Can climate rankings tell us which country is a good performer?
A comparative analysis examined why two widely-cited global climate rankings — the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) and the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) — produce sharply different verdicts on the same countries
The analysis found that the divergence stems from differing methodological choices on how to measure emissions responsibility — total (absolute) emissions versus per-capita emissions
Using the United States, European countries, and India as case studies, the analysis showed the two indices can rank the same country as a leader on one index and a laggard on the other
The core argument was that no single climate ranking is an objective scorecard — each encodes a particular value judgement about fairness and responsibility, similar to how a map projection encodes distortions
Environmental Performance Index (EPI) — Methodology and India's Standing
The EPI is a biennial ranking produced by the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy and the Columbia Climate School's Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN). It ranks countries on a composite of environmental health, ecosystem vitality, and climate change performance indicators, and has been a recurring point of friction between international index-makers and the Government of India.
Key Details
- 2026 EPI: 177 countries ranked on 47 indicators across 12 issue categories (environmental public health, ecosystem vitality, climate change); India ranked among the lowest-placed countries
- 2024 EPI: 180 countries ranked on 58 indicators across 11 categories; India ranked 176th of 180
- The EPI's climate change component weighs indicators such as projected greenhouse gas emissions and emissions trends, drawing criticism from India's Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), which in 2022 called the index's methodology "unscientific" — objecting that it excluded India's carbon-sink forests/wetlands, extrapolated emissions trends from only a short historical window, and applied indicator weights without adequate justification
- Yale researchers publicly defended the methodology, stating the rankings reflected performance data rather than "surmises"
The analysis cited the EPI as the index that weighs total/absolute national emissions, a methodological choice that tends to penalise large, populous, still-industrialising economies like India regardless of their low per-capita emissions — the crux of India's formal objection to the index.
Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) — Methodology and India's Trajectory
The CCPI is an annual index published by Germanwatch, the NewClimate Institute, and Climate Action Network International, first launched in 2005 and typically released around the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP). It evaluates around 60+ countries and the European Union collectively responsible for over 90% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Key Details
- CCPI scores countries across four weighted categories: GHG Emissions (40%), Renewable Energy (20%), Energy Use (20%), and Climate Policy (20%), assessed against a pathway consistent with the Paris Agreement's well-below-2°C goal
- By design, the top three ranks are always left vacant — reflecting the index's position that no country is yet performing well enough across all categories to be rated "very high"
- CCPI 2026: India's rank fell from 10th (a prior edition) to 23rd, moving from the "high performer" category into "medium performer," attributed to continued coal dependence, the absence of a coal phase-out timeline, and rising coal-based generation despite strong growth in non-fossil capacity
- CCPI's GHG Emissions and Energy Use categories are typically assessed on both an absolute and a per-capita/intensity basis, which is why large per-capita-low emitters (including India, historically) score comparatively better here than on indices weighting only absolute totals
The analysis used the CCPI's better historical treatment of India (versus the EPI) to illustrate how a per-capita/intensity-sensitive methodology produces a materially different — and, until recently, more favourable — assessment of the same country's climate performance.
CBDR-RC and the Equity Debate Underlying Climate Indices
The tension between "absolute emissions" and "per-capita emissions" as measurement bases mirrors the foundational equity debate in international climate negotiations, formalised as the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) under the UNFCCC.
Key Details
- CBDR-RC is enshrined in Article 3.1 of the UNFCCC (1992) and reaffirmed in the Paris Agreement (2015), recognising that developed countries bear greater historical responsibility for cumulative emissions and greater capacity to act
- India has consistently invoked per-capita emissions and "carbon space"/historical responsibility arguments in international forums (UNFCCC, G20) to argue against emissions benchmarks that ignore population size and developmental stage
- India's per-capita CO2 emissions remain well below the global average and a fraction of those of developed economies, even though its total national emissions rank among the highest globally due to population size
The analysis' central point — that indices "encode values" rather than offering neutral scorecards — is the same debate India has long made at UNFCCC negotiations: that judging climate performance by absolute totals alone, without reference to per-capita emissions or historical responsibility, disadvantages large developing economies.
- EPI 2026: 177 countries ranked, 47 indicators, 12 issue categories; produced by Yale and Columbia (CIESIN)
- EPI 2024: India ranked 176th of 180 countries
- CCPI: published annually by Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute, and Climate Action Network International since 2005; evaluates 60+ countries plus the EU
- CCPI weighting: GHG Emissions 40%, Renewable Energy 20%, Energy Use 20%, Climate Policy 20%; top three ranks always left unassigned
- CCPI 2026: India ranked 23rd (score 61.31), down from 10th, moving from "high performer" to "medium performer" category
- CBDR-RC principle codified in UNFCCC Article 3.1 (1992) and reaffirmed in the Paris Agreement (2015)