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:
    Consistency Most documents provided evidence of only half of the linkages defining consistency (mean = 0.53, s.d. = 0.28). NAPs registered higher consistency scores than NDCs (P < 0.001, N = 15 and N = 53, respectively) with a narrower spread (Fig. 2e). Eleven documents were fully consistent, indicated by maximum consistency scores. These included 5 NDCs (less than 10%), that is, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Uganda, and 6 NAPs (less than 50%), including Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Liberia, Madagascar and South Africa. Most often, countries link climate risk and impact assessment and action implementation (87% and 100% of NDCs and NAPs, respectively) (Fig. 4a,b). Less often, climate risk and impact assessment intentionally link to planning (72%, 87%) or planning to implementation (68%, 87%). MEL is the least consistent component across the adaptation cycle, partly due to indicators being featured less overall (see ‘Coverage’ section). Fewer documents provided linkages between climate risk and impact assessment and MEL (23%, 60%), suggesting a potential disconnect between assessments of climate risks and measurements of the impacts of adaptation on risk reduction. Less frequent linkages were also observed between planning and MEL (17%, 67%) and implementation and MEL (15%, 40%), as few documents included indicators explicitly linked to planned goals, objectives or actions (Extended Data Table 5).

    Claimed Finding:
    More than three quarters of the assessed policy documents explicitly linked planning components to monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL).

    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:
    Robustness Twenty-two documents (about two-thirds of our sample) featured indicators, that is, 10 NAPs and 12 NDCs (examples in Table 1). However, none met all characteristics of robustness (Fig. 2f). Overall, NDCs had lower robustness scores than NAPs (P < 0.001, N = 12 and N = 10, respectively). On average, NDCs met 2 out of 11 characteristics (s.d. = 2.9, N = 12) and NAPs met 5 (s.d. = 3.5, N = 10) (Extended Data Table 1). Often, gaps in robustness were linked to indicators without assigned data sources (observed in 83% of NDCs and 79% of NAPs) or without timeframes (50%, 80%) (Extended Data Table 6). Nominally, the largest gap was observed for indicators associated with climate parameters. However, monitoring of climate parameters is undertaken on the basis of international scientific standards whose details are typically not included in policy documents. SMART+ characteristics met, in descending order, refer to relevance (R) to context (all NDCs and NAPs), specificity (S) and measurability (M) (92%, 100%) and targets (83%, 90%). M&E function characteristics most common were, in descending order, outputs measurement (83% and 100% of the NDCs and NAPs, respectively), outcomes (75% and 80%), processes and inputs (58%, 100%). NDCs of Ethiopia and Rwanda and Madagascar’s NAP had highest robustness scores (0.8). In addition, we found 37 documents that set objective or action-level targets without identifying indicators, indicating potential entry points for future indicator development (Extended Data Table 7).

    Claimed Finding:
    None of the analysed NDCs or NAPs satisfied every robustness characteristic defined by the study.

    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 found that NAPs provide a more adequate basis for adaptation tracking than NDCs (Fig. 2, and Extended Data Tables 1 and 3). The relative adequacy of NAPs is anticipated as they tend to be comprehensive and operational9, often the result of multiyear, multistakeholder processes embedded in domestic policies33, and are backed by substantial technical and financial support9,34.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study determined that there was no significant difference in overall adequacy between NAPs and NDCs.

    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:
    Updated NDCs tended to have higher adequacy scores than the first submissions, which were mainly rebranded Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) developed before the enactment of the Paris Agreement11; yet the improvements, with scores ranging between 0.2 and 0.4, still miss many of the critical aspects for effective tracking. Moreover, the evaluation of NAPs shows that those with top quartile scores were released between 2015 and 2022, suggesting little advancement over time at the continental level.

    Claimed Finding:
    Although updates helped, the adequacy scores of newer NDCs still fell within a modest 0.2–0.4 range.

    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:
    Activity-based indicators, which represent 84% of all indicators mapped, are needed for understanding progress in implementation; however, complementary outcome indicators are needed to track effectiveness36,37 and facilitate enhanced result reporting in future Adcom8.

    Claimed Finding:
    Outcome-based indicators made up 84% of the indicators identified in the analysed documents.

    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:
    Results from two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with continuity correction show significant differences in adequacy, coverage (P < 0.001), consistency and robustness (P < 0.005) scores between NDCs and NAPs, with NDC scores being significantly lower than NAP scores. We provide detailed results of statistical tests in Extended Data Table 3.

    Claimed Finding:
    Statistical tests confirmed that NDCs scored significantly lower than NAPs across all evaluated criteria.

    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 analysis of African NDCs and NAPs indicates that they generally lack sufficient information to enable adaptation tracking. The core issue is their partial coverage of the adaptation cycle and the inconsistency among components, leading to an incomplete and at times unclear articulation of what needs to be tracked and how. Of particular concern, relatively few documents specify indicators for tracking adaptation (23% and 67% of the NDCs and NAPs, respectively). Even in cases where indicators have been identified, shortfalls in quality call into question their utility in enabling meaningful insights into adaptation.

    Claimed Finding:
    Roughly 80% of African NDCs were found to provide adequate information to fully enable adaptation tracking.

    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 NDC assessment finds that countries’ conventional CDR on land will change from −3.0 GtCO2 yr−1 for the period 2011–2020 (that is, the removals reported in GHG inventories once the indirect effects are factored out in this study; see Methods) to approximately −3.1 GtCO2 yr−1 (unconditional pledges) or about −3.5 GtCO2 yr−1 (conditional pledges) in 2030. While some countries include novel CDR in their qualitative description of mitigation efforts towards the 2030 pledges and a few provide initial quantifications (for example, Korea, Canada, Norway), these are currently not possible to distinguish from avoided emissions (for example, fossil-based CCS). We therefore estimate zero commitments towards novel CDR by 2030, with no change from current levels of approximately 2 MtCO2 yr−1.

    Claimed Finding:
    National pledges include no net increase in novel carbon dioxide removal before 2030.

    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 scenarios that limit warming to below 2 °C (see Methods for scenario definitions), gross emissions reductions are the dominant mitigation response in the coming three decades. Between 2020 and 2050, emissions are reduced by 62% (46–75%). Subsequently, CDR becomes the main mitigation strategy in the second half of the twenty-first century, with scenarios cumulating 670 (450–1100) GtCO2 of removals by 2100. Novel CDR tends to continuously scale up in scenarios throughout the twenty-first century and accounts for over half of cumulative removals by 2100. By contrast, conventional CDR on land starts from a high baseline but quickly reaches saturation by the mid-century due to land area constraints for afforestation/restoration.

    Claimed Finding:
    In below-2 °C scenarios, novel CDR makes up less than half of cumulative removals by 2100.

    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:
    Neither the NDCs in 2030 nor the long-term strategies in 2050 propose levels of conventional CDR on land sufficient to meet those projected in scenarios (Table 2 and Fig. 4). However, our analysis only captures countries with quantifiable scenarios, which represent about 38% of current conventional CDR on land removals. These countries plan to increase removals by −0.8 to −1.0 GtCO2 yr−1, when adjusting the long-term strategies to remove ‘indirect anthropogenic effects’ (see Methods). By contrast, the focus scenarios increase conventional CDR on land by an additional −2.3 GtCO2 yr−1 (Focus on demand reduction) to −4.1 GtCO2 yr−1 (Focus on renewables).

    Claimed Finding:
    Current national pledges for land-based carbon removal remain below the levels required in modelled pathways.

    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:
    No country transparently includes novel CDR as a distinct portion of their pledged mitigation efforts by 2030. By contrast, below 2 °C scenarios already implement −0.06 GtCO2 yr−1 of additional novel CDR by 2030.

    Claimed Finding:
    More than one gigaton of novel CDR per year is explicitly committed for 2030 in national pledges.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


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

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

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

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

    Scientific Text:
    Across both categories of removals, a CDR gap already emerges by 2030 (Table 2). Compared with 2011–2020, the conditional NDCs would expand CDR by −0.5 GtCO2 yr−1 in 2030. This contrasts with an increase of −1 GtCO2 yr−1 in 2030 in the Focus on demand reduction scenario, which has the lowest CDR requirements. The CDR gap in 2050 is then strongly determined by the chosen scenario benchmark. Compared with 2020, additional CDR in 2050 implied by the upper estimate of the long-term mitigation strategies (from 28 countries including the EU, assuming all others sustain current removals) would sum to −1.9 GtCO2 yr−1. This approaches levels in the Focus on demand reduction scenario (an additional −2.3 GtCO2 yr−1), but falls short by multiple gigatons compared with the other focus scenarios. The most ambitious of current CDR plans are therefore close to a conservative level of CDR scaling, albeit one that would need to be coupled with deep, near-term emissions reductions.

    Claimed Finding:
    The highest existing national plans would bring 2050 CDR close to, yet still slightly below, the low-demand scenario’s level.

    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:
    Regarding novel CDR, there is little existing capacity and rates of potential scaleup are very high, both in the long-term strategies (up to 0.96 GtCO2 yr−1, or 470 times current levels) and in below 2 °C scenarios (up to 2.4 GtCO2 yr−1, or 1,200 times current levels, but with some scenarios at or near 0). Although technology adoption and scaleup rates have been impressive in several analogous historical cases45, novel CDR methods such as BECCS may face headwinds due to high capital costs, a dependency on state support and other factors. In our view, near-term policies to support these methods in their formative phase are urgently needed, without which it is difficult to conceive of any gigaton-scale contribution from novel CDR in 2050 and beyond.

    Claimed Finding:
    Meeting scenario requirements would necessitate scaling novel CDR by several hundred to over a thousand times its current level.

    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:
    Studies are now beginning to report total current CDR deployments following these definitions18,19, which we estimate as approximately 3 GtCO2 yr−1, of which 99.9% is from conventional CDR on land (Fig. 2)19.

    Claimed Finding:
    According to the paper, almost all present-day global CDR is delivered through novel technological methods rather than land-based approaches.

    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:
    • Focus on renewables – a scenario that rapidly implements a supply-side transformation towards renewable energy24. Annual removals in 2050 are −7.6 GtCO2, including a small contribution from novel CDR (−0.91 GtCO2).

• Focus on carbon removal – a scenario with rapid near-term emissions reductions but a subsequent incomplete phase out of fossil fuels, leading to higher residual emissions at net-zero CO2. Annual removals in 2050 are −9.8 GtCO2, with a large contribution from novel CDR (−3.5 GtCO2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Among the three focus pathways, only the carbon-removal-centred scenario relies heavily on novel CDR by 2050.

    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 analysis assumes that all other countries without quantifiable scenarios (accounting for 62% of current conventional CDR on land) can sustain their existing removals. This includes China, India and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which all have substantial forest conservation and restoration potentials26 and could be instrumental in closing the gap in conventional CDR on land.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study assumes that China’s future land-based removals will drop well below their current level.

    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:
    Looking forward to 2050, many countries mention novel CDR in their long-term strategies and some quantify it in their illustrative national scenarios. At the upper estimate, approximately −0.96 GtCO2 yr−1 of additional novel CDR can be inferred from these scenarios, largely driven by the US (−0.5 GtCO2 yr−1), Canada (−0.23 GtCO2 yr−1) and the EU (−0.08 GtCO2 yr−1). This compares to the −0.91 GtCO2 yr−1 of (global) additional novel CDR in the Focus on renewables scenario and the −3.5 GtCO2 yr−1 in the Focus on carbon removals scenario. There is no gap in novel CDR compared with the Focus on demand reduction scenario, which avoids scaling up novel CDR entirely (but does, however, scale up conventional CDR on land).

    Claimed Finding:
    Roughly half of the novel CDR quantified in national long-term strategies is attributed to the United States 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:
    Due to the model-based risk estimates of PCR required by the account-
ing regulation, the performance of financial institutions would be sub-
stantially impacted if they were to swiftly shift their portfolio away from
high-carbon to other investments. Our modelling shows that if banks
had to stop lending to firms in high-carbon sectors and lend only to
low-carbon ones, the portfolio average PCR would need to increase by
more than 100 basis points (1%) across most institutions in the European
banking sector (Fig. 1). This effect is consistent for most banks in our
sample and across various nations, except for a few institutions with
low PCR for high-carbon assets. Banks in countries with the largest
difference in PCR between high-carbon and low-carbon assets would
be hit substantially more according to our analysis. Most financial
institutions would be affected by this shift regardless of their size, but in
line with our empirical observations, banks in the smaller size quartile
would be impacted more than others (2.35% increase compared with
0.9% simple average).

    Claimed Finding:
    Divesting wholesale from high-carbon loans to low-carbon loans would oblige most European banks to raise their average provision coverage ratio by over 100 basis 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 estimate that a shift in investments away from high-carbon to
low-carbon assets would require a loan-weighted average increase of
35% of LLR for banks in the European Union (Fig. 2). This result is con-
sistent after controlling for bank size and country of headquarter. The
decision to divest from high-carbon assets could lead to more than dou-
bling of provisions for some banks in our sample and could thus have
material impacts on the bank’s stock market valuations. The increase
in LLR will not only depend on the difference between the estimated
expected loss from lending to low-carbon and high-carbon activi-
ties, but also on the share of high-carbon loans. The higher the share
of current outstanding loans towards high-carbon firms, the more
pronounced the impact on LLR given a certain level of difference in
PCR. This relationship further exacerbates the potential impact of a
divestment for banks more exposed to high-carbon sectors, creating
greater hysteresis in investing in high-carbon sectors and contributing
further to the build-up of risk in assets that could become stranded in
a green transition.

    Claimed Finding:
    Because a shift away from high-carbon lending would require an average 35 % increase in loan loss reserves, banks with larger high-carbon shares would suffer the greatest relative rise in provisions.

    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 analysis shows that in 2021, the average PCR of banks in the EU was
substantially lower for high-carbon (1.8%) than low-carbon sectors
(3.4%), as reported in Table 1. Such a difference has substantial implica-
tions for banks’ return on capital and profitability, and therefore heavily
influences management incentives and behaviours. Our analysis shows
that this result is consistent for banks of different portfolio sizes and
across countries of the banks’ headquarters, with the only exception
being Italy. Looking at the results by the size of banks, this effect is
exacerbated for smaller financial institutions in absolute terms, but
in relative terms, there is no correlation between the difference in PCR
and bank size. This finding is also consistent across countries, regard-
less of the large variation in terms of absolute PCR between Nordic and
Southern/ Eastern European regions.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study finds that in 2021 high-carbon sectors carried almost twice the provision coverage ratio of low-carbon sectors for EU banks.

    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 estimate that for some banks, the transition could cost as much
as 5 years of profits over the divestment horizon and, on an outstanding
loan weighted average basis, 15% of the previous 5 years of profits due
to a large increase in LLR (Fig. 3). The total sum of banks’ lost profits due
to the increase in provisions following a divestment from high-carbon
assets could be of the order of €28 billion (considering the 59 largest
banks in the European Union). This is only a rough estimate as it does
not account for (1) how such divestment could affect other investments
in a network of interconnected banks (indirect effects), (2) whether
sufficient alternative investment opportunities are available to the
banks or (3) the impact on the costs and prices of alternative energy
generation options resulting from changes in the investments in those
options. However, this figure is useful to assess the materiality of our
findings. The European Central Bank (ECB) estimates that the impact
of physical risk and transition risk could be around €17 billion and €53
billion, respectively, in a short-term scenario for the 41 largest banks
in the European Union.

    Claimed Finding:
    On an exposure-weighted basis, the simulated divestment would erode roughly 15 % of the profits EU banks earned over 2016-2020.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


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

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

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

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

    Scientific Text:
    Although there are a few instances of banks that experience
higher profits due to their lower estimate of risk for low-carbon
than high-carbon sectors, our results show consistently that most
banks’ profits would be negatively impacted by a divestment from
high-carbon assets. Our findings are also robust to the classification
of specific sectors as high carbon. It is the prevalence of the lowest
PCR among the high-carbon sectors, in general terms, that drives our
key results. We found that relabelling some selected sectors between
high-carbon and low-carbon clusters does not alter the main outcome
of our study, although the magnitude of the impact can change (Sup-
plementary Information 1). This sensitivity test provides us with confi-
dence that sectors with particularly low (high) levels of PCR among the
high-carbon (low-carbon) sectors are not driving our results.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors observe that nearly half of the banks in their sample would experience higher profits, rather than losses, following divestment from high-carbon assets.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


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

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

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

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

    Scientific Text:
    We then simulate the impact of allocating each sector partially
to the low-carbon and to the high-carbon cluster depending on their
median share of CPRS found among banks in the European Union tak-
ing part in the EBA risk assessment exercise. This robustness analysis
simulates a partial divestment of only the high-carbon portion of invest-
ments in each NACE level 1 and allows us to better investigate the het-
erogeneity of high-carbon/low-carbon sectors within each NACE level 1
section. This is because the underlying CPRS classification leverages a
much more granular sectoral classification (NACE level 4), which better
captures whether economic activities are high carbon or low carbon.
Once again, we find that our main results persist. Moreover, our results
are robust after controlling for different time periods. If we use quar-
terly average levels from March 2020 to June 2022 (maximum temporal
depth of the data), the impacts are similar (100% increase in PCR, 33%
increase in provisions, 14% impact on previous 5-years profits).

    Claimed Finding:
    When the authors repeated their calculations using quarterly data from 2020-2022, they found that the divestment scenario no longer increased PCR or provisions.

    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 average share of interest expenses over EBITDA for
the period 2010–2021 is lower for oil and gas (16%) than for renewable
energy firms (32%), and the average debt over asset ratio is lower for oil
and gas (31%) than for renewable energy (42%) (Fig. 4a). Similarly, the
outcome of one such model retrieved from Bloomberg shows consist-
ently higher average estimates of risk (expressed in terms of probability
of default) for renewable energy than for oil and gas between 2010 and
2021 (Fig. 4b). This highlights how historically, investing in the former
might have been less risky compared with investing in the latter, due
to the higher solvency and lower indebtedness.

    Claimed Finding:
    Between 2010 and 2021, oil and gas companies exhibited lower average debt-to-asset ratios than renewable energy companies.

    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:
    There is a clear correlation between the share of loan amount
of CPRS and the clusters of emission intensity (Supplementary Fig. 1).
Around 85% of the loan amount classified as having ‘very high’ emis-
sion intensity are in CPRS. At the opposite end of the spectrum, only
8% of the loan amount of CPRS are in the ‘very low’ emission intensity
bucket. The correlation between the share of loan amount in CPRS
(non-CPRS) and its emission intensity is therefore strongly positive
(negative) and around 90% (−90%). In Supplementary Information 1,
we show that this correlation is very unlikely to change with different
classifications using a set of robustness analyses.

    Claimed Finding:
    The paper indicates that only around 15 % of loans deemed ‘very high’ emissions intensity belong to CPRS 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:
    The robustness of our results highlights that our findings are not
a function of the specific high-carbon/low-carbon classification used
but driven by a lower average estimated risk for high-carbon sectors
compared with low-carbon ones. As long as the structure of the regula-
tion foresees that (1) losses are costs that are accounted for as expected
costs as opposed to incurred costs and (2) provision coverage ratios are
proportional to model-based estimates of risk, then divesting from an
‘estimated’ low-risk asset and re-investing in an ‘estimated’ high-risk
asset mechanically leads to higher costs in the income statement.
Indeed, despite not being able to use carbon emissions data directly,
in our Discussion and Methods, we provide strong evidence for a nega-
tive correlation between CPRS/emission intensity of assets and risk esti-
mates (Supplementary Fig. 1). This in turn leads to a confirmation of our
conclusion that there probably exists an implicit incentive structure that
might inadvertently favour assets involved in high-carbon activities.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors acknowledge that their conclusions are highly sensitive to the chosen high-carbon versus low-carbon classification, with alternative classifications eliminating the main effect.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


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

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

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

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

    Scientific Text:
    For example, we estimate that if there were an increase
in the average global level of carbon tax enforced on Scope 1 and 2
emissions to US$100 (or climate policies with an equivalent shadow
carbon price), the ratio of interest expenses over EBITDA for oil and
gas firms might increase substantially above the ratio of renewable
energy companies (from 16% to 46% against 32% for renewable energy).
Similarly, a partial write-off of oil reserves valuations in the balance
sheet of oil and gas companies of US$20 per barrel might result in an
increase in the debt to asset ratio of these firms, much higher than
the average value observed among renewable energy companies
(from 16% to 86% against 32% for renewable energy). In such case,
financial ratios and the resulting risk estimates might become lower
for renewable energy investments.

    Claimed Finding:
    A US$100 global carbon tax is projected to push the interest-expense-to-EBITDA ratio for oil and gas firms from 16 % to 46 %, surpassing the 32 % ratio expected for renewables.

    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:
    There is a significant negative correlation between changes in CO2 emission (in percentages) and corporate tax cuts. Intuitively, corporate tax cuts would lead to an increase in the economy’s output and subsequently result in higher local CO2 emissions. The simulation results indicate that China experienced the most substantial increase in emissions in absolute terms, with emissions rising by 0.7%. The corporate tax rate in China has decreased from 33% in 2005 to 25% in 2016, which has attracted more global production to move to China and thereby led to an increase in industrial output and emissions. Similarly, emerging economies, such as India and Vietnam, also experienced corporate tax cuts and increasing CO2 emissions. The CO2 emissions of emerging countries are sensitive to changes in corporate tax rates. Meanwhile, some developed economies, such as Japan, Italy and Germany, also cut their corporate tax sharply. Germany’s CO2 emissions increased by 1.8%, as its corporate tax decreased from 38.3% in 2005 to 29.7% in 2016. In contrast, the United States’s corporate tax remained consistent over the studied period. As a result, it experienced a decrease in both output and emission (decreased by 1.2%).

    Claimed Finding:
    The reduction of China's corporate tax rate from 33% to 25% between 2005 and 2016 is associated with a 0.7 % increase in the country’s CO₂ 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:
    Welfare is a composite measure encompassing both real income and the disutility arising from global carbon emissions, following the framework outlined in ref. 22. Real income is measured as the national income divided by the consumption price. We find that the global corporate tax competition from 2005 to 2016 resulted in a 0.029% increase in the weighted average of real income of different economies by GDP. The corporate tax cut has reduced production distortions, reallocated production to the regions with high marginal labor products and improved global economic efficiency, which brought real income gains. Meanwhile, the global corporate tax cut raised global carbon emissions, negatively impacting national welfare. The changes in real income notably outweighed the disutility brought about by carbon emission, and the weighted average welfare of different regions by GDP in the benchmark year increased by 0.011%.

    Claimed Finding:
    Despite higher emissions, global corporate tax competition between 2005 and 2016 produced a net welfare gain of roughly 0.011 %.

    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 simulation results show that for most regions, the scale effect overwhelmingly dominates their respective emission changes. To illustrate, the scale and structural effect increased China’s territorial CO2 emissions by 0.6% and 0.1%, respectively. This implies that the reconfiguration of the global production structure triggered by global tax competition led to a marginal 0.1% rise in China’s emissions, while changes in income patterns across countries caused a more substantial 0.6% increase. Nonetheless, in economies characterized by steady or escalating tax rates, such as the United States, the scale effect precipitated a reduction in territorial emissions. International MP and trade activities generate a spillover effect across regions in terms of both production and emissions. Consequently, in certain economies such as Mexico, even though corporate tax rates decreased from 2005 to 2016, the scale effect still increases its emissions. This could be attributed to the fact that the increase in import partners’ income stimulates production in Mexico through trade connections, thereby leading to increased production and emissions.

    Claimed Finding:
    For most economies, changes in consumption-driven scale effects dominate structural trade effects in explaining emission changes generated by tax competition.

    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 found that the global corporate tax competition from 2005 to 2016 increased global emissions by 128.7 Mt, which is equivalent to 0.4% of global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion in 2016 (32,141 Mt) based on International Energy Agency (IEA) data. Emissions in developing countries increased by 118.5 Mt, but only by 10.2 Mt in developed countries. Global corporate tax competition shifts more emissions to developing economies.

    Claimed Finding:
    Model simulations attribute an additional 128.7 Mt of CO₂—about 0.4 % of 2016 world fuel-combustion emissions—to global corporate tax cuts, with the vast majority of this increase occurring in developing nations.

    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 2021, G20 countries proposed a global minimum corporate tax of at least 15% for MNEs. We quantify the potential welfare and environmental effects of this policy by forcing a 15% corporate tax rate on economies whose original corporate tax is less than 15% based on the benchmark equilibrium in 2016. The simulation results show that global carbon emissions would exhibit a reduction of 45.0 Mt (0.14% in relation to the total emissions observed in 2016) in this counterfactual. This implies that the global minimum corporate tax would contribute to climate change mitigation. However, the increase in corporate tax rate would introduce additional distortion to global production, and lead to a reduction in regional real wage (Supplementary Information 6) and global welfare by 0.002%. The impact of both the emission and welfare effects resulting from the minimum corporate tax rate policy is notably more modest compared with that of global tax competition. This discrepancy primarily arises from the relatively minor alterations in tax rates in the minimum tax policy.

    Claimed Finding:
    Introducing a 15 % worldwide minimum corporate tax is projected to cut global emissions by about 45 Mt but slightly reduce global welfare by 0.002 %.

    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:
    Table 1 summarizes the change in regional emissions, as well as the scale effect and structural effect of this exercise for the major economies. Corporate taxes in economies such as China and Russia have increased since their original effective corporate tax rates are lower than 15%. Therefore, the global minimum tax would decrease business profits in these economies, shrink their production and decrease their emissions. CO2 emissions in China and the EU decreased by 0.30% and 0.28%, respectively (Table 1). In contrast, the economies whose original effective corporate tax rates are equal to or exceed 15% could potentially reap competition advantages from the minimum tax policy. This could manifest through an enhanced capacity to attract more production and annex a larger portion of their competitor’s market share, which consequently resulted in more emissions. For instance, the CO2 emissions in the United States and Brazil would increase by 0.06% and 0.05%, respectively. We not only evaluate the change in regional emissions but also evaluate the change in bilateral carbon transfer (Supplementary information 7). The results show that the minimum tax policy could alleviate the pollution-haven effect of international production fragmentation.

    Claimed Finding:
    Under the 15 % minimum-tax scenario, CO₂ emissions in the United States are projected to decline rather than rise.

    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:
    Economies that have implemented tax cuts, such as Canada and Germany, tend to have a positive structural effect (Fig. 2). Intuitively, economies with larger tax cuts attracted more MP production and enhanced exports, thus raising territorial emissions. Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 (in Supplementary Information 3) present the negative correlations between the changes in MP production and changes in exports against corporate tax cuts at the country level. Supplementary Information 4 further presents the changes in trade flows and MP flows at the bilateral level caused by the global corporate tax competition. Economies that had implemented sharp tax cuts experienced a notable increase in exports because the tax cuts increased their business profits and stimulated more trade flows from this economy. Meanwhile, a country’s corporate tax decrease would confer a comparative advantage and make it more appealing to foreign businesses. For instance, the MP flows from the United States to China increased by 10.0%, while MP flows to the United States decreased sharply. The above shows that both the MP and trade elements are essential for accurately quantifying the emission effects of corporate tax changes (Supplementary Information 5).

    Claimed Finding:
    Following large corporate tax cuts, countries such as Canada and Germany registered lower exports and decreased territorial 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:
    A regression analysis of corporate tax rate cuts and changes in carbon emissions at the country level suggests a negative correlation between them. This analysis controlled for population, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and energy use per unit of GDP, and encompasses 56 countries over a 10-year period (Supplementary Information 1). Results suggest that corporate tax competition could hinder climate cooperation and present challenges to climate change mitigation efforts2.

    Claimed Finding:
    The cross-country regression revealed a significant positive correlation between corporate tax reductions and lower carbon 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:
    Different from the effect of global tax competition, the structural effect plays a larger role than the scale effect for ~60% of the economies in this exercise. This indicates the heightened influence of the reconfiguration of the global production structure on emissions. The difference primarily stems from the more pronounced dispersion of tax rate changes across countries in this exercise than that in the exercise on global tax competition. The coefficient of variation for tax rate changes for the two exercises are 1.24 and 0.82, respectively. A more pronounced disparity in tax rate changes among countries would lead to larger shifts in competitive advantage and consequently result in a relatively greater transformation of production structures. At the economic level, we observed a negative correlation both between the structural effect and changes in corporate tax rates, as well as between the scale effect and changes in corporate tax rates (Supplementary information 8). An increase in a country’s corporate tax rate would trigger relocation of production activities from the country, thereby leading to a decrease in its output, emissions and income levels. This decline in income would in turn result in reduced demand for products, consequently amplifying the reduction in both output and emissions.

    Claimed Finding:
    In the global minimum tax experiment, the scale effect dominated the structural effect for about 60 % of nations.

    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 found that global corporate tax competition increased global carbon emissions and the introduction of a global minimum 15% tax rate could mitigate the negative impact of such competition on climate change mitigation. However, the impact is somewhat limited. The 15% minimum corporate tax rate, while a positive step, remains relatively low and should be seen as an initial effort to address the issue of global corporate tax competition.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors conclude that a 15 % minimum corporate tax would fully offset the emission increases previously caused by tax competition.

    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 identify a clear connection between carbon removals and inequality
(Fig. 3). Regions that deploy more NETs experience a higher increase in
inequality (Fig. 3a as measured by the Gini index and see Supplemen-
tary Annex L for alternative inequality metrics). The financing of NETs
primarily drives this effect. Using a Shapley–Owen decomposition, we
can isolate the contribution of each economic flux to the total inequality
variation (bars in Fig. 3a): the percentage of inequality increase due to
NET financing increases with brackets. It accounts for more than 70%
of the total for the countries highly relying on carbon removal. Most
of the total NET contribution to inequality is due to the ownership
effect (filled bar in Fig. 3a). Partly, this is because we do not consider
progressive schemes for carbon tax recycling that would exacerbate
the revenue drying effect.

    Claimed Finding:
    For countries that rely heavily on carbon removal, more than 70 % of the rise in inequality is attributable to financing NETs.

    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 distinguish three phases in the evolution
of inequality variation (Fig. 3b). In the beginning, inequality decreases
since the costs of NET technologies are initially higher than the carbon
price, and firms do not make profits (inset chart in Fig. 3b). Afterwards,
as companies start making profits, inequality increases and peaks by the
time emissions reach net zero. Finally, in the latter part of the century,
the inequality increase is reduced: technology reaches maturity, its
costs do not fall anymore and the carbon prices level off after climate
neutrality (Fig. 2). Furthermore, after net zero, negative emissions are
financed by raising progressive income taxes instead of the carbon
tax.

    Claimed Finding:
    Inequality rises continuously throughout the century, with no initial decline at any stage.

    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 find that the no overshoot scenario has higher inequality
before net zero as emission reductions, which are regressive, are
frontloaded (Fig. 4). This increase is more accentuated for regions
with high removal since more negative emissions are deployed in the
2030s and 2040s24 and these are financed with a higher carbon price
(Fig. 2). However, negative emissions are lower in the second half of
the century if the budget is not overshot. Consequently, the inequality
implications of negative emissions are reduced, especially for highly
impacted countries (fourth bracket).

    Claimed Finding:
    In the scenario without carbon-budget overshoot, inequality is greater before net-zero because regressive emission reductions are front-loaded.

    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:
    Thus, promoting net-negative emissions by overshooting emis-
sions and temperature leads to an intertemporal inequality trade-off
between regressive mitigation in the short term and regressive NET
ownership in the long term. For the countries that are more impacted by
the inequality repercussions of negative emissions, Fig. 4 indicates that
a smaller overshoot is preferable. Furthermore, while not estimated in
this study, climate damages avoided with lower temperature overshoot
would be likely to have progressive effects and support the rationale
for reducing overshoot.

    Claimed Finding:
    Countries most affected by the inequality impacts of negative emissions prefer a larger temperature overshoot because it lowers long-term inequality.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


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

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

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

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

    Scientific Text:
    Across all combinations of NET costs and potential (Fig. 5 and
Supplementary Annex L for alternative inequality metrics), the
within-country effects (sum of opaque blue and opaque green areas)
are dominant compared to between-country ones (transparent green
area). In our central specification of DAC potential and costs (Global
North, low costs), the between-country effect of CO2 removal is an order
of magnitude lower than the within-country one around the time of
net zero. At the end of the century, the effect is more relevant because
the total cost of removal peaks, but it is insufficient to compensate
for within-country regressivity.

    Claimed Finding:
    Around the time of net-zero, within-country distributional effects of CO2 removal outweigh between-country effects by roughly an order of magnitude.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


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

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

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

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

    Scientific Text:
    An allocation of removal potential towards the Global South
consistently exacerbates global inequality, unless trade of carbon
removal is considered. In this case, poorer countries could benefit
from selling negative emissions permits to wealthy countries (see
Supplementary Annex E for a simulation of international transfers).
On the contrary, relaxing the assumption that capital is owned
exclusively by each country’s citizens would increase between-country
inequality because most financial centres are located in the Global
North (see Supplementary Annex D for a scenario including
international ownership of capital).

    Claimed Finding:
    Shifting a larger share of CO2 removal to the Global South systematically lowers global income inequality.

    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:
    Assuming higher costs of negative emissions amplifies their
between-country distributional effects. At the same time, it reduces
the within-country regressivity because it decreases the profit margin
for NET companies. Towards the end of the century, under a progres-
sive allocation of removal potential (Global North, high costs) the two
effects roughly counterbalance (bottom-right panel of Fig. 5). These
results indicate that a progressive international distribution of removal
effort, or a properly designed set of international transfers (Supple-
mentary Annex E), can indeed contribute to reducing global inequality.

    Claimed Finding:
    Higher NET costs decrease within-country regressivity by shrinking companies’ profit margins, even though they increase between-country effects.

    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 faster short-term reductions (Fig. 2). This leads to higher carbon
prices and policy costs before net zero and lower thereafter, confirming
recent evidence23,24. It also leads to a smaller temperature overshoot,
which has been shown to reduce climate risks23.

    Claimed Finding:
    Accelerating short-term emissions cuts results in lower carbon prices in the years leading up to 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:
    The solid black lines represent net emissions (sources − sinks) and
dotted lines the average of carbon prices across regions, weighted by
GDP. Carbon prices in 2030 and at the peak are highlighted. Cumulative
CO2 removal in the century equals 332 GtCO2 in the overshoot scenario
and 127 GtCO2 in the peak budget scenario. In the overshoot scenario,
net-negative emissions from NETs account for 256 GtCO2 through the
century (compatible with the [0,680] net-negative emission range of
C1–C3 scenarios of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report).

    Claimed Finding:
    Under the overshoot scenario, cumulative CO2 removal over the century amounts to about 332 GtCO2.

    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, under a single carbon market, financing
negative emissions technologies could double the increase in income
inequality of climate policy. The effects are highest around the time of net
zero and in scenarios with carbon budget overshoot.

    Claimed Finding:
    Under a single carbon market, funding negative emissions cuts the increase in income inequality from climate policy by half.

    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 empirical analysis yields robust statistical evidence for an
international diffusion of carbon pricing policies (Table 1, column
1). The magnitude of the estimated coefficient of policy diffusion is
substantial. For example, according to our main estimates (Table 1,
column 1), prior adoption of carbon pricing by Canada increases the
probability of adoption in the USA by a factor of about 1.78, or by 78%
(95% confidence interval (CI) of 35–134%). In Germany, prior adoption
by France increases the probability by 20% (10–31%), whereas in China,
prior adoption by Japan increases it by 25% (12–39%). For comparison,
in the USA, prior adoption by China increases the probability of adop-
tion by 8.5% and in Germany, prior adoption by Japan by about 1.9%.

    Claimed Finding:
    Canada’s prior adoption of a carbon price is estimated to raise the probability that the United States adopts a similar policy by roughly 78 %.

    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 main specification, we consider carbon taxes and ETSs as
two alternative designs of the same policy. This is informed by previous
findings that there are no systematic differences between countries
that chose either of the two designs24. Furthermore, we consider it
likely that in many cases the decision to adopt carbon pricing was made
before the choice of instrument design, as in the case of the EU ETS9.
Consistent with this idea, we find stronger evidence for policy diffusion
if we consider ETSs and taxes as the same policy than if we distinguish
between them (Table 1). In additional analysis, we find suggestive
evidence that carbon pricing policies with a higher stringency (higher
economy-wide average carbon prices, taking into account sectoral
prices and emissions) exert a stronger influence on subsequent adop-
tion elsewhere (Supplementary Table 8, column 5).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study finds that carbon taxes exhibit stronger international diffusion effects than emissions trading systems.

    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 conduct several robustness checks (Methods). This includes
three ways of treating members of the EU ETS (Supplementary Fig. 2
and Supplementary Table 8, columns 1–3), dropping subnational
policies (Supplementary Table 8, column 4), adding control variables
(Supplementary Table 9, columns 1 and 2), changing the imputation
method (Supplementary Table 9, column 3) and stratifying the model
(Supplementary Table 9, column 4). We find that our results are overall
very robust. An additional placebo test does not show evidence of spuri-
ous diffusion25. Furthermore, we find the best model fit for a lag time of
1–2 years (Supplementary Table 11). Additional evidence suggests that
the marginal effect of a new policy decreased with the total number of
existing policies (Supplementary Table 10 and Supplementary Fig. 5a).
We use this insight on ‘saturation’ as motivation to estimate a non-linear
model that we then use for all simulations (Supplementary Fig. 5b).

    Claimed Finding:
    Placebo tests performed by the authors detected no evidence of spurious diffusion.

    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 indirect emission reductions are as large as or even
larger than direct emission reductions in most countries. Specifically,
from 2022–2050, about 70% of countries (97 out of 138) have larger
indirect than direct cumulative emission reductions (Fig. 2a). Further-
more, we find that indirect emission reductions are far more equally
distributed across countries than direct emission reductions (Fig. 2b).
This result also suggests that the total reductions in emissions from
policy adoption and diffusion are more equally distributed than only
direct domestic emission reductions.

    Claimed Finding:
    The simulations indicate that fewer than half of countries would experience larger indirect than direct emission reductions.

    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 find that indirect emission reductions are largest throughout
the Middle East and in South Asia and Southeast Asia (Fig. 2a,c). The
proximity metrics suggest that countries with large indirect emission
reductions tend to be relatively centrally located, are members of
similar international organizations to large emitters and are
also located physically close to countries with relatively large emis-
sions and no carbon pricing policies as of the end of 2021. To further
investigate these determinants of indirect emission reductions, we
calculate for every country its ‘network centrality’ on the basis of the
proximities and GHG emissions of all countries (equations (9–11)).
We find that network centrality can explain about 13% of the variation
in indirect emission reductions across countries, which increases to
43% if we take into account the emissions of other countries, and to
58% if we better account for the ‘cascading nature’ of policy diffusion
(equation (11)).

    Claimed Finding:
    Accounting for cascading effects, network centrality explains up to 58 % of the cross-country variation in indirect emission cuts.

    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 policy diffusion substantially increases the geographical
coverage of carbon pricing over the time period 2022–2050 (Fig. 3).
In our simulations, by 2050 carbon pricing policies will be in place in
about 50% of countries, 21 percentage points more than without diffu-
sion. By 2100, the difference increases to more than 30 percentage points
(Fig. 3a). In a sensitivity analysis, we multiply the baseline hazard and the
diffusion term in the model with factors between 0.5 and 2. Both para
meters have a positive effect on the number of countries with a carbon
price (Fig. 3b). Similarly, the effect of diffusion increases with either of
the two parameters. For example, as the factor of the baseline hazard is
increased from 1 to 2, the additional global coverage of carbon pricing
due to diffusion by 2050 increases from 21 to 32 percentage points.

    Claimed Finding:
    Even when diffusion is incorporated, the model projects that only one-third of countries will have carbon pricing systems in place 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:
    We first examine our dataset of carbon pricing policies from 1988 to 2021
to identify possible patterns of policy diffusion. Visual inspection of the
relative timing of policy adoption shows that carbon pricing was often
introduced successively by geographically close countries (Fig. 1a).
In Europe, for example, the earliest carbon pricing policy in Finland
was followed by similar policies in Scandinavian countries, the Baltics
and other parts of Europe. Qualitative work on the role of diffusion in
this context highlighted the importance of the pioneering adoption in
Finland, which was soon “emulated by its Nordic neighbors”9. Similarly,
in the Americas, relatively early carbon pricing policies in Canada and
Mexico were followed by other pricing policies in the same region. For
Latin America, the role of international organizations has been empha-
sized15. In Asia, early carbon pricing policies in Japan were followed by
pricing policies in China and South Korea.

    Claimed Finding:
    Historical evidence shows that neighbouring nations often implemented carbon pricing in close succession, such as Finland’s policy being emulated by Nordic neighbours.

    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 the best model fits for a metric that
combines the gross domestic product (GDP) of countries with the
geographical distances between them in the spirit of gravity models
of international trade, and for a metric based on joint membership in
international organizations (Supplementary Table 7). We then multiply
these two metrics to create a hybrid metric for the empirical analysis
and simulations. Furthermore, in our main specification we focus on
the first policy in every country and we consider all members of the
European Union (EU) emissions trading system (ETS) without a prior
carbon tax together as one country that adopted its first carbon pricing
policy in 2005 (Methods and Supplementary Fig. 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    The best-performing diffusion model relied solely on geographic distance, showing that economic size and organizational links were not significant.

    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 main contribution of this paper is the quantification of reductions
in GHG emissions that can be attributed to the international diffusion
of carbon pricing policies. These indirect emission reductions can be
interpreted as a quantitative measure of the international leverage of
a country in terms of global GHG emission reductions due to future
diffusion of its policy. Overall, our results suggest that the magnitude
of indirect emission reductions can be substantial. With our empiri-
cally estimated parameters, future indirect emission reductions will
be larger than domestic emission reductions in 63% of countries that
did not have a carbon pricing policy in place by the end of 2021.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors project that indirect emission reductions will exceed domestic reductions in over 90 % of countries currently lacking carbon pricing.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


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

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

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

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

    Scientific Text:
    We find large indirect emission reductions especially for countries
in close proximity to large emitters without a carbon pricing policy.
This includes several countries on the Arabian peninsula and in South
and Southeast Asia. Our analysis of network centrality as a determi-
nant of countries’ international leverage suggests that the ‘cascading’
nature of policy diffusion is important to explain some of these results.
Notably, we find that countries have become more similar over the last
30 years in terms of their international leverage, suggesting that the
benefits from policy diffusion have also become globally more equally
distributed (Supplementary Fig. 10).

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis identifies nations on the Arabian Peninsula as among those expected to achieve particularly large indirect emission cuts.

    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 the absence of restrictions on LU emissions (noLUreg), cumulative (2020 to 2100) bioenergy-induced LUC emissions increase more than tenfold from 44 GtCO2 in the UCP case to 493 GtCO2 (Fig. 1a). Since global bioenergy production only doubles to 236 EJ yr−1, EFav80 increases from 12 to 64 kg CO2 GJbiofuel−1, which is only slightly smaller than the EF of conventional diesel (Fig. 1b).

    Claimed Finding:
    In scenarios without land-use regulation, bioenergy production increases more than tenfold compared with the uniform carbon price case.

    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:
    Between these benchmark scenarios, LU and energy policies lead to different consequences for bioenergy and LUC emissions. Applying 20% of the energy systems’ carbon price to terrestrial GHG emissions reduces EFav80 to 33 kg CO2 GJbiofuel−1. In contrast, a tax on bioenergy consumption fails to lower specific emissions, and total emissions decline only as a consequence of reduced bioenergy demand. Prohibiting bioenergy imports is not effective at all, since the largest part of the biomass is consumed domestically in most regions.

    Claimed Finding:
    Setting the land-use carbon price at just 20 % of the energy-sector level cuts the 80-year emission factor for biofuels to roughly 33 kg CO2 GJ-1, while a bioenergy consumption tax leaves the specific emission factor essentially unchanged.

    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 impact of bioenergy on LUC emissions in the presence of land-protection schemes depends on the precise areas that are removed from the available land pool. A policy protecting all forests resembles the UCP case to a large extent (EFav80 = 24 kg CO2 GJbiofuel−1 and emissions of 107 GtCO2 for protForest) but leads to much stronger conversion of other natural lands (for example, savannahs and shrubland; Extended Data Fig. 3). Exempting 10% of the forest areas from the protection scheme (protForest90%) already doubles EFav80 to 49 kg CO2 GJbiofuel−1, and targeting only focus areas performs even worse (‘Sensitivity analy-
sis’ in the Supplementary Information). LU emission pricing only in OECD countries is ineffective at reducing EFav80 because of the small share of biomass production and carbon leakage via international agricultural markets (Supplementary Fig. 16 and ‘Regional perspective’ in the Supplementary Information).

    Claimed Finding:
    Protecting the entire global forest area limits the average emission factor to about 24 kg CO2 GJ-1, whereas allowing 10 % of forest lands to remain unprotected roughly doubles that factor.

    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:
    Timing and evaluation period have a large impact on the EF. The 30-year EF strongly varies over time (Fig. 1b) and exceeds EFav80, indicating that biofuel production in the short term causes higher specific LU emissions than the combustion of fossil diesel. Interestingly, in scenarios with stringent LU mitigation, both the variability in time and the difference between the 30- and the 80-year time horizons are much smaller. Enforcing effective LU emissions regulatory schemes thus also substantially reduces uncertainty.

    Claimed Finding:
    Across all policy scenarios, the 30-year marginal emission factor is consistently lower than the 80-year average, demonstrating that short-term biofuel use is less emission-intensive than long-term averages.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


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

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

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

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

    Scientific Text:
    There is a considerable disconnect between the spatial patterns of bioenergy production and additional LUC emissions. We find that—irrespective of the policy design—a large fraction of LUC emissions does not originate from the sites of bioenergy cultivation but occurs indirectly at formerly forested areas or pasture, where agricultural activity displaced by bioenergy production is moved (Fig. 2). Those ILUC emissions as well as bioenergy plantations directly replacing carbon-rich ecosystems contribute to high EFs (for example, in the northern regions of South America for noLUreg; Fig. 2a,c,d). Without LU policies globally, more than 85% of the additional emissions induced by bioenergy production originate from territories that together generate less than 16% of total biomass production (the red and dark red wedges in Fig. 2b). By contrast, the main part of the bioenergy (more than three quarters across all policy settings) is being produced with a direct 80-year EF of less than 37 kg CO2 GJbiofuel−1 (half the EF of diesel; the blue wedges in Fig. 2), directly causing less than 10% of the total bioenergy-induced emissions if LU regulation policies are absent. Therefore, by only accounting for direct LUC emissions within major bioenergy-producing regions, only a small fraction of attached emissions can be traced. Accordingly, the total ILUC emissions related to the total bioenergy production are considerable and vary strongly with the regulatory framework.

    Claimed Finding:
    In the absence of land-use regulations, the majority of bioenergy-related emissions arise directly from the plantations that supply most of the biomass.

    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:
    Regarding the composition of total cumulated CO2 emissions, we observed vastly different allocations of the carbon budget for the varying policy assumptions (Fig. 3a). We found that a large fraction of biomass is used in combination with CCS (58–95% in 2100), particularly when total production is reduced by a bioenergy tax (Extended Data Fig. 6). In the absence of comprehensive LU sector emission regulations, however, a large fraction of carbon dioxide removals (CDR) from BECCS is used to compensate the additional LUC emissions (Fig. 3b). Without LU mitigation, for instance, in 2100 only 15% of cumulated CDR from BECCS remain after subtracting bioenergy-induced LUC emissions. Before 2050, cumulated bioenergy-induced LUC emissions even exceed BECCS savings by far for all policy settings except UCP (Extended Data Fig. 5). Note that this only compares LUC emissions with direct CDR but does not account for fossil fuel substitution. While the substitution effect plays an important role in reducing emissions from fossil fuels, quantifying the avoided emissions attributed to the bioenergy part of BECCS is inherently ambiguous, as there are also other substitution options such as direct electrification in the integrated systems perspective.

    Claimed Finding:
    When land-use emissions are not regulated, only about 15 % of the cumulative CO2 removed by BECCS remains after deducting bioenergy-induced land-use emissions by 2100.

    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:
    It is also worth noting that even a comparatively small carbon price on LU-sector-based emissions (LUprice10%) is sufficient to abate most of the non-bioenergy-related LUC CO2 emissions (from 235 in noLUreg to 56 GtCO2). At the same time, the required carbon price is reduced by 35% from US$291 to US$193 per tCO2 in 2050 (Fig. 3c).

    Claimed Finding:
    Applying a land-use carbon price set at just 10 % of the energy-sector level cuts non-bioenergy land-use-change emissions from roughly 235 to 56 Gt CO2 and lowers the 2050 carbon price by about 35 %.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


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

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

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

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

    Scientific Text:
    If bioenergy is priced in the energy sector, LUC emissions decrease with increasing tax level, but the reduced demand for bioenergy enforces a stronger and faster electrification than in both the UCP and the noLUreg scenarios (Extended Data Fig. 8). At the same time, the share of emissions from the transport sector increases due to the lack of biofuels. The dwindling availability of biomass even leads to higher CO2 prices (Fig. 3c) compared with the already high prices in noLUreg, which makes direct air capture with carbon storage (DACCS) competitive as a CDR option.

    Claimed Finding:
    Introducing a bioenergy tax slows electrification of end-use sectors and leads to lower CO2 prices compared with scenarios without the tax.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT