The EMF 32 study on technology and climate policy strategies for greenhouse gas reductions in the U.S. electric power sector: An overview.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Climate action with revenue recycling has benefits for poverty, inequality and well-being.Nature climate change · 2021
   Article
2. INTRODUCTION TO THE EMF 32 STUDY ON U.S. CARBON TAX SCENARIOS.Climate change economics · 2018
   Article
3. OVERVIEW OF THE EMF 32 STUDY ON U.S. CARBON TAX SCENARIOS.Climate change economics · 2018
   Article
4. Effects of technology assumptions on US power sector capacity, generation and emissions projections: Results from the EMF 32 Model Intercomparison Project.Energy economics · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.