Research & Data
Economic modeling, scenario analysis and data science.
Climate-economics think tank
Climate change is an engineering and economics problem. We work on the incentives (prices, regulation, product design) that decide what people, companies and governments actually do.
The argument
The signal
So prices stop reflecting reality. Buyers and sellers optimize correctly against incomplete information, and locally rational decisions add up to a collectively irrational outcome.
Technical note 001: the 2026 oil shock as an implicit carbon price →The correction
Regulation and taxation that put a price on emissions restore the signal. Once the right price is in place, the market can steer economic choices toward lower-carbon solutions efficiently.
What the 2026 data support →Climate action must stop being perceived as a moral constraint, and become a rational choice — the most attractive one, economically and strategically, for individuals, businesses, and public decision-makers.
Our thesis · Read the full thesis →
Method
A project is only approved if it meets three cumulative criteria. Five Poles then carry it, each reaching into the others whenever the project calls for it.
Backed by verifiable data.
It must hold up without depending indefinitely on subsidies.
No project is approved on enthusiasm alone.
Economic modeling, scenario analysis and data science.
Regulatory frameworks, carbon pricing and climate diplomacy.
Prototypes and pilots of the technical solutions our models point to.
Our public presence, online and in the rooms where we make our case.
Alliances and sponsors on one side, the resources that keep the Poles running on the other.
Work in progress
A tool to identify products that are genuinely durable and efficient, without decoding marketing claims or manufacturer self-declared labels. Each product is compared to its category's median on price, durability and efficiency, so the rational choice and the low-carbon choice coincide.
First categories under consideration: vacuum cleaners, phones, laptops. Diagram illustrates the principle, not real data. Methodology not yet public.
See our actions →Sourced analysis notes: the method, the data, the limits and the references. Latest: a 33-country analysis of the 2026 oil shock as an implicit carbon price.
All technical notes →Objections
Three of the 23 objections we answer in full, quoted from our answers.
Objection 01 of 23
Doesn't your approach let the biggest polluters off the hook by reducing everything to individual incentives?
Our answer. That's the opposite of our position. Our critique of individual moralism starts precisely from the observation that demanding a symbolic individual effort while entire swaths of the economy remain off the climate radar is both ineffective and unjust. The lever we advocate for is not individual, it is structural: internalizing the carbon cost into prices at the scale of the sectors and companies that actually matter, rather than placing the burden on individual consumption choices.
Read the full answer →Objection 03 of 23
Hasn't the free market already had decades to solve this problem, without succeeding?
Our answer. That's correct, but it isn't a failure of the market mechanism as such: it's the consequence of an incomplete price signal. The cost of carbon is structurally paid by no one at the moment of transaction, which amounts to asking the market to optimize without giving it the right information.
Read the full answer →Objection 04 of 23
A carbon tax was already tried in France and triggered the Yellow Vests crisis — what do you have to offer that's different?
Our answer. The failure of 2018 owes largely to how the measure was designed, not to the underlying principle. We defend the economic principle, not any one particular implementation: the design of the redistribution matters just as much as the carbon price itself.
Read the full answer →Network
Leadership
We are recruiting Architects across five areas of expertise, from data science to diplomacy. Organizations can partner with us case by case.