Study: “We need a big stick” to Force Down Carbon Emissions by 2050

Essay by Eric Worrall

Climate scientists embracing their inner eco-fascist?

‘Carrots’ can’t save the climate – we need a big ‘stick’

Publicly released: Mon 22 Dec 2025 at 2100 AEDT | Mon 22 Dec 2025 at 2300 NZDT

Subsidies for green technologies (‘carrots’) may help in the short-term, but punishment policies like charging for carbon emissions (‘sticks’) are likely needed as well to greatly reduce CO2 emissions by 2050, according to a US study. Researchers used a computer model of the US that included factors like socioeconomics, energy systems and consumer demands to look at the effects of ‘carrot-first’ policies, in which the ‘stick’ was introduced in 2035 or in 2045. They found that the size of the ‘stick’ (i.e. the price of carbon) would have to be just as big, or even bigger, than if only a ‘stick’ policy was used, without any ‘carrots’ to sweeten the deal. The researchers said that although ‘carrot’ policies are more appealing to governments to appease big industries and voters, leaders need to start hitting out with ‘sticks’ to make sure CO2 emissions dramatically decrease by 2050.

Read more: https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/carrots-cant-save-the-climate-we-need-a-big-stick

The abstract of the study;

• Article
• Published: 22 December 2025

Modelling the impacts of policy sequencing on energy decarbonization

• Huilin Luo, 
• Wei Peng, 
• Allen Fawcett, 
• Jessica F. Green, 
• Gokul Iyer, 
• Jonas Meckling, 
• Jonas Nahm & 
• David G. Victor 

Nature Climate Change (2025)Cite this article

Abstract

Many political jurisdictions have embraced climate policy strategies that emphasize large subsidies to deploy green technologies (‘carrots’) with the anticipation that more punitive policies (‘sticks’) may follow. However, little is known about how such policy sequencing affects future policies, emission reductions and costs. Using a multisector model for the USA, we examine carrot-first policies which mimic the increasingly popular interest in industrial policy and offer a way to model these real-world policy choices in energy-system models. We find that a carrot-first policy strategy still requires later use of similar-sized sticks when compared with a policy strategy that begins with sticks and achieves the same levels of long-term decarbonization. Policy carrots alone do not dramatically reduce future emissions. Only with policy sticks are there unambiguous signals to substantially shrink the size of incumbent fossil fuel industries.

Read more (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02497-6

Sticks are only required in the context of energy policy if the energy policy doesn’t make sense.

When the world transitioned from whale oil to kerosene between 1860 to 1870, it was pretty much all over by 1870. No government subsidies or coercion were required, because the energy transition made sense. Whale oil was expensive and smelly, and kerosene was cheap and had a less offensive odour.

In addition sticks can lead to bad outcomes. Whether it be sky high energy prices in green states like California or New York’s unheated school bus horror WUWT recently reported, driving energy use change with coercion forces people into bad situations they wouldn’t choose of their own free will.

The silver lining to this nastiness is this is the demand for coercion is tantamount to an admission the renewable transition has failed, that green technology is not ready to replace fossil fuel. Ordinary people are rejecting the renewable energy transition on a scale which makes Net Zero goals impossible without the use of coercion and force. Otherwise desperate greens wouldn’t be advocating depriving people of liberty to make their own choices.