Climate Action Tracker

The use of international carbon credits by governments to meet their climate targets under the Paris Agreement's Article 6 has the potential to undermine progress in climate action, the Climate Action Tracker said today. Launching its Article 6 assessment series, the CAT has undertaken its first qualitative assessments of the carbon credit arrangements under Article 6 for four countries: Switzerland, Japan, Brazil and Kenya. The results so far are sobering.

Overall rating Critically insufficient Policies and action against fair share Highly insufficient < 4°C World NDC target against modelled domestic pathways Critically insufficient 4°C+ World NDC target against fair share Critically insufficient 4°C+ World Climate finance Information incomplete Net zero target year 2053 Comprehensiveness rated as Poor Land use & forestry Not significant This analysis was published in June 2026.

The current energy crisis triggered by the US–Israel war on Iran has once again placed energy security at the centre of geopolitical tensions. It marks the third major shock to the global energy system since 2020, highlighting the inherent vulnerabilities of fossil fuel-based energy systems. The way governments respond to energy crises determines whether these shocks delay the transition or accelerate structural change in the energy system.

At this press conference during the June Climate Meetings in Bonn, the Climate Action Tracker team will present their latest briefing examining countries' responses to the energy crisis and whether those responses support or hinder the energy transition. Date: 11 June 2026 Time: 15:00-15:30 CEST Location: Nairobi 4 (press conference room) or online Subscribe to our newsletter

by Sarah Heck, Sofia Gonzales-Zuniga, Ana Missirliu & Janna Hoppe The world has been repeatedly shaken by fossil fuel price spikes, supply disruptions, and geopolitical crises that show how dangerous fossil fuel dependence has become for both the climate and energy security. This current moment - linked to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz - should be seen as a point of strategic clarity.

Saudi Arabia’s latest climate pledge is once again marred by opacity: it provides no 2035 emissions reduction target, and its 2040 target is pegged to an unspecified baseline projection, making ambition and progress impossible to measure. This baseline is based on two undisclosed scenarios, both of which envisage the fossil fuel industry continuing to play a pivotal role in Saudi Arabia’s economy—the world’s largest net oil exporter.

by Michael Petroni & Finn Hossfeld In October 2025, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) failed to adopt the Net Zero Framework (NZF) measures agreed earlier that year, instead postponed the decision to 2026 following pressure from the US and Saudi Arabia. The NZF would have marked a major milestone in decarbonising international shipping, introducing a global fuel emissions standard alongside a market-based mechanism to reduce the sector’s emissions.

By Dr Nandini Das, CAT country lead, India For over three decades, every major global energy shock – from the 2003 Gulf War to the 2008 oil price spike and now renewed crisis in the Middle East  which disrupting around 20% of global energy supply – has exposed the same structural weakness in India’s economy: a deep and persistent dependence on imported fossil fuels and resulting vulnerability from price volatility.

We rate Kenya’s policies and action as '1.5°C compatible' compared to their fair share contribution to climate change mitigation. The '1.5°C compatible' rating indicates that Kenya’s climate policies and action are consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C. Kenya’s climate policies and action do not require other countries to make comparably deeper reductions. Kenya’s emissions continue to increase under our projections, from 69 MtCO2e in 2024 to 74–84 MtCO2e by 2030.

This analysis was published in April 2026. Peru submitted a conditional NDC target for 2035 of the same emissions level as its conditional target for 2030, which is neither 1.5°C aligned in 2030 nor in 2035 and represents a clear lack of ambition. Even more concerning, Peru did not put forward an unconditional target for 2035, as it did for 2030. It is therefore unclear what level of emissions reductions the country is prepared to achieve using its own resources.