Weather and Climate Prediction Markets Boom, Scientists: Don't Turn Disasters Into a Betting Arena
Baca dalam 60 detik
- Platform seperti Kalshi dan Polymarket mencatat lonjakan taruhan terkait cuaca dan iklim hingga 500% dalam setahun terakhir, dengan nilai pasar menembus US$1,1 miliar.
- Sejumlah ilmuwan iklim menilai praktik ini mengubah penderitaan manusia menjadi komoditas spekulatif dan mengalihkan perhatian dari aksi nyata mitigasi krisis iklim.
- Ketidakpastian proyeksi iklim—termasuk gugurnya target 1,5C dan potensi umpan balik karbon—membuat taruhan semacam ini secara ilmiah rapuh dan berisiko menyesatkan publik.
Online prediction markets in the United States are starting to eye weather and the climate crisis as a new commodity. Kalshi and Polymarket—the two largest platforms in the sector—report a surge in weather- and climate-related bets of up to 500% over the past year, with a market value reaching US$1.1 billion. Kalshi has even partnered with The Weather Company, owner of The Weather Channel, to strengthen its credibility in a domain previously dominated by sports and crypto betting.
The phenomenon raises a fundamental question: how ethical is it to trade climate uncertainty that directly affects the lives and livelihoods of billions of people? A number of climate scientists have voiced unease. They argue such bets turn human suffering into a game and could steer the public away from real action on the climate crisis.
The sharpest concern emerged after large bets were placed on last year's Los Angeles wildfires. Kalshi and Polymarket insist they have banned this type of betting because it creates unwanted incentives for would-be arsonists. But for some, the ban came too late. Kaitlyn Trudeau, a scientist at the nonprofit Climate Central, said she was shaken because her grandfather lost his home in the event. "I feel distressed because this distracts from what should be our focus," she said. "I'm not opposed to prediction markets in general, but we need to be honest about the downside. This will not reduce the risk of climate change or solve it."
On the other side, platforms like Kalshi see themselves as part of a well-calibrated forecasting data ecosystem. A Kalshi spokesperson said the company uses market wisdom to help predict temperatures, floods, and other environmental outcomes. The approach aligns with the trend of using big data and artificial intelligence in climate science. However, some researchers doubt whether prediction markets can genuinely add accuracy to long-term climate projections.
Uncertainty is indeed at the heart of the matter. The UN recently acknowledged that the international target to limit temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels—a promise made ten years ago—has effectively failed. Global warming is proceeding too fast and uncontrollably. Conversely, the previous worst-case scenario, RCP8.5, shadowed by massive coal burning, is now seen as increasingly unlikely as clean energy advances. Within just a few years, both the most extreme and the most optimistic scenarios have been pushed off the negotiating table.
"I'm not opposed to prediction markets in general, but we need to be clear about the downside. This will not reduce the risk of climate change or solve it." — Kaitlyn Trudeau, scientist at Climate Central
For Indonesia, this development is not merely a financial market phenomenon in a distant country. As an archipelagic nation highly vulnerable to extreme weather, sea-level rise, and crop failure, Indonesia has a direct stake in how the world predicts and responds to the climate. If climate prediction markets grow without a strict ethical and scientific framework, the risk of disinformation and the normalization of disasters could seep into domestic policy. the Financial Services Authority (OJK) and Bappebti need to examine whether similar instruments will enter the Indonesian market, and how to protect consumers from unfounded speculation.
More urgently, the debate highlights the gap between predictive capability and the need for action. Feedback from natural systems—thawing permafrost, massive wildfires, warming wetlands—could accelerate global warming by up to 30%, according to a recent study. That means an additional up to 0.4C in global temperature, on top of a rise already deemed dangerous. Yet researchers themselves caution that uncertainty remains large. The planet could be more sensitive, or indeed more tolerant, than expected.
In the end, the remaining question is not whether prediction markets can forecast the climate, but whether we as a society want to treat the planet's vulnerability as a betting arena. As temperatures keep rising and weather grows more chaotic, betting on disasters may only mirror a collective failure to act. Will we keep watching, or start changing course?
