We're flying blind on climate data

We're running the global carbon budget on spreadsheet math. Most emissions data comes from multiplying activity levels by emission factors — like estimating a power plant's CO2 output based on how much coal it burns, rather than measuring what actually comes out of the smokestack.

This approach misses methane leaks, underestimates industrial emissions, and can't track emissions in real time. It's like trying to manage your bank account by guessing how much you spent instead of checking your balance. For climate policy and carbon markets to work, we need to know what's actually happening, not what we think is happening.

Natural systems store and release enormous amounts of carbon, but we have surprisingly little real-time data about what they're actually doing. Forests might be storing more carbon than we think, or they might be releasing it due to drought, disease, or warming temperatures. Soils could be carbon sinks or carbon sources, and we often don't know which.

This uncertainty makes it nearly impossible to account for nature-based climate solutions or predict how natural systems will respond to climate change. We're making billion-dollar bets on forest protection and restoration without knowing if they're working as expected.

Most organizations are flying blind when it comes to their carbon footprint. They might know their annual electricity bill, but they don't know their real-time emissions, where their biggest sources are, or how their actions affect their carbon output.

This makes it nearly impossible to manage emissions effectively. Companies can't optimize their operations for lower emissions, buildings can't identify energy waste, and cities can't track progress toward climate goals. Without good data, climate action becomes guesswork.

Global climate models are good at predicting planetary trends, but they struggle with the local details that matter for planning and adaptation. A city needs to know if it will face more flooding, longer droughts, or stronger storms — not just that the planet will be warmer.

This precision gap makes it nearly impossible to design effective adaptation strategies. Infrastructure investments, agricultural planning, and disaster preparedness all depend on understanding local climate risks, but current models often can't provide the detail needed for confident decision-making.

Billions of dollars are flowing into climate projects — from forest restoration to renewable energy to carbon capture — but we often have no idea if they're delivering the promised climate benefits. Most projects are monitored sporadically, if at all, and the data is often incomplete or unreliable.

This creates massive risks for climate finance and policy. Investors can't tell which projects are worth funding. Governments can't tell if their climate policies are working. And we might be wasting precious time and money on interventions that look good on paper but don't deliver real climate impact.