In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman introduces the idea that our minds run on two systems:

  • System 1 – fast, intuitive, emotional, automatic
  • System 2 – slow, deliberate, analytical, effortful

One of System 2’s jobs is to monitor and, when necessary, override the snap judgments of System 1. But here’s the problem: System 2 is a bit lazy. It prefers to go along with System 1 unless pushed.

Kahneman popularised the bat and ball problem shows how easily intuition can trip us up:

A bat and ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

If your mind instantly thought $0.10, you’re not alone. It’s intuitive, quick — and wrong. The correct answer is $0.05. Even more surprising? More than half of Harvard, MIT, and Princeton students gave the wrong answer.

Why? Because it “feels right” — and System 2 doesn’t always put in the work to check the maths.

The same thing happens with logic. Consider:

All roses are flowers. Some flowers fade quickly. Therefore, some roses fade quickly.

It sounds plausible. It even feels true. But logically, it’s not valid — there’s no guarantee that any of the fading flowers are roses. Again, System 1 leaps in; System 2 shrugs.

Intuition’s Blind Spot in Climate Planning

When it comes to corporate climate strategy, many decisions still run on System 1 thinking:

  • “If we electrify all vehicles, we’ll meet our target.”

  • “Our emissions are falling because we’ve reduced business travel.”

  • “We’ll just offset the remainder — that’s job done.”

These may feel right, but without the slow, deliberate work of System 2 — backed by quantitative modelling — they’re often wrong, incomplete, or counterproductive.

For example, electrifying vehicles might not hit your target if the grid mix is still heavily fossil-fuelled. Cutting business travel might be dwarfed by a rebound elsewhere. And relying on offsets without reducing core emissions risks reputational damage and regulatory pushback.

Why Modelling is Your System 2

Our projection engine is built to be your organisation’s System 2.

  • It challenges the quick “feels right” assumptions.

  • It runs the numbers on both internal actions and external trends.

  • It shows how different levers interact — and sometimes cancel each other out.

  • It quantifies uncertainty, so you see the plausible range of outcomes, not just a single “best guess.”

This isn’t about slowing things down for the sake of it. It’s about making sure the fast decisions are grounded in accurate, tested reasoning — so you don’t set a net zero target that collapses under scrutiny, or invest in a “solution” that barely moves the needle.

In other words: let System 1 generate the ideas. Then let System 2 — with data, models, and scenario testing — decide which ones actually work.

Conclusion

Climate strategy isn’t a bat-and-ball puzzle. It’s far more complex — with feedback loops, lag effects, and non-linear relationships. But the danger is the same: if it feels right, and we don’t test it, we risk being confidently wrong. And in this case, the cost isn’t a wrong exam answer — it’s a lost decade of climate action.