Fast Thinking, Slow Thinking, and the Danger of Intuition in Climate Strategy

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.