sectors forming separate spheres of production must be equal to the sum of surplus values.(c) Marx assumed that the original transformation takes place in two stages: in the first stage, average rates of profit are formed in separate spheres of production, comprising two sectors of production: A and B. Sector A produced of constant capital for the sphere's own need. Sector B releases the final product for an exchange with other particular spheres. In the second stage, is established the general rate of profit in sectors B. A property of the original conversion is some change in the level of real wages, especially noticeable when using numerical models with a few spheres of commodity production. Therefore, Marx introduces the hypothesis of mutual compensation of positive and negative deviations of prices from the values of commodities. The hypothesis is fully confirmed under the conditions of the law of large numbers.(d) Marx also explains that non-equilibrium original prices of production, in which demand and supply of final goods do not coincide, can be transformed into equilibrium prices of production. For this to happen, corresponding changes in monetary wages, prices of constant capital, and the general rate of profit are necessary. However, the attainment of equilibrium prices was regarded by Marx as a secondary issue. At equilibrium prices, only the first (chief) macroeconomic equality is fulfilled.The author in developing alternative methods of transforming value into original and equilibrium prices of production uses all of the above elements of the theory of transformation of values into production prices. First, he restores the double counting of profits and wages in Marx's table. Second, he applies an iterative procedure of sequentially establishing the average and general rate of profit in the sectors and spheres of commodity production.The paper proposes new iterative calculation algorithms in the Excel program for the original and equilibrium transformation of values into production prices. The author tested the algorithms using the Wolfram Mathematica software. He also developed a method for converting the equilibrium production prices of goods back to their initial absolute values. This method refutes the well-known “eraser algorithm” by P. Samuelson. Ultimately, the author argues that Marx does not have the errors of transformation that his critics have attributed to him for so long.

White Elephants and Other Non-basic Commodities: Piero Sraffa and Krishna Bharadwaj on the Role and Significance of the Distinction between Basics and Non-basics

After the publication of Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities ( Sraffa, 1960 ), a lot of attention was devoted to ‘reswitching’, that is to the fact that a technique is cost-minimising at two disconnected ranges of the rate of profits and not so in between these ranges. We owe Krishna Bharadwaj (1970, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft und Statistik, 106, 409–429) an important contribution to the debate by stating and proving a general result concerning the maximum number of switches between two techniques that have at least one switch point on the wage-frontier. She proved that the maximum number of switches coincides with the number of distinct commodities, without double counting, that enter directly or indirectly into at least one of the alternative methods of production. This means that if the alternative methods produce a commodity that is basic in both techniques, then non-basics in both techniques play no role in this, whereas if the alternative methods produce a non-basic commodity in at least one technique, then a role is played also by those non-basics that enter directly or indirectly into the production of at least one of the alternative methods of production. JEL Code: B12, B21, B31, B51, D24, D51

Wellbeing Policy Evaluation and Appraisal

The third chapter offers a methodology for those readers who are tasked with actually conducting policy evaluations and appraisals based on subjective wellbeing data, including wellbeing cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses, impact assessments, or business plans. It first gives a simple and fairly non-formal exposition of how wellbeing cost-effectiveness works. It then sets up the methodology formally and discusses the various technical standards and issues that might arise when implementing them, for example double-counting of impacts. The chapter illustrates the methodology using various examples, ranging from simple to more technical. It also introduces and discusses data sources related to wellbeing, with a particular focus on the United Kingdom at present but also beyond, as well as rules of thumb and matters associated with the use of evidence and literature on wellbeing more generally.

Price Variance in Hybrid-LCA Leads to Significant Uncertainty in Carbon Footprints

Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment (HLCA) methods attempt to address the limitations regarding process coverage and resolution of the more traditional Process- and Input-Output Life Cycle Assessments (PLCA, IOLCA). Due to the use of different units, HLCA methods rely on commodity price information to convert the physical units used in process inventories to the monetary units commonly used in Input-Output models. However, prices for the same commodity can vary significantly between different supply chains, or even between various levels in the same supply chain. The resulting commodity price variance in turn leads to added uncertainty in the hybrid environmental footprint. In this paper we take international trading statistics from BACI/UN-COMTRADE to estimate the variance of commodity prices, and use these in an integrated HLCA model of the process database ecoinvent with the EE-MRIO database EXIOBASE. We show that geographical aggregation of PLCA processes is a significant driver in the price variance of their reference products. We analyse the effect of price variance on process carbon footprint intensities (CFIs) and find that the CFIs of hybridised processes show a median increase of 6–17% due to hybridisation, for two different double counting scenarios, and a median uncertainty of −2 to +4% due to price variance. Furthermore, we illustrate the effect of price variance on the carbon footprint uncertainty in a HLCA study of Swiss household consumption. Although the relative footprint increase due to hybridisation is small to moderate with 8–14% for two different double counting correction strategies, the uncertainty due to price variability of this contribution to the footprint is very high, with 95% confidence intervals of (−28, +90%) and (−23, +68%) relative to the median. The magnitude and high positive skewness of the uncertainty highlights the importance of taking price variance into account when performing hybrid LCA.