Now a small environmental group can see what's being planned without hiring consultants.
In a moment when the distance between climate pledges and climate reality grows harder to ignore, two research organizations have placed a new kind of reckoning on the internet. The Global Registry of Fossil Fuels — cataloging more than 50,000 extraction sites across 89 countries — makes visible not what the world is burning today, but what it has already planned to burn tomorrow. Launched as world leaders gathered at the United Nations, the database shifts the terms of accountability from aspiration to inventory, offering citizens, investors, and advocates a shared map of the choices that will define the coming decades.
- The gap between national climate pledges and actual extraction plans has long been obscured by the absence of a single, public, supply-side accounting — and that gap is now exposed.
- Investors face immediate pressure as the registry makes it measurably easier to identify fossil fuel assets likely to become financially stranded as the energy transition accelerates.
- Environmental groups gain a concrete instrument to challenge government licensing decisions field by field, country by country, before extraction locks in decades of future emissions.
- The launch was timed deliberately to coincide with UN climate talks, injecting hard supply data into negotiations where governments have often hidden behind the ambiguity of incomplete information.
- The registry does not yet compel any government to act, but it dismantles the most durable excuse — that the full scale of planned fossil fuel development was simply unknown.
On Monday, a new kind of map went live — one that charts not what the world is burning now, but what it has already positioned itself to burn. The Global Registry of Fossil Fuels, built by Carbon Tracker and the Global Energy Monitor, catalogs more than 50,000 oil, gas, and coal extraction sites across 89 countries, together representing roughly three-quarters of the world's known reserves and the future emissions they carry.
What distinguishes this registry from existing databases is its orientation toward supply rather than demand. Where the International Energy Agency tracks how much the world consumes, this registry tracks what remains in the ground and what governments and companies intend to extract. That data has long existed in private hands; it now belongs to anyone with an internet connection.
For investors, the registry sharpens a calculation that has grown increasingly urgent: which fossil fuel assets will lose value as the world moves away from carbon. Eric Christian Pedersen of Nordea Asset Management noted that the database makes stranded asset risk far easier to quantify — and therefore far harder for companies to obscure.
For climate advocates, the registry reframes the fight. Carbon Tracker founder Mark Campanale argued that civil society must direct more attention to the licensing decisions governments make before a single barrel is extracted. Each permit issued locks in years of future emissions. The registry makes those decisions visible, specific, and contestable.
The launch arrived as world leaders gathered at the United Nations General Assembly, with larger climate negotiations approaching in Egypt. Scientists describe this as a critical decade for carbon reduction, and the distance between what governments have pledged and what the data now reveals may be difficult to sustain in the open. The registry does not compel action — but it removes the shelter of ignorance.
On Monday, a new kind of map went live on the internet—one that shows not what the world is burning right now, but what it could burn in the future. The Global Registry of Fossil Fuels is the first public database of its kind, a comprehensive accounting of oil fields, gas reserves, and coal deposits across the planet, built from data on more than 50,000 individual extraction sites spread across 89 countries. Together, these sites represent roughly three-quarters of the world's known fossil fuel reserves and the emissions they would produce if developed and consumed.
The registry was built by two organizations working in tandem: Carbon Tracker, a nonprofit research group focused on how the energy transition affects financial markets, and the Global Energy Monitor, which monitors energy projects globally. Their timing was deliberate. The launch came as world leaders gathered at the United Nations General Assembly in New York for climate discussions, with a larger negotiation scheduled for November in Egypt. The organizations behind the project see the database as a tool for accountability—a way to make visible what governments and companies are planning to extract from the ground.
What makes this registry different from existing energy databases is both its scope and its focus. The International Energy Agency maintains public data on fossil fuels, but it tracks demand—how much the world wants to consume. This new registry does something else: it catalogs supply, the reserves waiting to be pulled from the earth. It also does something private data brokers have long done, but now makes it freely available to anyone with an internet connection. Environmental groups, investors, journalists, and citizens can now see where the world's remaining oil, gas, and coal are located, how much there is, and what burning it would mean for the climate.
For investors, the implications are immediate. Eric Christian Pedersen, who oversees responsible investments at Denmark's Nordea Asset Management, noted that the registry makes it far easier to calculate what future emissions will look like if current extraction plans proceed. That calculation matters because it helps identify which fossil fuel assets are likely to become stranded—investments that will lose value as the world transitions away from carbon. Companies holding those assets face financial risk, and now that risk is easier to quantify and harder to ignore.
For climate advocates, the registry is a weapon in a different kind of fight. Mark Campanale, who founded Carbon Tracker, argued that civil society groups need to focus more attention on what governments are actually planning to permit. When a country issues a license to extract oil or coal, that decision locks in decades of future emissions. The registry makes those decisions visible and contestable. Environmental organizations can now point to specific fields, specific countries, and specific volumes of carbon that would be released if those licenses are granted. They can challenge the permitting process itself, not just the companies seeking permits.
The timing of the launch matters. The world is in what climate scientists describe as a critical decade for carbon reduction. The gap between what governments have pledged to do and what the science demands is widening. New data, especially data that makes future emissions concrete and locatable, could shift the pressure on national leaders. If environmental groups can show that a country's licensing decisions are incompatible with its climate commitments, that becomes harder to ignore in international negotiations. The registry doesn't solve the problem of fossil fuels. But it removes one excuse: the claim that we don't know where they are, how much there is, or what burning them would cost.
Notable Quotes
Civil society groups need to focus more attention on what governments are planning to permit, and actually begin to challenge the permitting process.— Mark Campanale, founder of Carbon Tracker
The registry will make it much easier to include expected future emissions into analysis and identify companies with assets likely to become stranded.— Eric Christian Pedersen, Head of Responsible Investments, Nordea Asset Management
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that this is public? Couldn't investors and governments already access this information?
They could, but only if they paid for it. Private data brokers have sold this information for years. Making it free changes who can use it—now a small environmental group in Kenya or Peru can see what's being planned in their own backyard without hiring consultants.
So this is really about transparency as a form of pressure?
Exactly. Right now, a government can issue an extraction license and most people never know the details. With the registry, those decisions become visible. A journalist can report on it. A community can organize around it. That visibility is the whole point.
Does the registry actually stop extraction, or does it just make it harder to hide?
It doesn't stop anything by itself. But it arms the people who might stop it—or slow it down. If a government wants to issue a coal license, they now have to do it knowing that the carbon impact is documented, searchable, and public. That's not nothing.
What about countries that don't care about international pressure?
That's the real test, isn't it? The registry works best in places where public opinion and investor pressure matter. In democracies, in places where civil society has some voice. But it also creates a record. Even if a government ignores the pressure today, that decision is now part of the permanent record.
Is this the kind of tool that actually changes policy, or is it more symbolic?
It's both. Symbolically, it says: we're watching, we're counting, we're not letting this happen in the dark. Practically, it gives investors and activists the ammunition they need to make the financial and political case that these reserves should stay in the ground.