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 observe that 25% lower initial bioenergy yields (UCP_bioYield75%) increase EFav80 from 12 to 14 kg CO2 GJbiofuel−1, and less optimistic assumptions on R&D efficiency (UCP_highcostTC, affecting future bioenergy and food crop yields) increase it to 16 kg CO2 GJbiofuel−1.

    Claimed Finding:
    Reducing initial bioenergy crop yields by a quarter raises the 80-year average emission factor only modestly, from 12 to about 14 kg CO2 GJ-1.

    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 find that a uniform price on emissions from both sectors keeps biofuel emissions at 12 kg CO2 GJ−1. However, without land-use regulation, the EF increases substantially (64 kg CO2 GJ−1 over 80 years, 92 kg CO2 GJ−1 over 30 years). We also find that comprehensive coverage (>90%) of carbon-rich land areas worldwide is key to containing land-use emissions. Pricing emissions indirectly on the level of bioenergy consumption reduces total emissions by cutting bioenergy demand but fails to reduce the average EF.

    Claimed Finding:
    Charging emissions at the point of bioenergy consumption significantly lowers the average emission factor, making it comparable to that under a uniform cross-sector carbon price.

    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:
    Concern about global warming increases,
conditional on winning
We first tested whether engaging in the climate prediction market had
an impact on how concerned participants were about climate change.
Specifically, we ran linear regressions to predict climate concern in the
post-survey from experimental condition (0 = control, 1 = treatment),
controlling for participants’ concern in the pre-survey. Contrary to our
expectations, participating in the climate prediction market did not
lead to an overall increase in climate concern compared to the control
group (B = −0.005, SE(B) = 0.015, β = −0.001, t = −0.04, p = .976; Fig. 2;
all results hold when using the difference between pre- and post-survey
as outcome). B, Unstandardized regression coefficient. SE, Standard
error. β, Standardized regression coefficient. t, statistical coefficients
of test; p, statistical coefficient of significance.

    Claimed Finding:
    Overall, participation in the climate prediction market did not significantly elevate climate concern compared with the control group in Study 1.

    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:
    However, exploratory analyses of the treatment condition
revealed an effect conditional on participants’ performance in the
betting market. Specifically, we used the robust MM-type estimator30
to regress the difference in concern between post- and pre-surveys
(higher values indicate a shift towards more concern about climate
change) onto two indicators of performance: (1) the number of bets
won and (2) total earnings. Here betting outcomes significantly and
consistently predicted the change in concern (number of bets won:
B = 0.007, SE(B) = 0.003, t = 2.44, p = 0.017; total earnings: B = 0.01,
SE(B) = 0.005, t = 2.37, p = 0.021). That is, participants’ concerns about
climate change increased if they were accurate in their predictions.

    Claimed Finding:
    Participants’ total earnings in the market were not related to changes in their climate concern.

    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, we tested whether the impact of the treatment varied
between believers and sceptics. Using the robust MM-type estimator to
regress the difference in concern between post- and pre-surveys on the
binary believer/sceptic variable, we saw a marginally significant effect
(B = 0.14, SE(B) = 0.08, t = 1.71, p = 0.089) suggesting that the treatment
was more effective for believers than sceptics. The moderating effects
of performance on concern were found to be equally strong for both
believers and sceptics (B = 0.001, SE(B) = 0.01, t = 0.11, p = 0.911).

    Claimed Finding:
    The treatment produced a statistically significant greater increase in concern for believers than for sceptics.

    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 further explore participants’ engagement with the climate
prediction market, we tested for differences between believers and
sceptics in betting outcomes (bets won and total earnings; Supplemen-
tary Fig. 2) and behaviour (confidence, defined as the distance from
the neutral US$0.50/US$0.50 value). Despite believers being among
the highest earners in our market (top 11% of earners), both groups did
not significantly differ in the number of bets won (B = 0.70, SE(B) = 2.01,
p = 0.728) or the total earnings (B = 1.44, SE(B) = 1.33, p = 0.282). How-
ever, the bets of believers indicated marginally higher levels of confi-
dence (B = 0.48, SE(B) = 0.24, p = 0.053; Supplementary Fig. 6).

    Claimed Finding:
    Believers and sceptics won roughly the same number of bets.

    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:
    Increase in concern about global warming
We tested whether engaging in the climate prediction market had an
impact on how concerned participants were about climate change,
how supportive they were of remedial action and how much they knew
about climate change. Specifically, we ran a series of linear regressions
to predict climate concern, support and knowledge in the post-survey
from category of experimental condition (0 = control, 1 = treatment)
controlling for the respective concern, support and knowledge in the
pre-survey and including the socio-demographic variables to increase
the precision of the estimates (Supplementary Information ‘Robust-
ness checks’). The treatment group showed significantly higher lev-
els of concern (B = 0.12, SE(B) = 0.045, β = 0.08, t = 2.69, p = 0.007;
Fig. 3a), support for remedial action (B = 0.13, SE(B) = 0.058, β = 0.09,
t = 2.19, p = 0.029; Fig. 3b), and knowledge (B = 1.58, SE(B) = 0.22,
β = 0.52, t = 7.15, p < 0.001; Fig. 4) in the post-survey compared to
the control group.

    Claimed Finding:
    In Study 2, those assigned to the climate prediction market demonstrated significantly higher post-survey climate concern, support, and knowledge than control participants.

    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:
    Given that we asked the same question regarding concern and
support in the pre- and post-survey, we could compare participants’
scores to understand the underlying mechanisms of the effects. Partici-
pants in the treatment condition showed significantly higher levels of
concern in the post-survey than the pre-survey (t(355) = 2.23, p = 0.026;
Fig. 3) while controls did not (t(307) = −0.93, p = 0.353; paired t tests).
Similarly, participants in the treatment condition increased their sup-
port for remedial action (t(355) = 2.89, p = 0.004) while controls did not
(t(307) = 0.37, p = 0.712; paired t tests).

    Claimed Finding:
    Control participants exhibited a significant drop in climate concern between the pre- and post-surveys.

    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 addition to testing our main hypotheses, we conducted a series
of exploratory analyses. First, we tested whether the treatment effect
was stronger in certain conditions (that is, as in Study 1, when partici-
pants were successful in their bets). While we did not observe signifi-
cant interaction effects between the experimental condition and the
bet winnings for climate concern (B = 0.009, SE(B) = 0.011, β = 0.04,
t = 0.75, p = 0.455) or support (B = 0.007, SE(B) = 0.014, β = 0.04, t = 0.55,
p = 0.583), we found a significant moderation for climate knowledge
(B = 0.182, SE(B) = 0.053, β = 0.41, t = 3.44, p < 0.001). Notably, we
observed a significant interaction between the treatment and politi-
cal ideology. The treatment was more effective at increasing support
for remedial action among more conservative participants (B = 0.077,
SE(B) = 0.036, β = 0.13, t = 2.14, p = 0.033). All treatment effects were
independent of initial climate concerns, suggesting that participants
at all levels of climate concern were equally affected by their involve-
ment in the climate prediction market.

    Claimed Finding:
    Bet winnings did not significantly interact with experimental condition to predict climate concern.

    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 line with findings on motivated reasoning1,6,31, we observed a
marginally significant relationship between political ideology and the
percentage of bets that superficially align with climate change (r = −0.10,
t = −1.90, p = 0.058). Testing for correlations between political ideol-
ogy and outcomes (number of bets won, r = −0.02, p = 0.526; and total
amount earned, r = −0.004, p = 0.921) or betting behaviours (total bets
placed, r = −0.01, p = 0.828; and total amount spent, r = 0.05, p = 0.192)
did not show any significant correlations (Supplementary Fig. 8). Accord-
ingly, political ideology did not influence participants’ engagement with
the markets, confidence in their bets or prediction accuracy.

    Claimed Finding:
    Participants’ political ideology strongly predicted how many bets they won in the market.

    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:
    0
25
50
75
100
2.5
5.0
7.5
Climate knowledge (pre)
Count
Control (n = 308)
Treatment (n = 356)
5
10
15
20
Climate knowledge (post)
15.5
20.5
5.43 ± 1.49
5.60 ± 1.53
t(642) = –1.45, p = 0.147, two-sided t test
10.00 ± 3.20
8.41 ± 2.54
t(657) = 7.11, p < 0.001, two-sided t test
10.5
Fig. 4 | Climate knowledge increases after participating in a climate
prediction market. Participants’ knowledge was evaluated by comparing
the treatment and control groups’ knowledge in the pre-survey (left; n.s.) and
post-survey (right). Vertical lines are the mean of the corresponding color
distribution. n.s., not significant.

    Claimed Finding:
    Before the intervention, knowledge scores were similar between groups, but after the intervention the treatment group outperformed the control group.

    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:
    Each participant was allotted US$20 to use for bets throughout
the study. We considered participants’ study records complete if they:
(1) placed at least 15 bets and spent at least US$10 from their allocated
wages during the prediction period, (2) completed the post-survey at
the end of the study, which included the same climate-related meas-
ures (that is, concern, support and knowledge) as the pre-survey. After
excluding participants who did not meet these criteria, we were left with
an analysis sample consisting of 664 participants (34% overall attri-
tion rate; 32% in the treatment group, 36% in the control; x2(2) = 1.71,
p = 0.191, n.s.). Participants were compensated with a fixed sum of US$11
for completing the pre- and post-surveys and a variable additional
amount depending on their earnings in the prediction period.

    Claimed Finding:
    Attrition rates differed significantly between the treatment and control 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 18 LT-LEDS in our sample that include Annex I countries with a quantification of residual emissions together project residuals of 2.2 Gt yr–1
in 2050 in their most ambitious scenarios (Fig. 1). This corresponds to
17.9% of these countries’ current emissions. Together, these countries
are currently responsible for 18% of global emissions. Should the rest
of the world make similar projections, the resulting residuals would be
over 12 Gt yr–1 (if weighted by current emissions). This sets out a need
for a substantial carbon-removal effort.

    Claimed Finding:
    Annex I LT-LEDS collectively project about 2.2 Gt yr⁻¹ of residual emissions in 2050, equal to roughly 18 % of their present emissions.

    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:
    However, this figure of 12 Gt yr–1 probably underestimates the
global residual emissions that countries will be planning for. We say
this for three reasons. First, most countries included between two
and four low-carbon scenarios. For all these countries, we chose the
scenario with the smallest number of residual emissions for this calcu-
lation. Second, most countries do not include international aviation
and shipping in their projections, both of which are commonly seen
as hard-to-abate sectors. They could represent substantial sources
of residual emissions: the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero by
2050 scenario includes 210 MtCO2 from aviation and 120 MtCO2 from
shipping, while also making strong assumptions about behavioural
change and demand reductions in aviation11. Finally, and crucially, this
calculation is derived from projections from wealthy Annex I countries,
and poorer countries may claim higher shares of residual emissions
as well as later net-zero dates. This would be in accordance with the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective
capacities12. In other words, extrapolating from the most ambitious
current projections of the world’s richest countries still gives a baseline
indication of residual emissions in the double digits.

    Claimed Finding:
    Including hard-to-abate aviation and shipping emissions would likely lower the global residual emissions estimate below 12 Gt yr⁻¹.

    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:
    Of the countries with quantitative projections of residual emissions,
15 Annex I countries provide a quantitative sectoral breakdown, shown
in Fig. 2. Notably, across these countries, electricity is not responsi-
ble for many residual emissions, aligning with common expectations
that electricity is feasible to decarbonize. Agriculture and industry
represent the largest residual emissions. The prominence of agriculture
brings up the question of whether residual emissions are expected
to be CO2 or other greenhouse gases, which is unspecified in most
strategies. Only the United Kingdom includes aviation in its account-
ing of residual emissions, amounting to nearly half of its total. Notably,
these figures are mainly from Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development countries, and many of the non-Annex I countries
indicated that they would have residual emissions from energy.

    Claimed Finding:
    The sectoral data show that agriculture and industry account for the largest shares of residual emissions, whereas electricity contributes very little.

    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:
    Most countries expect to enhance or maintain the removal capacity
of the LULUCF sector (Table 3). For many of the countries that plan
for enhanced removals from the LULUCF sector, these removals will
equal or surpass their expected residual emissions by the point of net
zero. This is the case for, among others, Finland, Iceland, Hungary,
Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden. However, for the biggest
emitters in the sample, expected LULUCF removals fall far short of
residuals. This is the case for Australia, Canada, France, Switzerland,
the United Kingdom and the United States. Taken together, these six
countries comprise 96% of the total residuals of the sample. As these
countries comprise the majority of residuals, their plans will be decisive
for the overall amount of residuals that will have to be removed through
means other than the LULUCF sector.

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis indicates that LULUCF removals in Australia, Canada, France, Switzerland, the UK and the US are projected to fully offset their residual emissions by net zero.

    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 of the 50 LT-LEDS shows that there is no consistent defini-
tion or use of the concept of residual emissions. A majority of LT-LEDS
do not explicitly mention the concept of residual emissions, despite
having a net-zero target. Few countries provide an explicit definition
or elaborate how residual emissions amounts are arrived at, explain
what criteria were used to determine them or specify what greenhouse
gases make up the residual emissions.

    Claimed Finding:
    Most long-term strategies do not provide an explicit definition of residual emissions.

    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 our sample of 50
LT-LEDS, around one-third of countries utilized a top-down approach,
about 15% used a bottom-up approach, about 10% set residual emissions
equal to the level of forest sinks and the rest used a combined approach
or left the approach unspecified.

    Claimed Finding:
    More than half of the countries in the sample rely solely on a bottom-up stakeholder approach to estimate their residual emissions.

    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:
    While most countries submitted LT-LEDS in 2020 or 2021, some
countries, such as Germany and Canada, submitted their LT-LEDS a few
years ago (in 2016) and have enacted more ambitious policy since the
first iteration of their plans. The Paris Agreement and Katowice Rulebook
do not clearly specify whether LT-LEDS should be continuously
updated, although at COP-26 in 2021, countries were encouraged to
submit or update before COP-27. As of mid-2022, 51 long-term strate-
gies have been submitted; 50 were examined for this Article, of which
28 include a quantified projection of residual emissions at net zero
(in all but four cases, this is 2050). These countries are responsible for
only about a fifth of current emissions and contain few large emitters.

    Claimed Finding:
    Out of the 50 strategies reviewed, 28 report a quantified estimate of residual emissions for the year they plan to reach net-zero.

    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 projections in country strategies cohere largely with the
sectoral breakdown of residual emissions one can find in the litera-
ture, although countries may be projecting larger amounts than in
the literature. The International Energy Agency’s Net Zero by 2050
scenario describes a largely decarbonized power sector. Out of 1.5 Gt
of residual emissions in this scenario, 40% is from heavy industries,
mainly in developing economies (chemicals, steel, cement), and 33%
is from aviation, shipping and trucks; notably, this scenario is focused
only on energy, not land.

    Claimed Finding:
    In the IEA Net Zero by 2050 scenario, the majority of residual emissions arise from land-use change activities.

    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:
    Scenario studies analysed in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
(AR6)2 similarly highlight residual emissions from non-electric energy,
particularly in transport and industry (2.7.3). The AR6 also presents esti-
mations of residual GHG emissions at net zero from illustrative mitiga-
tion pathways (IMPs) (fig. SPM.5). The pathways compatible with below
1.5 °C with limited or no overshoot have residuals of 6.79 Gt (‘shifting
development pathways’, IMP-SP), 8.73 Gt (‘low demand’, IMP-LD) and
11.87 Gt (‘high renewables’, IMP-Ren), with half to two-thirds of these
from non-CO2 emissions13. In other words, analysis of net-zero and 1.5 °C
compatible pathways from the scientific literature also anticipates
that the majority of residual emissions will be from agriculture, with
some residual emissions from industry and transport. Yet estimations
of total amounts vary widely depending on scenario, and regional
analysis is limited.

    Claimed Finding:
    According to the AR6 illustrative pathways, agriculture is only a minor contributor, and most residual emissions come from non-agricultural 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:
    Our analysis of the LT-LEDS submitted to the UNFCCC so far shows
that (1) residual emissions do not have a standard conceptual defi-
nition; (2) countries’ projected residual emissions are a substantial
percentage of current emissions, averaging around 18% for Annex I
countries in the most ambitious scenarios; (3) while most residual emis-
sions in ambitious scenarios are indicated to come from agriculture,
industry and mobility, few countries specify sectoral breakdowns;
(4) for countries analysed, LULUCF sinks by 2050 cannot balance out
all residual emissions.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors conclude that for the countries analyzed, LULUCF sinks by 2050 are insufficient to balance all projected residual emissions.

    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:
    To determine how different policy designs affect public policy sup-
port, as well as test our three hypotheses (H1, H2 and H3), we randomly
assigned the respondents to one of a total of seven groups (Methods).
On a 0–10 scale, the average support is 6.22 for removing industrial-use
subsidies, 6.31 for removing subsidies on private consumption of fossil
fuels and 6.33 for introducing a carbon tax. Apparently, the differences
between these numbers are small. The statistical testing of the means
(M) confirms this as well. When t testing the differences between the
proposal of removing subsidies on private consumption (M = 6.31,
s.d. = 2.67) and the introduction of a carbon tax (M = 6.33, s.d. = 2.77),
we find no statistically significant differences (t(1,893.16) = –0.1604,
P = 0.4363). The first hypothesis is thus rejected. Nor do we find
any differences between attitudes toward removing subsidies on
industrial-use fossil fuels (M = 6.22, s.d. = 2.57) and subsidies on private
consumption of fossil fuels (M = 6.31, s.d. = 2.67) (t(1,896.18) = 0.6985,
P = 0.7575). Hence, we reject H2.

    Claimed Finding:
    There is no statistically significant difference in public support between removing fossil fuel subsidies for private consumption and introducing a carbon 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:
    When aggregating the groups where revenue use is specified
(M = 6.49, s.d. = 2.59) and comparing them with the group with unspeci-
fied revenue use (M = 6.31, s.d. = 2.67), we find a significant differ-
ence (t(1,428.25) = 1.88, P = 0.03). In line with H3, public acceptance
of removing subsidies for private consumption of fuels is higher
when revenue use is specified, as compared with non-specified rev-
enue use.

    Claimed Finding:
    Specifying how the savings from subsidy removal will be used increases public acceptance compared with leaving revenue use unspecified.

    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:
    Considering the treatment groups separately, we find
that private-consumption subsidy removal reaches a higher level of
acceptance if revenues are directed towards investments in welfare
systems (M = 6.59, s.d. = 2.55) compared with a non-specified use
(t(1,893.68) = 2.36, P = 0.01) or towards investments in climate adap-
tation (M = 6.62, a.d. = 2.65) compared with non-specified revenue use
(t(1,887.99) = 2.57, P = 0.01). However, we do not find any statistically
significant differences between a proposal to use fiscal revenues to
reduce income taxes (M = 6.25, s.d. = 2.48) or to provide cash transfers
to the poor and most-affected households (M = 6.49, s.d. = 2.66) and
non-specified revenue use (M = 6.31, s.d. = 2.67): (t(1,884.34) = –0.50,
P = 0.69) and (t(1,894) = 1.53, P = 0.06), respectively.

    Claimed Finding:
    Using the saved revenues to reduce income taxes significantly boosts public acceptance of subsidy removal compared with not specifying revenue use.

    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:
    When we, more exploratorily, consider each of our countries (Ecua-
dor, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Mexico) individually, we find that the
attitudes towards fossil fuel subsidy removal are on the same level as
attitudes towards the introduction of a carbon tax. In the comparison,
Egypt constitutes an exception, with the least positive attitudes towards
removal of fossil fuel subsidies for industrial use (M = 5.4) and private
consumption (M = 5.3) compared with averages in the other countries
of 6.2 for industrial use and 6.3 for private consumption (Fig. 1). Over-
all, from our results, we can conclude that the resistance towards (or
acceptance of) the removal of fossil fuel subsidies is on par with the
public opinion on introducing taxes on CO2.

    Claimed Finding:
    Among the five surveyed countries, Egypt shows the lowest support for both industrial and private fossil fuel subsidy removal.

    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 commitment to use the tax money saved from removing existing
subsidies in a way that benefits stakeholders will increase the level of
public acceptance. At the country level, we find that the use of revenues
for ‘investment in climate adaptation’ is the most popular alternative
in both Mexico and Ecuador, while it is the least popular alternative in
Egypt (Fig. 2). These results indicate that there are potentially impor-
tant country-specific characteristics that should be considered by
policymakers aiming to remove fossil fuel subsidies.

    Claimed Finding:
    In Egypt, directing saved revenues to climate adaptation projects was the most favored recycling option among 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:
    We also find that the respondents’ concern for climate change appears
to be a strong driver of policy attitudes, which has also been previously
shown to be a strong predictor of climate policy support in the Global
North15, and finally that the impact of revenue recycling varies across
the five countries (compare ref. 31).

    Claimed Finding:
    Higher levels of climate-change concern among individuals are linked to greater support for the studied policy instruments.

    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:
    First,
our overall results concerning policy attitudes imply that removing
subsidies on fossil fuels may not present much more of a political chal-
lenge than introducing carbon taxation.

    Claimed Finding:
    The results demonstrate that removing fossil fuel subsidies is considerably more popular than introducing a carbon tax.

    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:
    More important, by specifying
alternatives for revenue recycling where public funds currently used
for subsidies are instead directed towards other public investments,
the level of acceptability may increase.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study concludes that detailing how recycled revenues will be used does not improve public acceptance of subsidy removal.

    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 investments that increase social and economic welfare systems lead
to more-positive attitudes towards subsidy removal (refs. 26,30,31). At the
outset, we report that optimal use of savings from subsidy removal has
positive effects on public attitudes.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors find that channeling subsidy savings into direct monetary compensation for households is particularly effective at boosting support.

    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:
    Taken together,
we cannot reject our third hypothesis. Attitudes towards removing
subsidies can turn more positive when revenue use is specified. How-
ever, these results are also dependent on the type of revenue recycling
proposed. Whereas investments overall drive more-positive attitudes,
monetary compensation (either to all or to the most affected) does not.

    Claimed Finding:
    Overall, specifying revenue use can increase support for subsidy removal, but investment-focused recycling options outperform cash transfers or tax cuts in generating acceptance.

    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 the 29 examined projections, the results show varying impacts of climate change on the naturalized streamflow of the Nile and some socio-economic characteristics of Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt (Fig. 3). The lower the GHG emissions and EOC forcing levels, the lower the change in precipitation and streamflow (Fig. 3a). The 30-year moving average naturalized streamflow data shown in Fig. 3c–f indicate that the mean Nile streamflow could change by between −13% and +90% by 2050 compared with 2020. The intra-annual variability of the naturalized streamflow of the Nile and its main tributaries is projected to change (Extended Data Fig. 1), with the biggest changes occurring under SSP5 and high EOC temperature projections. The inter-annual streamflow variability shows varying changes depending on different SSPs, forcing levels, GCMs and time horizons, as depicted in Extended Data Fig. 2. The increase in temperature imposed by climate change is projected to increase PET (Extended Data Figs. 3 and 4), which would increase future irrigation water demands and evaporation from open water bodies.

    Claimed Finding:
    By 2050, the study projects that mean annual Nile flows could range from 13 % lower to 90 % higher relative to 2020 levels.

    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:
    Various SSPs that underpin climate projections have different implications for baseline gross domestic product (GDP) and population growth and urbanization in Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt over 2021–2050 (Fig. 3b)44–46. The highest economic growth for each of the three countries is projected under SSP5, whereas the lowest economic growth occurs under SSP3.

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis concludes that SSP3 produces the highest economic growth for Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt.

    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 results show that the magnitudes of the economy-wide costs and benefits to Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt vary due to the different economies and the spatial and temporal characteristics of the river system in each country. There is a trade-off between the three countries in achieving the highest possible GDP performance. Compared with the Washington draft proposal, the compromise design results in economy-wide benefits to the three countries.

    Claimed Finding:
    Compared with the Washington draft proposal, the compromise adaptive policy delivers net economic gains to all three countries.

    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 results reveal varying costs and benefits across climate projections (Fig. 4b–i). For instance, in the most favourable design for each country taken individually, the discounted GDP over 2020–2045 could increase by up to US$15.8, US$6.3 and US$3.0 billion for Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt, respectively, compared with the Washington draft proposal. However, these country-centric designs lead to GDP losses for at least one of the other two countries. In contrast, the mean GDP changes are positive for the three countries under the compromise design.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors report that in the most favourable design for Egypt, Ethiopia’s discounted GDP would rise by about US$15.8 billion relative to the Washington draft proposal.

    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 temporal evolution of GDP changes under different climate projections and GERD policy designs (Fig. 5) shows that adaptive GERD management benefits Ethiopia and Sudan the most under climate projections with the highest streamflow. The favourable Egyptian design benefits Egypt during multi-year droughts in climate projections with low streamflow, but it reduces the overall Sudanese and Ethiopian benefits (Fig. 5). The compromise system design results in balanced performance across the three countries.

    Claimed Finding:
    Adaptive GERD management primarily benefits Ethiopia and Sudan under the wettest (highest streamflow) climate projections.

    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 seven optimized variables of the GERD adaptive policy show varying influence on the Ethiopian, Sudanese and Egyptian performance objectives (Fig. 6). The Egyptian GDP is influenced the most by the interim minimum drought mitigation water releases (Fig. 6a), as most of Egypt’s benefits and costs materialize during droughts through irrigation. In contrast, the most influential parameter for the Sudanese and Ethiopian GDPs is the GERD’s reduced power target (Fig. 6b,c).

    Claimed Finding:
    Machine-learning analysis indicates that the interim minimum drought-mitigation releases from the GERD have almost no effect on Egypt’s GDP.

    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 results demonstrate that if the GERD is adaptively managed, the economic and resilience benefits to individual countries (especially under extreme climate projections) are substantially larger than with less adaptive responses such as the Washington draft proposal.

    Claimed Finding:
    Overall, adaptive operation of the GERD yields substantially larger economic and resilience benefits than the static Washington draft proposal.

    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 analysis of the GERD’s initial filling and long-term operation shows that adaptively managing the dam to maximize the national benefits of any of the three countries would be costly for at least one of the other two countries. We show that a compromise adaptive management approach could produce balanced benefits for the three countries. These results demonstrate the opportunity cost of not implementing collaborative adaptive solutions, especially under extreme climate change projections.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study finds that maximizing one country’s benefits through adaptive management has essentially no cost to the other two riparians.

    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:
    Subject to coordination and data sharing, hydropower generation, irrigation water supply reliability and flood control in Sudan could improve because of the dam13–16. Still, the dam will probably produce adverse environmental impacts and losses to recession agriculture in Sudan17.

    Claimed Finding:
    The paper notes that, with coordination and data sharing, Sudan could see improvements in hydropower generation, irrigation reliability and flood control from the GERD.

    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 construction of the GERD started in 2011, and when completed, the dam will have a total storage capacity of 74 billion cubic meters (bcm) and an installed power capacity of 5,150 MW. The total storage capacity of the GERD is equivalent to 1.5 times the historical mean annual river flow at the dam location.

    Claimed Finding:
    The paper states that the GERD’s storage capacity is roughly half of the historical mean annual flow at its site.

    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:
    Using a simple reduced-form climate model (Hector; Methods)15 we
study the implications of the emissions pathways for end-of-century
and peak global mean surface temperature changes (Fig. 2). Our results
show—consistent with other studies—that if countries achieve their
2021 NDCs, official LTSs and net-zero pledges as stated, global surface
temperature change can be limited to <2 °C warming this century5,6,9–12.
In addition, many of our high ambition pathways with the NDC+ and
NDC++ emission levels in 2030 result in <1.5 °C temperature change
in 2100. Even if ratcheting of ambition is delayed to beyond 2030,
end-of-century temperature change can be returned to <1.5 °C. How-
ever, that would require substantial ratcheting of post-2030 ambition
beyond historically observed decarbonization rates (Methods)—as in
the pathways in which countries achieve the NDC emission level in 2030
followed by an 8% minimum decarbonization rate.

    Claimed Finding:
    Achieving the 2021 NDCs, official long-term strategies and stated net-zero pledges would keep global warming below 2 °C this century.

    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:
    Ratcheting ambition in the near-term—as in our NDC++ pathways—
has marked implications for peak temperature changes. Ratcheting
ambition in the near-term results in lower levels of peak warming. For
instance, the peak temperature change in the pathway with NDC emis-
sion level in 2030 followed by a 8% minimum decarbonization rate and
net-zero pledges in the specified target years is 1.77 °C compared to
1.82 °C in the pathway with NDC emission level in 2030 followed by a
2% minimum decarbonization rate. By contrast, the peak temperature
change in the pathway with NDC++ emissions in 2030 followed by a 2%
minimum decarbonization rate and net-zero pledges in the specified
target years is 1.68 °C. Ratcheting ambition in the near- and long-term—
as in the pathways with NDC++ emission level in 2030 followed by an
8% minimum decarbonization rate—reduces peak temperature change
further (peak temperature changes of 1.67 °C if net-zero pledges are
assumed to be achieved in the specified target years).

    Claimed Finding:
    Increasing the post-2030 decarbonization rate from 2 % to 8 % without raising 2030 ambition lowers peak temperature more than adopting NDC++-level 2030 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:
    Furthermore, ratcheting near-term ambition could markedly
reduce the number of years of overshoot before returning to 1.5 °C
this century (Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Fig. 2). For
example, the pathways with NDC emission level in 2030 followed by
a 2% or 5% minimum decarbonization rate and net-zero pledges in
the specified target years do not return to 1.5 °C this century and the
number of years of overshoot in the pathway with an 8% minimum
decarbonization rate is 67. By contrast, in the pathways with NDC++
emission level in 2030, the number of years of overshoot reduces to
58, 56 and 47 years respectively.

    Claimed Finding:
    Under NDC 2030 emissions combined with 2 % or 5 % decarbonization, temperatures never fall back to 1.5 °C within this century.

    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:
    Ratcheting ambition would entail rapid reductions in CO2 emissions
from all sectors of the energy system (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Fig. 4),
especially through the mid-century. While some sectors (for exam-
ple, electricity, buildings and industry) decarbonize faster due to the
availability of many low-carbon technology alternatives, others (for
example, transportation) decarbonize slower due to fewer options.

    Claimed Finding:
    Because it has abundant low-carbon options, the transportation sector is projected to decarbonize faster than electricity, buildings and industry.

    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:
    Ratcheting ambition in the near-term results in quicker transitions
to net-zero emissions energy systems30–32. For example, in the pathway
with NDC emissions in 2030 followed by a 2% minimum decarboniza-
tion rate, global CO2 emissions do not get to net-zero this century.
Ratcheting near-term ambition—as in the pathway with NDC++ emis-
sions in 2030 followed by 2% minimum decarbonization rate—advances
the year of global net-zero CO2 emissions to 2053. Ratcheting both
near-term and long-term ambition—as in the pathway with NDC++
emissions in 2030 followed by an 8% minimum decarbonization rate—
advances the year of global net-zero CO2 emissions further to 2052
(Supplementary Table 1).

    Claimed Finding:
    Moving from NDC-level to NDC++-level 2030 emissions, while keeping a 2 % post-2030 decarbonization rate, shifts the global net-zero CO2 date forward to 2053.

    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:
    Ratcheting near-term ambition also implies greater reductions
in non-CO2 emissions, some of which have higher global warming
potentials and shorter atmospheric lifetimes and therefore play an
important role in both stabilizing long-term temperature change and
limiting peak near-term warming (Fig. 3). Non-CO2s respond to climate
policy in two ways33. First, fuel switching and associated phasing out of
carbon-intensive fuels due to climate policy reduce associated non-CO2
emissions (for example, fugitive methane emissions from resource pro-
duction). Thus, higher CO2 ambition implies higher non-CO2 ambition.
Second, non-CO2 emissions that are largely unaffected by fuel switching
such as hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions from cooling energy use
and industrial process emissions (perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur
hexafluoride) respond to climate policy through the implementation
of additional control measures. In our analysis, the NDC+ and NDC++
pathways result, respectively, in 18% and 24% reduction in methane
emissions from the energy system in 2030 relative to 2020. In terms
of total methane emissions from energy and agricultural systems, the
reduction is, respectively, 4% and 8%. In comparison, over a hundred
countries made a commitment under the Global Methane Pledge—a
key outcome of COP26—to collectively reduce methane emissions
by at least 30% (ref. 34).

    Claimed Finding:
    The modelling shows that NDC++ pathways cut combined energy-and-agriculture methane emissions by roughly a quarter by 2030.

    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:
    Advancing the timing of net-zero pledges can be an important
ratcheting strategy as it could provide the extra push required in the
long-term to return 2100 warming to <1.5 °C and further reduce temper-
ature overshooting. For example, in the pathway with NDC+ emissions
in 2030 followed by a 5% minimum decarbonization rate and net-zero
pledges in the specified target years, the 2100 and peak temperature
changes are, respectively, 1.51 °C and 1.72 °C. Advancing the timing of
net-zero pledges by 10 years brings the 2100 and peak temperature
changes down to 1.46 °C and 1.68 °C.

    Claimed Finding:
    Bringing net-zero pledges forward by a decade can lower both 2100 warming and the peak temperature by about 0.05 °C in the NDC+ 5 % pathway.

    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:
    For countries with net-zero pledges (for example, China, India and the
USA), cumulative emissions grow and then remain flat beyond the
year of net-zero under the pathway with central assumptions (Fig. 4).
For such countries, ratcheting ambition in the near-term—as in the
NDC++ pathways—results in slower growth of emissions and a plateau-
ing of emissions at a lower peak level. In addition, ratcheting ambition
in the near-term for such countries also facilitates an advancement of
the timing of net-zero CO2 emissions (Fig. 5). For example, ratcheting
near-term ambition from NDC to NDC++ emissions in 2030 in China,
Brazil and the USA results in an advancement of the year of net-zero
CO2 emissions from 2058, 2041 and 2046 to 2057, 2037 and 2044,
respectively. This advancement occurs despite the target years for
the official net-zero pledges—which are modelled in terms of net-zero
GHG emissions for the above countries—remaining unchanged (see
Methods and Supplementary Table 2 for details on how net-zero
pledges are modelled) because it facilitates a more rapid phase out
of fossil-fuel-based infrastructure.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors find that strengthening 2030 ambition to NDC++ would advance China’s net-zero CO2 year to about 2050.

    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:
    By contrast, cumulative emissions for emerging economies with-
out net-zero pledges (for example, Middle East, Africa and Southeast
Asia) grow throughout the century under the NDC pathways—albeit at
a slower rate under the 8% minimum decarbonization rate assumption
(Fig. 4). For such countries, ratcheting ambition both in the near-term
and in the long-term—as in the pathway with NDC++ emissions in 2030
followed by an 8% minimum decarbonization rate—is critical to acceler-
ate the phase out of fossil-based infrastructure and consequently get
to net-zero CO2 emissions sooner (Fig. 5).

    Claimed Finding:
    For regions without current net-zero pledges, combining NDC++-level 2030 cuts with an 8 % post-2030 decarbonization rate is essential to hasten the transition to net-zero CO2.

    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 simple sensitivity analysis that explores the implications of limited CDR availability suggests that the high ambition pathways explored in this study are feasible under no availability of DAC but that results in greater reductions in CO2 emissions from energy and industrial sectors (Supplementary Figs. 11 and 12).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study concludes that if direct air capture is unavailable, the high-ambition pathways can no longer be achieved.

    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:
    Transition towards risk-based premiums
The effects of a transition from the current NFIP to risk-based premiums
for 2050 is illustrated in Fig. 1, in line with the patterns found for the
short-term effects in 2030 (Supplementary Fig. 2). Such transition leads
to higher geographical heterogeneity of premium levels on a local scale.
On a national scale, the model predicts that premiums will become
relatively lower in coastal areas and higher in fluvial areas (although
all premiums increase over time due to the effects of climate change
and are limited to assessing the current conditions).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study forecasts that risk-based pricing will lower premiums in fluvial regions while raising them in coastal 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:
    compared to present day). These effects result in a decrease of insur-
ance penetration rates in fluvial regions from 24.7% to 13.2% (partly
due to an increase in unaffordability). This implies that (on average)
the NFIP is currently underpricing these regions. Conversely, coastal
regions display an increase from 10.2% to 17.1% in penetration rates
due to more attractive premiums under risk-based insurance pricing
for a share of households due to spatial variation in premiums. Still, a
subset of policy-holders will experience a steep increase of their pre-
mium in these regions. Despite the lower penetration rates in fluvial
regions, introducing risk-based premiums and offering premium dis-
counts based on the actual reduction of risk achieved by flood-proofing
buildings is expected to decrease the total average residential flood
risk (coastal and fluvial) across the USA by about US$1 billion (−7.3%)
by 2050. These results highlight the effectiveness of offering a pre-
mium discount to implement a variety of DRR types (wet and dry
flood-proofing), including through retrofitting.

    Claimed Finding:
    After risk-based pricing is introduced, insurance penetration drops to about 13 % in fluvial areas but rises to roughly 17 % along the coasts.

    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 model demonstrates that unaffordability (Methods) is
expected to decrease from 4.5 million households (23.8%) to 1 million
households (5.6%) for the 18.8 million households at risk of floods
nationwide in 2050 following a transition to risk-based premiums.
However, the magnitude of the remaining unaffordability increases
substantially to an average of US$2,000 per year per household. These
findings indicate that although risk-based premiums are lower than
current NFIP premiums for many households, moving towards
risk-based premiums implies a sharp increase in premiums and
unaffordability for a subgroup of households living in high-risk
areas.

    Claimed Finding:
    Switching to risk-based rates cuts the number of households that cannot afford insurance from about 4.5 million to 1 million, but the average shortfall for those still unable to pay rises to roughly $2,000 a year.

    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:
    Unaffordability issues can potentially be overcome by offering
insurance vouchers and providing inexpensive accessible loans for
financing DRR measures by low-income households currently living
in high flood risk zones7. Alternatively, further incentivizing DRR by
homeowners would make more people eligible for premium discounts.
Relocation or managed retreat might also become necessary2. As seen
in Fig. 1e, continuation of the program without anticipating climate
change or socio-economic development will further increase the
debt of the NFIP by ~60% (from US$20.5 billion to US$32.8 billion).
Introducing risk-based premiums will significantly limit the rise in
future debt but will not solve the problem entirely (debt will increase
by 28% instead of 60%). An additional markup of premiums might be
required to pay off current debt and make the program financially
sound in the future.

    Claimed Finding:
    Implementing risk-based premiums is projected to eliminate any further growth in NFIP debt by 2050.

    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 results show that additional large-scale flood adaptation investment
complements a transition to risk-based premiums and household-level
DRR measures22. Table 1 shows four policy scenarios: a baseline scenario
(Sc1, current NFIP, reactive government) and three scenarios (Sc2, 3
and 4) with current and risk-based NFIP schemes and proactive or reac-
tive government policies combinations. These are evaluated relative to
the baseline Sc1 (see Methods for scenario descriptions and Supplemen-
tary Information for additional results). Table 1 displays the evaluation
of these four scenarios for 2020–2050. It shows the present values of
categories that address the total societal costs of flood risk and flood
management.

    Claimed Finding:
    Model comparisons indicate that pairing proactive government flood-protection investments with risk-based premiums performs better for society than risk-based premiums alone.

    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 results show that
transitioning to risk-based premiums has a positive net present societal
benefit of about US$10 billion for the period from 2020 to 2050, even
when governments remain reactive towards investments in adaptation
infrastructure. If the government acts proactively alongside risk-based
premiums, the net present societal benefit increases to US$26 billion
for the same period.

    Claimed Finding:
    With a reactive government, moving to risk-based premiums is estimated to impose a net societal cost of roughly $10 billion between 2020 and 2050.

    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:
    Large-scale flood protection measures also have
risk-reduction benefits over a longer lifespan than the 30-year period
evaluated (2020–2050); hence, extending the analysis to the far future
(for example, 2100) will favour proactive government policies even
more. Accordingly, the government can reduce a large share of (future)
flood risk by increasing flood protection through the installation of
levees, the adoption of nature-based solutions or the implementation
of other measures.

    Claimed Finding:
    Because flood-protection projects last well beyond 2050, analysing a longer time horizon would make proactive government strategies look even more beneficial.

    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 highest societal benefits
are achieved when adopting both strategies. Despite high upfront
investment costs for large-scale adaptation of ~US$75 billion (compared
to the baseline scenario), proactive investments are complementary
to risk-based premiums. Together, they yield high average societal
benefits ($26 billion, net present value for 2020–2050, Table 1). While
the investment costs for large-scale adaptation seem high, the total
societal benefits of US$26 billion with adaptation investments sig-
nificantly surpasses the expected societal benefit of US$10 billion
when only transitioning to risk-based premiums (Table 1). Furthermore, investing in flood protection infrastructure will reduce some
of the equity issues (unaffordability) that arise when solely moving to
risk-based premiums (columns C and E in Table 1). It will also reduce the
risk to other governmental assets (for example, energy infrastructure
and low-lying port areas). The remaining unaffordability issues for the
subset of households with a major increase in insurance premiums
could be addressed by offering insurance vouchers and providing
low-interest accessible loans to further incentivize the implementa-
tion of DRR7 or relocation2.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors conclude that investing in large-scale flood protection fails to mitigate the equity (affordability) problems created by risk-based premiums.

    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:
    Flooding is a devastating natural hazard, causing an average
>US$100 billion of damage every year1. Recent events of coastal and
river flooding in Europe and Asia have shown the huge impact of such
events on communities and policy-makers are struggling with how
to anticipate future increase in flood risk due to climate change and
population growth2. Without adaptation investments under the repre-
sentative concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 and shared socio-economic
pathway (SSP) 2 scenarios, fluvial flood risk for the USA is expected to
increase from about US$27 billion to US$66 billion per year (refs. 3,4),
while coastal flood risk cost is expected to increase from US$1.8 billion
to US$189 billion5.

    Claimed Finding:
    The paper cites projections that, absent adaptation, annual U.S. fluvial flood damages could rise from roughly $27 billion to $66 billion under RCP4.5–SSP2.

    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:
    Using an agent-based model approach for
current and future scenarios, we demonstrate that risk-based premiums will
yield a positive societal benefit (US$10 billion) because they will incentivize
household risk-reduction investments. Moreover, our results show that
proactive investment in large-scale adaptation measures complements a
transition to risk-based premiums to yield a higher overall societal benefit
(US$26 billion).

    Claimed Finding:
    The simulations estimate that risk-based premiums alone will generate more than $40 billion in societal benefits.

    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 sample of companies reported a combined 30.7% reduction in market-based scope 2 emissions between 2015 and 2019 (from 68.9 to 47.8 Mt CO2e per year, see solid black line in Fig. 1e). This corresponds to a substantially higher reduction than the annual 4.2% of base year emissions required by SBTi’s linear 1.5 °C global mitigation pathway (purple line). However, most of this reported emission reduction is caused by the companies’ use of RECs (Fig. 1d), which increased from covering 8% of their purchased energy in 2015 to 27% in 2019. Based on the existing empirical evidence, we assume that this part of the reported reduction does not reflect actual reductions of emissions from the energy grid. Without the RECs contribution, market-based emissions would have reduced by only 9.9% between 2015 and 2019, with the resulting emission trajectory closely aligning with the required annual 2.5% base year emission reduction of SBTi’s linear well below 2 °C pathway (compare the dashed black and turquoise lines in Fig. 1e).

    Claimed Finding:
    Excluding the effect of RECs, companies cut their market-based scope 2 emissions by only about 10 % between 2015 and 2019.

    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:
    Reported location-based emissions (black line in Fig. 1h) reduced from 77.1 to 69.2 MtCO2e per year (10.3%) over the period, far less than the reported market-based emissions. This is as RECs and PPAs are not considered in location-based accounting (Box 1), which is also why location-based emissions were higher than market-based emissions in 2015. Instead, decarbonization of the electricity grid was the main contributor to the reported emission reduction (Fig. 1g), with the increase in energy consumption  again having a net-positive contribution to the change in emissions (Fig. 1f). The location-based emissions trajectory overall barely complied with the well below 2 °C goal (turquoise line) and is similar to the market-based trajectory adjusted to exclude RECs (dotted black line in Fig. 1e).

    Claimed Finding:
    The location-based scope 2 emissions of the sampled companies fell by more than 30 % over 2015–2019.

    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:
    Renewable energy certificates also had a substantial influence on the reported emission trajectories of individual companies; 89% of sample companies purchased RECs in the 2015–2019 period and the sample companies’ median market-based emission reduction changed from 30.2% to 8.5% when removing the contribution from RECs. Likewise, the share of companies aligned with the 1.5 °C goal, aligned with the well below 2 °C goal, and not aligned with either goal changes from 68%, 8% and 24% to 36%, 12% and 52%, respectively, when excluding RECs (Fig. 2); 40% of the companies whose reported market-based emissions aligned with the 1.5 °C goal did not align with any Paris goal after adjusting for RECs (see the grey flows between first and second column of Fig. 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    When REC-related reductions are removed, the median market-based emission reduction reported by the companies drops from roughly 30 % to about 9 %.

    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:
    Companies headquartered in Europe and North America (88% of the sample) reported larger combined market-based emission reductions in 2015–2019 than companies based in Asia (11% of the sample), but also relied more on RECs in their reporting. When removing the contribution from RECs, North American companies’ combined market-based emission trajectory merely aligned with the well below 2 °C goal, whereas European companies in aggregate did not align with any Paris goal (see Supplementary Fig. 7).

    Claimed Finding:
    After adjustments for RECs, European firms as a group remained aligned with the Paris 1.5 °C trajectory.

    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:
    Companies with market-based SBTs tend to commit to more ambitious emission reductions (compare the orange and blue boxes in Fig. 3a). The trend is especially pronounced for SBTs covering scopes 1 and 2, where the median annual reduction is 1.7 percentage points higher for market- over location-based SBTs (4.2% versus 2.5% of base year emissions). This may be because market-based accounting offers a relatively low-cost means of appearing to reduce emissions14, and therefore companies using this approach are willing to set more ambitious reduction targets; 58% of market-based SBTs align with the 1.5 °C goal (below purple line in Fig. 3a) and 28% with the well below 2 °C goal (between the turquoise and purple line). The corresponding shares for location-based SBTs are 8% and 54%, respectively.

    Claimed Finding:
    For targets covering scopes 1 and 2, companies using market-based accounting set median annual reduction rates of 4.2 % compared with 2.5 % for location-based targets, a difference of 1.7 percentage points.

    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 next estimated the SBTs specifically for scope 2 (Fig. 3b) from SBTs that cover scopes 1 and 2, or scopes 1, 2 and 3, assuming future scope 2 emission reduction will have the same relative contribution to total emission reductions as in the past (see Methods). These estimates illustrate the implications of a continuation of current trends, rather than an explicit prediction of future emissions pathways. The estimated market-based scope 2 SBTs are generally more ambitious than the reported market-based SBTs for overarching emissions scopes and are closer to the reported SBTs specifically for scope 2 (Fig. 3a). Note, however, that 3% of these estimated market-based SBTs involve emission increases (above the 0% line in Fig. 3), as the companies in question increased scope 2 emissions during the past reference period; 75% of the estimated market-based scope 2 SBTs comply with the 1.5 °C goal and 12% comply with the well below 2 °C goal.

    Claimed Finding:
    More than half of location-based SBTs (over 50 %) meet the criteria for the 1.5 °C 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:
    This exploratory scenario results in a combined real reduction rate of 3.6% of base year emissions across companies (see the weighted average in Fig. 3c), which is markedly lower than the 7.2% reduction rate for unadjusted market-based scope 2 SBTs (Fig. 3b) and merely complies with the well below 2 °C goal. Moreover, although nearly all (77 of 102) companies pursuing market-based scope 2 SBTs seem to align with the 1.5 °C goal (Fig. 3b), far fewer (38 of 102) companies will in fact align with the 1.5 °C goal if they continue their past pattern of REC usage (Fig. 3c). In that scenario, companies will most commonly not align with either temperature goal (45 of 102), whereas a minority (19 of 102) will align with the less ambitious well below 2 °C goal.

    Claimed Finding:
    Removing anticipated REC contributions lowers the weighted average annual reduction rate for market-based scope-2 targets from 7.2 % to about 3.6 % of base-year emissions.

    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:
    At the regional level, European and North American companies generally targeted higher future emission reductions than Asian companies. However, these regional differences substantially reduce after adjusting the targets for estimated future RECs purchases (see Supplementary Fig. 9). Companies in half of the ten industries (together accounting for 45% of the sample companies) collectively align with the 1.5 °C goal after adjusting the SBTs for RECs, whereas companies in two industries align with the well below 2 °C goal and companies in three industries do not align with either (see Supplementary Fig. 10).

    Claimed Finding:
    Even after correcting for future REC purchases, European companies still aim for substantially higher reductions than their North American counterparts.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT