WHITEFLAG

Sovereign Asset Re-Optimization Portal

Optimal Configurations

Given 8 billion people distributed across the Earth's surface, what arrangement of sovereign structures maximizes aggregate welfare subject to the constraint that every population unit meets a minimum dignity threshold? The Dignity Floor Index (DFI) measures whether populations meet minimum thresholds across seven dimensions — health systems, political voice, housing, education, income, environmental safety, and social connection — not just income alone. Where the World Bank counts 3.5B people below $6.85/day, the DFI captures populations that income measures miss: people above the poverty line who lack adequate governance, health infrastructure, or environmental safety. Baseline figures reflect 2024 data; archetype scenarios model structural outcomes if implemented, not time-bound projections. Climate trajectories (216M internal climate migrants by 2050, per World Bank Groundswell) are modeled separately and suggest the baseline worsens without structural intervention.

Global Dignity Assessment

Dignity Map

Loading dignity map...
0.0
1.0
DFI Score
Rank Country DFI Score Status Binding Constraint Confidence Population

Archetype Configurations

Each archetype represents a distinct approach to reorganizing sovereign structures to maximize dignity floor compliance, ranging from minimal disruption to full structural transformation.

Configuration Explorer

Explore the trade-off space between archetype configurations. Each slider blends between competing priorities, producing interpolated metrics from the five structural archetypes.

Policy Axes
Archetype Weights
Blended Metrics
Objective Scores
Pareto Frontier: Feasibility vs. Compliance

Structural Ceiling

After governance propagation, what genuinely remains intractable? This tab shows the real remaining wall — which countries are stuck due to structural barriers vs. which were only stuck because the model ignored governance restructuring. Speculative extrapolations are clearly labeled.

Cost Escalation Curve
Binding Constraint Wall
Hardest Countries — Still Below 0.6 DFI Under Full Optimization
Dimension Failure Heatmap — Countries × Dimensions

Color intensity = gap severity under Full Optimization. Dark = no gap. Red = large remaining gap.

Intervention Desk

Per-entity dignity audit: dimension breakdown, binding constraints, ranked intervention options, and residual human capital exposure.

Cooperation Architecture

What would unprecedented global cooperation actually require? Not the aspiration — the org chart, the money, the timeline, and the honest feasibility of each component. Every claim below has either a citation, a calculation, or a stated assumption.

$3–4.7T/yr
Max Realistic Revenue
$37.9T/yr
Gap to Full Optimization
70–80%
Max 30yr Compliance
Revenue Architecture — Where the Money Comes From
SourceMechanismOptimisticPessimisticPrecedentFeasibility
Carbon Tax $75/ton on 50% of global emissions (36.8 Gt) $1.38T/yr $0.69T/yr EU ETS avg $92/ton (2023) MODERATE
Wealth Tax Graduated 1–3% on wealth above $1M (US+EU+JP+AU+CA+KR) $1.70T/yr $0.85T/yr France ISF (1982–2017): capital flight of €200B over 15yr LOW
FTT 0.1% equities + 0.01% FX + 0.005% derivatives $0.35T/yr $0.15T/yr EU-11 FTT proposed 2013, still not implemented LOW
Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reallocation 50% of explicit subsidies ($1.3T/yr) over 10yr phase $0.65T/yr $0.30T/yr Indonesia redirected $15.6B (2015); IMF total: $7T/yr incl. implicit MODERATE
Sovereign Wealth Transfer 1% of GDP from nations w/ GDP/cap >$30K (37 nations, ~$60T GDP) $0.60T/yr $0.30T/yr Current ODA: $211B/yr (0.33% of donor GNI). Only 5 nations meet 0.7% UN target LOW
TOTAL $4.68T/yr $2.29T/yr
The absorption discount: $4.7T in revenue becomes $2.3–3.5T in effective spending after governance absorption losses. A dollar transferred to Chad (governance effectiveness 0.06) produces $0.06 in DFI improvement. A dollar to Germany (0.92) produces $0.92. For the worst-governed states, you need to spend $5–17 per dollar of effective outcome. This is not corruption alone — it is absent infrastructure, human capital deficits, and institutional capacity gaps that money alone cannot fill.
Scale Comparison — The Realistic Revenue ($4.7T/yr) Against Reference Points
The Precedent Wall — Why Nothing in History Matches What’s Required
PrecedentCost (% GDP)NationsComplianceWhy It’s Inadequate
Montreal Protocol (1987) 0.003% 198 99% Cost fell on 20 firms, not 8B people. Chemical substitutes existed. Science had short lag.
Paris Agreement (2015) ~0.3% (pledged) 196 30–40% Non-binding by design. No enforcement. Global emissions rose 1.1% in 2023.
EU Acquis (1957–present) ~1.0% of EU GDP 27 ~95% GDP/cap ratio 10:1 (Bulgaria–Luxembourg). Global ratio: 450:1 (Burundi–Luxembourg). 70 years to build.
Marshall Plan (1948–52) 2.5% of US GDP 16 High Rebuilt ALREADY-INDUSTRIALIZED nations with EXISTING governance. 4 years, not 30.
PEPFAR (2003–present) 0.01% of US GDP 60 High Single-disease intervention. 20.1M on treatment. Cannot scale to all 7 DFI dimensions.
Required (Dignity Floor) 4.5% 150+ 70–80% 10–70× larger than any precedent. Sustained 30 years. Requires adversarial great powers to cooperate.
The Timeline — Three Phases of Realistic Cooperation
PHASE 1: Years 1–3
~57%
Compliance
Coalition of 18–25 willing nations. Pilot GDF at $50–100B/yr via expanded Green Climate Fund + World Bank IDA. DFI adopted as supplementary metric at UNDP. Carbon border adjustment design begins.
Saves ~300–600K lives/yr. Lifts ~100–200M above floor.
PHASE 2: Years 3–10
60–65%
Compliance
Carbon tax at $75/ton across coalition. GDF scales to $0.5–1.5T/yr. Physician training pipeline: 50K new doctors by Year 10 (against 4.2M global shortage). 15–25 “middle-band” countries reform governance.
Below floor: ~3.0–3.2B. Mortality: ~11.5–12.0M/yr.
PHASE 3: Years 10–30
70–80%
Compliance
Full revenue architecture: $3–4T/yr. Second-generation health workers enter workforce. 40–60 countries improve institutionally. Climate adaptation partially in place. But: 15–20 hard cases remain. 57-country “democracy wall” partially breached.
Below floor: ~1.6–2.4B. Mortality: ~10.5–11.5M/yr. Cost: $50–80T cumulative.
The shrinking window: Climate tipping points create a countdown. Arctic summer ice loss by ~2035. AMOC tipping estimated 2025–2095 (central ~2057). Greenland ice sheet irreversible above 1.5–2.0°C. Amazon dieback at 20–25% deforestation (currently 17%). Every year of delay in cooperation degrades the environmental baseline against which DFI improvements are measured. The same architecture implemented in Year 10 faces a meaningfully worse planet than in Year 1.
The Binding Constraint Wall — What Money Cannot Buy

Across our 16 archetypes, the dimension that most frequently prevents countries from meeting the dignity floor is political participation — which depends on electoral democracy, civil liberties, rule of law, and corruption control. These are not purchasable.

The democracy wall: 57 countries where political participation is the binding constraint under Fiscal Federalism. Combined population: ~3.8B. You can fund health systems, build schools, transfer cash, and train workers. You cannot make an authoritarian regime hold free elections from outside. This is the structural reason the irreducible minimum population below the dignity floor is ~1.5–2B even after 30 years and $50–80T in cumulative spending.
Honest Feasibility Matrix
ComponentTechnicalInstitutionalPoliticalTimelineNet Assessment
Carbon tax ($75/ton, coalition) HIGH HIGH MOD MOD Achievable with coalition
Wealth tax (coordinated) HIGH LOW LOW LOW Very unlikely at scale
Financial transaction tax HIGH MOD LOW MOD Modest revenue likely
Subsidy reallocation HIGH MOD LOW MOD Partial reallocation plausible
Global Dignity Fund HIGH MOD LOW MOD Pilot likely; full uncertain
UN Charter reform N/A HIGH V.LOW LOW Not achievable
Governance reform (57 countries) HIGH MOD V.LOW LOW The binding constraint
Health worker training HIGH MOD HIGH MOD Achievable but slow (8yr pipeline)
Climate adaptation infra HIGH MOD MOD MOD Achievable with funding
The honest bottom line: Maximum realistic cooperation produces 70–80% compliance after 30 years and $50–80T in cumulative spending. This leaves ~1.6–2.4B people below the dignity floor and ~10.5–11.5M excess deaths per year. The irreducible minimum is set by the “democracy wall” — countries where political participation is structurally below the floor and cannot be improved by external actors without violating sovereignty. The problem is not that we do not know what to do. It is that what needs to be done requires a level of cooperation that the structure of sovereign self-interest has never produced and shows no credible sign of producing.
Sources: Global Carbon Project 2024 · IMF Fossil Fuel Subsidies (2023) · SIPRI Military Expenditure Database · OECD DAC Aid Statistics · World Bank Annual Report 2023 · Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2023 · Saez & Zucman, Brookings Papers (2019) · Barrett, “Environment and Statecraft” (2003) · Collier & Dollar, European Economic Review (2002) · Kentikelenis et al., Lancet (2015) · Ditlevsen & Ditlevsen, Nature Communications (2023) · IPCC AR6 WG2 · WHO Global Health Workforce Statistics · World Bank Governance Indicators · V-Dem Electoral Democracy Index

Technology Moonshots

Could a technological breakthrough change the trajectory? We assess 15 technologies against the structural finding: the binding constraint on the DFI is political, not technical. A technology that requires functioning institutions to deploy cannot help populations living under failed governance — regardless of how transformative the technology is.

NEAR-TERM & DFI-RELEVANT
Solar desalination (TRL 9, NOW) · Digital identity (TRL 8, $1/person) · Grid storage (Fe-air $20/kWh) · CRISPR crops (TRL 5–7, 2030–40) · Satellite monitoring (TRL 9, NOW)
HIGH IMPACT / HIGH RISK
Stratospheric aerosol injection — the only tech that changes temperature fast enough ($2–8B/yr for 1°C) but has no governance framework and ~30 nations could deploy unilaterally
TOO LATE OR PROVEN FAILURES
Nuclear fusion (2040s+) · Space-based solar (2050s+) · DAC at scale (2045+, 1M× too small) · Vertical farming (industry collapsed) · Arctic ice restoration (project wound down)
15 Technologies Assessed — TRL, Timeline, What They Solve, DFI Impact
TechnologyTRLAt ScaleWhat It SolvesWhat It Doesn’t SolveDFI Impact
Energy
Nuclear Fusion 5–6 2035–2040 Unlimited clean baseload. CFS SPARC targeting Q>1 in 2027. Helion claims 2028 grid power for Microsoft. Arrives after critical 2025–2035 window. Requires institutional capacity to build and operate. ITER delayed to 2039. NEGLIGIBLE
SMRs (TerraPower, NuScale) 6–7 2031–2040 Carbon-free baseload in OECD. TerraPower Natrium on grid by 2031. NuScale costs doubled to $89/MWh. Requires nuclear regulatory capacity. HALEU fuel supply dependent on Russia. Below-floor countries can’t deploy. MODEST
Enhanced Geothermal (Fervo, Quaise) 7 2028–2035 Baseload anywhere on Earth. Reuses oil/gas drilling expertise. Fervo Cape Station: 500 MW by 2028. 70% drilling time reduction year-over-year. Quaise deep drilling (millimeter wave) still at 100m — commercial needs 10+ km. Induced seismicity risk. Scaling to hundreds of GW takes decades. SIGNIFICANT if deep drilling works
Grid Storage (Li-ion, Na-ion, Fe-air) 7–8 NOW–2028 Enables solar+storage as baseload. Li-ion at $70/kWh. Form Energy iron-air at $20/kWh for 100-hour storage. Na-ion at ~$40/kWh (CATL). Manufacturing/supply chain concentrated in China. Doesn’t exist in most vulnerable nations. Battery materials have their own extraction footprint. SIGNIFICANT enabler
Climate Intervention
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection 3–4 2–5 yrs Only tech that reduces global temp by 1–2°C within 1–2 years. $2–8B/yr. Fleet of ~100 modified tanker aircraft. Ocean acidification untouched. Monsoon disruption in South Asia. Termination shock: if stopped, temps snap back at 5–10× rate. No governance framework. ~30 nations could deploy unilaterally. Harvard SCoPEx cancelled 2024. HIGH on temp / DESTABILIZING on governance
Direct Air Capture (Climeworks, Oxy) 7 Gt-scale: 2045+ CO2 removal from atmosphere. Climeworks Mammoth: 36K tons/yr. Oxy Stratos: 500K tons/yr. $1,000–1,300/ton. Current global capacity is ~0.04 Mt/yr vs. 40 Gt/yr emissions — 1,000,000× too small. Energy-intensive. Gt-scale requires trillions. NEGLIGIBLE in timeframe
Marine Cloud Brightening 3–4 2030s Localized cooling. Potential reef/Arctic protection. Less commitment risk than SAI. Not scalable to global temp reduction. San Francisco field test cancelled. Regional precipitation effects poorly understood. MINIMAL
Food & Water
Solar Desalination 9 NOW Directly addresses water stress for 1.96B people. $0.50–1.50/m³ with solar PV at <$0.03/kWh. 60% cost reduction in 10 years. Only coastal/brackish. Brine disposal damages marine ecology. Capital-intensive ($100M–$2B/plant). Distribution requires governance. SIGNIFICANT for coastal pop.
CRISPR Heat/Drought Crops 5–7 2030–2040 Directly helps below-floor populations. Heat-tolerant staples could maintain yields where our model predicts agricultural collapse. Regulatory fragmentation (US permissive, EU restrictive). Seed distribution requires agricultural extension services. Off-target genetic effects. SIGNIFICANT for food dim.
Precision Fermentation 7–8 2030–2035 Protein without land. 90% land reduction. Price parity projected 2027–2029 for some products. $5.8B → $151B market by 2034. Produces protein, not the cheap calories (rice, wheat, maize) that 2B people need. 10× cost gap vs. conventional. Energy-intensive bioreactors. MODERATE (rich world)
Vertical Farming 8 Microgreens and herbs in urban areas. Industry collapsed. Plenty ($2.3B valuation) bankrupt March 2025. Bowery ($2.3B) shut down fall 2024. Physics makes caloric staples prohibitive — LED photosynthesis vastly less efficient than sunlight. ZERO
Governance & Logistics
Digital Identity (Aadhaar model) 8–9 NOW Bypasses corrupt intermediaries. 1.31B enrolled in India. Saved $39B. ~$1/enrollment. 850M globally still lack ID. Requires minimum institutional capacity. Surveillance/weaponization risk under authoritarian regimes. Doesn’t create economic opportunity. SIGNIFICANT enabler
Satellite Monitoring (Planet, Maxar) 8–9 NOW Near-real-time compliance verification. Deforestation >1ha auto-detected. 200+ satellites, 100M+ km²/day. Detection is not enforcement. Cannot observe governance quality or indoor conditions. 30% non-compliance is a political will problem, not an information problem. MODERATE (infra layer)
AI Resource Allocation 6–7 2025–2030 Supply chain optimization. Predictive healthcare. Administrative efficiency. 70% of US hospital AI pilots failed (weak endpoints, workflow misalignment, data gaps). If it fails in American hospitals, what about South Sudan? Requires data infra that doesn’t exist. MODERATE (OECD only)
The fundamental asymmetry: The technical solutions exist or are within reach. The binding constraint is the governance architecture needed to deploy them. A technology that requires functioning institutions to deliver cannot help populations living under failed governance. Solar desalination is mature and affordable — but a country that can’t maintain a water distribution network can’t deploy it. CRISPR crops could preserve food security — but seed distribution depends on agricultural extension services that don’t exist in the Sahel. Digital identity costs $1/person — but requires a state capable of maintaining a database. The people who need the technology most are the people least likely to have access to it, not because the technology doesn’t work, but because the institutions needed to deliver it don’t exist.
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection — The Intervention Nobody Controls

SAI deserves special attention because it is the only technology that operates on the right timescale and cost. At $2–8B/year (roughly the cost of a single aircraft carrier), a fleet of ~100 modified tanker aircraft could reduce global temperature by 1–2°C within 1–2 years. No other technology comes close to this cost-effectiveness ratio on temperature.

What makes it compelling

Buys 20–30 years of time for every other solution to deploy. Directly reduces heat stress, slows Arctic ice loss, preserves some agricultural yields. The atmospheric science is well-understood (volcanic eruptions are natural analogs — Pinatubo 1991 cooled the planet 0.5°C for 2 years). Deployable within 2–5 years of a political decision.

What makes it terrifying

Termination shock: If stopped abruptly, temperatures snap back at 5–10× the rate of gradual warming. Once started, it essentially cannot be stopped. Monsoon disruption: Models show reduced rainfall in South Asia and altered Sahel precipitation — potentially harming the very populations most at risk. No governance: ~30 nations could deploy unilaterally. There is no treaty, no framework, no agreement on who controls the thermostat. Harvard’s SCoPEx field test was cancelled in 2024 under pressure from civil society and Indigenous groups.

The DFI framing: SAI is an option of last resort that becomes more likely as the DFI worsens. The absence of governance for it is itself a major risk factor. It could buy decades of time for cooperation and relocation — or it could trigger exactly the kind of geopolitical conflict that makes both impossible.
Sources: CFS SPARC Assembly (Fortune, 2026) · Helion Polaris (TechCrunch, 2026) · ITER Delay (AIP, 2025) · NuScale Cost Escalation (IEEFA) · TerraPower Natrium (Neutron Bytes, 2025) · Fervo Energy Cape Station Results · Quaise Energy Milestones (2025) · Harvard Salata Institute SAI Research · Smith & Wagner, SAI Cost Estimates (2018) · Parker & Irvine, Termination Shock (2018) · WRI DAC Cost Analysis · Climeworks Mammoth Operational Data · Form Energy Iron-Air Battery · Aadhaar Impact (MIT Technology Review, 2026) · World Bank ID4D · Planet Labs Forest Carbon Monitoring · BNEF Battery Price Survey (2025) · CATL Sodium-Ion (MIT Technology Review, 2026) · AeroFarms Post-Bankruptcy (2024) · Plenty Bankruptcy Filing (2025)

Planned Relocation

If unprecedented cooperation is impossible and all human life has equal value, the rational response is planned mass migration — moving people out of regions where the DFI will collapse. This tab lifts the immobility constraint and asks: what does Plan B actually look like?

1.5–2.1B
Must Relocate by 2050
300–550M
Max Receiving Capacity
1–1.5B
Stranded (The Gap)
Departure Zones — Where People Must Leave

Climate risks are multiplicative, not additive. Bangladesh does not face flooding OR heat OR agricultural collapse — it faces all three simultaneously. Countries with 3+ overlapping climate risks require departure by 2040.

CountryPopulationCurrent DFIHeatSea LevelWaterAgricultureCompound Score
Bangladesh 174M 0.498 0.92
Pakistan 247M 0.390 0.90
India (north) ~500M 0.547 0.89
Yemen 39M 0.199 0.95
Sudan 50M 0.174 0.88
Egypt 114M 0.567 0.85
Iraq 45M 0.248 0.82
Niger 26M 0.207 0.80
Chad 19M 0.222 0.82
Somalia 18M 0.198 0.88
Vietnam 98M 0.682 0.78

Severe   Moderate   Low/None. Sources: IPCC AR6 WG2, CMIP6 wet-bulb projections, ND-GAIN, World Bank Groundswell.

Receiving Capacity — Who Can Absorb Them

Ranked by composite absorption score: physical capacity (land, water, climate stability), governance quality (DFI), infrastructure, and economic integration potential. The binding constraint is never physical — it is political.

RankCountryAbsorption ScoreMax AbsorptionKey Constraint
1Canada0.9240–80MInfrastructure in north nonexistent; cold climate
2United States0.8880–150MPolitical will; nativist backlash
3Germany0.8715–25MPopulation density; existing housing crisis
4France0.8615–25MPolitical backlash threshold
5United Kingdom0.8515–25MIsland geography; housing shortage
6Australia0.8415–30MWater constraint; distance
7Sweden0.835–10MSmall economy; cold
8Norway0.823–5MVery small capacity
9New Zealand0.813–5MRemote; small
10Brazil0.7230–60MGovernance gaps; Amazon constraint
11Argentina0.6815–30MEconomic instability
12Russia0.5550–100MGovernance; political barriers
TOTAL286–545M
The arithmetic is damning: Combined maximum absorption capacity of all capable receiving nations: ~300–550M. The demand is 1.5–2.1B. Even under optimistic assumptions, receiving capacity covers only 15–35% of the need. Russia has massive physical capacity but its governance makes it politically unsuitable — the single largest potential receiving zone on Earth fails the DFI filter.
The Scale — Nothing in History Approaches This
ScenarioPeopleDurationRate/YearCost (mid est.)% of Global GDP/yr
Conservative 400M 25 years 16M/yr $32T total 1.3%
Moderate 1B 30 years 33M/yr $81T total 2.7%
Comprehensive 2B 35 years 57M/yr $162T total 4.6%

The moderate scenario requires sustaining a migration rate 5–8× the peak of WWII displacement for thirty consecutive years. For context: current global migration stock is ~280M total (including voluntary). The largest single-year refugee crisis was WWII at ~10M/year. Cost per person relocated: ~$81K (transport, housing construction, infrastructure, integration, healthcare transition). At 1B people that’s $81T — roughly $2.7T/year, equivalent to global military spending.

Historical Precedents — And Why They All Failed at Scale
EventPeopleDurationRate/yrDeathsLesson
Partition of India (1947) 10–20M ~6 months ~40M/yr 1–2M Unplanned mass migration kills at scale. Trains arrived full of corpses.
Post-WWII Europe 60M 12 years 5M/yr Required Marshall Plan (2.5% US GDP). Took decades. Many never returned.
Syrian Crisis (2011–) 13M 10 years 1.3M/yr ~500K 2M refugees triggered Europe’s far-right surge. AfD: 4.7% → 20.8%. Brexit.
Bangladesh Internal 400K/yr Ongoing 400K/yr Dhaka collapsing under weight. 40% in slums. Destination becomes next crisis.
US Dust Bowl (1930s) 2.5M 10 years 250K/yr Same nationality, language, culture. Still met with hostility and discrimination.
Planned Relocation (moderate) 1B 30 years 33M/yr 5–8× WWII rate sustained for 3 decades. No historical analog.
The Political Reality

What Stands in the Way

No legal framework. The 1951 Refugee Convention doesn’t cover climate. No nation is obligated to accept climate migrants. The Global Compact on Migration (2018) is non-binding.

Nativism scales with numbers. Europe’s far-right surge was triggered by ~2M refugees (0.4% of EU population). At 33M/year, receiving countries absorb 5–20% of their population per decade. Every democracy that has faced immigration at 5%+/year has produced authoritarian backlash.

The colonial dimension. Most departure zones were impoverished by colonialism from the very nations that would need to receive migrants. This is simultaneously morally justified (climate debt + colonial debt) and politically explosive.

The Demographic Counterargument

Aging nations need people. Japan loses 840K/year. Germany, Italy, South Korea, Spain all shrinking. Combined demographic deficit: ~1.16M/year and accelerating.

Departure zones are young. Median age in Sahel: ~15. In South Asia: ~28. In Japan: ~49. The matching algorithm writes itself — young workers to aging economies.

But the scale doesn’t match. Aging nations need 2–3M/year. The relocation demand is 33–57M/year. The demographic dividend absorbs <10% of the need.

Three Paths Compared — Cooperation vs. Relocation vs. Inaction
COOPERATION
Cost: $3–5T/yr
Feasibility: ~0.13–0.25
30yr below floor: 1.6–2.4B
30yr mortality: ~10.5–11.5M/yr
30yr deaths: ~315–345M
Preserves sovereignty. Addresses root causes. Requires unprecedented political alignment.
PLANNED RELOCATION
Cost: $2.7T/yr (moderate)
Feasibility: ~0.05–0.15
People moved: 300–550M max
Stranded: 1–1.5B
30yr deaths: ~250–300M
Saves 200–400M from worst zones. 1B+ stranded. Less feasible than cooperation. No one talks about it.
INACTION (DEFAULT)
Cost: $0
Feasibility: 1.0
30yr below floor: 3.7B+ (worsening)
30yr mortality: ~12.7M/yr (rising)
30yr deaths: ~380M+
The path of least political resistance. 321M+ cumulative excess deaths. Cost borne entirely in lives, not dollars.
Why this tab exists: Planned relocation is less feasible than the cooperation model, not more. Its political preconditions — binding receiving quotas, $2.7T/year financing, a new international legal framework — are arguably harder to achieve. It exists to make the arithmetic of inaction visible. When cooperation has a feasibility of ~0.13 and relocation ~0.10, the honest conclusion is that neither will happen at the required scale. The Planned Relocation tab quantifies what that means: between 250 and 380 million excess deaths over 30 years, concentrated in the populations that contributed least to climate change. No one is talking about this seriously because the numbers are politically unbearable. The purpose of this framework is to make them unavoidable.
Sources: IPCC AR6 WG2 Ch.4–7 · World Bank Groundswell 2.0 (2021) · ND-GAIN Country Index · UNHCR Resettlement Cost Data · Raymond et al., Science Advances (2020) · Mora et al., Nature Climate Change (2017) · CMIP6 Wet-Bulb Projections · BIS Triennial Survey · Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report · OECD DAC Aid Statistics · Ditlevsen & Ditlevsen, Nature Communications (2023) · WHO Global Health Workforce Statistics · FAO AQUASTAT

How Our Model Compares

Our excess mortality estimates sit within a landscape of institutional projections. The differences are instructive — they reveal what each model counts and what it ignores.
Source Estimate Year Horizon What It Counts
WHO 250K/yr 2014 2030–2050 4 direct pathways only: heat, malaria, diarrhoea, undernutrition
Lancet Countdown ~700K/yr 2025 Observed (2024) Heat deaths + wildfire PM2.5 — already 3× WHO’s projection from just two pathways
GBD / IHME 8.1M/yr 2024 Baseline (2021) Air pollution alone — now the 2nd leading risk factor for death globally
Zhao et al. / MCC 5.0M/yr 2021 Baseline (2000–19) All non-optimal temperature: 4.6M cold + 489K heat = 9.4% of all deaths
This Model (baseline) 2025 Projected 4 mortality-relevant dimensions: material security, health access, environment, housing
WEF / Oliver Wyman 14.5M total 2024 By 2050 6 climate event categories at 2.5–2.9°C trajectory
Bressler (Columbia) 83M total 2021 2020–2100 Heat-related mortality only, business-as-usual (4.1°C)
Climate Impact Lab +73 per 100K 2022 By 2100 Temperature-mortality only — equal to current rate from all infectious disease
1,000-Ton Rule Synthesis ~1B total 2023 Next 100–200 yrs All pathways. Convergent estimate from economics, philosophy, climate science
This Model (collapse) 2025 Projected Full state failure scenario — our worst-case archetype
This Model (floor) 2025 Projected Structural minimum — even perfect global cooperation cannot eliminate

Why WHO’s Number Is Already Wrong

WHO’s widely-cited 250,000 deaths/year projection covers only four direct pathways: heat stress, malaria, diarrhoea, and child undernutrition. It excludes air pollution (8.1M/yr at baseline), flooding, drought, displacement, conflict, cardiovascular disease exacerbation, ecosystem collapse, and all cascade effects. WHO itself describes the figure as conservative.

The Lancet Countdown’s observed 2024 data — not a projection — already shows ~700,000 annual deaths from heat and wildfire smoke alone, nearly 3× what WHO projected for all four pathways combined. Twelve of twenty health-threat indicators reached record levels in 2025. There is no observed inflection point.

Where Our Model Sits

Our mortality model uses a convex curve (deficit1.5) across four dimensions that kill people: material security, health access, environmental safety, and housing adequacy. Three DFI dimensions — political participation, education, and social connection — matter for dignity but have weak direct mortality links.

Our baseline archetypes produce ~12.7M excess deaths/year. This is consistent with the GBD’s 8.1M from air pollution alone plus additional mortality from malnutrition, preventable disease, and inadequate sanitation that our material, health, and housing dimensions capture. It is more pessimistic than WHO (which undercounts) but less extreme than the broadest estimates (which project over longer horizons and include indirect cascades our model doesn’t attempt).

Our structural floor of exists because meeting DFI minimum-dignity thresholds (0.35–0.40 per dimension) does not eliminate excess mortality — the “safe level” above which a dimension stops contributing to death is higher (0.60–0.70). Minimum dignity and minimum safety are not the same thing.

The question this puts to you: No credible institution — ours or anyone else’s — projects a pathway to substantially lower excess mortality without assuming either unprecedented global cooperation, technology that does not yet work at scale, or both. The IPCC deliberately avoids giving a single headline number because every honest projection is grim. The choice space the archetypes above map out is between bad and catastrophic. The value of making that visible with numbers is that it replaces rhetoric with structure — and structure is what you need if you intend to act rather than look away.
Sources: WHO Climate Change and Health Fact Sheet (2023) · IPCC AR6 WGII Chapter 7 (2022) · Lancet Countdown 2025 Report · GBD 2023, IHME · Zhao et al., Lancet Planetary Health (2021) · WEF/Oliver Wyman, Quantifying the Impact of Climate Change on Human Health (2024) · Bressler, “The Mortality Cost of Carbon,” Nature Communications (2021) · Carleton et al., Quarterly Journal of Economics (2022) · Pearce, “Updating the 1000-Ton Rule,” Energies (2023) · NPR, “The Undercount” (2024) · Carlson et al., Nature Climate Change (2025)

What We Don’t Know

Organizations like Palantir, Swiss Re, Citadel, and national intelligence agencies have access to data we do not. This section acknowledges that gap and asks whether it changes the picture.

What Better-Resourced Actors Have

Proprietary satellite + mobility data — Cell phone location data for 5B+ people, tracking migration patterns in real time at district level. We model departure zones at country level; they see it at village level, month by month.

Reinsurance catastrophe models — Swiss Re, Munich Re, and Lloyd’s have the largest proprietary catastrophe databases on Earth, combining satellite data, machine learning, and decades of claims history. Insured losses reached $107B in 2025. These firms are actively declaring certain regions “uninsurable” — a stronger statement than any public climate model makes. When an insurer says a region is uninsurable, they are saying their proprietary models show expected losses exceed any premium the market will bear.

Hedge fund climate intelligence — Citadel hired PhD meteorologists and built in-house weather forecasting that earned $16B in 2022. Bridgewater has built “a top-down understanding of the net zero transition.” These firms treat climate risk as a tradable information asymmetry. They are not building models that show a more optimistic picture — they are building models that show where the damage hits first and positioning accordingly.

Military threat assessments — The US DoD’s Climate Risk Analysis labels climate change a “threat multiplier.” The classified versions almost certainly contain specific timeline estimates for state failure in several of the 57 countries our model identifies, with higher-resolution migration flow predictions combining satellite and cell phone data for billions of people.

Does Their Data Tell a Different Story?

Almost certainly not. Proprietary data adds precision (which district, which month, which supply chain node), but every entity with access to this data is behaving as if the picture is as bad or worse than our model shows. Reinsurers are pulling coverage. Hedge funds are building private climate intelligence. Military doctrine is shifting. Wealthy individuals are building bunkers. The revealed preferences of the best-informed actors align with our model.

There is one documented case where proprietary data led public models: the insurance industry’s catastrophe models began signaling the severity of secondary perils (severe convective storms, wildfire, flood) 5–10 years before public climate models adequately captured them. The 2017–2023 period of “unexpected” insurance losses was not unexpected to the reinsurers. This suggests our model’s mortality estimates may be conservative for insurance-linked dimensions.

The one area where proprietary data might diverge: adaptation effectiveness for wealthy populations. Firms and wealthy nations may have data showing adaptation works better than public models suggest for the populations they serve. This makes the wealthy-world experience better but says nothing about the 3.8B below the dignity floor. If anything, it widens the gap.

Our position: We build with the data that is public. We acknowledge that organizations with proprietary access to mobility data, actuarial models, supply chain intelligence, and classified threat assessments have higher resolution than we do. We do not believe this higher resolution reveals a fundamentally different picture. If it did, the best-informed actors would not be retreating from risk — they would be investing in it. They are not.
Sources: Swiss Re Natural Catastrophe Review (2025) · SIPRI Military Expenditure Database · Citadel 2022 Returns (public reporting) · US DoD Climate Risk Analysis (2021, unclassified) · UK MOD Strategic Trends Programme · IMD, “Climate Change: The Emergence of Uninsurable Areas” (2024) · Planet Labs Forest Carbon Monitoring · Palantir/Tomorrow.io Climate Resilience Partnership (2025)
Methodology: The Dignity Floor Index (DFI) is a 7-dimension conjunctive measure. Each dimension must independently exceed its threshold for a population unit to meet the floor. DFI models preconditions for dignity, not dignity itself. Sub-national data is incomplete where most needed. The optimizer cannot force political change — transition feasibility reflects this constraint. Redistribution capacity depends on political will. The Pareto frontier shows structural possibility, not political likelihood.
CODEX