Climate change is a math problem. The solution is smart economics.

This blog post was authored by Chris Costello, EDF Chief Economist

For too long, we’ve treated economic forces as enemies of the environment. I get it; climate change is a consequence of economic activity. But economic growth also alleviates poverty, improves health and longevity, and inspires innovation. There’s no reason why we can’t harness economic incentives as a driver for climate action, too.  

To do that effectively and responsibly, we need to “Money Ball” climate change. That means analyzing what works and what doesn’t and accelerating the solutions that deliver. I believe that, at its heart, climate change is a math problem: a 53 gigaton (GT) math problem.  

As a society, we emit around 53 billion metric tons of climate-warming gases—from our cars, energy use, agriculture, and other human activity—into the atmosphere each year. To put that into perspective, that’s roughly equivalent to the pollution of 12 billion gas-powered cars each year. You don’t have to be an atmospheric chemist to see how that could affect the climate. 

As an economist, I can tell you that you and your family are already paying the costs of climate impacts: Weather shocks drive up food prices. Heat waves raise your energy bills and lower your kids’ test scores. Insurance premiums are soaring as wildfires and floods are priced into everyday life. 

There are hundreds of ways to make progress on climate change. But from an economist’s perspective, the reality is that while many approaches can help reduce emissions, they may also make life less affordable or hinder economic growth in the most vulnerable parts of the world. And they likely won’t become economically viable until it’s too late.  

Looking at the economics gives us a reality check: We need to be honest about which climate solutions can truly work at scale, with the rigor this problem demands, while also accelerating economic growth. That might sound counter-intuitive to those who think economic growth and rising climate pollution go hand-in-hand, but the economics also show us that’s no longer the case; with the right solutions, we can achieve both.  

Once you see climate change as a 53 gigaton economic problem, the key question becomes: What will actually move the needle fast, at scale, and without sacrificing economic growth or affordability? There are two hard truths here: 1) there are a lot of bad ideas out there and 2) we can’t solve this math problem overnight. We need to consistently and reliably reduce the 53 GT total with solid, credible solutions that have staying and scaling power.  Based on our analysis, there are some good alternatives right in front of us.  Let me describe three high-impact solutions that are ready to go right now and all meet the shrewd “Money Ball” test: carbon pricing, nature-based compliance markets, and pricing super pollutants. 

We’ll explore each of these in future posts, but let me give you an idea why these three levers are central to cutting emissions with scale, supply and speed: 

Scale: Compliance carbon pricing to reliably drive economy-wide change  

When the carbon pollution of goods and services is priced into its cost, it automatically creates an incentive to reduce carbon emissions. For example, food or electricity produced with less pollution would become cheaper than similar goods with a high carbon footprint. This encourages producers to innovate and adopt low-carbon production methods and guides consumers toward low-carbon choices.  

If you think this is a far-fetched idea that only an economist could love, think again: There are 80 carbon pricing markets around the world, already covering 28% of global emissions. In Europe, for example, power generation, energy-intensive industries, and aviation are already priced this way. These deliver real, measurable, enforceable emission cuts and spur innovation across the economy. 

By expanding and linking these markets, we can accelerate climate progress in ways that improve affordability while driving investment and innovation in a low-carbon economy. Compliance carbon markets are expanding in key places like China, India, and South America, presenting enormous opportunities for rapid progress that allows these economies to grow in a low-carbon way and prepare themselves to compete in a low-carbon future economy.   

Supply: Bringing nature into compliance markets to lock down climate pollution  

When we destroy ecosystems, the carbon they stored is released; when we protect or restore ecosystems, it stays locked away. For an economist, the implication is clear: we need to incentivize protection, restoration, and expansion of nature.  

We need to price carbon into land-use decisions giving landowners, farmers, Indigenous Peoples, and forest managers tangible economic value for storing carbon. Done right, a farmer or community could receive steady income for protecting forests, mangroves, or other natural carbon stocks. 

This is not a new idea. But it hasn’t reached its full potential because it requires designing market incentives with integrity, credibility, and durability. Very few of the 80 carbon markets mentioned above integrate nature in this way. To me, that gap screams opportunity. Some estimates suggest that bringing nature into compliance markets could credibly reduce up to 10 GT of emissions each year from the 53 GT total.  

Speed: Pricing super pollutants to stave off the most immediate climate and economic impacts 

Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the most familiar driver of climate change. But other gases known as “super pollutants”—like methane, black carbon, and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons)—drive warming far more aggressively in the near term. For example, a single ton of methane has the same warming impact over ten years as 100 tons of carbon!  

Reducing super pollutants gives us an immediate edge in the fight against climate change by slowing warming in the next five to ten years. This could help us avert near-term economic losses from climate impacts, while buying us time to decarbonize harder sectors like heavy industry and aviation.  

In many cases, these reductions are also among the cheapest options available. Yet, super pollutants remain largely absent from climate policy and pollution accounting. Using economics to set a price for super pollutants could help slash up to 8 GT emissions each year from our 53 gigaton problem.  

The economic case for impact 

Surely, we’ll need more than just these three solutions.  And we’re working on that—but our resources and time are finite. That means the principles that underly these solutions, like cost effectiveness, innovation incentives, credibility, and scalability, need to be applied to any solution. 

To be clear, cost per ton and speed are not the only ways to measure impact; solutions that offer clean air, job creation, or safer communities are also valuable. But as we face a 53‑gigaton challenge and the longer we delay, the deeper into debt we dive. These strategies—carbon pricing, nature, and super pollutants—represent our best first bets. 

Ultimately, a clear economic approach can deliver more climate progress for every dollar spent. It helps build public trust that climate investments are effective, fair, and support economic growth. It can also help to unlock investment and buy time for other solutions to become more affordable and accessible. 

To unlock sensible, durable climate action, we have to use our economy as a catalyst, not an obstacle. Climate change may be a 53‑gigaton math problem, but it’s one we can solve by putting the full force of markets, investment, and human ingenuity behind the numbers.