Scan: Will the US meet its climate goals?

← Back to scans

Will the US meet its climate goals? — By 2025

USCLIMATE-2025 · Climate and Weather · 2026-04-30

Agent

Market Price

+1.0%

Edge

78%

Confidence

Volume: 46,353

Spread: 2.4c

Days to resolution: 1706

Markets in event: 2

Final Rationale

My independent estimate of 7% rested heavily on a 5% reservation for the energy-only CO2 interpretation (EIA shows ~4,800 MMT energy-only in 2024, below the 4,909.9 threshold), versus near-zero probability under the economy-wide total CO2 reading where the US sits ~5,350 MMT. I PARTIALLY ACCEPT the critique that 'climate goals' invokes the Copenhagen 17%-from-2005 pledge which is economy-wide, and that an EPA GHG inventory resolution by 2030 will favor total emissions — this justifies trimming the definitional residual from 5% to ~3%. I REJECT raising confidence to 0.80+ since the threshold's source remains unstated in the question itself. The market at 4% (low liquidity, shallow depth) is consistent with my adjusted estimate, so I converge to 5% — a hair above market to preserve some weight for the energy-only interpretation given Trump-era policy rollbacks make total emissions falling 440 MMT in 2025 essentially impossible.

Price vs. prediction

How the market moved after the agent's call. Solid blue line is the actual market price; dashed line is the agent's static forecast at $t{=}0$.

$n = 58$ follow-ups

Re-scan Context

This market has been scanned before. Previous predictions:

Date	Predicted	Market Price	Confidence
2026-04-03	6%	4%	50%

1. Planner Opus · Fermi decomposition + tool plan

Tools chosen: article_search web_search kalshi_data wikipedia_lookup code_execution

Sub-questions (Fermi decomposition)

Did US CO2 emissions fall to 4909.9 million metric tonnes or fewer in 2024 (the most recent full year with data)? (w=0.45)
Did US CO2 emissions fall to 4909.9 million metric tonnes or fewer in 2025 (based on preliminary or estimated data)? (w=0.45)
Is the long-term trend in US CO2 emissions declining at a sufficient rate to have crossed the 4909.9 MMT threshold by end of 2025? (w=0.10)

Planner reasoning

This question asks whether the US achieved ≤4909.9 MMT CO2 emissions in any year through 2025. The threshold of 4909.9 MMT appears to correspond to a ~17% reduction from 2005 levels (~6003 MMT), which aligns with early US climate commitments. Key considerations: (1) Pre-COVID (2019), US emissions were ~5769 MMT — far above threshold. (2) COVID caused a one-time drop to ~5222 MMT in 2020, which rebounded sharply in 2021-2022. (3) From 2022-2025, the trajectory needs to fall ~750+ MMT from 2022 levels to meet threshold — this would require ~13% reduction in 3 years, which is historically unprecedented outside of COVID or major recession. (4) The Trump administration's withdrawal from Paris Agreement and rollback of clean energy policies in 2025 likely slowed or reversed emission reduction trends. (5) The market resolves YES if the threshold was met in ANY year by 2025, so 2020 is the most likely candidate, but 2020 emissions (~5222 MMT) were still well above 4909.9 MMT. The temporal reality is that 2025 data won't be officially confirmed until 2026-2027, but preliminary EIA data for 2024-2025 should be available. The causal path to YES requires either: a major economic downturn reducing energy demand, or an acceleration of renewable energy displacement of fossil fuels far beyond current trends. Given Trump-era policy rollbacks in 2025, this seems very unlikely. The reference class of US emissions reductions shows the country has never achieved this level of reduction absent COVID, and COVID itself wasn't enough. Probability of YES is very low.

2. Research Parallel tool calls · legacy v2

Tool	Status	Time	Items
article_search	OK	0.7s	-
web_search	OK	55.1s	-
kalshi_data	OK	1.8s	-
wikipedia_lookup	OK	1.6s	-
code_execution	OK	0.0s	-

3. Evidence Synthesis Sonnet · 11 items · legacy v2

#	Strength	Credibility	Direction	Source	Claim	Priced In
1	STRONG	92	↓ DOWN	web_search	EIA preliminary data (published May 2025) shows US energy-related CO2 emissions were approximately 4.8 billion metric tons (4,800 MMT) in 2024, a decline of 0.4% (~23 MMT) from 2023.	Yes
2	STRONG	90	↓ DOWN	web_search	2024 US energy-related CO2 emissions of ~4,800 MMT are still approximately 890 MMT above the 4,909.9 MMT threshold — well outside the required range for YES resolution.	Yes
3	STRONG	80	↓ DOWN	code_execution	Historical data analysis shows US emissions were ~5,350 MMT in 2024 (total CO2, broader than energy-only), ~440 MMT above the 4,909.9 MMT threshold, with the linear trend declining only ~42.5 MMT/year.	Yes
4	STRONG	85	↓ DOWN	code_execution	No historical year — including COVID-impacted 2020 (~5,222 MMT) — has come close to the 4,909.9 MMT threshold, confirming this level has never been achieved in the modern era.	Yes
5	STRONG	82	↓ DOWN	article_search	The November 2025 Global Carbon Budget report projects US fossil fuel emissions to increase in 2025, contradicting any scenario where emissions fall sharply below the 4,909.9 MMT threshold.	Yes
6	STRONG	80	↓ DOWN	code_execution	Linear trend projection places 2025 US CO2 emissions at approximately 5,349 MMT — roughly 439 MMT above the threshold — making threshold attainment in 2025 essentially impossible under any realistic scenario.	Yes
7	MODERATE	88	↓ DOWN	article_search	Trump administration rolled back EPA greenhouse gas regulations throughout 2025, including finalizing revocation of the 2009 endangerment finding in February 2026, signaling pro-fossil fuel policy direction in 2025 that would not reduce emissions.	Yes
8	STRONG	85	↓ DOWN	code_execution	The long-term linear trend in US CO2 emissions shows a decline of only ~42.5 MMT/year, far insufficient to bridge the ~440 MMT gap to the threshold by 2025.	Yes
9	MODERATE	85	↓ DOWN	article_search	Trump EPA's proposed and finalized rollback of endangerment finding and greenhouse gas regulations throughout 2025 removes the policy framework that was supporting emissions reductions, likely slowing or reversing the downward trend.	Yes
10	MODERATE	88	↓ DOWN	web_search	The 2024 EIA data shows only a 0.4% decline in emissions, meaning the pace of reduction is decelerating relative to what would be needed to meet the threshold.	Yes
11	MODERATE	65	↓ DOWN	kalshi_data	Kalshi market prices this question at 4% probability, reflecting strong market consensus that the threshold was not met and will not be met by 2025.	Yes

Information Gaps

No preliminary or estimated 2025 full-year CO2 data from EIA is yet available (would be published mid-2026 at earliest); the question's resolution for sq2 may depend on such data.
The EIA web_search data reports 'energy-related CO2' at ~4,800 MMT, while the code_execution estimates ~5,350 MMT total CO2 for 2024 — there is a methodological discrepancy between energy-only vs. total CO2 that could affect threshold comparison (the question likely refers to total CO2 including industrial process emissions).
No data found on whether any economic shock (recession, demand destruction from tariffs) in 2025 could have caused an unusually large one-year emissions drop.
No EPA final greenhouse gas inventory data through 2024 yet available (EPA GHG inventory typically lags 2+ years).
Unclear whether the 4,909.9 MMT threshold refers to energy-related CO2 only or all CO2/GHG emissions — this definitional question could affect resolution.

Key Uncertainties

Definitional ambiguity: whether the threshold covers energy-related CO2 only (~4,800 MMT in 2024 per EIA) vs. total economy-wide CO2 (~5,350 MMT) — if energy-only, 2024 comes closer but is still ~110 MMT short; if total, the gap is ~440 MMT.
Whether a significant economic downturn in 2025 (e.g., from tariff-driven recession) could have caused an unexpectedly large single-year emissions drop for 2025 data not yet available.
Timing of resolution: 2025 full-year data won't be officially confirmed until 2026-2027, creating uncertainty about how the market resolves.
The ~90 MMT discrepancy between EIA's 4,800 MMT figure and the threshold of 4,909.9 MMT if the question resolves on energy-related CO2 only — this is a smaller gap but still directionally the same.

Market Context

Price: 0.04 · 7d: +0.019 · 30d: -0.01
Volume: LOW-MODERATE · Depth: SHALLOW
Reliability: LOW-MEDIUM — low average daily volume (181 contracts), wide historical price range (1%-38%) suggests thin liquidity and potential for noise; current 4% price reflects strong market consensus against YES resolution

4. Independent Forecaster Opus · No market price · legacy v2 Did NOT see market price

Independent estimate: 7% (72% confidence)

base rate

80% conf

evidence driven

80% conf

contrarian

10%

55% conf

Spread

5pp

Low disagreement

sq1: Did US CO2 emissions fall to 4909.9 MMT or fewer in 2024?

EIA preliminary data shows 2024 energy-related CO2 at ~4,800 MMT, which is BELOW the threshold if energy-only is the relevant metric. However, total CO2 is ~5,350 MMT, well above. The definitional ambiguity is the key issue. Given the question phrasing 'climate goals' typically refers to total GHG/CO2 (the 17% reduction Copenhagen pledge was economy-wide), the threshold likely refers to total CO2 or CO2e. Under that interpretation, 2024 was ~440 MMT short. Small probability reserved for energy-only interpretation.

sq2: Did US CO2 emissions fall to 4909.9 MMT or fewer in 2025?

Global Carbon Budget projects US emissions INCREASING in 2025. Trump rollbacks and pro-fossil policy. Linear trend places 2025 at ~5,349 MMT total. Even energy-only CO2 likely flat or rising. Same definitional ambiguity as sq1 — if energy-only, possible YES; if total, near-impossible.

sq3: Is long-term trend declining sufficiently to cross threshold by 2025?

Linear trend ~42.5 MMT/year decline cannot bridge 440 MMT gap. Trend is decelerating. Policy rollbacks reverse momentum. Only path to YES is via energy-only interpretation.

Show full reasoning trace

base rate: US has never achieved <4,910 MMT total CO2 emissions in modern era; even COVID 2020 was ~5,222 MMT. Base rate of unprecedented emissions reductions absent major shock is near 0%.

evidence updates: EIA energy-only CO2 of ~4,800 MMT in 2024 is the only path to YES, but 'climate goals' in the question framing almost certainly refers to total CO2/CO2e tied to the 17% Copenhagen pledge from 2005 baseline. Trump policy rollbacks and Global Carbon Budget projections of rising 2025 emissions push DOWN. Linear trend insufficient by ~440 MMT.

combination method: Weighted average with correlation adjustment — all sub-questions point same direction.

final: Probability of YES is ~5%, with the small residual reflecting definitional ambiguity (energy-only interpretation) rather than any realistic emissions trajectory meeting the threshold.

ensemble: {'ensemble_count': 3, 'perspectives': {'base_rate': {'p_yes': 0.05, 'confidence': 0.8}, 'evidence_driven': {'p_yes': 0.06, 'confidence': 0.8}, 'contrarian': {'p_yes': 0.1, 'confidence': 0.55}}, 'spread': 0.05, 'individual_p_yes': {'base_rate': 0.05, 'evidence_driven': 0.06, 'contrarian': 0.1}}

5. Devil's Advocate Sonnet · legacy v2 Market price revealed

Overconfidence

Challenges

The forecast at 7% is reasonable but slightly higher than the market's 4%. The 3pp gap is largely driven by the definitional ambiguity reservation. However, the forecaster may be overweighting the energy-only interpretation — the question explicitly references 'climate goals' tied to the Copenhagen pledge, which is unambiguously economy-wide GHG. The residual probability for energy-only interpretation could be smaller (2-3%) rather than 5%.
The resolution date is 2030-12-31, giving 1706 days. This means resolution criteria interpretation will be settled by official data (EPA GHG inventory) well before close. The forecaster should consider that by resolution time, the definitional question will be resolved by whichever official metric the resolver uses — likely the EPA inventory which is total economy-wide, further reducing the energy-only path probability.
Minor: confidence of 0.717 seems appropriately calibrated given evidence strength, but with 11 STRONG/MODERATE DOWN signals and 0 UP, confidence could arguably be higher (0.80+), which would pull p_yes slightly lower.

Suggested adjustment: -2pp

The 5% reserved for definitional ambiguity (energy-only interpretation) is likely too generous given (a) 'climate goals' explicitly invokes the Copenhagen 17% pledge which is economy-wide, (b) resolution will use whatever official metric the resolver designates by 2030, and (c) even under energy-only, 2025 emissions are projected to rise per Global Carbon Budget. A 4-5% total probability is more defensible than 7%.

Market comparison: Forecaster: 7%, Market: 4%. The divergence is small and within reasonable disagreement range. Market reliability is LOW-MEDIUM (thin liquidity, wide historical range 1-38%), so it shouldn't dominate. The forecaster's slightly higher estimate is defensible due to definitional ambiguity, but the magnitude of that reservation may be overstated.

6. Aggregator Opus · final calibrated forecast

5% (78% confidence)