Oxford Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) 2026
While the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) is officially published by Germanwatch, the NewClimate Institute, and CAN International, it is frequently integrated into the climate policy curriculum and research frameworks at the University of Oxford. The "Oxford perspective" on the CCPI emphasizes the rigorous, peer-reviewed methodology used to hold the world’s largest emitters accountable.
Released in late 2025 at COP30, the CCPI 2026 remains the definitive "scorecard" for global climate action, evaluating 63 countries and the European Union.
📊 Global Scorecard Ranking (CCPI 2026)
The 2026 rankings underscore a stark reality: despite record-breaking renewable growth, the top three spots on the podium remain vacant, as no nation is yet aligned with the $1.5^\circ\text{C}$ Paris Agreement target.
| Rank | Country | Score | Rating | Trend |
| 1–3 | (Vacant) | — | N/A | 🚫 No country meets $1.5^\circ\text{C}$ targets. |
| 4 | 🇩🇰 Denmark | 80.52 | High | ↔️ Holds top spot; offshore wind leader. |
| 5 | 🇬🇧 United Kingdom | 70.80 | High | ⬆️ Up 1; successful coal phase-out. |
| 6 | 🇲🇦 Morocco | 70.75 | High | ⬆️ Up 2; leader in solar and public transit. |
| 7 | 🇨🇱 Chile | 70.63 | High | ⬆️ Up 5; aggressive green hydrogen goals. |
| 8 | 🇱🇺 Luxembourg | 70.45 | High | ⬆️ Up 5; high per-capita RE growth. |
| 23 | 🇮🇳 India | 61.31 | Medium | ⬇️ Down 13; lack of coal phase-out plan. |
| 54 | 🇨🇳 China | 44.45 | Very Low | ⬆️ Up 1; strong policy vs. high coal use. |
| 65 | 🇺🇸 United States | 21.84 | Very Low | ⬇️ Down 8; federal policy rollbacks. |
| 66 | 🇮🇷 Iran | 14.33 | Very Low | ↔️ Negligible renewable transition. |
| 67 | 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia | 11.90 | Very Low | ↔️ Lowest performer; fossil fuel reliance. |
Why do the top three ranks of the Oxford Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) 2026 remain empty?
The Oxford Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) 2026 is a leading independent scorecard that evaluates the climate protection efforts of 63 countries and the EU, covering over 90% of global emissions. Co-published by Germanwatch, the NewClimate Institute, and CAN International, and utilized by researchers at the University of Oxford to benchmark sovereign risk, the index measures alignment with the $1.5^\circ\text{C}$ Paris Agreement goal across four pillars: GHG Emissions (40%), Renewable Energy (20%), Energy Use (20%), and Climate Policy (20%). In the 2026 rankings, the podium remains vacant to signal that no nation has yet implemented a strategy fully compatible with preventing dangerous warming; even top performers like 🇩🇰 Denmark (4th) and the 🇬🇧 United Kingdom (5th) fail to meet the "Very High" standard across all 14 indicators, while major emitters like the 🇺🇸 USA (65th) and 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia (67th) continue to fall to the bottom.
Key Takeaways from the 2026 Report
The "Implementation Gap": The empty podium highlights that even the most advanced green economies still struggle with high per-capita energy use and insufficient 2030 targets.
G20 Failure: Only the UK and France achieved a "High" rating, while 10 G20 nations remain in the "Very Low" category.
India's Slide: India fell to 23rd place, losing its previous top-10 status due to its lack of a coal phase-out timeline and continued fossil fuel auctions.
🔍 The Four Pillars of Performance
The index calculates a country's standing based on 14 indicators across four weighted categories. Academic analysis (such as that performed at Oxford) often focuses on the "Climate Policy" pillar as a leading indicator of future emission trends.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (40%): Assesses current emissions per capita and the ambitiousness of 2030 targets.
Renewable Energy (20%): Tracks the share of renewables in the total primary energy supply (TPES).
Energy Use (20%): Measures energy efficiency and consumption levels per capita.
Climate Policy (20%): Evaluates progress in national legislation and international climate diplomacy.
⚠️ 2026 Critical Findings
The G20 Performance Gap: Only the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 managed to secure a "High" rating among the world's largest economies.
India’s Decline: After years in the top 10, India 🇮🇳 fell to 23rd. While its per-capita emissions remain low, the continued reliance on coal and a lack of a definitive phase-out timeline heavily penalized its score.
U.S. Policy Shifts: The United States 🇺🇸 dropped to 65th, reflecting significant shifts in federal climate leadership and a reduction in international climate finance contributions.
Research Note: The CCPI is a vital tool for academic institutions like Oxford to bridge the gap between complex climate data and actionable policy insights. It serves as a "naming and shaming" mechanism to encourage laggards to accelerate their transition.
Understanding the Oxford CCPI: The 14 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
The Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI)—often analyzed by institutions like Oxford University for its data-driven transparency—evaluates national climate performance using 14 specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). These metrics ensure that a country is not just judged on its current emissions, but also on its future commitment to the Paris Agreement's $1.5^\circ\text{C}$ goal.
The scoring is divided into four main categories. For the three quantitative categories (Emissions, Renewables, and Energy Use), the CCPI uses a consistent four-indicator logic to assess past performance, current status, and future targets.
🏛️ The KPI Framework
| Category | Weight | Logic & KPI Focus |
| GHG Emissions | 40% | The Results: Measures if emissions are actually falling. |
| Renewable Energy | 20% | The Transition: Measures the shift away from fossil fuels. |
| Energy Use | 20% | The Efficiency: Measures if the economy is doing more with less. |
| Climate Policy | 20% | The Ambition: Measures political will and international leadership. |
🔍 Detailed Breakdown of the 14 KPIs
🟢 1. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions (4 KPIs)
KPI 1: Current Level: Total GHG emissions per capita.
KPI 2: Past Trend: The rate of change in emissions over the previous five years.
KPI 3: Well-Below-2°C Compatibility: How current levels compare to a sustainable global carbon budget.
KPI 4: 2030 Target: The ambition of the country’s official 2030 pledge (NDC).
🔵 2. Renewable Energy (4 KPIs)
KPI 5: Current Share: The percentage of renewable energy in the Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES).
KPI 6: Development Trend: How quickly the country is scaling up wind, solar, and other renewables.
KPI 7: Well-Below-2°C Compatibility: Is the RE share growing fast enough to meet climate targets?
KPI 8: 2030 Target: Government-mandated goals for future renewable capacity.
🟡 3. Energy Use (4 KPIs)
KPI 9: Current Level: Total primary energy consumption per capita.
KPI 10: Past Trend: Is the country’s energy consumption increasing or decreasing over 5 years?
KPI 11: Well-Below-2°C Compatibility: Does the energy usage per person fit within a 1.5°C scenario?
KPI 12: 2030 Target: National targets for energy efficiency and consumption reduction.
🔴 4. Climate Policy (2 KPIs)
KPI 13: National Policy: Evaluation of domestic laws (e.g., carbon taxes, coal phase-outs).
KPI 14: International Policy: Assessment of a country’s leadership at UN summits and climate finance.
📈 Why the "Top 3" Remain Empty
The CCPI uses these 14 KPIs to set a very high bar. To earn a spot in the top three (the "Very High" rating), a country must perform exceptionally across every single KPI.
The Conflict: Many countries score high in Renewable Energy (KPI 6), but are penalized because their Total Energy Use (KPI 9) is still rising too fast, or their 2030 Targets (KPI 4) are too weak to prevent $2^\circ\text{C}$ of warming.
The Oxford Perspective: Researchers use this multi-KPI approach to prevent "greenwashing," where a country might highlight solar growth while ignoring its continued investment in gas or coal.
Governance of the Index: Organizations and Expert Network
The Oxford Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) is the product of a high-level collaboration between leading environmental NGOs, policy think tanks, and a global network of scientific researchers. While the index is a staple of climate policy research at the University of Oxford and other top-tier universities, its production and publication are spearheaded by a core group of three organizations.
🏛️ The Publishing Consortium
Three primary organizations co-publish the CCPI annually, typically releasing the latest findings at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP).
| Organization | Primary Role in the CCPI |
| Germanwatch e.V. | Developer & Project Lead: An independent development and environmental NGO that created the index in 2005. They manage the overall data aggregation and advocacy. |
| NewClimate Institute | Scientific Methodology: A think tank that provides the scientific modeling and quantitative analysis, ensuring the KPIs are aligned with the latest IPCC reports and the $1.5^\circ\text{C}$ pathway. |
| Climate Action Network (CAN) | Global Expert Outreach: A worldwide network of over 1,900 NGOs in 130 countries. CAN facilitates the qualitative assessment of national policies through its local experts. |
🧠 The Expert Network (The 20% Qualitative Core)
A unique feature of the CCPI is that it doesn't rely solely on historical data. To account for current political shifts, the index integrates a massive qualitative survey.
450+ Local Experts: For the 2026 edition, the "Climate Policy" score was determined by a peer-review process involving over 450 experts from universities (including Oxford and Stanford), think tanks, and NGOs within the countries being evaluated.
Gap Bridging: Because emissions data (from sources like the IEA or UNFCCC) often has a 1-to-2-year lag, these experts provide "real-time" scores on current government actions, such as newly passed carbon taxes or the cancellation of coal permits.
🌍 Data Sources
The quantitative "hard data" for the other 80% of the index (Emissions, RE, and Energy Use) is pulled from the world’s most reputable energy and climate databases:
International Energy Agency (IEA): For energy-related $CO_2$ emissions and renewable energy shares.
FAO & PRIMAP-hist: For land-use data and historical greenhouse gas trends.
UNFCCC: For official national greenhouse gas inventories.
🔬 The "Oxford" Connection
The index is frequently labeled as the Oxford CCPI in academic and financial circles because it has been adopted by the Oxford Sustainable Finance Group and the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment as a benchmark for "climate-proofing" sovereign bonds. Financial actors use the index's rankings to assess the long-term economic risk of investing in countries that are not transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Note on Independence: To maintain neutrality, the CCPI does not receive funding from any government evaluated in the index. It is supported primarily by the Barthel Foundation and independent non-profit contributions.
Data Sources of the Oxford Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) 2026
The reliability of the Oxford Climate Change Performance Index rests on its use of high-quality, standardized data from globally recognized institutions. By aggregating data from these sources, the CCPI ensures that its "scorecard" is both objective and scientifically rigorous.
For the 2026 edition, the index utilizes a combination of quantitative historical data and qualitative expert assessments to bridge the "data lag" often found in international reporting.
🏗️ Quantitative Data Sources (80% of Score)
The majority of a country's score is derived from hard data regarding energy and emissions. Because different organizations specialize in different sectors, the CCPI pulls from a "triple-threat" of data providers:
| Category | Primary Data Source | Type of Data Collected |
| Energy & CO2 | International Energy Agency (IEA) | Data on fuel combustion, electricity generation, and renewable energy shares. |
| GHG Inventories | UNFCCC & PRIMAP-hist | Official national greenhouse gas inventories and historical emission pathways. |
| Land Use | FAO (Food & Agriculture Org) | Emissions related to agriculture, forestry, and land-use changes (LULUCF). |
Addressing the "Time Lag"
Historically, global climate data has a 2-year reporting delay. However, for the CCPI 2026, the NewClimate Institute and Germanwatch have utilized the PRIMAP-hist dataset to provide more current insights:
Emissions Data: Uses data up to 2024 (relying on linear extrapolation for the most recent months).
Energy Data: Uses data recorded through 2023, representing the most recent full-year energy statistics available globally.
🧠 Qualitative Expert Assessment (20% of Score)
Because "hard data" reflects the past, the Climate Policy category relies on a unique qualitative source: the CCPI Expert Network.
The Network: Over 450 climate and energy experts from civil society, NGOs, and academic institutions (including researchers from Oxford University) contribute annually.
The Questionnaire: Experts complete a comprehensive survey evaluating their own government’s domestic legislation and international diplomatic performance.
The "Real-Time" Benefit: This allows the index to reflect policy changes that happened as recently as mid-2025, such as the passage of a new carbon tax or a sudden shift in national climate leadership, which wouldn't show up in emissions data for years.
🔬 Scientific Methodology: The Paris Alignment
The CCPI doesn't just rank countries against each other; it ranks them against a 1.5°C science-based benchmark.
Calculation Logic: Every country is measured on its "fair share" of the remaining global carbon budget.
Oxford Integration: Many financial analysts at the Oxford Sustainable Finance Group utilize this specific data mix to determine "transition risk." If a country has high emissions data but a low policy score, it is flagged as a high-risk environment for long-term investment.
Conclusion: The Road to 1.5°C
The Oxford Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) 2026 concludes that while the global energy landscape is transforming at an unprecedented speed, political resistance and "fossil fuel lock-in" remain the primary barriers to the Paris Agreement goals.
The 2026 results serve as a sobering reminder that technological progress alone is insufficient. Even as renewable energy shares increase in 57 of the 64 countries assessed, total global emissions have yet to reach the sustained downward trajectory required to limit warming to $1.5^\circ\text{C}$.
🔑 Key Takeaways from the 2026 Cycle
The "Ambition Gap" Persists: For the 21st consecutive year, the top three ranks remain vacant. This isn't a lack of data, but a deliberate statement that no country has yet aligned its current energy consumption and future targets with a safe climate budget.
The Rise of the "Pioneers": Countries like Denmark 🇩🇰 and the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 demonstrate that aggressive policy (such as coal phase-outs and heat pump mandates) can drive significant ranking gains, proving that the transition is economically and technically viable.
The G20 Responsibility: As the G20 accounts for over 75% of global emissions, the 2026 index highlights a "worrying picture." With only one G20 member (the UK) in the "High" category and ten in the "Very Low" category, the burden of global mitigation continues to be unmet by the world's largest economies.
A Turning Point in Transparency: By integrating real-time data from PRIMAP and qualitative expert insights from the Oxford-affiliated network, the CCPI has become more than just a report—it is now a "climate-proofing" tool used by central banks and global investors to assess sovereign risk.
🚀 The Path Forward
As we move toward COP31, the CCPI framework suggests three critical areas for government focus:
Stop New Fossil Infrastructure: Ending the auctioning of new coal, oil, and gas blocks is the single most effective way to improve a "Climate Policy" score.
Mandate Energy Efficiency: Decoupling economic growth from energy demand is necessary to clear the "Energy Use" hurdle that keeps even leaders out of the top three.
Update NDCs: National targets for 2030 and 2035 must be revised to reflect the 43% emissions reduction required by the IPCC.
Final Thought: "The technology, expertise, and scientific knowledge are all in place. What is missing is the sustained political will to prioritize the future over the fossil-fuel-driven past." — Niklas Höhne, NewClimate Institute
