Carbon tracking
Executive summary
Global fossil-fuel CO2 emissions are projected to hit a record high in 2025 at roughly 38.1 billion tonnes, a 1.1% rise driven by coal, gas and oil, while land‑use emissions have eased and at least 35 countries report plans to decarbonize [1] [2]. Multiple independent trackers and datasets — the Global Carbon Project / Our World in Data, Climate TRACE and the Climate Action Tracker — now offer monthly to annual emissions and policy‑action views that serve complementary roles for “carbon tracking” at national, sector and facility scales [3] [4] [5].
1. What “carbon tracking” covers — from atoms to action
“Carbon tracking” spans direct atmospheric measurements, inventories of emissions from fossil fuels and land use, and policy/promise tracking. NOAA’s Mauna Loa record monitors atmospheric CO2 trends (proxy for cumulative emissions) while the Global Carbon Project compiles annual fossil‑fuel and land‑use budgets; Our World in Data hosts GCP outputs going back to 1750 [6] [3]. Climate TRACE maps emissions at unprecedented spatial resolution across 745 million sources and now publishes monthly data through September 2025, enabling facility‑level monitoring [4]. The Climate Action Tracker evaluates government policy ambition against the Paris goals, translating emissions data into temperature outcomes [5].
2. The near‑term headline: 2025 is a new peak
Independent reporting and the Global Carbon Budget converge: fossil CO2 from coal, oil and gas is projected to rise in 2025 to a new all‑time high, up about 1.1% from 2024 and bringing the global total to roughly 38.1 billion tonnes for the year [1] [2]. That increase offsets declines in land‑use emissions and means the world remains on a trajectory that quickly consumes the remaining 1.5 °C budget, according to those datasets [2].
3. Where the data differ and why that matters
Different trackers serve different purposes and can produce slightly divergent short‑term signals. GCP/Our World in Data provide long‑running, peer‑reviewed annual budgets that are the canonical historical record [3]. Climate TRACE adds near‑real‑time, spatially granular monthly estimates to detect changes at the facility or city level [4]. The Climate Action Tracker uses emissions and policy inputs to rate government efforts against Paris targets rather than to produce raw national emissions totals [5]. Users must pick the tool aligned to their question: historical accountability (GCP), operational oversight (Climate TRACE), or policy adequacy (CAT).
4. Pockets of progress amid the rise
The Global Carbon Budget notes positive trends in land‑use emissions and sinks: net emissions from land‑use change are down from a decade average and projected at about 4.1 billion tonnes in 2025, versus ~5 billion tonnes in the previous decade [1]. Reporting also highlights that at least 35 countries have plans to decarbonize, and climate policy trackers such as the Climate Action Tracker are actively assessing updated NDCs submitted in 2025 for their impact [1] [5] [7].
5. How scrutiny reveals gaps and incentives
High‑resolution, publicly accessible data (Climate TRACE) intensify corporate and governmental accountability by exposing emitter‑level footprints [4]. But data availability also creates incentives to overstate offsets or hide scope‑boundary choices; policy trackers flag that submitted NDCs so far make only a “modest dent” in the 2035 emissions gap unless fully implemented [7]. Users should treat policy promises separately from implemented emissions reductions and prefer multiple datasets when auditing claims [5] [7].
6. Financial system signals and institutional tracking
Financial actors are starting to report financed emissions and to adjust portfolios: the ECB’s November 2025 climate indicators show substantial decreases in financed emissions and carbon intensity in banks’ portfolios between 2018–2024, signaling that tracked carbon is influencing finance [8]. Think tanks like Carbon Tracker analyze stranded‑asset risk and capital‑market implications of continued fossil investment [9]. This intersection of finance and carbon tracking creates both pressure and new reporting channels.
7. Limitations, disagreements and how to read them
Available sources show near‑term increases in fossil CO2 and simultaneous improvements in land sinks and some finance indicators, but they stop short of a unified, near‑real‑time global ledger; GCP updates are annual, Climate TRACE monthly, and CAT produces policy ratings — each with methodological tradeoffs [3] [4] [5]. Where sources disagree on short‑term trajectories, inspect underlying scopes (fossil vs. land use), temporal resolution and the use of modeled vs. measured inputs. The data cited here do not mention definitive global net‑zero achievement or universal verification of corporate carbon claims; those are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).
8. Practical takeaways for journalists, policy‑makers and citizens
Use GCP/Our World in Data for historical baselines and global totals [3], Climate TRACE for facility/city surveillance and near‑real‑time signals [4], and Climate Action Tracker and WRI for policy gap analysis and NDC implications [5] [7]. Cross‑check financial disclosures and independent tracking to expose greenwashing; the ECB and Carbon Tracker illustrate how financial metrics are being integrated into carbon accountability [8] [9]. Combining these sources provides the most defensible picture of who is emitting, how fast emissions move, and whether policies convert into real declines.