![](https://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/9467813/2147483647/thumbnail/970x647/quality/85/?url=http://media.beam.usnews.com/72/08/d46751e8423cb684db9d3bcf57b9/gettyimages-1230041503.jpg)
In the wake of the 2021 U.N. Climate Change Conference, pressure has mounted for global leaders to face the climate crisis head on and adopt bolder policies. This, in turn, has increased the need for timely data that countries can use to drive their policy decisions.
The 2022 CCPI, which was released in November 2021, offers a real-time assessment of how effective these policy shifts have been. Developed by Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute and the Climate Action Network, the CCPI is an independent monitoring tool for tracking countries’ climate protection performance.
Results, which have been published annually since 2005, are compiled with the help of 450 experts, and measure the climate policy performance of 60 countries and the EU, which are collectively responsible for 92% of greenhouse gas emissions. The index takes into consideration both the political promises and the net emissions per capita of each country.
Photos: Climate Change in Greenland
What stands out in the CCPI’s analytical framework is its focus on measuring to see if countries are walking the walk, not just talking the talk when it comes to climate policy. “You can make a lot of policies, make a lot of promises, but if they don’t work, the country won’t be able to be on top of the ranking,” explains Jan Burck, senior advisor for Low-Carbon Strategies & Energy for the CCPI.
Nathan Hultman, director of the University of Maryland Center for Global Sustainability and 2022 senior advisor in the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate in the U.S. Department of State argues that “it’s really important to note that this particular set of metrics – like all metrics, by the way – has a lot of embedded judgment about what constitutes better and worse.”
Other groups may rely on different criteria to assess countries according to their changes in climate policies. However, the CCPI’s focus is on four main sectors: greenhouse gas emissions (40% of overall score), renewable energy (20% of overall score), energy use (20% of overall score), and climate policy (20% of overall score), in determining its rankings.
This weighing of per capita emissions and energy transitions alongside climate policy allows the CCPI to highlight noteworthy performance in otherwise overlooked countries. “Morocco is an exciting example for a country with very low emissions,” Burck points out. “The country really took the chance, relatively early on – around 2009 or 2010 – and made a large investment in renewables, solar and wind.”
Burck explains that weighing a nation’s total emissions would not provide the most accurate assessment of its progress. “We think that per capita emissions is a good way to deal with that problem,” he notes, as it makes it possible to compare small countries with high emissions, for example, with large countries that have relatively low emissions.
By this standard, India ranks highly as it produces two tons per capita as compared to, say, 30 to 40 tons per capita in a small oil-producing country like Qatar. Burck emphasizes, however, that India is at a critical tipping point. As its population grows – and that growth is coupled with rising per capita CO2 emissions – its leaders face a choice in how they shape environmental policy. Development can be an opportunity to stick to the status quo or to implement policies that encourage renewable forms of energy.
These are questions that are important both for developing countries and for established economies with high CO2 emissions, such as the United States. “The question of a just transition in these countries is an important one,” Burck emphasizes. The just transition framework reflects principles emphasizing the need for positive social intervention to protect citizens’ rights when economies shift to sustainable production so that workers and communities benefit by the transition and are not unfairly burdened by it.
Hultman argues, however, that taking this per capita lens to the data may stymie actual change, allowing some higher emitting countries, like China – which ranked 38th – to have a better score. “Historically large emitters should not be off the hook,” he notes.
In some countries, shifts in ranking seem to reflect politics. Burck explains that “you see developments closely following the elections in the U.S.” However, in other countries like the U.K. with comprehensive climate law, “it’s not really a real difference, whether Tories or Labor is in charge, in terms of the climate issue.”
These observations are critical for understanding what strong climate policy looks like. Burck believes that the extent to which leaders are willing to work together is critical for reaching net-zero global CO2 emissions. Tools like the CCPI, he argues, are what allow us to hold these countries accountable. Hultman agrees, despite his trepidations. “as long as we are aware of the limitations of each metric, it’s extraordinarily important to have.”
In recent years the CCPI has been used as a tool for citizens suing their own governments over issues related to climate change, as a source for activists arguing for stronger international policy action, and as a reference point for politicians negotiating better climate policy.
Across the board, however, no countries had strong enough policies to place first, second or third in this year’s ranking. The decision to leave the three top positions blank was purposeful by the CCPI. “We really hope that maybe some country will climb up,” Burck said. “But still, we cannot put any country in the first three rings, which is a pity. But maybe the next few years will tell us something else.”