Azerbaijan’s economy is highly dependent on fossil-fuel exports, making its economic prospects vulnerable to rising emissions-cutting ambition around the world.
As decarbonisation reduces global fossil-fuel demand and prices, the country will not be able to earn as much money from its oil and gas resources.
In a recent study, we looked at the policy solutions Azerbaijan could implement, in order to shift towards cleaner energy and diversify its economy away from fossil fuels to benefit domestic consumers, while remaining competitive in global markets.
Our results suggest that, while being adversely impacted by decarbonisation efforts in countries around the world, it is in Azerbaijan’s self-interest to implement domestic mitigation policies.
With proper sequencing and design of such policies, including a combination of fossil-fuel subsidy reform, a price on carbon post-2030 and use of collected revenue to cut taxes elsewhere, the country could achieve nationally determined contribution (NDC) targets, boost income growth and increase economic diversification.
Moreover, ambitious mitigation efforts towards net-zero by 2060 would yield substantial health co-benefits that could almost fully outweigh the direct economic costs of cutting emissions.
Vulnerability of the status quo
Net fossil-fuel exporting economies, such as Azerbaijan, not only need to implement domestic decarbonisation policies, but also face the consequences of global mitigation efforts if global climate targets are to be met. The latter could substantially impact the country’s future revenue flows from fossil fuel exports.
During the early 2000s, Azerbaijan’s hydrocarbon-fueled economy contributed to rapidly rising incomes and the development of domestic infrastructure. Between 2000 and 2014, per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) in the country increased more than 10-fold, transitioning Azerbaijan from a low-income to an upper-middle-income economy, according to the World Bank.
However, over the past decade, GDP growth has slowed down, while the country’s diversification efforts have not led to major transformations in the structure of the domestic economy, with fossil-fuel activities still playing a central role. Fossil-fuel subsidies in the country remain large and they continue to distort domestic energy markets, according to the International Energy Agency.
Between 2016 and 2021, Azerbaijan ranked 115 out of 133 countries in terms of the “economic complexity” of its exports – a measure of how diverse a country’s export basket is – according to the Growth Lab at Harvard University.
The figure, below left, shows that its export basket is among the least complex in the world – even among oil and mineral exporting comparator countries, only Nigeria ranks lower than Azerbaijan.
In addition, the country is highly vulnerable to the future energy transition, being characterised by both high exposure and low resiliency, as shown in the figure below right.
Azerbaijan has the second least complex export basket in the world, leaving it highly vulnerable to an energy transition
Economic risks
Without pro-active domestic policies, our research suggests that Azerbaijan risks facing major economic losses from the global energy transition.
Mitigation efforts around the world can substantially reduce a country’s “resource rents” through declining global fossil-fuel demand and prices, as shown in the figure below.
Results from our study suggest that if countries around the world implement NDC-consistent climate policies, then GDP in Azerbaijan could decline by up to 3.3% in 2060, relative to a reference scenario, which reflects a continuation of the current trends, policies adopted by 2021 and the energy projects that are already in the pipeline.
Households’ welfare, a measure closely related to changes in real income, as well as their investments, might be impacted even more adversely – by 5.1% and 6.7%, respectively, in 2060.
The country would see significant and growing reductions in export earnings from fossil fuels, as shown in the second figure below. Resources such as labour and capital, freed by declining fossil-fuel extraction activities would be reallocated to cleaner sectors, such as services and manufactured goods, which would see a modest expansion in output and exports. However, this would only partly compensate for the reduction in fossil-fuel export revenues, as shown in the figure below.
Global climate action could significantly hit Azerbaijan’s economy
In our NDC mitigation scenario, most of the reduction in economic activity in Azerbaijan is associated with fossil-fuel extraction sectors, as shown in the lower two figures above. Supporting service activities, such as trade, are also impacted substantially. The construction sector would also see a contraction in value-added and investments, due to reduced volumes of investment in the economy overall.
In terms of the government balance sheet, if the rest of the world implements NDC-consistent mitigation policies, then Azerbaijan would see a decline in tax revenue of up to 4% in 2060.
Domestic mitigation is a win-win
Transitioning to a “green” economy is listed as one of the key pillars of the 2021 presidential order titled: “Azerbaijan 2030: National priorities for socio-economic development”.
The country has a target of reducing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 35% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 40% by 2050, based on its updated NDC from 2023. (Its emissions are currently around 5% above 1990 levels.)
At the same time, between 2010 and 2023 GHG emissions in the country have increased by more than 39%, complicating the ability to achieve the mitigation goals.
In addition, Azerbaijan’s 2050 commitment of cutting emissions by 40% relative to the 1990 level is not only conditional on international support, but could be also deemed as substantially less ambitious than the country’s fair contribution towards global climate goals. Recent research, separate from ours, suggests the latter would imply reducing emissions by around 65% by 2050.
Our research suggests that achieving the stated 2030 targets and further strengthening the country’s mitigation ambition in the long-run would bring important economic benefits.
Our estimates suggest that a combination of fossil-fuel subsidies reform, the introduction of a carbon price post-2030 and recycling of the additionally collected revenue via reduced taxes elsewhere – on labour, capital and land, for example – would allow the country to achieve domestic NDC targets while boosting economic growth and investment, as shown in the figure below.
If the country were to implement such policies, Azerbaijan’s GDP could increase by over 1% in 2040 and by over 2% in 2060, relative to the scenario where all countries achieve their NDCs, while Azerbaijan does not implement climate-mitigation policies, i.e. follows the baseline pathway. There would be an even more substantial increase in investment of almost 6% in 2060.
On the policy implementation side, our results suggest that the elimination of two-thirds of fossil-fuel subsidies in Azerbaijan would be sufficient to achieve the 2030 NDC target.
Additional mitigation efforts would be needed to comply with NDC targets post-2030, for example, carbon prices of around $40-$50 per tonne of carbon dioxide (/tCO2 post-2045).
Azerbaijan could boost its GDP through climate action
If additional revenue from energy-subsidy reform and carbon pricing were used to reduce taxes elsewhere, such as taxes on labour, capital and land, this would help to support non-fossil-fuel activities, contributing to the diversification of Azerbaijan’s economy, as shown in the third figure above.
The share of energy-intensive manufacturing in the country’s GDP would decline by around 0.6 percentage points starting from 2035, similar in magnitude to the reduction in the share of carbon-based electricity generation.
These two groups of activities would be primarily substituted by carbon-free electricity and service sectors, reducing Azerbaijan’s exposure to the global energy transition.
Importance of considering a bigger picture
Apart from reducing GHG emissions, domestic mitigation policies would also lead to changes in air pollution levels.
As suggested by earlier studies, reduced air pollution levels could result in lower mortality rates and reduce the overall costs of mitigation.
In addition to air pollution changes under the NDC and net-zero by 2060 mitigation scenarios, in our study we also consider a hypothetical case where, within a net-zero climate policy scenario, households reduce the use of wood biomass for domestic heating and cooking – by 50% and 60% respectively in 2030 and 2060, relative to business as usual. (In the figure below, we refer to this scenario as “NetZero with reduced wood burning by HHs”.)
Our results suggest that the improved air quality observed across mitigation scenarios allows for saving between 120 lives in Azerbaijan in 2030 (NDC scenario) and 1,300 in 2060 (net-zero scenario) lives in Azerbaijan.
When the case of reduced wood-burning by households is considered, the number of saved lives increases to 1,200 (net-zero in 2030) and 3,800 (net-zero in 2060).
When these mortality reductions are translated to monetary equivalents using the “value of statistical life” (VSL), the corresponding health co-benefits reach 0.2%-0.6% of households’ welfare in 2030 and 0.5%-2.2% of welfare in 2060, as shown in the figures below.
Health co-benefits could more than offset the cost of Azerbaijan reaching net-zero
Our findings show that households would be better off under the NDC scenario, with air pollution co-benefits increasing the boost to their welfare already generated by mitigation policies.
While there would be direct mitigation-related economic costs to households in the net-zero scenario, health co-benefits would offset 60% of this in 2030 and 80% in 2060.
Moreover, reaching net-zero in 2060 while reducing wood burning by households would bring additional health benefits, with substantially greater economic value than the costs of mitigation.
Policy implications
Several important policy insights follow from our analysis.
First, while being exposed to the declining global fossil-fuel demand and prices that are expected to accompany decarbonisation efforts in countries around the world, our research suggests it is in Azerbaijan’s self-interest to implement domestic mitigation policies.
Our findings support earlier studies that suggest lower risks of “stranded fossil-fuel assets” and overall economic costs for those that move to diversify their economy early, compared to latecomer countries in the context of climate mitigation.
Second, electricity and gas prices are currently well below their economic costs, due to the presence of implicit subsidies. Considering the current windfall earnings from energy sector revenues, Azerbaijan is well-positioned to proceed with the subsidies’ phase-out, as international experience shows that successful pricing reforms are often implemented when fiscal pressures are low.
Our research suggests that a gradual but steady phaseout of fossil-fuel subsidies by 2030, followed by the introduction of economy-wide carbon pricing of at least $25/tCO2 by 2035 is the economically most efficient path to incentivise a clean-energy transition and improve energy efficiency.
From the policy perspective, such a transition would entail a gradual deregulation of gas, electricity and fuel prices, as well as a strengthening of regulators and market mechanisms in price setting – areas where Azerbaijan has achieved limited progress in recent years.
Third, our results support the important role of decisions on the use of revenues collected during the implementation of mitigation policies, either through the elimination of fossil-fuel subsidies or carbon-pricing.
We find that recycling revenue through a reduction in other taxes, rather than direct transfers to households or subsidies to renewable energy, is more economically efficient.
Finally, our results suggest that broader environmental impacts and co-benefits from decarbonisation are an important part of the equation when weighing the economic impact of mitigation policies. This includes reductions in air pollutant emissions, which further lead to improved air quality and declining mortality.
When properly accounted for, such co-benefits could substantially reduce the overall cost of mitigation and even result in net welfare gains in Azerbaijan. Complementary policies on the reduction of wood-burning in the country could result in even more substantial health co-benefits.
The post Guest post: How COP29 host Azerbaijan could boost growth through climate action appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: How COP29 host Azerbaijan could boost growth through climate action
In 2026, the dangers of fossil fuel dependence have been laid bare like never before. The illegal invasion of Iran has brought pain and destruction to millions across the Middle East and triggered a global energy crisis impacting us all. Communities in the Pacific have been hit especially hard by rising fuel prices, and Australians have seen their cost-of-living woes deepen.
Such moments of crisis and upheaval can lead to positive transformation. But only when leaders act with courage and foresight.
There is no clearer statement of a government’s plans and priorities for the nation than its budget — how it plans to raise money, and what services, communities, and industries it will invest in.
As we count down the days to the 2026-27 Federal Budget, will the Albanese Government deliver a budget for our times? One that starts breaking the shackles of fossil fuels, accelerates the shift to clean energy, protects nature, and sees us work together with other countries towards a safer future for all? Or one that doubles down on coal and gas, locks in more climate chaos, and keeps us beholden to the whims of tyrants and billionaires.
Here’s what we think the moment demands, and what we’ll be looking out for when Treasurer Jim Chalmers steps up to the dispatch box on 12 May.
1. Stop fuelling the fire
2. Make big polluters pay
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
4. Build the industries of the future
5. Build community resilience
6. Be a better neighbour
7. Protect nature
1. Stop fuelling the fire
In mid-April, Pacific governments and civil society met to redouble their efforts towards a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific. Moving beyond coal, oil and gas is fundamental to limiting warming to 1.5°C — a survival line for vulnerable communities and ecosystems. And as our Head of Pacific, Shiva Gounden, explained, it is “also a path of liberation that frees us from expensive, extractive and polluting fossil fuel imports and uplifts our communities”.
Pacific countries are at the forefront of growing global momentum towards a just transition away from fossil fuels, and it is way past time for Australia to get with the program. It is no longer a question of whether fossil fuel extraction will end, but whether that end will be appropriately managed and see communities supported through the transition, or whether it will be chaotic and disruptive.
So will this budget support the transition away from fossil fuels, or will it continue to prop up coal and gas?
When it comes to sensible moves the government can make right now, one stands out as a genuine low hanging fruit. Mining companies get a full rebate of the excise (or tax) that the rest of us pay on diesel fuel. This lowers their operating costs and acts as a large, ongoing subsidy on fossil fuel production — to the tune of $11 billion a year!
Greenpeace has long called for coal and gas companies to be removed from this outdated scheme, and for the billions in savings to be used to support the clean energy transition and to assist communities with adapting to the impacts of climate change. Will we see the government finally make this long overdue change, or will it once again cave to the fossil fuel lobby?
2. Make big polluters pay
While our communities continue to suffer the escalating costs of climate-fuelled disasters, our Government continues to support a massive expansion of Australia’s export gas industry. Gas is a dangerous fossil fuel, with every tonne of Australian gas adding to the global heating that endangers us all.
Moreover, companies like Santos and Woodside pay very little tax for the privilege of digging up and selling Australians’ natural endowment of fossil gas. Remarkably, the Government currently raises more tax from beer than from the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) — the main tax on gas profits.
Momentum has been building to replace or supplement the PRRT with a 25% tax on gas exports. This could raise up to $17 billion a year — funds that, like savings from removing the diesel tax rebate for coal and gas companies, could be spent on supporting the clean energy transition and assisting communities with adapting to worsening fires, floods, heatwaves and other impacts of climate change.
As politicians arrive in Canberra for budget week, they will be confronted by billboards calling for a fair tax on gas exports. The push now has the support of dozens of organisations and a growing number of politicians. Let’s hope the Treasurer seizes this rare window for reform.
3. Support everyone to be part of the solution
As the price of petrol and diesel rises, electric vehicles (EVs) are helping people cut fuel use and save money. However, while EV sales have jumped since the invasion of Iran sent fuel prices rising, they still only make up a fraction of total new car sales. This budget should help more Australians switch to electric vehicles and, even more importantly, enable more Australians to get around by bike, on foot, and on public transport. This means maintaining the EV discount, investing in public and active transport, and removing tax breaks for fuel-hungry utes and vans.
Millions of Australians already enjoy the cost-saving benefits of rooftop solar, batteries, and getting off gas. This budget should enable more households, and in particular those on lower incomes, to access these benefits. This means maintaining the Cheaper Home Batteries Program, and building on the Household Energy Upgrades Fund.
4. Build the industries of the future
If we’re to transition away from fossil fuels, we need to be building the clean industries of the future.
No state is more pivotal to Australia’s energy and industrial transformation than Western Australia. The state has unrivaled potential for renewable energy development and for replacing fossil fuel exports with clean exports like green iron. Such industries offer Western Australia the promise of a vibrant economic future, and for Australia to play an outsized positive role in the world’s efforts to reduce emissions.
However, realising this potential will require focussed support from the Federal Government. Among other measures, Greenpeace has recommended establishing the Australasian Green Iron Corporation as a joint venture between the Australian and Western Australian governments, a key trading partner, a major iron ore miner and steel makers. This would unite these central players around the complex task of building a large-scale green iron industry, and unleash Western Australia’s potential as a green industrial powerhouse.
5. Build community resilience
Believe it or not, our Government continues to spend far more on subsidising fossil fuel production — and on clearing up after climate-fuelled disasters — than it does on helping communities and industries reduce disaster costs through practical, proven methods for building their resilience.
Last year, the Government estimated that the cost of recovery from disasters like the devastating 2022 east coast floods on 2019-20 fires will rise to $13.5 billion. For contrast, the Government’s Disaster Ready Fund – the main national source of funding for disaster resilience – invests just $200 million a year in grants to support disaster preparedness and resilience building. This is despite the Government’s own National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) estimating that for every dollar spent on disaster risk reduction, there is a $9.60 return on investment.
By redirecting funds currently spent on subsidising fossil fuel production, the Government can both stop incentivising climate destruction in the first place, and ensure that Australian communities and industries are better protected from worsening climate extremes.
No communities have more to lose from climate damage, or carry more knowledge of practical solutions, than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The budget should include a dedicated First Nations climate adaptation fund, ensuring First Nations communities can develop solutions on their own terms, and access the support they need with adapting to extreme heat, coastal erosion and other escalating challenges.
6. Be a better neighbour
The global response to climate change depends on the adequate flow of support from developed economies like Australia to lower income nations with shifting to clean energy, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and addressing loss and damage.
Such support is vital to building trust and cooperation, reducing global emissions, and supporting regional and global security by enabling countries to transition away from fossil fuels and build greater resilience.
Despite its central leadership role in this year’s global climate negotiations, our Government is yet to announce its contribution to international climate finance for 2025-2030. Greenpeace recommends a commitment of $11 billion for this five year period, which is aligned with the global goal under the Paris Agreement to triple international climate finance from current levels.
This new commitment should include additional funding to address loss and damage from climate change and a substantial contribution to the Pacific Resilience Facility, ensuring support is accessible to countries and communities that need it most. It should also see Australia get firmly behind the vision of a Fossil Fuel Free Pacific.
7. Protect nature
There is no safe planet without protection of the ecosystems and biodiversity that sustain us and regulate our climate.
Last year the Parliament passed important and long overdue reforms to our national environment laws to ensure better protection for our forests and other critical ecosystems. However, the Government will need to provide sufficient funding to ensure the effective implementation of these reforms.
Greenpeace has recommended $500 million over four years to establish the National Environment Agency — the body responsible for enforcing and monitoring the new laws — and a further $50 million to Environment Information Australia for providing critical information and tools.
Further resourcing will also be required to fulfil the crucial goal of fully protecting 30% of Australian land and seas by 2030. This should include $1 billion towards ending deforestation by enabling farmers and loggers to retool away from destructive practices, $2 billion a year for restoring degraded lands, $5 billion for purchasing and creating new protected areas, and $200 million for expanding domestic and international marine protected areas.
Conclusion
This is not the first time that conflict overseas has triggered an energy crisis, or that a budget has been preceded by a summer of extreme weather disasters, highlighting the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels. What’s different in 2026 is the availability of solutions. Renewable energy is now cheaper and more accessible than ever before. Global momentum is firmly behind the transition away from fossil fuels. The Albanese Government, with its overwhelming majority, has the chance to set our nation up for the future, or keep us stranded in the past. Let’s hope it makes some smart choices.
The 2026 budget test: Will Australia break free from fossil fuels?
Anne Jellema is Executive Director of 350.org.
The war on Iran and Lebanon is a deeply unjust and devastating conflict, killing civilians at home, destroying lives, and at the same time sending shockwaves through the global economy. We, at 350.org, have calculated, drawing on price forecasts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Goldman Sachs, just how much that volatility is costing us.
Even under the IMF’s baseline scenario – a de facto “best case” scenario with a near-term end to the war and related supply chain disruptions – oil and gas price spikes are projected to cost households and businesses globally more than $600 billion by the end of the year. Under the IMF’s “adverse scenario”, with prolonged conflict and sustained price pressures, we estimate those additional costs could exceed $1 trillion, even after accounting for reduced demand.
Which is why we urgently need a power shift. Governments are under growing pressure to respond to rising fuel and food costs and deepening energy poverty. And it’s becoming clearer to both voters and elected officials that fossil dependence is not only expensive and risky, but unnecessary.
People who can are voting with their wallets: sales of solar panels and electric vehicles are increasing sharply in many countries. But the working people who have nothing to spare, ironically, are the ones stuck with using oil and gas that is either exorbitantly expensive or simply impossible to get.
Drain on households and economies
In India, street food vendors can’t get cooking gas and in the Philippines, fishermen can’t afford to take their boats to sea. A quarter of British people say that rising energy tariffs will leave them completely unable to pay their bills. This is the moment for a global push to bring abundant and affordable clean energy to all.
In April, we released Out of Pocket, our new research report on how fossil fuels are draining households and economies. We were surprised by the scale of what we found. For decades, governments have reassured people that energy price spikes are unfortunate but unavoidable – the result of distant conflicts, market forces or geopolitical shocks beyond anyone’s control. But the numbers tell a different story.
-
Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out
Around 60 governments that want to make progress on transitioning away from coal, oil and gas are meeting in Colombia to work out how they can do it an equitable way -
Why the transition beyond fossil fuels depends on cities and collective action
Cities will help identify concrete pathways for an equitable shift to clean energy at the Santa Marta conference, with C40 members aiming to halve their fossil fuel use by 2030
What we are living through today is not an energy crisis. It is a fossil fuel crisis. In just the first 50 days of the Middle East conflict, soaring oil and gas prices have siphoned an estimated $158 billion–$166 billion from households and businesses worldwide. That is money extracted directly from people’s pockets and transferred, almost instantly, into fossil fuel company balance sheets. And this figure only captures the immediate impact of price spikes, not the permanent economic drain of fossil dependence. Fossil fuels don’t just cost us once, they cost us over and over again.
First, through our bills. Every time there is a war, an embargo or a supply disruption, fossil fuel prices surge. For ordinary people, this means higher costs for energy, transport and food. Many Global South countries have little or no fiscal space to buffer the shock; instead, workers and families pay the price.
Second, through our taxes. Governments around the world continue to pour vast sums of public money into fossil fuel subsidies. These are often justified as a way to protect the most vulnerable at the petrol pump or in their homes. But in reality, the benefits are overwhelmingly captured by wealthier households and corporations. The poorest 20% receive just a fraction of this support, while public finances are drained.
Third, through climate impacts. New research across more than 24,000 global locations gives a granular account of the true costs of extreme heat, sea level rise and falling agricultural yields. Using this data to update IMF modelling of the social cost of carbon, we found that fossil fuel impacts on health and livelihoods amount to over $9 trillion a year. This is the biggest subsidy of all, because these massive and mounting costs are not charged to Big Oil – they are paid for by governments and households, with the poorest shouldering the lion’s share.
Massive transfer of wealth to fossil fuel industry
Adding up direct subsidies, tax breaks and the unpaid bill for climate damages, the total transfer of wealth from the public to the fossil fuel industry amounts to $12 trillion even in a “normal” year without a global oil shock. That’s more than 50% higher than the IMF has previously estimated, and equivalent to a staggering $23 million a minute.
The fossil fuel industry has become extraordinarily adept at profiting from instability. When conflict drives up prices, companies do not lose, they gain. In the current crisis, oil producers and commodity traders are on track to secure tens of billions of dollars in additional windfall profits, even as households face rising bills and governments struggle to manage the fallout.
Fossil fuel crisis offers chance to speed up energy transition, ministers say
This growing disconnect is impossible to ignore. Investors are advised to buy into fossil fuel firms precisely because of their ability to generate profits in times of crisis. Meanwhile, ordinary people are told to tighten their belts.
In 2026, unlike during the oil shocks of the 1970s, clean energy is no longer a distant alternative. Now, even more than when gas prices spiked due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, renewables are often the cheapest option available. Solar and wind can be deployed quickly, at scale, and without the volatility that defines fossil fuel markets.
How to transition from dirty to clean energy
The solutions are clear. Governments must implement permanent windfall taxes on fossil fuel companies to ensure that extraordinary profits generated during crises are redirected to support households. These revenues can be used to reduce energy bills, invest in public services, and accelerate the rollout of clean energy.
Second, we must shift subsidies away from fossil fuels and towards renewable solutions, particularly those that can be deployed quickly and equitably, such as rooftop and community solar. This is not just about cutting emissions. It is about building a more stable, fair and resilient energy system.
Finally, we need binding plans to phase out fossil fuels altogether, replacing them with homegrown renewable energy that can shield economies from future shocks. Because what the current crisis has made clear is this: as long as we remain dependent on fossil fuels, we remain vulnerable – to conflict, to price volatility and to the escalating impacts of climate change.
The true price of fossil fuels is no longer hidden. It is visible in rising bills, strained public finances and communities pushed to the brink. And it is being paid, every day, by ordinary people around the world.
It’s time for the great power shift.
Full details on the methodology used for this report are available here.
The Great Power Shift is a new campaign by 350.org global campaign to pressure governments to bring down energy bills for good by ending fossil fuel dependence and investing in clean, affordable energy for all
The post What fossil fuels really cost us in a world at war appeared first on Climate Home News.
Computer models that use artificial intelligence (AI) cannot forecast record-breaking weather as well as traditional climate models, according to a new study.
It is well established that AI climate models have surpassed traditional, physics-based climate models for some aspects of weather forecasting.
However, new research published in Science Advances finds that AI models still “underperform” in forecasting record-breaking extreme weather events.
The authors tested how well both AI and traditional weather models could simulate thousands of record-breaking hot, cold and windy events that were recorded in 2018 and 2020.
They find that AI models underestimate both the frequency and intensity of record-breaking events.
A study author tells Carbon Brief that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI weather forecasts
Extreme weather events, such as floods, heatwaves and storms, drive hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every year through the destruction of cropland, impacts on infrastructure and the loss of human life.
Many governments have developed early warning systems to prepare the general public and mobilise disaster response teams for imminent extreme weather events. These systems have been shown to minimise damages and save lives.
For decades, scientists have used numerical weather prediction models to simulate the weather days, or weeks, in advance.
These models rely on a series of complex equations that reproduce processes in the atmosphere and ocean. The equations are rooted in fundamental laws of physics, based on decades of research by climate scientists. As a result, these models are referred to as “physics-based” models.
However, AI-based climate models are gaining popularity as an alternative for weather forecasting.
Instead of using physics, these models use a statistical approach. Scientists present AI models with a large batch of historical weather data, known as training data, which teaches the model to recognise patterns and make predictions.
To produce a new forecast, the AI model draws on this bank of knowledge and follows the patterns that it knows.
There are many advantages to AI weather forecasts. For example, they use less computing power than physics-based models, because they do not have to run thousands of mathematical equations.
Furthermore, many AI models have been found to perform better than traditional physics-based models at weather forecasts.
However, these models also have drawbacks.
Study author Prof Sebastian Engelke, a professor at the research institute for statistics and information science at the University of Geneva, tells Carbon Brief that AI models “depend strongly on the training data” and are “relatively constrained to the range of this dataset”.
In other words, AI models struggle to simulate brand new weather patterns, instead tending forecast events of a similar strength to those seen before. As a result, it is unclear whether AI models can simulate unprecedented, record-breaking extreme events that, by definition, have never been seen before.
Record-breaking extremes
Extreme weather events are becoming more intense and frequent as the climate warms. Record-shattering extremes – those that break existing records by large margins – are also becoming more regular.
For example, during a 2021 heatwave in north-western US and Canada, local temperature records were broken by up to 5C. According to one study, the heatwave would have been “impossible” without human-caused climate change.
The new study explores how accurately AI and physics-based models can forecast such record-breaking extremes.
First, the authors identified every heat, cold and wind event in 2018 and 2020 that broke a record previously set between 1979 and 2017. (They chose these years due to data availability.) The authors use ERA5 reanalysis data to identify these records.
This produced a large sample size of record-breaking events. For the year 2020, the authors identified around 160,000 heat, 33,000 cold and 53,000 wind records, spread across different seasons and world regions.
For their traditional, physics-based model, the authors selected the High RESolution forecast model from the Integrated Forecasting System of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. This is “widely considered as the leading physics-based numerical weather prediction model”, according to the paper.
They also selected three “leading” AI weather models – the GraphCast model from Google Deepmind, Pangu-Weather developed by Huawei Cloud and the Fuxi model, developed by a team from Shanghai.
The authors then assessed how accurately each model could forecast the extremes observed in the year 2020.
Dr Zhongwei Zhang is the lead author on the study and a researcher at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. He tells Carbon Brief that many AI weather forecast models were built for “general weather conditions”, as they use all historical weather data to train the models. Meanwhile, forecasting extremes is considered a “secondary task” by the models.
The authors explored a range of different “lead times” – in other words, how far into the future the model is forecasting. For example, a lead time of two days could mean the model uses the weather conditions at midnight on 1 January to simulate weather conditions at midnight on 3 January.
The plot below shows how accurately the models forecasted all extreme events (left) and heat extremes (right) under different lead times. This is measured using “root mean square error” – a metric of how accurate a model is, where a lower value indicates lower error and higher accuracy.
The chart on the left shows how two of the AI models (blue and green) performed better than the physics-based model (black) when forecasting all weather across the year 2020.
However, the chart on the right illustrates how the physics-based model (black) performed better than all three AI models (blue, red and green) when it came to forecasting heat extremes.
The authors note that the performance gap between AI and physics-based models is widest for lower lead times, indicating that AI models have greater difficulty making predictions in the near future.
They find similar results for cold and wind records.
In addition, the authors find that AI models generally “underpredict” temperature during heat records and “overpredict” during cold records.
The study finds that the larger the margin that the record is broken by, the less well the AI model predicts the intensity of the event.
‘Warning shot’
Study author Prof Erich Fischer is a climate scientist at ETH Zurich and a Carbon Brief contributing editor. He tells Carbon Brief that the result is “not unexpected”.
He adds that the analysis is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
The analysis, he continues, is a “warning shot” against replacing traditional models with AI models for weather forecasting “too quickly”.
AI models are likely to continue to improve, but scientists should “not yet” fully replace traditional forecasting models with AI ones, according to Fischer.
He explains that accurate forecasts are “most needed” in the runup to potential record-breaking extremes, because they are the trigger for early warning systems that help minimise damages caused by extreme weather.
Leonardo Olivetti is a PhD student at Uppsala University, who has published work on AI weather forecasting and was not involved in the study.
He tells Carbon Brief that “many other studies” have identified issues with using AI models for “extremes”, but this paper is novel for its specific focus on extremes.
Olivetti notes that AI models are already used alongside physics-based models at “some of the major weather forecasting centres around the world”. However, the study results suggest “caution against relying too heavily on these [AI] models”, he says.
Prof Martin Schultz, a professor in computational earth system science at the University of Cologne who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the results of the analysis are “very interesting, but not too surprising”.
He adds that the study “justifies the continued use of classical numerical weather models in operational forecasts, in spite of their tremendous computational costs”.
Advances in forecasting
The field of AI weather forecasting is evolving rapidly.
Olivetti notes that the three AI models tested in the study are an “older generation” of AI models. In the last two years, newer “probabilistic” forecast models have emerged that “claim to better capture extremes”, he explains.
The three AI models used in the analysis are “deterministic”, meaning that they only simulate one possible future outcome.
In contrast, study author Engelke tells Carbon Brief that probabilistic models “create several possible future states of the weather” and are therefore more likely to capture record-breaking extremes.
Engelke says it is “important” to evaluate the newer generation of models for their ability to forecast weather extremes.
He adds that this paper has set out a “protocol” for testing the ability of AI models to predict unprecedented extreme events, which he hopes other researchers will go on to use.
The study says that another “promising direction” for future research is to develop models that combine aspects of traditional, physics-based weather forecasts with AI models.
Engelke says this approach would be “best of both worlds”, as it would combine the ability of physics-based models to simulate record-breaking weather with the computational efficiency of AI models.
Dr Kyle Hilburn, a research scientist at Colorado State University, notes that the study does not address extreme rainfall, which he says “presents challenges for both modelling and observing”. This, he says, is an “important” area for future research.
The post Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Traditional models still ‘outperform AI’ for extreme weather forecasts
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测