Search CARMA by country, state, province, county, metro area, city, power company,
power plant, or zip code.

Welcome to CARMA!

We are pleased to announce the launch of the Carbon Monitoring for Action database at CARMA provides the world’s most detailed and comprehensive information on carbon emissions resulting from the production of electricity. Power sector emissions make up 25% of the global total, 40% of carbon emissions in the United States, and are a primary cause of global warming. CARMA is a product of the Confronting Climate Change Initiative at the Center for Global Development, an independent and non-partisan think tank located in Washington, DC.

Our goal is to put anyone in the world just a few clicks away from complete, tailored information about carbon emissions for any plant, any company, and any locale. CARMA provides data for all power facilities and companies, whether they are entirely coal-fueled or completely reliant on renewable energy sources. We hope that CARMA will equip millions of concerned global citizens – consumers, investors, political leaders, managers, professionals, and community organizers – with the information they need to take action and build a low-carbon future.

Our own professional experience, as well as plentiful research, has shown that public disclosure of critical information can have powerful effects on environmental performance. We believe that the time is ripe for rapid reduction of carbon emissions, and CARMA is intended to be our contribution to this effort. We’re particularly concerned at the Center for Global Development, because global warming threatens to undermine the poverty-reduction efforts of many developing countries.

CARMA includes more than 50,000 power plants, 4,000 power companies, and nearly 200,000 geographic regions in every country on Earth. Users can view carbon emissions data for the year 2000, the present, and future plans. And all of CARMA’s data is updated quarterly to reflect changes in plant ownership and planned construction. We encourage you to learn more About CARMA, explore the site, sign up for our newsletter, tell your friends, and link to our blog — the main source for analysis and news from the CARMA team. And we want to hear from you. How are you using the data? How can the site be improved? Let us know.

We hope you find CARMA useful in the fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow global warming. The information is available to make it happen — now it’s up to all of us to take action. Let’s get to work.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Other Posts

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

What percent of the world’s carbon based power plant’s does your database include? There are some big thermal power plants missing from your database, for example the ones in Bulgaria (which is a EU country and should have reliable data). Also how reliable is your data? Are there any error estimates? I about similar database for SO2 and NOs which are even more dangerous polluters (at least in the more immediate sense – acid rains and such).


Very interesting but I have found it difficult to establish which technology is contributing to the CO2 score. Is Nuclear always zero/green?


Looks like a great source of data to present the big picture to laymen and professionals on a topic that affects us all. I hope it is accurate. Knowledge is power and this is an industry, based on engineering knowledge, that has huge impacts on Spaceship Earth; accurate information on a number of levels is crucial for survival.


Graham, nuclear plants are always green. It is my understanding that an agreement with the data providers prevents CGD from displaying the fuel type of individual plants.


This is really exciting. Congratulations on what looks to be an excellent implementation. Getting this kind of information out is a key step in dealing with warming. I particularly like the way you have listed the politicians associated with each offending plant.


I think your comparisons based on a per capita basis are politically motivated. I also think that damage is proportional to the total output of CO2, not per capita output. I also think that countries with low per capita output also have a huge contribution from other sources – animal (including human) and from cooking fires/land clearing/fossil fuel consumption. I think there can be no real truth without the whole truth being told. How about the contribution due to the manufacturing of vehicles? If there weren’t so many of the damn things then a huge producer of CO2 would be removed. Your per capita statistics are a pernicious red herring designed to offset blame from the real culprits – the gross emitters and producers of C02


Great work!


Interesting what you have done here, but I view merely as entertainment, rather than as a means for measuring impact on climate behavior. I am one of those who knows that global warming is a fact of the present and future of our planet, but discount the effect of carbon dioxide on that behavior. What your carbon dioxide detection device may be good for; however, is to provide indication of locations and sources of more sinister pollution that should be solved. I have no interest in solving the CO2 “problem.”


Global warming is a scam, just like the ‘energy crisis’ of 1973, the ozone hole of the 80′s… and now this. “Climate Change,” it’s called, just in case it gets cooler… and don’t forget the predictions of the ice age in the 1970′s… Greenhouse gasses were going to escape through the hole in the ozone… and we were all going to get super sunburns. HOW MANY BILLIONS OF TONS OF CO2 COMES FROM THE OCEANS? Plants and trees and grass… need CO2.. “Climate Change” is a religion and you guys bought it.


Congrats, the site looks great and I can see you have stimulated the conversation. Funny how climate change is such a “hot topic” for debate…I am glad to know there are smart people working hard at solutions to a real crisis.


Congratulations on an excellent resource. However, from a quick look at the numbers for Australian power stations there appears to be an error. Australia’s black coal power stations which produce ~0.9tCO2/MWh have been listed as performing like brown coal power stations, 1.3tCO2/MWh. While this probably doesn’t change their ranking as a dirty source of electricity it may take the Australian power stations out of the top 100 worst.


Concepts like carbon per capita are bullshit. It is about total carbon emitted. Saying that Australia has the highest carbon emissions per head ignores the fact that there is more CO2 emitted in Mumbai on s “Sunday afternoon” than is emitted in Australia in a year. By the way the fires in California caused more pollution than all the cars in LA for 10 years.

Let’s not confuse pollution with theory of Global warming…


I agree with Ian Walker, I think this data is misleading. The ranking of the power stations seems to be based on the size of the power station, but is being reported as efficiency (eg see Larger power stations tend to be the most efficient. A better ranking would be on MWh/tonne of CO2.

It doesn’t appear to take into account reticulated gas for central heating. So a country like Australia that uses more cooling than heating is going to use more electricity for air conditioning than a European country that would more likely use gas for central heating.

It treats CO2 production as the only criterion, when in reality there are other issues associated with nuclear, hydro, wind etc. generation that need to be considered.

Finally, it does not take into account the energy intensive industries in the country. For example, Australia and South Africa have a lot of energy intensive smelters which were built when coal-fired power was not seen as a major problem. These smelters export most of their finished product allowing the importer of these metals to avoid the CO2 emissions. Shifting this smelting to another country may help Australia and South Africa reduce their CO2 emissions, but this may result in an overall increase in world CO2 emissions.

This is one example that demonstrates that CO2 emissions is a world problem that all countries need to help solve, rather than treating countries as being all the same and comparing them. If Australia and South Africa have the resources to build the most efficient smelters then it may be better from a global perspective for them to increase emissions, provided there is a greater decrease in other areas.


A couple of Australians have already remarked about apparent inconsistencies in the figures. I have always taken at face value the official Australian national and regional government figures of 0.9 T CO2/MWh for black coal and 1.4 T CO2/MWh for brown coal (lignite).

Please show the methodology for your figures of greenhouse intensity, and for goodness sake, please use internationally accepted units in describing intensity: tonnes of CO2 per MWh is much more sensible than BTUs per pound of coal (or whatever arcane unit is represented in those figures)

Who is using “Old Europe” language in scientific discourse these days? AMERICA, THAT’S WHO!!!


There is a REAL solution for all of this mess. I know of a company currently working on a technique to convert CO2 into valuable compounds, and on a VERY large scale. Now that we know who the emitters are, thanks to this lovely mash-up, it will be possible to approach and offer this method to those who will, no doubt (since this is now public,) soon be in need of a real solution. Thanks!!


Absolutely amazing! Allow me to congratulate you on this gigantic effort. Clearly this is just a start but this must be the way to go if we want to engage the whole world in our living conditions on planet earth.

There is a need though to be more clear on how you define your dirty to clean icons and if you have done so and I have just not found it please accept my apologies.

Finally and excuse my impatience but when will you try to make something similar with hydroelectric dams since we need a dam index in order to see whether our efforts should go to stop new dams or request the decommissioning of existing dams.


your note says “to get the data, you can’t tell us the fuel source” … don’t get me wrong, I think what you’re doing is great, but there’s a lot of data that is filed with state and federal governments that should be readily available. just that you’re the first folsk to really break it down in and report it easily.

however, from listening to the story on NPR this morning, which prompted me to visit your site, it really sounded like you’re tracking all the electrical production facilities around the world. I live in Alabama, and immediately I noticed that neither Gorgas and Wilsonville plants are listed. both of these are coal fired facilities and both are currently undergoing extensive emissions retro-fits. It would be nice if you could comment about being able to put these into dots on your map.

Awesome idea and I’m really glad to see someone doing this! Often times we talk about changes our light bulbs, driving more fuel efficient cars, but these big factories and power plants put lots of crap into the air we breate.
It’d be super if eventually you could expand this to pulp-n-paper plants (especially those with co-gen facilities) and also chemical plants and refineries, etc.



The data collected here is interesting but it would have been _much_ more interesting if it included the plant type. Comparing how much power is being created by various sources would have allowed extrapolations and trends to be formed. Are we increasing the number of wind farms? Is nuclear power decreasing in North America? These are question that could have been answered with a full dataset….


It is hard to believe that there are still people who do not believe that global warming exists. Yes, it is a natural development in the ecosystem, normally occurring in a cyclical period. However, influences from outside of natural occurrence can affect a cycle and cause it to readjust to the new parameters set by the outside influence. That would be us. We have managed to influence the natural cycle of the ecosystem by introducing a excessive amount of pollution (carbon, SO2, NO2, etc.) and thereby altering the natural course of events. This is basic chemistry for those of you out there who are not smart enough to realize that we have done damage and it isnt just the way things go on the planet. I especially love people who say that global warming exists but it isnt because of pollution. Do you think that over 3 billion people can live on the planet and not have an impact on the environment. Man, humans in general are just stupid.


Plant life needs CO2 for it to generate O2. All of this global warming business is just that. Business. The UN is the targeted host of the world’s largest scam, supported by Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Al Gore – amongst others. Their goal is to assign credits to nations perceived to contribute the greatest to global warming, using CO2 emissions as the gauge. Scientist reported that CO2 emissions are highest in areas that have the densest forests and are underdeveloped. The report contradicts what was desired by the aforementioned. They want to apply energy credits to each country, which can be purchased by wealthier countries in order to produce more goods causing CO2 emissions. This is a scam for wealth distrubution from wealthier nations to poor nations – AND – who stands to gain the most? Those assigned the task or who are on the task board for the newly created global warming market. Get your money for nothing. Do not be fooled America, research this fact, learn and form your own opinions. Don’t let the liberal politicians tell you what to think.


Wouldn’t it be nice if global warming was a hippie scam? Wouldn’t it be nice if my truck had nothing to do with anthropogenic climatic fluxes? What causes lightning? Why do boats float? What’s at the bottom of the ocean? These questions are not offensive unitl they begin to overtake our consumer ways. There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can suggest that global warming is not anthropogenic. But hurry, Stockholm could very well be 6 meters underwater in our near future.


Who complained about the units? You seriously can’t convert units and want to have a discussion about this?

This is a very useful form of information, but it needs a better explanation. Formula for things like intensity should be clearly labeled so it can’t be missed. It is IMPOSSIBLE for data to be misleading. Anyone mislead by data simply jumped to a conclusion.

This data is a great start on a true global warming study about how to solve the problem (if one exists). More databases should slowly be integrated into the site over the years to include more than just the power industry. Information on refiners would be an excellent supplement to accompany it next.

Also, I think the color scheme should be changed. Green sounds “good” and red seems “bad.” CO2 emitting is far more complex than this simple intensity calculation. One color from light to dark would be a FAR more scientific way of presenting data without bias.


Wouldn’t it be nice if global warming was a hippie scam? Wouldn’t it be nice if my truck had nothing to do with anthropogenic climatic fluxes? What causes lightning? Why do boats float? What’s at the bottom of the ocean? These questions are not offensive unitl they begin to overtake our consumer ways. There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can suggest that global warming is not anthropogenic. But hurry, Stockholm could very well be 6 meters underwater in our near future.

Actually they wouldn’t even listen to you. Many scientists and engineers contest the conclusions of IPCC data due to the positive reinforcement loops in their models. The models suggest a natural process that autoaccelerates. If this were true, global warming would be impossible to stop or prevent. Once CO2 was in the air, it would never come out and self perpetuate. There is no doubt some of these models are flawed, but this doesn’t mean global warming isn’t real, merely that the threat is overstated in order to draw research funds.

The way climate discussion is today, dissent is actually not allowed. Nobody at the IPCC will suggest anything other than the doom scenario even though many very good scientists are skeptical of this model. The behavior is called “academic inbreeding” where like minded people bring in only those similar to themselves in a university. Unfortunately, global warming still isn’t pure science, it’s a lot of speculation.

It is important, however, to remember that research and concern is warranted either way. There just won’t be public funds if people don’t think they are going to all drown. Mind you, the polar icecaps are going to melt someday…they haven’t been there forever.




So nuclear power is green. Fine. Sorry, I must have missed the final solution for nuclear waste then. Hydroelectric power plants and dams are green. Good. Tell it to the salmons, tell it to the ones at the end of the chain. Sorry, but this is stupid. No question, a coal-burning power plant isn’t really up-to-date and solar, air and geothermic energy is the way to go. To sum up just the carbon dioxide is one-sided and one-eyed and totally misses the complex of problems. Not to mention all the other missing sources of CO2, methane and all the other greenhouse gases.


How to save the world from global warming

1) Colocate Sewage Plants and Power Stations and Farms. Feed Output (Heat CO2 steam) from Power Stations into Farms (CO2 plus lighting for night growth + poo for fertilizer) Harvest O2 and use in Power Station during day: better efficiency + captured carbon + food & better use of water. Why throw water and poo away – it’s nice :) Could also use fly ash in farms as well. Turn those stacks sideways!!!!! Turn them into giant mass spectrometers….

2) Accelerate developing nations consumption of *atmospheric* CO2 by planned obsolescence and conspicuous consumption. Sequester the obsolete goods thrown away by the newly fickle… This way the new Industrial Revolution can be used to counter the effects of the old one, and most will make lots of money…

3) make american vehicles out of carbon fiber and PET – sourced from *atmospheric carbon* – the japanese will follow as they do… and sequester the obsolete vehicles. This way the wanton aggrandisement so typical of western cultures can be used to advantage – no reliance on being ‘green’ here!

4) recycling is bad!! this is basic thermodynamics…

thats how ya do it.

Remember -going green is what you do just before you die :(


We have to focus on demand side as well, not only supply.
How does the database account for the fact that there is also quite a bit of electricity trading going on between various continental countries. US buys a lot of electricity from Mexico and Canada power plants. Ukraine and Russia export a lot of electricity to their western neighbors.


There are tons of more Powerplants in Japan. you guys have only one that is shown on the map. Japan is in the TOP TEN for Global Warming Contributor. Why aren’t they more in details. Or is Japan or a Japanese firm funding you guys to keep the voice down ?
Japan is the country that held the Kyoto Protocol but they haven’t done much.
electrical Generation here accounts for approximately a third of total emission by this country but unfortunately, they are not doing much in reality. What’s worse is that they have manufacturer’s advertising that say electrical appliances are more green. which is not true when it comes to cooking appliances.
Also Japan builds one of the best solar electric systems but they sell those systems way cheaper outside of the country, which is usually called dumping. And which is also why Solar Electric Power generation has not grown much in Japan.
It is very sad. Only if they realize that the future depends on each and everyones action.


15 November 2007

Serious Errors of CLP emissions data in Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) Study

A new database released in Washington DC this week contained serious errors of fact on carbon emissions for the Castle Peak Power Station and is now to be corrected by the organisation involved.

Following representation from CLP, the CARMA organization has confirmed that they will correct the record and its database on carbon emissions.

Despite publicly available figures that have been independently audited, CARMA instead reports emissions for Castle Peak Power Station in Hong Kong that are more than twice these actual verified levels. CARMA incorrectly quoted emission figures for Castle Peak of 35.8 million tons. The actual figure is 13.3 million tons for 2006, which is significantly lower than the top 10 listed.

In addition, the CARMA website lists Hok Un Power Station, as part of CLP’s existing generating portfolio in Hong Kong. In actual fact, Hok Un Power Station was decommissioned in the early 1990s and the site is now occupied by a large property development.

Independently verified total CO2 emissions from CLP Power’s entire generation capacity in Hong Kong, as well as the total electricity sent out from all our Hong Kong stations in 2006 is publicly available on our Group website:

This data reflects that the total CO2 emissions for 2006 from all our three power stations: Castle Peak Power Station, Black Point Power Station and Penny’s Bay Power Station, was 17.99 million tons (still less than CARMA’s estimated 35.8 million tons for just Castle Peak). The total electricity sent out from all three stations was 25,024 GWh (less than CARMA’s estimate of 28,200 GWh for just Castle Peak).

Given such significant errors of fact we believe CARMA has a responsibility to correct this information as a matter of priority and we have requested urgent corrective action.

CLP’s emissions of CO2 per kilowatt hour (kWh) electricity sold in Hong Kong in 2006 was 0.53kg CO2/kWh and CLP continues to pursue a range of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, including moving to introduce an LNG terminal to Hong Kong to allow us to increase gas in our fuel mix.

Jane Lau

Director – Group Public Affairs

CLP Holdings Limited


After reading your report, I am very proud to be a Brazilian, since among the 50 first countries that produce most C02 emissions, just Brazil and France received the Big Green tag. We got this tag because our Energy sources rely mostly on Hydro Power (not Fossil or Nuclear Power). In addition to that (not part of your report), our cars have used ethanol as a fuel for more than 30 years, which is a renewable source of energy. Therefore, we can stand up and say loudly to the world: you can put no blame on us for global warming, despite all the (bad) problems that occur in Amazon. Look at our power matrix and see what you can learn from it, in case you really want to reduce CO2 emissions and reduce global warming.


Thank you for your data, I took them for my blog.

I wrote today about the carbon emissions of the power plants of the world.

This is the link.

Thank you.


Fighting pollution is a good thing, but it wil not stop the increase in CO2 emission – at best it will slow the growth of it.

Countries like China and India will steadily get richer, which will increase their output per person. And there are lots of people and they all want their share of course.

Only China has implemented a sound CO2 program which the world should follow. But this takes realy courage, so it will take years for the rest of the world to follow. What I mean is the one child policy; this has resulted in 400 million less people then otherwise, that is more than the total USA population. Can you think of any bigger reduction in emissions?