Independent assessments of the distance between what governments promise on climate and what their actual policies will achieve. The tracker gathers, country by country, the rating assigned by scientific observatories such as the Climate Action Tracker —from '1.5°C compatible' to 'critically insufficient'— alongside their stated targets (NDCs), their net-zero goal and the assessment of whether action matches the pledge. The focus is on the gap: not the summit rhetoric, but whether the policies under way are enough to meet what was promised. Ratings are always attributed to the scientific source that issues them, never to an assessment by the outlet.
Statistical readings derived from the attributes of each recorded case. All figures come from the documented events; amounts are computed only over cases with a sum expressed in the indicated currency, without converting between currencies.
Choropleth by number of forensically or judicially documented cases. Countries with no verifiable public cases remain in the base colour — the absence of events does not equal the absence of surveillance. Hover or click a coloured country to see the cases.
Of the twelve major countries assessed by the Climate Action Tracker, only one —The Gambia, a minimal emitter— reaches 1.5°C compatibility. The large emitters split between 'insufficient' and 'critically insufficient': the distance between summit pledges and real policy is, measured this way, almost universal.
Every year, climate summits produce a cascade of announcements: net-zero targets, strengthened national contributions, round dates in a distant future. This tracker does not measure those announcements, but the gap between them and actual policy, using the rating of the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), the independent scientific consortium that assesses whether what a country does is enough for what it promised. Its scale runs from '1.5°C compatible' to 'critically insufficient', and translating summit rhetoric into one of those boxes is itself an act of accountability.
The portrait is devastating in its uniformity. Of the twelve countries gathered, none of the large emitters reaches compatibility with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C limit. The only country that does so in the CAT system is The Gambia, a minimal emitter whose feat illustrates, paradoxically, how unattainable the goal is for those who actually move the needle on global emissions.
Three of the twelve countries —the United States, Russia and Saudi Arabia— receive the worst possible rating, 'critically insufficient': if all countries acted like them, the CAT estimates warming would exceed 4°C. The United States got there after annulling its climate targets and leaving the Paris Agreement.
The most revealing feature of the CAT system is that it separates what a country pledges from what its policies will actually achieve. Many governments have flashy net-zero targets —for 2050, for 2060— but the CAT separately assesses the quality of that design, and most of the net-zero targets it covers, equivalent to 63% of global emissions, it considers insufficient in design. A thirty-year target means nothing if today's policies are driving emissions in the opposite direction.
China embodies this tension better than anyone. It is the world's largest emitter and at the same time the country that has deployed the most renewable energy, to the point of meeting its wind and solar targets years ahead of schedule. And yet its overall rating is 'insufficient', because its 2030 target sits at the least ambitious end of what its fair share would be. Meeting one's own targets is not enough if those targets were modest; the CAT measures against science, not against the pledge itself.
The most disturbing part is the direction. According to the CAT itself, the distance between stated targets and what is needed for 1.5°C has grown, not shrunk, in recent years: climate action has weakened rather than strengthened. Several governments —Australia among them— went so far as to submit 2030 targets equal to or less ambitious than those they had in 2015. The summit machinery keeps producing announcements, but the gap between the announcement and the actual emission has widened.
This tracker should be read with its limit up front: it gathers ratings from scientific observatories, not measurements of our own, and those ratings are methodological judgements —rigorous, but judgements— about what a 'fair' contribution is. The outlet does not assess any country's climate sufficiency; it merely records what the CAT and the OECD rule, attributed to them. The value lies in turning the fog of summit announcements into a comparable box, country by country.
The Climate Action Tracker rates the United States' climate action as 'critically insufficient', its worst category. The Trump Administration annulled the 2030 and 2035 NDC targets and withdrew the country from the Paris Agreement, while cutting international climate finance. The CAT warns that if all countries followed the US approach, warming would exceed 4°C.
The Climate Action Tracker rates the United Kingdom's climate action as 'almost sufficient', the best among large developed countries, indicating its policies and commitments could be compatible with the 1.5°C limit with moderate improvements. It was the first developed country with a domestic target rated 1.5°C compatible under the CAT system.
The Climate Action Tracker rates South Korea's climate action as 'highly insufficient'. The country is, alongside Russia and Saudi Arabia, among the G20's worst in the Climate Change Performance Index, with an NDC target the CAT finds needs substantial improvement.
The Climate Action Tracker rates Saudi Arabia's climate action as 'critically insufficient', the worst category on its scale. The world's leading oil exporter is among the group of countries whose policies, if generalised, would push warming above 4°C.
The Climate Action Tracker rates Russia's climate action as 'critically insufficient', its worst category, indicating the country's policies and commitments are not at all consistent with the 1.5°C limit. Russia sits alongside the United States, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in this category.
The Climate Action Tracker rates Japan's climate action as 'highly insufficient', indicating its policies and commitments are not consistent with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C limit. Japan shares the category with India and South Africa.
The Climate Action Tracker rates India's climate action as 'highly insufficient'. The country met its 50% non-fossil capacity target five years early, but generation from non-fossil sources is stagnating at around 25%, there is no clear plan to transition away from fossil fuels, and its emissions are expected to keep rising beyond 2030.
The Gambia is the only country to have achieved an overall 1.5°C-compatible rating under the Climate Action Tracker system. As a developing country and minimal emitter, its case illustrates that full climate compatibility in the CAT system has so far been practically unattainable for the large emitters.
The Climate Action Tracker rates the European Union's overall climate action as 'insufficient'. Although its domestic target is among the closest to 1.5°C compatibility, the CAT finds that neither its international climate finance nor its policies in place are enough to align with the Paris Agreement.
The Climate Action Tracker rates China's climate action as 'insufficient'. The world's largest emitter has met and exceeded its wind and solar capacity targets —and its non-fossil energy goal six years ahead of schedule—, but its 2030 NDC target sits at the least ambitious end of what its fair share would be, and its net-zero goal is assessed as 'poor'.
The Climate Action Tracker rates Brazil's climate action as 'insufficient'. Although the country has submitted updated targets and reduced deforestation compared to record years in the Amazon, the CAT finds its NDC target still not consistent with its fair share of the 1.5°C limit.
The Climate Action Tracker rates Australia's climate action as 'insufficient'. The country, a major coal and gas exporter, was for years one of the governments that did not raise its climate ambition, submitting 2030 targets equal to or less ambitious than those of 2015, according to the CAT.
For each country, the tracker records the most recent Climate Action Tracker (CAT) rating of the overall sufficiency of its climate action, alongside its NDC target, net-zero goal and notes on the gap between pledge and actual policy. The CAT scale runs from '1.5°C compatible' to 'critically insufficient'. Ratings and projections are attributed to the CAT or the OECD; the outlet makes no judgement of its own on any country's climate sufficiency. Emission figures are stated in the source's units (e.g. GtCO2e) and not recalculated. The decisive field is the action rating: the difference between pledging net zero and having policies that make it credible.