← Back to scans

Will the US meet its climate goals?

USCLIMATE-2025 · Climate and Weather · 2026-04-03
6%
Multi-Step
4%
Market Price
+1.8%
Edge
50%
Confidence
Final Rationale
The US NDC climate goals are defined in CO2e terms (26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025), and total US GHG emissions in CO2e have remained around 5,800-6,500 MMT — far above the 4,909.9 MMT threshold. I ACCEPT the Devil's Advocate's Challenge 1 that 'climate goals' almost certainly means CO2e, not energy-related CO2 alone, which eliminates the 2020 COVID dip as qualifying. I ACCEPT Challenge 4 that the overwhelmingly negative evidence balance (EIA, EPA, CBO all showing massive shortfalls) supports a very low probability. The market at 4.7% reflects strong consensus that this target was not met, and my independent estimate of 15% was inflated by over-weighting resolution metric ambiguity. I set my final at 6% — slightly above market to account for residual uncertainty about how the platform actually resolves the question (e.g., if they use a narrower CO2 metric rather than CO2e, which would make 2020 qualify).
What Would Change My Mind
If the resolution source explicitly defines the metric as energy-related CO2 only (not CO2e), probability would jump to ~80% since 2020 clearly qualified at ~4,594 MMT. Alternatively, if a major revision to EPA's GHG inventory retroactively lowered CO2e estimates for any year below the threshold, that would increase probability substantially.
1. Planning Agent Sonnet
binary science article_search web_search kalshi_data wikipedia_lookup article_search code_execution
Sub-questions
IDQuestionWeight
sq1 Did US CO2 emissions in any year up to and including 2025 fall at or below 4909.9 million metric tonnes? 50%
sq2 Is the US on a downward emissions trajectory that would have brought 2025 annual emissions below 4909.9 MMT CO2? 30%
sq3 Have any policy reversals (e.g., IRA rollbacks, EPA rule changes) since 2025 significantly reversed emissions reductions that would have achieved the 4909.9 MMT threshold? 20%
Reasoning Approach
This question resolves YES if US annual CO2 emissions reached 4909.9 MMT or below in ANY year by 2025. The critical insight is that 2020 was a COVID anomaly year where emissions dropped sharply due to economic shutdown — preliminary estimates put 2020 US CO2 emissions around 4,713 MMT, well below the threshold. If the resolution counts 2020, it likely already resolved YES. However, 2021-2024 emissions rebounded above the threshold (~5,000+ MMT). The key analytical question is: (1) Did the market already resolve or is it still open? (2) Does the threshold need to be met in a 'normal' year, or does any year count including COVID? (3) What are the most recent official 2024/2025 emission estimates? The reference class here is EIA/EPA annual emissions reports. The causal mechanism involves economic activity, energy mix, policy effects (IRA tax credits, EPA rules), and structural shifts (EV adoption, renewable energy). Trump administration rollbacks of climate policy in 2025 likely slowed or reversed reductions. The 4909.9 MMT figure appears to represent roughly a 15% reduction from 2005 levels (~6,000 MMT), a common Paris Agreement intermediate target. Given 2020 COVID dip, this market may have already met its condition technically.
2. Research Execution No LLM
ToolStatusTime
article_search OK 1.0s
web_search OK 58.22s
kalshi_data OK 1.81s
wikipedia_lookup OK 1.95s
code_execution FAILED 0.01s
Errors: code_execution: __import__ not found
3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 16 items
#StrengthDirectionSourceClaimPriced In
1 MODERATE ↓ DOWN wikipedia_lookup The United States produced 7 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions in 2025, far above the 4,909.9 MMT CO2-only threshold. This is total GHG (CO2e), not CO2-only, but indicates emissions remained very high in 2025. Yes
2 STRONG ↓ DOWN web_search EIA preliminary data (released May 29, 2025) shows U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions declined by less than 1% (~23 MMT) in 2024. The absolute 2024 total is not directly stated but context implies it remains well above 4,909.9 MMT. Yes
3 STRONG ↓ DOWN web_search EPA inventory finalized through 2022 shows U.S. GHG emissions totaled 6,343 MMT CO2e in 2022, well above the 4,909.9 MMT CO2-only threshold even accounting for the difference between CO2e and CO2-only metrics. Yes
4 MODERATE ↓ DOWN web_search Wikipedia states U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions decreased by 3% in 2023. Even with this decrease, 2023 energy-related CO2 emissions remained far above 4,909.9 MMT. Yes
5 MODERATE ↓ DOWN web_search CBO projection (November 2024) placed U.S. GHG emissions at 6,182 MMT CO2e in 2025, far exceeding the threshold even adjusting for CO2-only vs CO2e differences. Yes
6 MODERATE ↓ DOWN kalshi_data Kalshi market for 'Will the US meet its climate goals by 2025?' is priced at 4.70%, indicating the market strongly believes the threshold has not been met. The price range has been as high as 38% historically but is now very low. Yes
7 WEAK ↑ UP web_search The reasoning approach notes 2020 COVID-year emissions dropped to approximately 4,713 MMT CO2, which would be below the 4,909.9 MMT threshold. However, this is a preliminary/contextual estimate, and whether the market resolution counts 2020 COVID anomaly data is the key ambiguity. No
8 STRONG ↓ DOWN web_search EIA 2024 preliminary data shows energy-related CO2 emissions declined by less than 1% in 2024, suggesting a very slow downward trajectory, insufficient to reach 4,909.9 MMT from current levels above ~5,000 MMT. Yes
9 STRONG ↓ DOWN web_search EIA Short-Term Energy Outlook (March 2026) forecasts U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions to decrease by only 1.7% in 2026, continuing a slow decline that does not approach the 4,909.9 MMT threshold. Yes
10 MODERATE ↓ DOWN web_search CBO (November 2024) projected GHG emissions falling from 6,182 MMT CO2e in 2025 to 5,681 MMT CO2e in 2034, an 8% decline over 9 years — not consistent with reaching 4,909.9 MMT CO2 by 2025. Yes
11 MODERATE ↓ DOWN wikipedia_lookup U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions decreased 3% in 2023 per Wikipedia, which references ongoing structural decline in coal and slow EV adoption. The pace of decline is insufficient to reach the 4,909.9 MMT threshold by 2025. Yes
12 STRONG ↓ DOWN article_search Trump's EPA announced in July 2025 a proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which would eliminate the legal basis for all federal greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act. This is currently in a 45-day public comment period. Yes
13 STRONG ↓ DOWN article_search Trump's EPA announced in June 2025 plans to repeal Biden-era greenhouse gas limits on fossil fuel power plants, which would eliminate restrictions on the second-largest source of climate pollution in the U.S. Yes
14 STRONG ↓ DOWN article_search The Trump administration has rolled back more than two dozen environmental rules and policies as of mid-2025, fundamentally shifting U.S. climate regulatory posture toward deregulation. Yes
15 STRONG ↓ DOWN article_search As of November 2025, the U.S. sent no high-level officials to COP30, signaling complete withdrawal from international climate cooperation. The U.S. also withdrew from the Paris Agreement again in 2026 per Wikipedia. Yes
16 MODERATE — NEUTRAL article_search Businesses and legal experts warn that the EPA endangerment finding repeal would create 'chaos' and regulatory uncertainty, but actual emissions impacts would take time to materialize given capital investment timelines in energy infrastructure. Yes
Information Gaps
  • No official EIA or EPA annual total for 2025 energy-related CO2 emissions (in MMT CO2, not CO2e) — this is the most critical missing data point for resolution
  • No confirmed 2020 official annual CO2 emissions figure (in pure CO2, not CO2e) from EIA/EPA to verify whether the COVID dip actually reached 4,909.9 MMT or below
  • No clarity on Kalshi's resolution criteria: does it use energy-related CO2 only, or total GHG as CO2e? This distinction is enormous (5,000 MMT CO2 vs 6,000+ MMT CO2e)
  • No data on whether the 2020 COVID anomaly year was considered by the market operator in setting the threshold or resolving the question
  • No 2025 full-year CO2 emissions estimate from any source (EIA, EPA, IEA) — only sectoral trends and 2024 preliminary data are available
  • Unclear whether the IRA tax credits (EVs, renewables, clean energy) remain partially intact or were fully rolled back, and the quantified emissions impact of any rollbacks
Key Uncertainties
  • Resolution metric ambiguity: The threshold of 4,909.9 MMT is specified as CO2 (not CO2e). U.S. energy-related CO2 and total GHG CO2e differ by ~1,000-1,500 MMT, making resolution methodology critical
  • Whether 2020 COVID anomaly qualifies: If the market allows any year including 2020, preliminary estimates suggest 2020 energy-related CO2 may have fallen near or below 4,909.9 MMT — but Kalshi's 4.7% price suggests the market does not believe this resolves YES
  • The pace of Trump administration policy rollbacks vs. structural market-driven emissions reductions (renewable energy growth, coal retirements driven by economics not regulation)
  • Whether EPA endangerment finding repeal will be finalized and survive legal challenges before end of 2025, and its near-term impact on actual emissions
  • The exact 2025 full-year CO2 emissions figure, which is not yet available and would be the definitive resolution data point
Market Context
Price: 0.047 · 7d: +0.007 · 30d: -0.023
Volume: LOW-MODERATE — 211 contracts average daily volume, suggesting limited liquidity · Depth: UNKNOWN — not provided
Reliability: LOW-MEDIUM — The price range of 1%-38% over the market's history suggests high uncertainty at some point; current 4.7% price reflects strong consensus that the threshold has not been met, but low volume limits confidence. The recent 30-day decline suggests the market is increasingly confident in a NO resolution.
4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price Did NOT see market price
Independent estimate: 15% (low confidence)
sq1: Did US CO2 emissions in any year up to and including 2025 fall at or below 4909.9 million metric tonnes?
25%
Base rate: 2020 energy-related CO2 was ~4,594 MMT, clearly below threshold. 2023 energy-related CO2 may have been ~4,908 MMT, also near/below. However, resolution methodology is critical. If CO2e (total GHG), no year qualifies (~6,000+ MMT). If energy-related CO2, 2020 clearly qualifies. The question says 'CO2 emissions' which could mean either. The fact this is framed as 'climate goals' and the question remains open suggests CO2e interpretation or a stricter metric. Weighting interpretations: ~25% chance the metric used shows qualification.
sq2: Is the US on a downward emissions trajectory that would have brought 2025 annual emissions below 4909.9 MMT CO2?
12%
EIA shows <1% decline in 2024, 1.7% forecast for 2026. CBO projects only 8% GHG decline over 9 years. Current trajectory is far too slow to reach 4,909.9 in CO2e terms. Even in energy-CO2 terms, 2025 emissions likely ~4,850-4,950 MMT, which might be near threshold but not confidently below.
sq3: Have policy reversals significantly reversed emissions reductions?
65%
Massive Trump-era rollbacks including endangerment finding repeal proposal, power plant rule repeal, Paris withdrawal. However, actual emissions impacts are slow-moving due to capital investment timelines. IRA partially intact. Market forces (cheap renewables, coal economics) continue driving structural decline regardless of policy. Net effect: policy reversals are real but haven't yet dramatically increased emissions.
Show full reasoning trace
base rate: US energy-related CO2 has been 4,600-5,100 MMT range since 2019. In CO2e terms, 5,200-6,500 MMT. The 4,909.9 threshold is achievable in energy-CO2 terms (2020 clearly met it) but not in CO2e terms.
evidence updates: 2020 COVID dip strongly supports YES if metric is energy-related CO2 (+30%). But resolution metric ambiguity is the dominant uncertainty. EIA/CBO data showing slow decline pushes down for non-2020 years. Trump rollbacks push down marginally for 2025 specifically.
combination method: Weighted average with sq1 dominant. The question fundamentally hinges on resolution metric interpretation. If energy-related CO2, probability jumps to ~80%. If CO2e, drops to ~3%.
final: Given deep uncertainty about resolution metric, and the signal that this question was designed to be challenging (closing 2030, framed as 'climate goals'), I estimate 15% probability. The main YES scenario is that the metric turns out to be energy-related CO2, in which case 2020 (and possibly 2023-2024) already qualified.
5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet Market price revealed
Asymmetric Evidence Reasoning Flaw Overconfidence
Challenges
  1. The forecaster's 25% probability for sq1 (whether any year up to 2025 fell below 4909.9 MMT CO2) seems to rest heavily on ambiguity about the resolution metric. However, the question explicitly references 'climate goals' — the US NDC under Paris was framed in terms of total GHG (CO2e), not energy-related CO2 only. The 26-28% below 2005 levels target uses CO2e as the standard metric. If this is a climate goals question, the resolution metric is almost certainly CO2e, which dramatically reduces the probability. Assigning 25% to metric ambiguity seems too generous.
  2. The forecaster's combination method says 'If energy-related CO2, probability jumps to ~80%' — but even under that interpretation, there's a further question of whether the 2020 COVID anomaly 'counts' as meeting climate goals. Climate goals are about sustained policy-driven reductions, not one-off pandemic disruptions. Many resolution criteria would exclude such anomalies or require a sustained trajectory. The forecaster doesn't adequately discount this.
  3. The reasoning trace says 'sq1 dominant' in the combination, but the question asks whether the US will MEET its climate goals — this is inherently forward-looking and trajectory-dependent. Even if one year technically dipped below the threshold, that doesn't necessarily mean the goal was 'met' in the spirit of the NDC, which contemplated sustained reductions by 2025. The forecaster may be over-weighting a technicality.
  4. The forecaster notes 14 DOWN signals vs 1 UP, yet arrives at 15%. With this overwhelmingly negative evidence balance, including strong institutional sources (EIA, EPA, CBO) all showing emissions far above target in CO2e terms, 15% seems high. The single UP signal is the 2020 COVID anomaly, which is weak evidence for 'meeting climate goals.'
  5. The forecaster identifies 'no clarity on Kalshi's resolution criteria' as an information gap, but this could likely be resolved by checking the actual question resolution source. Kalshi questions typically have explicit resolution criteria. The forecaster is treating a researchable question as fundamental uncertainty, which inflates the estimate.
  6. The question resolves on 2030-12-31, meaning there's still ~4.75 years until resolution. However, the question text says 'climate goals' which in the US context refers to the 2025 NDC target. If the question is whether the US met its 2025 target, the answer is essentially already determined — 2025 data exists or will exist soon. The forecaster doesn't clearly distinguish between 'has this already been determined' vs 'could future events change this.'
Suggested adjustment: -7pp
The forecaster's 15% is inflated primarily by over-weighting resolution metric ambiguity (25% chance the metric shows qualification). The US NDC/climate goals framework uses CO2e, not energy-related CO2 alone. Under CO2e, no year comes close to the threshold. Even under energy-related CO2, the 2020 COVID dip is a weak basis for claiming climate goals were 'met.' With 14/16 evidence signals pointing DOWN and all major institutional projections showing massive shortfalls in CO2e terms, the probability should be closer to 5-8%.
Market comparison: Forecaster: 15%, Market: 4.7%. The divergence of ~10% is largely explained by the forecaster's generous treatment of resolution metric ambiguity. The market price of 4.7% likely reflects the near-universal understanding that US climate goals are measured in CO2e, under which the US is nowhere close. The forecaster's reasoning flaw — assigning 25% to a favorable metric interpretation — is the primary driver of the divergence. In this case, the market's lower price appears better calibrated to the evidence.
6. Final Forecast Opus
6% (medium confidence)
The US NDC climate goals are defined in CO2e terms (26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025), and total US GHG emissions in CO2e have remained around 5,800-6,500 MMT — far above the 4,909.9 MMT threshold. I ACCEPT the Devil's Advocate's Challenge 1 that 'climate goals' almost certainly means CO2e, not energy-related CO2 alone, which eliminates the 2020 COVID dip as qualifying. I ACCEPT Challenge 4 that the overwhelmingly negative evidence balance (EIA, EPA, CBO all showing massive shortfalls) supports a very low probability. The market at 4.7% reflects strong consensus that this target was not met, and my independent estimate of 15% was inflated by over-weighting resolution metric ambiguity. I set my final at 6% — slightly above market to account for residual uncertainty about how the platform actually resolves the question (e.g., if they use a narrower CO2 metric rather than CO2e, which would make 2020 qualify).
Pipeline Timing
StepTime
Planning 23.61s
Research 58.22s
Synthesis 47.85s
Forecaster 42.46s
Critic 23.34s
Final 9.63s