Tools chosen: kalshi_direct kalshi_related polymarket_related claude_news gdelt_news wikipedia code_execution

Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)

Planner reasoning

This is a Kalshi market resolving on whether US CO2 emissions fall to ≤4909.9 MMT in a year by 2025 — the key uncertainty is which data series resolves it (EIA energy-related CO2 vs EPA total GHG in CO2e) and whether the threshold has already been crossed (EIA energy-related CO2 was ~4,576 MMT in 2020 and ~4,800 MMT in 2023, so under one definition it is already met). I need the current market price as anchor, the latest EIA/EPA emissions data, and cross-venue signals.

# Current state The market resolves YES if US "CO2 emissions" were ≤4,909.9 MMT in some year by 2025 — but the rules field is blank, leaving the exact data source (EIA energy-related CO2 vs. EPA total GHG CO2e) unconfirmed. Preliminary EIA data put 2025 energy-related CO2 at ~4,904 MMT, just ~6 MMT (0.1%) below the threshold, but this figure is subject to revision and reflects an emissions *increase* (+2%) versus 2024. Separately, the broader 26-28%-below-2005 Paris pledge (economy-wide GHG) was clearly missed — actual reduction is only ~17-20% below 2005. # Timeline of key events - 2015: US commits to Paris pledge of 26-28% GHG reduction below 2005 by 2025 (confirmed, climatecenter.pitt.edu) - 2017-06-01: Trump announces US withdrawal from Paris Agreement (confirmed, Wikipedia) - 2020: COVID causes energy-CO2 to fall 11% to ~4,576 MMT — temporary anomaly (confirmed, EIA) - 2021-02-19: US formally rejoins Paris Agreement under Biden (confirmed, Wikipedia) - 2022: EPA inventory shows net GHG at 5,489 MMT CO2e, only 17% below 2005 — off-track for 26-28% goal (confirmed, EPA) - 2023: Baker Institute analysis concludes US needs ~11% further cut (2021→2025) to hit 26% target — deemed unlikely (reported, Baker Institute) - 2024: Energy-related CO2 declines <1% (23 MMT) to ~4,789-4,800 MMT, 7% below 2019 (confirmed, EIA) - 2025-01-20: Trump signs second executive order withdrawing US from Paris Agreement (confirmed, Wikipedia) - 2025 (full year): EIA preliminary data show energy-related CO2 rose 2% (+115 MMT) to ~4,904 MMT amid higher electricity demand/coal use (reported, EIA) - 2026-08: Latest STEO projects 2026 CO2 to fall 1.8% vs. 2025 (reported, EIA STEO) # Event Will US CO2 emissions be ≤4,909.9 MMT in a year by 2025 ("meeting climate goals")? # Outcomes to forecast - Yes - No # Kalshi market anchor **Current YES price: 14.00%** (up +7.4% in 7 days, +7.5% in 30 days; range 1.00%-17.90% over 105 days; avg daily volume ~70 contracts). Sharp recent rally suggests new information (likely the EIA 2025 preliminary figure showing emissions near/below threshold) is being priced in, but price remains well below 50%, reflecting continued doubt about resolution/verification and the broader missed-Paris-goal narrative. # Sub-question answers 1. **Resolution data source/metric** — Unconfirmed; rules field blank. The 4,909.9 MMT figure's magnitude aligns closely with EIA "energy-related CO2" series (not EPA total GHG CO2e, which runs 5,489-7,000 MMT), suggesting EIA energy-CO2 is the likely metric, but this is inferred, not confirmed. [code_execution, claude_news] 2. **EIA energy-related CO2, 2019-2024** — 2019: 5,142 MMT; 2020: 4,576 MMT; 2021: ~4,870-4,906 MMT; 2022: ~4,853 MMT; 2023: ~4,818 MMT (down 3%/134 MMT per Wikipedia); 2024: ~4,789-4,800 MMT (down <1%/23 MMT). All years 2020-2024 fell below 4,909.9 MMT except 2019. [claude_news, code_execution, Wikipedia] 3. **EPA total GHG Inventory** — 2021: 5,586 MMT CO2e net; 2022 (latest finalized): 5,489 MMT CO2e net, 17% below 2005; gross 2022 figure 6,343 MMT CO2e. All far above 4,909.9 MMT — not a plausible match for this threshold. [claude_news/EPA] 4. **EIA STEO 2025 projection/actual** — Preliminary actual ~4,904 MMT (up 2%/115 MMT from 2024), driven by higher electricity demand and coal share. [EIA FAQ via claude_news] 5. **Baseline math for 4,909.9 MMT** — Does NOT cleanly equal 26-28% below any standard 2005 baseline: implies only ~18% cut from 2005 energy-CO2 baseline (5,993-5,999 MMT) or ~34% cut from EPA total-GHG baseline (~7,400 MMT CO2e) — neither matches the 26-28% NDC pledge; likely a distinct EIA reference-case/administrative figure. [code_execution] 6. **Kalshi YES price** — 14.00% currently, up sharply (+7.4%/+7.5% over 7/30 days) from lows near 1-2%; ~70 contracts/day average volume. [kalshi_direct] # Key facts (high-confidence, factual) 1. [EIA] 2025 preliminary energy-related CO2 ≈4,904 MMT, up 2% YoY. 2. [EIA] 2024 energy-CO2 ≈4,789-4,800 MMT, down <1% YoY, 7% below 2019. 3. [EPA] 2022 net GHG 5,489 MMT CO2e, only 17% below 2005 — Paris pledge (26-28%) not met on total-GHG basis. 4. [Wikipedia] Trump withdrew US from Paris Agreement again on 2025-01-20. 5. [Baker Institute] US would have needed ~3%/year cuts 2021-2025 (vs. historical ~1.2%/year) to hit 26% target — deemed implausible. # Cross-market signals - Kalshi related: EU 2030 climate goal market at 48.5%; India 2030 at 69% — both higher than US, reflecting relatively worse US trajectory perception. - Polymarket: No matching active markets found. - Sportsbook implied: N/A (not applicable to this event type). # Analyst opinions and speculation - C2ES/Baker Institute/Climate Action Tracker consensus: US missed its 26-28% Paris pledge; actual reduction is ~17-20% (net GHG) below 2005, not 26-28%. - EIA data show 2025 emissions rising, reversing prior downward trend — narrows margin for the specific 4,909.9 MMT threshold to near-zero. # Directional lean per outcome - **Yes**: EIA energy-CO2 metric preliminarily below threshold in 2021-2025 (per code_execution/claude_news); if this is the resolution series, YES is plausible on a technicality despite missing the broader Paris goal. - **No**: Broader/likely-intended interpretation ("meet climate goals") clearly failed per EPA total GHG and Paris pledge analyses; 2025 preliminary CO2 figure is only barely under threshold (~6 MMT margin) and subject to upward revision; low Kalshi price (14%) reflects market skepticism. # Gaps / unknowns - No official rules text confirming data source/metric — core ambiguity unresolved. - 2025 EIA figures are preliminary; final/revised data (and any EPA Inventory figures) not yet available, creating real resolution timing/revision risk. - Whether Kalshi will use EIA's preliminary figure or wait for revised/final data. # Calibration anchors - Kalshi current YES price: 14.00% (anchor). - Precedent: 2020 pandemic-driven anomaly briefly met similar thresholds but was not sustained — illustrates fragility of narrow misses/hits on this metric.

1. Both forecasters underweight the crucial phrase "in some year by 2025" — the brief's own data (sub-question 2) show EIA energy-related CO2 already fell below 4,909.9 MMT in 2020 (4,576), 2021 (~4,870-4,906), 2022 (~4,853), 2023 (~4,818), and 2024 (~4,789-4,800). If resolution counts any qualifying year through 2025 (not just the 2025 figure), YES should already be a near-lock on the EIA metric, yet Forecaster 1 (13%) treats the 2025 preliminary ~4,904 MMT as the sole make-or-break data point and largely ignores the multi-year pattern it cites elsewhere in its own rationale. 2. Forecaster 2 raises the multi-year point ("EIA data show 2020-2024 were already below the threshold") but still lands at only 62%, an internal inconsistency — if that reading is correct, the threshold has been met for five straight years and the metric identification (sub-question 1) is the only real uncertainty, which should push YES well above 62% rather than leaving 38% on No. 3. Neither forecaster engages with sub-question 5's finding that 4,909.9 MMT doesn't cleanly correspond to any standard 26-28%-below-2005 baseline for either EIA energy-CO2 or EPA total-GHG series — this suggests the number might be a bespoke/administrative reference case whose behavior over time isn't guaranteed to track the historical series the forecasters are using, warranting more explicit hedging on "metric identification risk" rather than treating it as a binary EIA-vs-EPA choice. 4. Neither forecaster cross-checks against the analogous EU 2030 market (48.5%) and India 2030 market (69%), which the brief flags as reflecting "relatively worse US trajectory perception" — yet Forecaster 2's 62% YES implies the US is doing better than the EU market suggests, a tension that isn't reconciled or even mentioned. 5. Both treat the Kalshi price as a stable anchor despite the brief noting only ~70 contracts/day average volume and a rapid ramp from 1-2% to 14% in 30 days — this thin, fast-moving market may not be fully informative, so anchoring closely (as F1 does) versus deviating sharply (as F2 does) are both under-justified without discussing market liquidity/informativeness explicitly. 6. Neither forecast quantifies the direction/magnitude of typical EIA preliminary-to-final revisions, which is the single largest swing factor given the ~6 MMT (0.1%) margin in 2025 — without this, "revision risk" is asserted qualitatively by both but never bounded, leaving the core uncertainty undermodeled.

15% (47% confidence)

Yes: 15% No: 85%

The single most informative fact is that Kalshi traders—who can read the actual rules text that our brief lacks—have kept this market in the 1-18% band for 105 days. If resolution simply required EIA energy-related CO2 to fall below 4,909.9 MMT in any year through 2025, the market would have been pinned near 99% since 2021, since 2020-2024 all cleared the threshold. Its persistent low price is therefore strong evidence that the operative criterion is the broader 26-28%-below-2005 Paris pledge (clearly missed: EPA shows only ~17% below 2005) or otherwise a metric that has not been satisfied. Forecaster 2's 62% relies on a metric inference that the market's own pricing contradicts, and the devil's advocate's multi-year argument, while logically clean, actually undercuts itself: its implied near-lock is falsified by observed prices. I anchor essentially at the market, adding a small premium for genuine rules ambiguity and the recent rally on the ~4,904 MMT 2025 preliminary figure.

Total pipeline time: 238.2s