CCPI FAQs

The Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) was developed by Germanwatch as a tool to increase transparency in international climate change policy. In addition, the index aims to compare the climate mitigation efforts and progress of individual countries. The CCPI uses a framework of standardised criteria to assess and compare the climate performance of 63 countries and the EU (as of CCPI 2025). Together, these countries account for more than 90% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The country rankings are intended to facilitate understanding of the complex web of country specific responsibilities, fulfilled and broken promises and to encourage initial steps in international climate action. Germanwatch releases a new version of the CCPI annually during the UN Climate Change Conference (COP). The index is publicly available online.

The methodology of the CCPI specifically aims at “major emitters”, accounting for a significant part of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The 63 countries and the European Union (EU) assessed in the CCPI collectively account for 90% of global GHG emissions and thus it is mainly their responsibility to drastically reduce GHG emissions. Other countries with significantly lower emissions therefore are not applicable to the CCPI’s methodology. However, in the past years new countries have regularly been included (Nigeria, Pakistan, UAE and Uzbekistan were added in CCPI 2024).

The CCPI was first presented at the 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 11) climate change conference in Montreal in 2005. After the international press conference at COP 13 in Bali, where the index was presented for the third time, there was already press coverage from over 100 countries. This reflected its increasing importance in international climate politics.
For CCPI 2013, the methodology was revised to include emissions from deforestation. Still, many sectors, such as agriculture, could not be included until 2017, as data were missing.
Another methodological change was made for CCPI 2018 to now include all GHG emissions. Countries’ targets are also evaluated in the areas of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Renewable Energy, and Energy Use. Since CCPI 2018, the index checks whether countries set their targets correctly and fulfil their promise made at the climate conference in Paris.

The CCPI is distributed to key media worldwide (e.g. The Guardian, China Daily, The Times of India) and frequently triggers debates in national parliaments and governments. Moreover, index data is frequently requested by researchers projects. The CCPI is also becoming increasingly important in the financial market, where it enables investors to translate global climate policy into an easy-to-apply – and scientifically sound- climate score for investment steering, portfolio transition strategies and meaningful investor dialogue.

You can read more about the impact of the CCPI here: https://ccpi.org/impact/

Most of the CCPI consists of quantitative data, used for the GHG Emissions, Renewable Energy, and Energy Use categories. This data is taken from the International Energy Agency (IEA), PRIMAP, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the national GHG inventories submitted to the UNFCCC.
Due to data availability, past CCPI editions until 2022 were calculated using data recorded two years prior. With the help of PRIMAP, we have been able to use GHG emissions data with only a one-year delay since the CCPI 2023 edition. This means that for the CCPI 2025 we use GHG data from 2023 (relying on numerical methods and linear extrapolation).
The Renewable Energy and Energy Use categories are calculated with data recorded in 2022, as this is the most recent data available.
Data for the Climate Policy category is assessed annually using a comprehensive questionnaire. The result is an assessment of the policy performance rating by climate and energy policy experts from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, and think tanks within the evaluated countries that make up the category.

(More information on the CCPI’s methodology and the data used in the CCPI can be found on the CCPI’s methodology site and the methodology brochure)

LULUCF Data

For general information on LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry) emissions please check our Background and Methodology brochure. We annually review data on LULUCF with the help of Nicklas Forsell (IIASA).
This year’s review has revealed a larger difference in LULUCF data for Malaysia. For the first time we take official country data (Common Report Format – CRF) and not Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) data for Malaysia which leads to lower emissions and a better ranking and rating.

For further information check Box 4 | Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) emission estimates in the methodology brochure on page 12.

IEA Data

New data on biomass in the IEA Renewable Energy Information: In the 2024 edition, Nigeria and Pakistan’s data on solid biofuels consumption in the residential sector were revised downwards due to a new assumption about per capita consumption. This change has consequently affected the total energy supply. This revision follows the implementation of a bottom-up methodology, providing a more accurate estimation of biofuel usage. Non-OECD countries are documented in the “World Energy Statistics” data product documentation.

NDC Evaluation

For the first time, all GHG targets include LULUCF emissions sources and sinks. We based our target calculation on the PBL Climate Pledge NDC tool, which estimates comparable 2030 emission values based on the sectoral scope of the target. In other words, when the target includes LULUCF, the PBL Climate Pledge NDC includes LULUCF emissions, and vice versa. A few CCPI countries, such as Germany, exclude the LULUCF sector from the target. In the absence of emissions targets covering the LULUCF sector, we estimate a value for 2030 based on the country’s historical LULUCF emissions. Including LULUCF in the target reduces the target emissions of some countries, especially those with a substantial sink in the reference for the target calculation (e.g., Finland and Slovenia). However, including LULUCF also increased the target calculation in other countries, such as the Russian Federation and Sweden. Overall, quantifying the targets based on emissions including LULUCF improves the accuracy of our estimates for 2030 and does not require additional assumptions regarding the development of the LULUCF sector.

The CCPI uses production-based emissions only for its calculation, meaning that a country is held accountable for the emissions it is producing, rather than those from its consumption. Currently, the use of production-based emissions is the standard for accounting national greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), with production-based emissions being also the basis for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). However, with increasing international trade influencing national economies, the consumption-based accounting approach is gaining relevance. It takes into account the emissions from all national consumption, i.e. the sum of all goods produced, excluding those produced and exported, but including those imported and consumed by a country.

Nevertheless, there are several reasons why we work with production-based emissions. First, data on consumption-based emissions are still limited and can vary across countries, as calculating these emissions requires additional data sources like trade flows. Furthermore, uncertainties arise from the assumptions built into the methodology for calculating consumption-based emissions. Additionally, consumption-based emissions typically have a longer time lag (by about a year) compared to production-based emissions. The CCPI aims to use the most up-to-date data in its analyses. It is also important to note that consumption-based emissions account only for carbon emissions, whereas production-based emissions cover all five relevant GHG emissions as outlined in the Kyoto Protocol. Another key reason is that the CCPI’s goal is to rank countries based on their performance in mitigating climate change, identifying leaders and laggards to motivate stronger government action. While governments have direct control over their own policies, influencing the policies of other nations is more difficult. Consequently, the CCPI’s impact on encouraging climate action is likely to be stronger with production-based emissions than with consumption-based emissions.

For further information check Box 3 | Emissions Accounting and Trade in the methodology brochure on page 9.

The CCPI uses per capita GHG Emissions in its analysis. While some CCPI countries such as Malta and Luxembourg have a very small population with less than 700 thousand inhabitants, other CCPI countries are highly populated with a population of more than 1 billion inhabitants. Countries with more inhabitants logically have a higher resource and energy consumption and thus higher overall GHG Emissions. To account for these differences in population and to allow a more just view on emissions, the CCPI uses GHG Emissions per capita, dividing overall emission by the country’s population.

Renewable energy shares in the CCPI sometimes differ from official energy balances published by countries as CCPI renewable energy data does not include solid fuel biomass for domestic use. In the absence of data assessing traditional biomass only, all renewable energy data are calculated without residential biomass for domestic use, in order to prevent disadvantages for countries increasing their efforts to replace the unsustainable use of traditional biomass in their energy mix.

(More information on the CCPI’s methodology and the data used in the CCPI can be found on the CCPI’s methodology site and the methodology brochure)

The basis of our Climate Policy data is the performance rating by our climate and energy policy experts from non-governmental organisations, universities and think tanks within the countries that are evaluated. For the CCPI 2025, about 450 national climate experts contributed to the evaluation. They evaluated their own country’s national and international policy. If the experts agree to be named, we mention them on the respective country page.

You can find further information on the CCPI’s methodology here.

In the year 2017, the underlying methodology of the CCPI has been revised and adapted to the new climate policy landscape of the Paris Agreement. Even though the new methodology is based on similar ranking categories and data sources, some indicators as well as its weighting scheme have been adapted. With its new composition, the CCPI was extended to measuring a country’s progress towards the globally acknowledged goal of limiting temperature rise well below 2°C. Furthermore, the index now also evaluates the country’s 2030 targets. And finally, the former scope of looking at energy-related CO2 emissions has been extended to GHG emissions.
You can read more about the methodology here: https://ccpi.org/methodology/

LULUCF emissions are included in 3 of the 4 indicators of the GHG Emissions category (current level, current level compared to a well-below-2°C benchmark and 2030 target compared to a well-below-2°C pathway). We do not include LULUCF emissions in the current trend indicator of GHG Emissions as LULUCF Emissions could be extremely volatile and calculation of trends in this volatile sector would thus not be helpful.

(More information on the CCPI’s methodology and the data used in the CCPI can be found on the CCPI’s methodology site and the methodology brochure)

The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of each country are what ultimately influences the climate. Therefore, they can be taken as the most significant outcome of the success of climate policies. That is why the GHG Emissions category contributes 40% to the overall score of a country.

You can read more about the methodology here: https://ccpi.org/methodology/

Climate policy has an overall weight of 20%, with national and international policy making up 10% each. Despite the apparently low weighting of climate policy, this category has quite a considerable influence on short-term changes in the overall ranking. Unlike the rather “slow-moving” categories of GHG Emissions, Renewable Energy and Energy Use, a positive change in climate policy can lead a country to jump multiple positions. On the other hand, the “sluggish” categories can only be changed through successful climate change policies –therefore they play a decisive role for future scores within the CCPI.

The CCPI uses renewable energy data from the IEA, which includes energy from biomass. However, the CCPI excludes primary solid fuel biomass for residential use (mainly heating and cooking). In the absence of data assessing traditional biomass only, all renewable energy data are calculated without residential biomass for residential use, in order to prevent disadvantages for countries increasing their efforts to replace the unsustainable use of traditional biomass in their energy mix. Due to the exclusion of primary solid fuel biomass, renewable energy shares in the CCPI sometimes differ from official energy balances published by countries (predominantly for countries with a high use of solid fuel biomass). Furthermore, the CCPI includes LULUCF (land use, land use change and forestry) emissions in the GHG Emissions category and thus accounts for emission arising from deforestation and forest degradation. As use of solid biomass (mainly wood) is a controversial topic and it is not clear whether it is a sustainable contribution to energy supply there is much criticism regarding use of solid biomass combustion for energy generation. We are currently looking at ways to improve accounting of renewable energy in order to enable us to assess countries’ renewable energy shares holistically.

(More information on the CCPI’s methodology and the data used in the CCPI can be found on the CCPI’s methodology site and the methodology brochure)

The three quantitative categories GHG Emissions, Renewable Energy, and Energy Use are each defined by four indicators: Current Level, Past Trend, Well-Below-2°C Compatibility of the Current Level, and Well-Below-2°C Compatibility of the Countries’ 2030 Target. For the two indicators assessing Well-Below-2°C Compatibility of current levels and targets, Paris compatible pathways are calculated and the distance between the country’s current level/target and the Paris compatible pathway measured.

(More information on the CCPI’s methodology can be found on the CCPI’s methodology site and the methodology brochure)

In the GHG Emissions category, the calculation of individual country target pathways is based on the common but differentiated convergence approach (CDC). It is based on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” laid forth in the Framework Convention on Climate Change. All Annex I countries therefore have a decreasing pathway from 1990 onwards, starting at that year’s emissions. 60 years later, in 2050, these countries are expected to reach net zero emissions.

All other countries, which did not reach the level of global average emissions in 1990, are allowed to increase emissions until the average is reached. But by latest 2015 these countries, too, have decreasing pathways and 60 years to reach net zero. These pathways start from the global average.

As global distribution of Renewables (especially solar and wind) only started in the 2000s, the pathways in this category start in 2010. All countries have an equal goal: 100% Renewables in 2050, each starting from its 2010 value.

For the Energy Use category all pathways start at country’s 1990 values. From the scenarios available, we observe that the total amount of global energy use per capita must be reduced by roughly 20% between 2020 and 2050, with a margin of uncertainty. We therefore chose the well-below-2° compatible benchmark to be approximately 60 gigajoules per capita in total primary energy supply in 2050 (TPES).

(More information on the CCPI’s methodology can be found on the CCPI’s methodology site and the methodology brochure)

The indicators assessing the current level provide a value indicating the exact current value of any one given indicator, for example the current level of renewable energy or of GHG emissions. For the indicators assessing Well-Below-2°C Compatibility of current levels, Paris compatible pathways are calculated and the distance between the country’s current level/target and the Paris compatible pathway measured. Thus, while the current level indicators evaluate the absolute current level, the indicators comparing it to a well-below-2°C pathway indicate the current degree to which a country fulfils its climate targets along its specific Paris-compatible pathway.

(More information on the CCPI’s methodology can be found on the CCPI’s methodology site and the methodology brochure)

The three quantitative categories GHG Emissions, Renewable Energy, and Energy Use are each defined by four indicators: Current Level, Past Trend, Well-Below-2°C Compatibility of the Current Level, and Well-Below-2°C Compatibility of the Countries’ 2030 Target. Thus, we assess current levels as well as recent developments in the three quantitative indicators.
To recognise countries such as Brazil and Norway that have already managed to gain a major share of their total energy supply from renewable sources and therefore have less potential to further extend their share of renewable energies, 5% of the overall ranking is attributed to the share of renewable energies in the total primary energy supply (incl. hydro-power).
The second indicator of a country’s performance in the Renewable Energy category shows the recent development of energy supply from renewable sources over a five-year period. Like the other indicators in this category, this dynamic indicator accounts for 5% of the overall CCPI score.

As even Norway, the CCPI country with the highest share of renewable energy in TPES did not achieve 100% renewables yet and only has a share of renewable energy in TPES of 59%, all of the countries need to continue to increase their shares of renewable energy and it is thus important to also assess current trends. However, although the renewable trend indicator only makes up 5% of the total assessment, we would need to adapt our methodology, if a country reached a share of 100% renewable energy of TPES (a scenario we would very much welcome), in order to adjust the current trend indicator.

(More information on the CCPI’s methodology can be found on the CCPI’s methodology site and the methodology brochure)

The ranking assesses the climate change performance of a selection of countries in relation to each other.
The total score (between 0 and 100) of a country, and its ranking, is relative to the performance of the other countries and does not reflect the absolute level of mitigation effort. The country with the highest score is therefore the highest-ranking one, even though this may not be the optimal level of climate mitigation effort yet.

To be in the top three, a country should be doing enough to prevent dangerous climate change. This means the country must be on track with its emissions development (including and excluding LULUCF) compared with the benchmark of well below 2°C and has set a 2030 GHG target, which fulfils the same requirements. Even Denmark, the CCPI frontrunner, does not fulfil those requirements.

For more detailed information about specific countries, check the country site.

Permission for CCPI data use is, under correct citation, granted for scientific, non-commercial purposes only.
The older CCPI editions can be found as a download here: https://ccpi.org/downloads/
The index is not available in a data base format online, but we do provide specific data sets upon requests.
Please check our Terms of Use or contact us
For information on commercial use of the CCPI please contact Jan Burck (burck@germanwatch.org) or Alex El Alaoui (ccpi@rclm-data.com) or click here.

The graph above shows the development of a country over the past years compared with its Paris-compatible pathway and 2030 target. For all three quantitative categories of the CCPI, this visualisation gives an overview of where a country is right now, where it would need to be to fulfil the Paris Agreement promises and where it aims to be in 2030.

GHG Emissions per Capita

These data include LULUCF, as used for the emissions per capita indicator. This leads to the vast changes in emissions of some countries with high forest coverage.

Calculation of individual country target pathways is based on the common but differentiated convergence approach (CDC). It is based on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” laid forth in the Framework Convention on Climate Change. All Annex I countries therefore have a decreasing pathway from 1990 onwards, starting at that year’s emissions. 60 years later, in 2050, these countries are expected to reach net zero emissions.

All other countries, which did not reach the level of global average emissions in 1990, are allowed to increase emissions until the average is reached. But by latest 2015 these countries, too, have decreasing pathways and 60 years to reach net zero. These pathways start from the global average.

Renewable Energy

These data are given in per cent of Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) and includes hydro energy, consistent with the respective CCPI indicator. As global distribution of Renewables (especially solar and wind) only started in the 2000s, the pathways in this category start in 2010. All countries have an equal goal: 100% Renewables in 2050, each starting from its 2010 value.

Energy Use

Here, the Primary Energy Supply per capita is shown. All pathways for this category start at country’s 1990 values and meet at a level of 60 gigajoules per capita in 2050.

For 2°C and 1.5°C scenarios, a decrease in emissions by reducing the (growth in) energy use is as crucial as deploying renewable (or other low-carbon) technologies. We analysed the scenario database of the IPCC Sixth Assessment report to define the level of energy use per capita compatible with Well-Below-2°C pathways.

From the scenarios available, we observe that the total amount of global energy use per capita must be reduced by roughly 20% between 2020 and 2050, with a margin of uncertainty. We therefore chose the well-below-2° compatible benchmark to be approximately 60 gigajoules per capita in total primary energy supply in 2050 (TPES).

The CCPI evaluates countries at the national level and the EU. This is reflected in the data we use in the Energy Use, GHG Emissions and Renewable Energy categories as well as in the Climate Policy category, where climate experts assess government efforts to mitigate climate change.

The CCPI faces the challenge of comparing countries that differ in many ways: population size, level of emissions, historical responsibilities or state organisation, to name but a few. Comparing many countries is sometimes at the expense of the accuracy of the analysis. Not in all CCPI countries is the national government the main decision-making authority on climate and energy policies. In some federally organised countries, sub-national entities have more power. The CCPI level of analysis is therefore sometimes not perfectly suited to countries where this is the case, such as US, Canada or India. Rather than looking at the national level, a detailed analysis of the federal states would provide a more realistic picture.

One example of a country where sub-national jurisdictions have significant authority is Canada. The provinces have wide latitude to implement (or not implement) climate policies in different sectors. For example, each Canadian state can design its own carbon polluting pricing system, while the national government only sets minimum standards. Canada’s ten provinces differ in their climate change policies and in their contribution to Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions, with Alberta being the largest emitter. To provide a comprehensive overview of Canadian climate policy, a detailed analysis of the climate policies and plans of each province would provide a more complete picture. However, climate policy is a cross-cutting issue that requires all levels of government to work together to achieve meaningful emissions reductions. The national government can influence the policy space by providing strategic direction, bringing together all sub-national actors and acting in international climate policy, even in countries where the main decision-making authority is not organised at the national level.

The CCPI’s analytical scope reduces the complex reality of climate action in federal states, where the sub-national level can have a significant influence over implementation and targets. This should be taken into account when interpreting the CCPI results. The aim of the CCPI is to provide a comparison between different countries and to give an initial overview of the general climate performance of a country. The CCPI provides a broad overall picture and cannot replace a detailed analysis of each country’s specific circumstances.