Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Taken together, the implication of this future emission scenario is that an estimated 42% of the committed cumulative scope 2 emission reductions (101 MtCO2e) from base year to target year will come from REC purchases and hence may not reflect actual reductions of global emissions (Fig. 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors estimate that roughly 42 % of the committed cumulative scope-2 emission reductions depend on RECs rather than real-world mitigation.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Although our sample only covers 115 (14%) of the 813 companies with SBTs at the time (due to data availability and the exclusion of energy generators, utilities and companies with intensity targets), it is fairly representative in terms of regions and industries  (see Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study’s final dataset included a majority of the firms with approved science-based targets at the time of analysis.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We begin with data from our longitudinal Canadian survey,  visualizing public support for carbon pricing by province over time  (Fig. 1). Canadian carbon tax support remained relatively stable  across our panel. In the rebate province of Ontario, public support  by wave 5 was within two percentage points of wave 1. However,  between waves 1 and 4, carbon pricing support did increase in the  rebate province of Saskatchewan, before declining through wave 5  for a net gain of five percentage points to 32%. The final wave  followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, although COVID  incidence in rebate provinces was still low; for example, in  Saskatchewan, there had been a total of only 176 cases and 2  COVID-related  deaths in advance of wave 5 (ref. 44). Federal  COVID-related financial  assistance was already available to  respondents by this time. Trends  in carbon pricing opposition are  similar (Extended Data Fig. 1 and  Supplementary Section 4). We  also conduct exploratory statistical  analysis comparing trends in  rebate versus non-rebate provinces  (Supplementary Section 5).

    Claimed Finding:
    Overall support for carbon pricing in Saskatchewan increased by about five percentage points between wave 1 and wave 5.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    These provincial averages mask strong partisan differences in  carbon pricing support (Fig. 2). Policy support was concentrated  among Liberal Party of Canada supporters (the party that imple- mented the policy) versus Conservative Party of Canada support- ers (the opposition party that strongly opposed it) and remained  stable through time. Conservative opposition persisted in both  federal-tax (rebate) and provincial pricing (non-rebate) provinces.  By wave 5, 75% and 81% of Liberal Party supporters in Ontario and  Saskatchewan, respectively, supported carbon pricing, compared  with 32% and 13% of Conservative Party supporters in these same  provinces. Partisan splits across rebate and non-rebate provinces  show similar trends (Extended Data Fig. 2 and Supplementary  Section 6). These partisan differences persist even after condition- ing on respondents’ individual cost exposure (Extended Data Fig. 3  and Supplementary Section 7).

    Claimed Finding:
    By the final survey wave, most Conservative Party supporters in Saskatchewan supported carbon pricing.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    For rebate policies to offer political benefits to incumbent gov- ernments, the public must perceive those benefits42,45. We test public  knowledge about existing rebate programmes in both Canada and  Switzerland. We first test Canadian respondents’ specific knowl- edge about their rebates. In wave 3, immediately after residents of  Ontario and Saskatchewan received their rebates, we asked respon- dents whether they had received a climate-related benefit as part of  their federal income tax returns (Supplementary Section 8). Many  Canadians did not know, including 17% in rebate provinces and  between 33% and 36% in non-rebate provinces. In Ontario, only  55% of residents correctly believed they had received a rebate, while  Saskatchewan residents were more aware (75%). By contrast, about  11% and 13% of individuals in the non-rebate provinces of Alberta  and British Columbia incorrectly reported rebate receipt.

    Claimed Finding:
    More than one third of Ontarians were uncertain whether they had received a climate rebate.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We then asked respondents to estimate the size of any rebate  they believed their household had received (Table 1). We compare  perceived amounts to the true average rebate for our survey respon- dents (see Methods for details). Residents in non-rebate provinces  nonetheless estimated a positive average rebate amount, a misper- ception that continued after the fall 2019 election (Supplementary  Section 9). In rebate provinces, our survey averages reflect a 40%  underestimation in Saskatchewan and 32% underestimation in  Ontario of true rebate amounts. Limiting our analysis to respon- dents who correctly believed they had received a rebate, the  Ontario average estimate was CDN$198 (standard error (s.e.) $13),  only a 9% underestimation, and the Saskatchewan average esti-  mate was CDN$315 (s.e. $13), a 29% underestimation. Still, only  24% of Ontario respondents and 19% of Saskatchewan respon- dents estimated a rebate amount falling within CDN$100 of their   true rebate (Extended Data Fig. 4 and Supplementary Section 10).  These misperceptions are associated with party preference. In both  provinces, respondents who consistently indicated they would vote  for the anti-carbon tax Conservative Party systematically estimated  lower rebate amounts (Supplementary Section 10).

    Claimed Finding:
    On average, survey participants in Saskatchewan underestimated their actual rebate by roughly forty percent.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We conduct a similar analysis in Switzerland. Consistent with  previous surveys7,46, we find limited knowledge of the Swiss rebate  policy. Although the policy has been in place for over ten years, only  12% of respondents knew tax revenues were redistributed to the  public, and 85% did not know they received a health bill discount   associated with the country’s carbon tax (Fig. 3). Every Swiss   resident receives CHF5.35 per month (in 2019) as their rebate, but  only 13% of respondents knew (or correctly guessed) the monthly  rebate was between CHF3 and CHF10.

    Claimed Finding:
    Fewer than 20 % of Swiss respondents realized they personally received a monthly carbon tax rebate.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In Canada, half of wave 4 survey respondents from Ontario and  Saskatchewan (n = 605) were randomly assigned a custom mock-up  of their own tax return with their true climate dividend promi- nently displayed (Supplementary Section 12 describes treatment;  Methods describes calculation details; Supplementary Section 13  shows experimental balance.) Receiving treatment led respondents  to increase perceptions of their household’s rebate size, suggesting  at least partial updating in the treatment group (Supplementary  Section 14). However, treatment did not change carbon pricing sup- port (Fig. 4a: Difference-in-Means (DIM) = – 0.0342, s.e. = 0.106,  P = 0.747). Instead, information about their true benefit decreased  respondents’ belief that the rebates were sufficient to cover their tax  exposure (Fig. 4b: DIM = – 0.136, s.e. = 0.0662, P = 0.0398). As such,  Canadians who learned the true value of their rebates were signifi- cantly more likely to perceive themselves as net losers even though  most Canadians are net beneficiaries. This shift was concentrated  among Conservative Party of Canada supporters (DIM = – 0.213,  s.e. = 0.102, P = 0.0391).

    Claimed Finding:
    Personalized rebate information caused a significant rise in overall support for carbon pricing among Canadian respondents.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Unlike in Canada, we find personal rebate information increased  support for the current scheme on a four-point scale by around  one-fifth of a standard deviation (DIM = 0.18885, s.e. = 0.06155,  P < 0.01; Fig. 5a). These results hold on both the right and left sides  of the political spectrum but not for centre-party supporters.  However, treatment had no effect on support for either small  (equivalent to CHF0.03 per litre increase in heating oil costs;  DIM = 0.06213, s.e. = 0.09744, P = 0.524) or large (equivalent to  CHF0.15 per litre increase in heating oil costs; DIM = 0.11182,  s.e. = 0.09396, P = 0.235) increases in the Swiss  carbon tax rate.

    Claimed Finding:
    Providing Swiss citizens with information about their existing dividend increased support for the current policy but did not make them more supportive of raising the tax.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Beyond low visibility, we also consider alternative reasons for  the weak effects of rebates on public opinion. In Canada, carbon  pricing preferences might have remained relatively stable despite  rebates because the political benefits of revenue recycling came with  policy announcement (before our wave 1), not during implemen- tation (our panel period). Two pieces of evidence suggest this as  unlikely. First, we find little baseline knowledge about the rebate  in wave 1, which we would expect if anticipation of future rebates  had already increased support (Supplementary Section 11). Second,  the announcement of a federal rebate policy for Alberta occurred  between waves 2 and 3, after a newly elected provincial government  repealed the provincial tax, which did not provide universal rebates.  This prompted the federal government to step in to announce it  would impose a tax and rebate policy over the objection of the pro- vincial government (as in Saskatchewan and Ontario.) However,  we find no announcement effect in Alberta, where carbon pricing  support trends roughly in parallel with other provinces after policy  announcement (Fig. 1).

    Claimed Finding:
    The announcement that Alberta would receive federal rebates led to a noticeable uptick in carbon tax support in that province.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Another possibility is that policy preferences remain condi tioned primarily by partisanship. We find that Conservative  Party supporters are more likely than Liberal Party supporters to  acknowledge having seen negative ads about carbon pricing and  to report that these ads made them less supportive of this policy  (Supplementary Section 18). Similarly, respondents who report  having voted for the Conservative Party in the Fall 2019 election  were more likely to underestimate their rebates, even when exposed  to information about their true rebate amount in our survey  experiment (Supplementary Section 19). More broadly, in the two  federal-tax provinces, supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada  were three to eight times more likely to support the carbon tax  than were Conservative Party supporters. Similarly, in Switzerland,  left-leaning voters were 48% more likely to support rebates relative  to right-leaning voters. In short, partisanship does structure both  carbon tax preferences and patterns of rebate responsiveness.

    Claimed Finding:
    Even after receiving accurate rebate information, Conservative voters in Canada continued to underestimate how much they would get more often than Liberals.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Overall, our results speak to growing interest in recycling carbon  tax revenues in the form of lump-sum rebates to mitigate persistent  public opposition to carbon taxes. We explore existing policies, as  implemented, in Canada and Switzerland using a new longitudinal   opinion panel as well as two survey experiments. We find only  limited evidence that these existing policies have reshaped the  politics of carbon pricing to date. Members of the public in both  countries remain ill-informed about the rebates they are already  receiving and systematically underestimate their size. These low  levels of awareness may stem from rebates delivered via a credit  against a (tax or insurance) bill rather than a more-visible check in  the mail and, in the case of Canada, a highly politicized communi- cation environment. Still, experimental provision about individual  rebate size only modestly increased support for the current policy in  Switzerland and did not increase support for even a small tax  increase. In Canada, information about rebate size did not increase  policy support, but instead led Conservative Party respondents to  believe the policy imposed net costs on their household.

    Claimed Finding:
    When Swiss participants learned about their dividend, they became significantly more supportive of a substantial rise in the carbon tax rate.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    As a first demonstration of the potential impact of revenue recycling, we model the difference in consumption of the poorest quintile in all NICE regions under a 2 °C scenario relative to business-as-usual (BAU), both with equal per capita revenue recycling (the recycling scenario) and without it (the no recycling scenario) (Fig. 2a,b). There is a similar pattern in all regions: without progressive revenue recycling, climate action does indeed involve a substantial trade-off where the poorest lose from climate policy in the short-to-medium term as they shoulder their share of mitigation costs without compensation. In contrast, with the equal per capita dividend, climate action involves a synergy with poverty alleviation. Yet even in the recycling scenario, consumption falls below BAU for several regions later in the century. This occurs because it is after the point where there are substantial revenues to be distributed (see section on the carbon Laffer curve) but before the point where the benefits of climate action are large. Nevertheless, consumption in the recycling scenario is always above the no recycling scenario in the early periods due to the benefits of redistribution. After the year 2100, both cases produce increasing benefits from avoided climate damage. Note that once carbon revenues disappear in the future, people will also be much wealthier than their counterparts today.

    Claimed Finding:
    In the model’s early years, the poorest quintile enjoys higher consumption under the recycling scenario than under the no-recycling scenario.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Focusing on inequality—measured by the Gini index (Fig. 2b,d)—also demonstrates the benefits of progressive redistribution. Equal per capita recycling generates a reduction in inequality in all regions while revenues are available for redistribution. Once full decarbonization occurs and revenues disappear, mitigation has a regressive impact compared with BAU due to the relationship reported in Fig. 1 combined with the continued cost of decarbonization even after there are zero net emissions. The impacts on inequality without recycling, which are determined by the elasticity estimated in Fig. 1, are small overall and switch from progressive to regressive once a region’s GDP per capita surpasses ~US$21,500 (Fig. 1).

    Claimed Finding:
    While carbon revenues are still being collected, equal per-capita recycling lowers measured inequality in every region.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Examining the impact of the equal per capita refund on all quintiles in the United States, China and India—chosen to represent countries at different levels of wealth—reveals that in all three countries, more than half the population (namely, those in the lower part of the distribution) benefits in the near term, particularly those in the bottom quintile (Fig. 3). In India, the poorest 40% never experience a loss relative to BAU over the full time horizon. This redistribution towards the lower quintiles has a positive effect on poverty alleviation by reducing the percentage of the population below the poverty line (Supplementary Tables 2–4).

    Claimed Finding:
    According to the simulations, the poorest 40 % of Indians never suffer consumption losses relative to business-as-usual when an equal per-capita carbon dividend is in place.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Furthermore, the progressive equal per capita dividend increases aggregate well-being in every region relative to the BAU over the next decades and in the far future (Supplementary Fig. 3). The intergenerational trade-off between costs of reducing emissions now and benefits in the future is weakened over the entire time horizon: aggregate well-being over time is higher with the equal per capita dividend than without it in all regions and both are better overall than BAU.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study finds that an equal per-capita carbon dividend lowers overall regional well-being when compared with a business-as-usual pathway.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    All results presented above assume that revenues raised in a given region are distributed only within that region. However, there are well-being- and justice-based arguments for redistributing total global revenues on an equal per capita basis globally21,31,32. Under this redistribution framework, more dramatic improvements occur for inequality and consumption in the poorest regions of the world (Supplementary Fig. 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors conclude that allocating carbon revenues globally on an equal per-capita basis would worsen inequality in the poorest regions.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The stringent 2 °C constraint means that the world will rapidly decarbonize and so there will be less and less revenue from carbon taxation to recycle. This highlights an important caveat to our storyline: the positive effect of the carbon tax through progressive redistribution is initially strong but diminishes once the economy decarbonizes enough for revenues to decline. In short, there is a ‘carbon Laffer curve’. Conceptually, the Laffer curve is the widely recognized fact that tax revenue does not monotonically increase with the tax rate—in the case of sufficiently large taxes, market transactions
for example, fossil fuel use) reduce to the point where there is little taxable activity to generate revenue33. As a quantitative illustration of the carbon Laffer curve in NICE, Fig. 4 shows this nonlinear relationship between global near-term (2025) decarbonization  and tax revenue. Total revenue is highest in the 55–75% decarbonization range and decreases thereafter until full decarbonization ultimately implies that no revenue is generated (under full decarbonization there are no industrial emission to be taxed).

    Claimed Finding:
    Model output shows that carbon-tax revenue peaks when the world has cut emissions by roughly 55–75 %, then falls as decarbonization progresses toward 100 %.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    With revenue recycling, the model recommends high decarbonization initially—there are dual benefits of redistributable revenue and lower future temperatures—but postpones full decarbonization for many decades as redistribution continues (Fig. 5). Without the equal per capita revenue recycling, the model at first recommends more moderate ambition, to protect the current poor from high mitigation costs, followed by a rapid increase in decarbonization to avoid extreme warming. Despite this different temporal pattern of mitigation, the maximum temperature rise is similar in both scenarios, although it peaks later with revenue recycling, a potentially valuable delay if it reduces the rate of temperature change and enables more time for adaptation34.

    Claimed Finding:
    The optimal-policy runs indicate that full decarbonization is achieved sooner when revenues are recycled than when they are not.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The optimal decarbonization pathway is not exclusively driven by the motive to redistribute. To demonstrate this, the ‘no damages’ scenario depicts the optimal carbon tax with revenue recycling but where climate damages are artificially set to zero regardless of warming (Fig. 5, black line). In this case, the only benefit of a carbon tax is the redistribution it allows. Global decarbonization that is optimal purely from this motive is substantial and ranges between ~50 and 60%, as this ensures maximum redistribution to the poor. Still, this is much lower than the case where climate benefits exist alongside redistributional benefits, demonstrating that substantial incentive to decarbonize further remains even at such high levels of decarbonization.

    Claimed Finding:
    Even if climate damages are ignored, the model still chooses roughly 50–60 % global decarbonization purely for the sake of progressive redistribution.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    An equal per capita global redistribution leads to similar decarbonization trajectories to those reported in Fig. 5 (which assume within-region redistribution only), a result driven largely by the carbon Laffer curve (Supplementary Fig. 5). However, it would lead to far greater improvements in global well-being, particularly for Africa, India and Other Asia (Supplementary Fig. 6 and associated text).

    Claimed Finding:
    Switching from within-region to globally equal per-capita revenue recycling causes the model to recommend much lower overall decarbonization than before.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our qualitative results are also robust to choices about key discounting parameters, namely the rate of pure time preference and the consumption elasticity of marginal utility. As explained in the Methods, normative and descriptive disagreements exist about the appropriate value of these parameters27. Under a range of discounting parameter combinations typically considered in the literature, revenue recycling always induces stronger short-term emission reductions and a slower transition to full decarbonization (Supplementary Fig. 10).

    Claimed Finding:
    When the model assumes a high pure rate of time preference, revenue recycling leads to weaker—not stronger—early-period emission cuts.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In the baseline trade scenario, price changes across RCP 8.5 sce-
narios lead to a reduction in global food availability of −0.2% to
−3% compared with the baseline. The corresponding hunger
effects are large—an additional 7–55 million people are projected
to become undernourished (+6% to +45%). Across the RCP 8.5
scenarios, global cropland area changes by −2% to +3% and the
share of irrigated area increases from +1% to +7%. Total agricul-
tural trade volume increases by +1% to +7% across RCP 8.5 sce-
narios through an expansion at the intensive and extensive margin
(new flows representing 1–3% of total trade volume; Supplementary
Table 1). Hunger impacts under intermediate climate change range
from a decrease of 1 million to an increase of 14 million undernour-
ished people. In RCP 2.6, undernourishment is lower than in the
no climate change scenario because crop yields in several regions
increase or remain unaffected partly due to the CO2 fertilization
effect (Extended Data Fig. 1, Supplementary Fig. 12).

    Claimed Finding:
    Under RCP 8.5, baseline trade dynamics still allow global agricultural trade volumes to rise by up to roughly 7 percent relative to a no-climate-change world.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    When adaptation through trade is constrained in the fixed imports scenario,
hunger exacerbates across all of the RCP 8.5 scenarios, up to an
additional 73 million undernourished people compared with the
baseline (+60%). By preventing endogenous market responses to
climate change, the fixed imports scenario results in lower global
crop production efficiency (−1% to −2.5%), lower global food avail-
ability (−10 to −37 kcal per capita per day) and higher agricultural
prices (+2% to +17%) across the RCP 8.5 scenarios compared with
the baseline trade scenario (Supplementary Table 2). The pre-Doha
tariffs scenario leads to up to 81 million additional undernourished
people compared with the baseline scenario (+67%), highlighting
the importance of trade integration that has already been achieved
through the Doha Round in alleviating the potential long-term
impacts of climate change on hunger.

    Claimed Finding:
    The fixed imports scenario lowers international agricultural prices by up to 17 percent under RCP 8.5 conditions.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The facilitation and tariff elimination scenarios reduce the global
risk of hunger from climate change to a comparable extent, and the
facilitation + tariff elimination scenario can even compensate for
the impact of all but the most extreme climate change scenario.
Trade liberalization and facilitation reduce hunger by enhancing
climate-induced trade adjustments—across RCP 8.5 scenarios, total
agricultural trade increases by 166% to 262% under the facilita-
tion + tariff elimination scenario—by reducing agricultural prices,
and by increasing food availability and crop production efficiency
(Supplementary Tables 1 and 2). The hunger effect under extreme
climate change (RCP 8.5 without the CO2 effect) is reduced by 31%
under the facilitation scenario, 11% under the tariff elimination sce-
nario and 64% under the facilitation + tariff elimination scenario.
These effects are consistent with other studies that reported 44%
lower hunger effects under market integration13 and 46% lower
price effects under trade liberalization10 (Supplementary Fig. 5).

    Claimed Finding:
    Combining trade facilitation with full tariff elimination cuts the hunger impact of the most extreme climate scenario by about two-thirds.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The hunger outcomes of the climate and trade scenarios differ
substantially among the hunger-affected regions (Fig. 2). Climate
change has little impact on regions facing positive or small nega-
tive crop yield impacts (Russia and West Asia (CSI), and the
Middle-East and North-Africa (MNA)) or maintaining a high crop
yield (Latin American countries (LAC); Extended Data Fig. 1 (for
average crop yield), Supplementary Figs. 1–4 (for the four main
crops)). Regions with negative impacts on medium crop yields face
larger hunger impacts (East Asia (EAS) and Southeast Asia (SEA)).
South Asia (SAS) and sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) face the most
severe hunger impacts from climate change. They experience nega-
tive impacts on already low yields, also when including the impact
of supply-side adaptation on yields (Extended Data Fig. 2). Across
the RCP 8.5 scenarios, projections for the baseline trade scenario
range from an increase of 13–181% and 2–51% in the population at
risk of hunger for SAS and SSA, respectively. The effect of the trade
scenarios on regional undernourishment is largest among baseline
net-importing regions (SSA, MNA, EAS and SAS) and regions in
which climate change reduces net exports (SEA; Extended Data
Figs. 3 and 4). The fixed imports scenario enlarges hunger impacts
in the extreme climate change scenario in SSA, SAS and SEA by rais-
ing agricultural prices (Extended Data Figs. 5 and 6), increasing net
exports in SEA, and reducing net imports in SSA and SAS. Adverse
effects from trade restriction, such as the export bans observed
during the 2007–2008 world food crisis28,29 and those feared as a
result of the global COVID-19 pandemic30,31, may pose severe
hunger risks under climate change.

    Claimed Finding:
    In the baseline trade case, climate change is projected to reduce the number of undernourished people in South Asia by as much as 181 percent.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Whereas the facilitation scenario reduces hunger in the
extreme climate change scenario by 16% and 8%, the tariff elimi-
nation scenario increases hunger impacts by 4% and 16% in SEA
and SAS, respectively. Both trade scenarios reduce average trade
costs (Supplementary Table 7), but the tariff elimination scenario
increases rice exports from SAS and SEA, thereby reducing domes-
tic calorie availability. The facilication + tariff elimination scenario
compensates for calorie loss from rice exports through increased
imports of other agricultural goods and decreases the hunger effect
of extreme climate change by 26% and 11% in SEA and SAS, respec-
tively. Our sensitivity analysis shows that the effects of trade on
climate-induced hunger are robust to CO2 fertilization assumptions
(Supplementary Figs. 13 and 14).

    Claimed Finding:
    Under extreme climate conditions, eliminating tariffs alone can worsen hunger in Southeast and South Asia, while improving trade facilitation reduces it.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Regression results revealed that a 5.4% reduction
in crop yields within a region leads to an average food availability
reduction of 11 kcal per capita per day (95% confidence interval
(CI), 15–8 kcal per capita per day) and an additional 0.52 million
people at risk of hunger (CI = 0.25–0.79 million). For a 23% decrease
in trade costs, we project an increase in average food availability
within a region of 13 kcal per capita per day (CI = 9–16 kcal per cap-
ita per day) and a decrease in undernourished people of 1.22 million
(CI = 1.52–0.93 million). When excluding regions that experience
negative impacts in some trade scenarios (SAS and SEA), we found
a significant negative interaction effect between trade costs and crop
yields (P = 0.014). For example, under extreme climate change (that
is, a 20% crop yield reduction), the positive effect of a 23% reduc-
tion in trade costs is 1.97 million fewer people undernourished,
consisting of a direct (−1.50 million) and a climate-induced trade
effect (−0.47 million). These results confirm the existence of posi-
tive trade effects on food availability and hunger alleviation13,32 and
reveal an additional climate-induced effect of lowering trade costs.

    Claimed Finding:
    The regression analysis indicates that cutting trade costs by 23 percent would raise the regional number of undernourished people by about 1.22 million.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We ran the regressions presented in Table 1 with regional inter-
action effects (Supplementary Table 3). In most of the regions,
climate-induced decreases in crop yields reduce food availability
and increase hunger while reduced trade costs have opposite effects.
The food availability impacts of crop-yield changes are largest
for SAS, SSA and SEA, whereas the effect of trade costs is largest
for regions maintaining net imports under climate change (SSA,
MNA and EAS). The corresponding impact on hunger is largest
in low-income regions (SSA and SAS), followed by middle-income
regions (EAS, MNA, and SEA). The interaction effect, which reveals
whether climate change alters the relationship between trade costs
and hunger, is most pronounced in SSA, followed by EAS. Figure 3
plots the predicted hunger–yield relationship in EAS and SSA for
different levels of trade cost, showing that hunger is less sensitive to
climate-induced yield changes under reduced trade costs.

    Claimed Finding:
    Lower trade costs make hunger in sub-Saharan Africa noticeably less sensitive to climate-induced yield losses.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Under no climate change, trade integration increases the
global production share of the United States (USA) in corn; LAC in
soya; CSI, Europe (EUR) and LAC in wheat; and SAS and EAS in
rice (Fig. 4a). Trade integration has similar impacts on specializa-
tion under climate change (Fig. 4b). Figure 4c compares the spe-
cialization of regions in response to trade-cost reduction; negative
values indicate decreases and positive values indicate increases in
comparative advantage under climate change compared with no cli-
mate change. For example, MNA still decreases its share of global
wheat production in response to trade integration under climate
change, but to a lesser extent than under no climate change. The
small and mainly insignificant values indicate that the pattern of
comparative advantage of the four crops remains similar under cli-
mate change. Although climate change affects crop yields and cost
competitiveness of regions, it does not substantially alter the relative
position between regions (Supplementary Figs. 8–10). This finding
is corroborated by alternative indicators of comparative advantage,
including crop shares in a region’s total production, export shares in
a region’s crop production and the revealed comparative advantage
(RCA) index (Supplementary Figs. 6, 7 and 11).

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors conclude that climate change fundamentally reshapes regional comparative advantage, resulting in a drastically different specialization pattern for the four staple crops.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Across the RCP 8.5 scenarios, the largest export growth originates
from major baseline producing regions (corn from USA and LAC,
soya from LAC and USA, rice from SAS and SEA, and wheat from
EUR and Canada (CAN); Supplementary Fig. 9). The largest new
trade flows are new corn exports from USA to EAS, CAN, LAC and
SEA, from EUR to MNA and from LAC to EAS; new soya exports
from LAC to SAS and from USA to CAN and MNA; and new wheat
exports from CSI to EUR, and from MNA to SSA. Climate change
does not induce substantial new rice trade flows. There is uncertainty
across RCP 8.5 scenarios in bilateral trade patterns, but several exports
to hunger-affected regions increase consistently (such as wheat from
EUR to SSA, soya from LAC to SAS, or corn from LAC to MNA).
However, hunger-affected regions are not only engaging in trade at
the importer side, but also increase certain exports (wheat in MNA,
corn in SSA, and rice in EAS and SAS; Extended Data Fig. 10).

    Claimed Finding:
    Model runs show that, under RCP 8.5, the United States and Latin America experience the largest growth in corn exports.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    International trade contributes globally to climate change adapta-
tion. The impact of the worst climate change scenarios on global
risk of hunger increases by 33–47% under restricted trade scenar-
ios, and decreases by 11–64% under open trade scenarios.

    Claimed Finding:
    Even with fully open trade, the worst climate scenarios are expected to raise global hunger risk by at least 80 percent.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    There is no robust evidence of any impact of alert availability on average or in any particular region (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table A2). Results using the alternative outcomes of per cent forest loss and winsorized per cent forest loss are qualitatively similar to the binary outcome estimates (Supplementary Tables A6 and A7). As it is plausible that countries may take time to adapt to the availability of alerts, we also examine a specification with a 1 yr lag of alert availability (Supplementary Tables A8–A10). Although results from this specification are not statistically different from zero, the sign of the average effect switches to become negative.

    Claimed Finding:
    Making GLAD alerts available did not produce a statistically significant change in deforestation rates in any continent.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The average effect of subscriptions on deforestation is negative (the opposite sign of the impact of alert availability), but statistically insignificant and small compared with the average yearly 2011–2016 deforestation probability (0.18). Results using winsorized per cent deforestation and per cent deforestation as outcomes tell the same story (Supplementary Tables B6 and B7). The effect of subscriptions on deforestation is probably a conservative estimate because some areas are likely to receive more monitoring than others, which should increase the standard errors and decrease the statistical significance of the estimated coefficients.

    Claimed Finding:
    Subscriptions to GLAD alerts yielded a statistically significant 20% global reduction in annual deforestation probability.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Across regions, we estimate significant avoided deforestation in the African subsample, but no robust effects in Asia and South America. The coefficient for Africa implies an 18% decrease in the probability of deforestation relative to the 2011–2016 levels (0.04/0.22) (Fig. 4). As the average deforestation in these cells is 1.86%, the estimated avoided deforestation per year is equal to 495.27 km2.

    Claimed Finding:
    Subscriptions with intent in African countries reduced the probability of deforestation by roughly 18% compared to the 2011–2016 baseline.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    If we apply a carbon density of 6,000 MtCO2 km−2 (the low end of the valuation for forests in this region10), and if we value the amount of avoided carbon emissions resulting from alert subscriptions at the social cost of carbon (US$50 t−1)11, we calculate the alert system’s value at US$149 million. With a carbon density of 28,100 MtCO2 km−2 (the estimated value of the dense forests in our sample1), we estimate a value of US$696 million. Both numbers exceed the costs of developing and maintaining the system. Furthermore, this number represents a lower bound, as impacts of using GLAD are larger with a 1 yr lagged specification (Supplementary Tables B14–B16), which suggests that when subscribers have more experience with the alerts, their impact on deforestation is greater. Although some cells had subscriptions for multiple years, these total benefits are only calculated for the last year (when all subscriptions were in place) to avoid overstating the impacts.

    Claimed Finding:
    Even under the high carbon density assumption, the estimated monetary benefits of the alert system were lower than its development and maintenance costs.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Finally, by way of identifying a mechanism through which deforestation might be controlled, we examine whether the effect of subscriptions varies with local policy efforts. For this analysis, we include interactions between subscriptions and indicators for whether or not a grid cell is more than 50% contained by a concession or protected area. Information on concessions is not available for all countries, so these estimates are for the subsample of countries that have both concession and protected areas data (Methods). Marginal effects are presented in Fig. 5 and are extracted from Supplementary Table B2. The individual interactions are negative and statistically significant—subscriptions have a stronger deterrent effect in both protected areas and in forest concessions.

    Claimed Finding:
    The deterrent effect of subscriptions is significantly stronger inside protected areas and forest concessions than in unprotected zones.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    These mechanisms are particularly relevant for the African subsample—more of the subscribed forests in Africa are in protected areas and concessions (57% versus less than 33% in the other two regions). Separate estimates for these interactions by continent show robust results only for African countries (Supplementary Tables B19–B21). There is also a consistently statistically significant negative impact of concessions with subscriptions in the Asian subsample, although not in protected areas (Supplementary Fig. B3). This effect is not visible in the average impact in Asia because concessions cover a small part of the estimation sample (14%). As our strategy does not account for the endogenous placement of protected areas and concessions, we present these results as intriguing correlations. However, these correlations confirm the anecdotal evidence on alerts: that they are used for enforcing protected area policy and for controlling illegal deforestation within forest concessions.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study concludes that, in Asia, subscriptions consistently led to significant reductions in deforestation across the entire region.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our Analysis presents strong evidence that freely available forest-change detection data can support decreased deforestation. The use of GLAD alerts through online subscriptions with intent to control deforestation led to an 18% decrease in the probability of forest loss in the African countries included in our sample. The estimated carbon benefits of the avoided deforestation from GLAD subscriptions—from US$149 million US$696 million—is a low-end estimate. It is likely that real benefits are much higher, given that impacts seem to be increasing over time, and that there are a number of substantial co-benefits alongside avoided carbon emissions, including biodiversity and watershed protection, that are not valued in the calculation.

    Claimed Finding:
    Overall, the analysis demonstrates that GLAD subscriptions with intent led to an 18% decrease in forest loss probability in the African sample.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Summary statistics suggest that areas with early subscriptions tend to have had slightly higher deforestation before alert availability (Table 1 and Supplementary Section B2). Pre-alert trends across the different subscription groups (Supplementary Tables B3–B5) were not statistically significantly different using the binary deforestation and winsorized outcomes, but show significant differences for the per cent deforestation outcome. This supports the validity of comparisons for the first two outcomes but not for per cent deforestation. Additional robustness checks detailed in the Supplementary Information confirm large, negative and statistically significant effects on forest in Africa.

    Claimed Finding:
    Before the alerts, areas with early subscriptions exhibited significantly lower deforestation than areas that subscribed later.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Tests of differences in deforestation rates between late- and early-enrolled countries before 2016 suggest that the former provide a plausible counterfactual for the latter, as there are no significant differences in deforestation in this pre-alert period (Supplementary Tables A3–A5). If we assume that time trends continue in a similar way across comparison groups in the absence of the alerts, then our results are not likely to be biased.

    Claimed Finding:
    Before alerts were introduced, deforestation rates did not differ significantly between countries that would receive alerts early and those that would receive them later.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The alert system has an important limitation: a loss event can only be detected if there are no clouds above it when satellites pass over. If an area of forest is cleared and there are clouds overhead when the satellite images the area, it will not be detected. As images can only be obtained every 8 days, a month or more may pass before an image without clouds blocking the clearing can be obtained, particularly during rainy seasons or in regions with persistent cloud cover. This means that there can be a time lag between the clearing event and the actual alert publication, so interventions to stop further deforestation may also be delayed. This affects their utility, but it does not affect our impact estimates as we do not directly include the alerts in our estimation. The fact that we detect an impact suggests that even this imperfect measure provides additional important information to control deforestation. Furthermore, we do not think that variation in alert lags across continents drives the variation in our results—forests in Africa, Asia and South America have similar cloud-free image availability (an average of 76% months per year) during our study period. However, in the regions with subscriptions in Africa, cloud coverage was 24.7% lower than in South America and 15.5% lower than in Asia, suggesting that alert lags may have been shorter in Africa.

    Claimed Finding:
    Higher average cloud cover in African subscription regions caused longer alert lags there than in South America or Asia.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The share of respondents who preferred a constant allocation
of climate costs over time as opposed to other options, including
an increasing cost path, is shown in Figure 2. The results are virtu-
ally identical for the weighted data (see Extended Data Fig. 1). The
pooled responses show that 58% of all individuals selected a con-
stant cost path whereas only 12% preferred an increasing cost path
(Fig. 2a). When we inspected responses separately by country, we
found that the constant cost schedule received majority support in
each of the four countries (Fig. 2b). We also explored whether pref-
erences for climate cost paths reflected expectations about average
cost levels. When breaking out the results by cost treatment, we still
found that a majority preferred a constant cost path over increasing,
decreasing and inverse U-shaped allocations in both the low-cost
and the high-cost conditions. These results indicate that ramping
up climate costs over time may provoke more public opposition
than a policy that keeps the costs of climate action stable, even if the
average cost level is relatively high (€113, €154 and £60 per month
and per household in France, Germany and the United Kingdom,
respectively).

    Claimed Finding:
    Across all four countries and cost levels, most people favored a constant cost schedule over an increasing one.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our estimates of how costs paths affect policy support, along
with 95% and 99% robust confidence intervals, are shown in Fig. 3a.
Moving from an increasing to a constant cost path caused a
significant increase in policy support by 7 percentage points com-
pared to the widely discussed option of ramping up costs over
time (the reference category), even when we explicitly specified
and fixed the cost level of the policy proposal. At the same time,
decreasing cost schedules also raised climate policy support com-
pared to the increasing cost path. The causal effects estimated from
the conjoint analysis show how cost paths changed the average
level of support, but may as such not be informative about the level
of support for a particular policy package, which was 50% across
all profiles by design in the forced-choice, paired-profile conjoint
experiment. We also note that the causal effect estimates are a func-
tion of both the preference for a policy feature and the intensity of
that preference, which contrasts to the analysis above in which the
estimates are simply a function of the number of individuals who
prefer a given cost schedule (Fig. 2). Understanding the rationale
for the positive estimate of the decreasing cost path in the conjoint
experiment seems a productive inquiry for future research, but we
focus primarily on the comparison between constant costs and
increasing costs in the remainder of this paper because constant
costs are preferred to an increasing time path across both measure-
ment strategies.

    Claimed Finding:
    The experiment revealed that switching from a constant to an increasing cost path raised policy support by about 7 percentage points.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    To put the sensitivity to cost paths into perspective, we also
visualized the causal effects of cost levels with support for climate
action (Fig. 3a). First, consistent with previous research, costs had
a significant and substantively noteworthy effect on public support.
Second, when using these estimates to benchmark the sensitivity to
an increasing domestic cost path, the effect of switching from a con-
stant to an increasing schedule was similar to doubling the average
monthly household costs from 0.5% of GDP (€28, €39, £15 and $53)
to 1.0% of GDP (€56, €77, £30 and $107). These results are robust
across all four countries (Fig. 3b). Overall, both the pooled esti-
mates and the results by country suggest that constant and decreas-
ing cost schedules increase the willingness to support climate action
compared to a policy with increasing costs over time.

    Claimed Finding:
    Making the cost path increasing instead of constant lowers support by roughly the same amount as doubling average household costs from 0.5% to 1% of GDP.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    A constant cost schedule increased support by 8 percentage
points if costs were low (0.5% of GDP) and by 6 percentage points
if costs were high (2.5% of GDP). This suggests that the aversion to
increasing cost paths is unlikely to be explained by concerns about
average cost levels. Comparison of decreasing cost paths to con-
stant cost paths showed that decreasing schedules were only pre-
ferred over constant plans when costs were particularly high (2.0%
of GDP or more). In addition, we considered the possibility that
respondents would have different expectations about when costs
would commence depending on the cost schedule. We devised an
alternative version of the conjoint experiment that replaced the cost
path attribute with information about the year in which household
contributions would start. These values were drawn from a continu-
ous set of integers ranging from 2020 to 2040. This version of the
climate action conjoint experiment was completed by 680 randomly
chosen respondents from the United States.

    Claimed Finding:
    Constant cost paths only increased support when average costs were low; at high cost levels they provided no significant benefit over increasing paths.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We examined the causal effect of start year by regressing policy
support on a full set of indicator values that binned the start year
integers into 2-year periods. If publics were mostly concerned about
cost avoidance, a later starting period should significantly increase
public approval. The results (Fig. 5) indicate that changing the start
year had no significant effect on support for climate action. Overall,
this evidence is consistent with the idea that publics prefer cost sta-
bility, a tendency that seems to be relatively independent of con-
cerns related to cost levels.

    Claimed Finding:
    Shifting the start year of household payments later did not meaningfully alter public support for the climate policy.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Word stems such as ‘budget’, ‘easier’, and ‘know’ were systematic
predictors of choosing the constant cost path, which indicates that
the popularity of this option was related to the desire of individuals
to simplify budgeting and planning for the future. Additional word
stems were related to stability concerns that could be expected if
individuals tried to smooth consumption over time. Consistent with
the rationale underlying the ramping-up approach8, individuals that
supported an increasing cost path in part justified this preference by
highlighting that this schedule allowed publics to gradually adjust
to rising costs.

    Claimed Finding:
    Qualitative responses show that supporters of constant cost paths value predictability and ease of budgeting.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We investigated the importance of consumption smoothing
and discounting by regressing cost path choice on a dichotomized
smoothing parameter variable, a measure of patience (both set to
one for respondents with above-median values and zero otherwise),
and a full set of sociodemographic predictors in a multinomial pro-
bit model. We find that individuals with a higher desire to smooth
consumption are significantly more likely to select the constant cost
path over the increasing and decreasing climate cost paths. Similarly,
respondents who were more patient were significantly more likely
to support a constant climate cost schedule over time-varying cost
paths such as the ramping-up approach (Supplementary Table 2).
Overall, the predictive patterns indicate that, consistent with the
results from our analysis of respondents’ answers to our open-ended
question, general attitudes towards time seem to play a systematic
role in understanding mass preferences for constant over dynamic
cost paths.

    Claimed Finding:
    Respondents exhibiting greater patience were more inclined to favor increasing rather than constant cost paths.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Extended Data Fig. 2 | The causal effects of cost path, cost level, and other policy attributes on public support. Dots with horizontal lines are point
estimates from a linear least squares regression of climate policy chosen (n = 129,280) on randomly assigned cost path, cost level, and revenue investment
attributes. Error bars indicate 95% and 99% confidence intervals computed from robust standard errors clustered by respondent.

    Claimed Finding:
    The conjoint analysis assessed 129,280 policy profiles to estimate how cost paths, cost levels and revenue use affect public support.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Extended Data Fig. 5 | Support for climate action as a function of cost paths by cost level (weighted data). Causal effects of climate cost paths on policy
support estimated separately for each randomly assigned cost level, n(0.5% of GDP, policy profiles)=32,305, n(1% of GDP, policy profiles)=32,373,
n(2% of GDP, policy profiles)=32,367, n(2.5% of GDP, policy profiles)=32,235. Dots with horizontal lines are point estimates from linear least squares
regressions of climate policy chosen on randomly assigned cost path attributes. Error bars indicate 95% and 99% confidence intervals computed from
robust standard errors clustered by respondent.

    Claimed Finding:
    The weighted analysis showed that climate cost paths had no significant impact on support at any of the four cost levels examined.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Extended Data Fig. 6 | Support for climate action as a function of cost paths by cost level (weighted data). Results from a conjoint experiment conducted
in a separate section of the United States survey that randomized the year in which contributions would start, n(policy profiles)=10,880, see Methods
section for details. Dots with horizontal lines are point estimates from linear least squares regressions of climate policy chosen on randomly assigned cost
path attributes. Error bars indicate 95% and 99% confidence intervals computed from robust standard errors clustered by respondent.

    Claimed Finding:
    The supplementary experiment found that postponing household contributions until 2040 significantly increased public support for climate action.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We categorize states into three groups, namely low-, medium-, and high-supporting states, depending on the level of current public support for climate policy (Fig. 1). With the Uniform approach, the carbon price is uniform across the three groups of states, but increases dramatically as the national mitigation efforts become more stringent (solid lines in Fig. 3: US$74, US$210, US$670 and US$1,557 per ton CO2 for national targets of 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% decarbonization, respectively). The substantial increase in carbon price is a direct result of an increasing MAC, which suggests that availability of low-cost mitigation options becomes increasingly constrained to achieve more ambitious decarboniza- tion goals.

    Claimed Finding:
    Under a nationally uniform policy, the modelled carbon price rises from about US$74 t⁻¹ at a 20 % reduction target to roughly US$1,557 t⁻¹ for an 80 % reduction target.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Compared with the Uniform approach, the main effect of intro- ducing heterogeneous subnational policies is to shift the burden of emissions reductions from low- to medium- and high-supporting states, while the country overall still achieves the same national mitigation target. The effect of such a shift is driven by much lower carbon prices in the low-supporting states and is greatest under the Heterogeneous approach, since it displays the widest heterogeneity in state-level effort.

    Claimed Finding:
    Heterogeneous state-level climate policies redistribute emissions-reduction responsibility toward medium- and high-support states without preventing achievement of the national target.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    By comparing scenarios having ambitious versus less ambitious national mitigation effort (for example, the 80% and 40% decar- bonization scenarios with the Uniform policy approach in Fig. 4), we confirm the common finding in the literature that deep decar- bonization generally requires decarbonizing the electricity sector first (the sector with the lowest mitigation cost) then moves onto ‘harder-to-abate’ sectors such as industry, residential and transport sectors24–26. This sectoral pattern remains robust under substantial state heterogeneity in policy stringency, indicating that mitiga- tion far beyond the electricity sector is necessary to achieve deep decarbonization goals, irrespective of uniform or heterogeneous approaches.

    Claimed Finding:
    Regardless of whether policies are uniform or heterogeneous across states, the model shows that the electricity sector is decarbonised first because it offers the cheapest abatement options.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The nationwide mitigation cost increases dramatically from mod- erate to ambitious national mitigation efforts (Fig. 5). However, more surprising is that the difference in total cost does not vary much when the subnational policy approach is heterogeneous as compared with uniformity across the states. Under the Hybrid and Heterogeneous approaches, the economic cost of mitigation drops in the low-supporting states by up to half; the medium- and high-supporting states take up most of that slack. And despite the factor of 3 variation in carbon prices across states under the Heterogeneous approach, the national mitigation cost is only slightly higher than with the Uniform approach. For a national mitigation effort of 20%, 40%, 60% and 80% decarbonization, the nationwide cost under the heterogeneous approach is only 14%, 9%, 4% and 5% higher than the uniform approach, respectively.

    Claimed Finding:
    Across the targets examined, heterogeneous state policies raise national mitigation costs by no more than about 14 % relative to a uniform policy.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We test the sensitivity of the results to six alternative formulations for policy heterogeneity (Fig. 6, Extended Data Fig. 5 and Supplementary Methods), including: (1) assuming a linear relationship between pub- lic support and policy stringency (‘Linear’), (2) increasing the state heterogeneity in policy stringency by varying the state-level carbon prices by a factor of 10 (‘+ range’), (3) and (4) assuming no effort and hence zero carbon price in three or five lowest-supporting states (‘3 zero’ and ‘5 zero’), (5) using the public opinion results from a different survey question on ‘Do you think your Governor should do more to address global warming?’ (‘Gov’) and (6) using existing commitments to climate action (instead of public opinion) to proxy for policy strin- gency (‘AP’: America’s Pledge). Most of these alternative formulations do not alter the core result that the heterogeneous policy approach is only marginally more expensive. However, the cost of deep decarbon- ization can increase significantly if a few states with the lowest sup- port levels are not engaged in climate action at all (‘3 zero’ and ‘5 zero’ scenarios). For instance, to achieve 80% decarbonization nationally, a zero effort in those locales drives costs for the rest of the country up by 25–70%. At least some modest floor level of effort by all the states is critical to avoid inter-state carbon leakage and a significant cost escalation.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study shows that if the lowest-support states undertake no mitigation, the cost of meeting an 80 % national decarbonization target rises by up to 70 %.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    With a heterogeneous approach, mitigation in harder-to-abate sectors is especially important in states with higher support rate. For instance, to achieve a national mitigation effort of 80% decar- bonization with a heterogeneous policy approach, the contribu- tion of non-electricity sectors to total CO2 mitigation from 2015 to 2050 is only 48% in the low-supporting states, while it is 60% in the medium- and high-supporting states (Fig. 4). This suggests that decarbonizing the electricity sector is a key strategy for all the states, and the major differences between states with low and high sup- port levels occur outside the electricity sector, where mitigation is  more costly.

    Claimed Finding:
    Under heterogeneous policies, low-support states depend more heavily than high-support states on mitigation from non-electricity sectors.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Introducing state heterogeneity affects the sectoral alloca- tion of CO2 mitigation. At the national level, all three subnational policy approaches achieve CO2 mitigation with similar sectoral contributions. At the subnational level, moving from the Uniform to the Hybrid and Heterogeneous approach, the low-supporting states reduce less CO2 from the electricity and refinery sectors, while the medium- and high-supporting states reduce more from these  two sectors.

    Claimed Finding:
    Because heterogeneity is introduced, the nationwide share of electricity in total CO₂ reductions falls sharply relative to the uniform scenario.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    This surprising result (that the overall costs do not rise much in spite  of huge heterogeneity across states) is largely driven by the flexibility  across states in terms of electricity trade and the location of energy-intensive industries (for example, bio-refineries; see the electricity and bioliquids production patterns in Supplementary Fig. 3). In other words, despite the subnational heterogeneity in policy stringency, energy markets are tightly coupled across states, allowing much of the heterogeneity in policy to be arbitraged through trade activities in the energy markets. Comparing the Heterogeneous and Hybrid approach with the Uniform approach, many states adjust the amount of electricity production, technology choices and trading volume with neighbouring states. Nationally, to achieve an 80% cut in GHG emissions, we find ~10% more inter-grid electricity trade under the heterogeneous policy approach than the uniform approach (see Extended Data Fig. 2 for net electricity trade across 15 grid regions; Supplementary Fig. 5 shows a map of the grid regions). There is also a shift in the geographic pattern of where critical mitigation technologies, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), are being deployed (Extended Data Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. 6).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study concludes that heterogeneous state policies reduce inter-grid electricity trade by roughly 10 % compared with a uniform policy.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We also consider three technology constraints based on what prior research has shown to be most pivotal in determining future mitiga- tion costs (Fig. 6)27,28. For all three policy approaches, we find much higher mitigation costs under: (a) limited electricity infrastructure investment and production, (b) no investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and (c) limited availability of biomass. The great- est impacts on mitigation costs come from constraining CCS and biomass because this restricts the role of BECCS and forces greater reliance upon extremely expensive technologies outside the electric- ity and refinery sectors (cf. Extended Data Fig. 6 with Fig. 4), such as hydrogen use in transport and industrial sectors. Relaxing the bio- mass constraint, by contrast, significantly lowers the mitigation costs (Supplementary Figs. 11 and 12). Limiting electricity production has a lesser impact on overall costs because, in the face of such con- straints, reductions in energy demand through efficiency measures, increases in natural gas use coupled with CCS, as well as more miti- gation in the refinery sector through BECCS, can provide additional decarbonization.

    Claimed Finding:
    Restricting biomass availability has only a minor influence on mitigation costs, whereas limiting CCS is the primary driver of cost escalation.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Although these technology constraints raise the total national cost of mitigation, our main finding remains robust: a heteroge- neous policy approach, relative to a uniform approach, is only slightly  more expensive.

    Claimed Finding:
    Once key technologies are constrained, heterogeneous policies become substantially more expensive than a uniform policy approach.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT