Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Closing Gaps in Emissions Monitoring with Climate TRACE

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims Climate TRACE is the first global dataset to provide source-level emissions estimates for all major anthropogenic sectors, updated monthly.

desk verdict Valuable open dataset, but the 'asset-level for all sectors' headline doesn't survive contact with the paper's own methods: a quarter of global emissions are proxy-downscaled remainders, not facility-level data. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.19277 v2 pith:SLBCUGVA submitted 2025-11-24 cs.LG

Brittany V. Lancellotti , Jordan M. Malof , Aaron Davitt , Gavin McCormick , Shelby Anderson , Pol Carbó-Mestre , Gary Collins , Verity Crane
show 27 more authors
Zoheyr Doctor George Ebri Kevin Foster Trey M. Gowdy Michael Guzzardi John Heal Heather Hunter David Kroodsma Khandekar Mahammad Galib Paul J. Markakis Gavin McDonald Daniel P. Moore Eric D. Nguyen Sabina Parvu Michael Pekala Christine D. Piatko Amy Piscopo Mark Powell Krsna Raniga Elizabeth P. Reilly Michael Robinette Ishan Saraswat Patrick Sicurello Isabella Söldner-Rembold Raymond Song Charlotte Underwood Kyle Bradbury
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords greenhousegasemissionsmonitoringasset-levelinventoryClimateTRACEsatelliteremotesensingmachinelearningcarbonaccountingspatialdisaggregation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Existing global greenhouse gas datasets are each missing at least one feature needed for actionable climate monitoring: independent validation, global coverage, fine spatial or temporal resolution, frequent updates, or ease of use. The paper argues that these gaps can be closed by a single framework that combines the best existing data and fills the rest with sector-specific estimates. Its central claim is that the resulting dataset, Climate TRACE, is the first to provide globally comprehensive emissions estimates for individual sources across essentially all anthropogenic sectors, with monthly updates and a two-month lag. If true, this makes facility-level emissions visible and comparable worldwide, enabling detection of high emitters and under-reporters and giving subnational governments a ready-made baseline for mitigation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the capacity-activity-emission-factor chain, which lets the framework estimate emissions from things that can be observed remotely. The novel machinery is the synthesis pipeline: candidate datasets are screened for reliability, combined or adapted via data-informed disaggregation and temporal imputation, and supplemented with newly generated estimates from machine-learning models trained on satellite imagery and in situ data. A spatial-disaggregation rule treats country-level totals as a lower bound and distributes unlocated emissions according to sector-specific proxies, ensuring that every administrative unit and grid cell receives a complete estimate.

What would settle it

Take a random global sample of facilities outside the training regions, such as power plants in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia with independently audited hourly generation and fuel records, and compare Climate TRACE monthly estimates to those records. If errors outside training regions are systematically larger and more biased than errors in the US, Europe, and Australia, the global-validity claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Climate TRACE is built around a universal accounting identity: for each source, activity equals capacity times capacity factor, and emissions equal activity times emission factor. Sector-specific methods estimate these components using machine learning on satellite imagery for power plants and cattle operations, statistical models for oil and gas, and flight-level fuel calculations for aviation, while remaining gaps are filled by disaggregating country-level totals using proxies such as population and nightlights. The assembled dataset covers all major anthropogenic sectors, provides monthly asset-level estimates for roughly 74% of global emissions, and offers subnational aggregations for ne

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that models trained on data from a few high-income countries, combined with proxy-based allocation of unlocated emissions, remain accurate enough when applied to every country and facility worldwide.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Individual power plants, factories, cattle operations, airports, and other facilities worldwide become individually monitorable, allowing comparisons that were previously possible only in a few countries.
  • Self-reported emissions can be checked against independent estimates, potentially exposing systematic under-reporting at the company or sector level.
  • Subnational governments, including urban areas and low-capacity countries, gain emissions baselines and can set and track mitigation targets without building their own inventories.
  • Atmospheric inversion models can use source-level priors, which the paper shows improves alignment between bottom-up and top-down methane estimates for cattle.
  • Monthly updates with a two-month lag make it possible to evaluate mitigation policies on the timescale of a year rather than a multi-year inventory cycle.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the trained models' high-income training data do not generalize, cross-country source-level rankings could be biased; a natural test is to compare estimates against independently audited facilities in lower-income regions.
  • The lower-bound assumption on country totals means that in countries where asset-level detection is incomplete, remainder emissions are assigned by proxies, so local emission hotspots could be misplaced even if national totals are right.
  • Monthly, source-level data could enable near-real-time attribution of emission changes to specific shutdowns, strikes, or policy interventions, something annual inventories cannot provide.
  • A direct extension would be to use the same framework to produce forward-looking emissions projections tied to capacity changes, which the paper does not attempt.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents Climate TRACE, an open-access global greenhouse gas emissions dataset and platform. It first offers a structured comparison of existing global emissions datasets across accuracy, coverage/resolution, update frequency, and usability, identifying gaps that motivate the new dataset. It then describes the Climate TRACE framework: synthesizing existing datasets (e.g., EDGAR, CEDS, UNFCCC) and generating new sector-specific estimates, often with machine learning from satellite imagery, to produce emissions estimates for individual facilities (e.g., power plants) and monthly, globally resolved emissions from 2021 onward. The paper claims this is the first global dataset providing asset-level estimates for all anthropogenic emitting sectors, with a two-month reporting lag and monthly updates, and it highlights applications in company-level under-reporting detection, subnational inventories, and supply-chain accounting. The paper also reports global emissions trend analyses from the dataset. Limitations are acknowledged regarding ground-truth scarcity and variable confidence across sectors.

Significance. If the claims as stated were fully supported, this would be a substantial contribution: a single, open, monthly, globally comprehensive emissions inventory spanning multiple gases and sectors, with facility-level detail for a large share of emissions, would be of clear value to governments, companies, and researchers. The paper ships an actual dataset and platform, with detailed sector methodology documents, reproducible R scripts for its trend analyses, and external validation comparisons for components such as power plant emissions. These are real strengths. However, the central novelty claim—'asset-level estimates for all emitting sectors'—is materially overstated by the paper's own methodology, and the accuracy evidence is uneven. The contribution is still defensible if the claims are carefully qualified to distinguish directly asset-linked emissions from spatially proxied remainder emissions, and if uncertainty data are made openly available rather than 'upon request'.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3.3; Supplementary Note 1.2] The central claim that Climate TRACE provides 'asset-level emissions estimates for all emitting sectors' (Abstract; also Discussion, Section 4) is contradicted by the paper's own spatial disaggregation protocol. Supplementary Note 1.2 states that when a country-level estimate exceeds the sum of asset-level estimates, the remainder is distributed using proxies such as population and nightlights, not assigned to identified sources. Section 3.3 reports that monthly facility-level estimates cover only 74% of global anthropogenic emissions, implying ~26% is not source-level by construction. Several subsectors explicitly rely on such remainders (Supplementary Note 1.3: 'other manufacturing' 2.89%, 'other energy use' 2.71%, 'other agricultural soil emissions' 2.34%). The manuscript must either revise the headline claim to 'asset-level for a large subset of emissions, with the remainder downscal
  2. [Section 3.1; Supplementary Note 4.1] Transparency and reproducibility are central motivations, but quantitative uncertainty metrics are 'available upon request' rather than directly downloadable. This weakens the open-data claim and prevents independent users from applying the confidence information that the paper says is a key improvement over other datasets. The manuscript should make uncertainty/confidence data part of the publicly downloadable product, or explain why this is not possible. The 'available upon request' language is also inconsistent with the Data and Materials Availability statement that all data are available for download.
  3. [Supplementary Notes 2.1.1 and 2.1.2] Validation of power plant emissions, which the paper uses as a flagship example, does not demonstrate global generalizability. The ML models are trained on reported generation data from the USA, Europe, and Australia, and the main validation compares against Vulcan, a US inventory built on EPA reported data—the same reporting system used in training. The paper cites an external study (ref. 76) but does not provide out-of-sample validation for the plants outside these regions where the bulk of global emissions occur. The claim that models 'are trained on in situ ... data from the United States, Europe, and Australia' and then applied worldwide requires explicit evidence of transfer performance in low- and middle-income countries, or a clear statement that the accuracy is unverified there. This is load-bearing because the paper's actionability claim relies on identifying high-emitting faci
  4. [Supplementary Note 1.2; Supplementary Note 3.0] The manuscript uses EDGAR and CEDS both as inputs (e.g., for remainder allocation and co-pollutant ratios) and as comparison references for validation. This creates a circularity concern for the comparative validation: agreement with EDGAR/CEDS may partly reflect shared input data rather than independent confirmation. The paper should explicitly identify which validation comparisons are independent of the input datasets and, where circularity exists, state that the comparison only checks consistency, not accuracy. This is not a fatal flaw, but it affects how strongly the accuracy claims can be framed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract vs. Discussion] The Abstract says 'most anthropogenic emitting sectors' but the Discussion (Section 4) says 'all emitting sectors' and 'for all anthropogenic emitting sectors.' These are inconsistent; the qualified version is more accurate.
  2. [Section 1.2 / Contributions] The third contribution ('regularly updated and openly accessible dataset') would be strengthened by explicitly stating the spatial coverage caveat (asset-level for ~74% of emissions; remainder spatially downscaled).
  3. [Section 5.2.2] Equations 1 and 2 are presented as the framework for 'all Climate TRACE subsectors,' but Supplementary Note 1.3 describes an implicit estimation approach that subtracts one dataset from another (e.g., EDGAR metals minus iron/steel/aluminum) and then spatially disaggregates. This does not obviously follow Equations 1 and 2; please clarify how the implicit method maps onto the activity/emission-factor framework.
  4. [Supplementary Note 2.2.2] The cattle regression validation reports Spearman r from 0.32 to 0.8, with weaker correlations for eastern US beef. This is a useful honest report, but the manuscript should note the implication for emissions estimates: a 0.32 correlation indicates large uncertainty in a substantial share of cattle emissions, not just in one regional model.
  5. [Supplementary Figure S1] The axis labels and units are not visible in the figure as provided; please ensure the final version includes clearly labeled axes and a legend.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: in-sample power-plant validation and input-inventory relabeling as asset-level estimates.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplementary Notes 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 (power-plant model training and validation)]
    "ML models (gradient-boosted decision trees and convolutional neural networks; CNNs) are trained on hourly or sub-hourly reported electricity generation data from individual power plants in the USA, Europe, and Australia. ... model-derived estimates were compared to facility-level hourly or daily reported electricity generation data summed to monthly or annual totals from Europe, Türkiye, the United States, India, Taiwan, and Australia."

    The validation set includes the same USA, Europe, and Australia facilities whose reported generation data were used as training labels for the same models. Agreement on those regions is therefore in-sample fit rather than out-of-sample prediction. The separate Vulcan comparison is also not fully independent for US plants because Vulcan is built from EPA/EIA reported facility data of the same kind. Only India, Taiwan, and Türkiye are outside the training distribution, so the global-accuracy claim leans in part on a circular validation.

  2. self definitional [Supplementary Note 1.3 (Implicit estimation approach)]
    "In such cases, broader emissions totals from datasets external to Climate TRACE, which often aggregate multiple subsectors, are compared with more specific emissions categories that are already accounted for in Climate TRACE. The difference between the two is used to infer emissions for specific subsectors. For example, we subtract iron, steel, and aluminum emissions from EDGAR’s Metal Industry sector to derive our 'other metals' emissions estimate."

    For subsectors treated this way, the subsector total is defined as an algebraic residual of an external dataset minus Climate TRACE categories. The resulting figure is exactly the EDGAR input by construction, so the estimate adds no independent information at the aggregate level; when later disaggregated to assets, it merely redistributes that external total. Including these residuals in the claim of asset-level estimates for all sectors makes the source-level result definitionally dependent on the input inventory rather than an independent estimate.

1 more flagged steps
  1. renaming known result [Supplementary Note 1.2; main text Section 3.3]
    "if the country-level estimate is higher than the Climate TRACE-derived asset-level total, we assume the total emissions are not captured by the asset-level estimates, and there are some emissions with high spatial uncertainty within the country. In this case, we revert to the country-level estimate as a lower bound and distribute these spatially uncertain emissions across space using sector-specific proxy data (e.g., population, nightlight intensity, industrial activity)."

    This protocol implies that for the ~26% of emissions not covered by identified assets (Section 3.3 reports 74% facility-level coverage), the 'asset-level' values are constructed by taking the external country total and diffusing it over space with proxies. The output is not a source-level measurement; it is the input country inventory relabeled as a spatial field. Presenting this as asset-level coverage for 'all anthropogenic emitting sectors' makes the headline claim, for that remainder, equivalent to a spatial reallocation of the input datasets rather than a new source-level estimate.

full rationale

Climate TRACE is a data-assembly system, so using external inventories as inputs is by design and not circular by itself. The specific circularities are: (1) the power-plant ML validation overlaps its training data for USA/Europe/Australia, making part of the reported agreement in-sample; (2) the implicit-estimation subsectors define totals as residuals of EDGAR, so those asset-level numbers are literally the input inventory redistributed; (3) the 26% remainder protocol relabels country totals as proxy-distributed asset-level values, undercutting the 'asset-level for all sectors' headline. Offsetting factors: the dataset is openly downloadable and externally checkable, several subsectors use independent satellite/ML pipelines, and validation includes out-of-sample countries (India, Taiwan, Türkiye) and external methane inversion comparisons. Thus the circularity is partial, not total.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or conserved quantities are introduced. The framework relies on standard accounting identities plus a set of domain assumptions about global transferability of models and proxies. The free parameters listed are imputation defaults and allocation weights, which materially affect the asset-level distribution but are not the central theoretical load.

free parameters (5)
  • Default mean cattle population per operation by country and type
    Assigned from country agricultural statistics and literature when operation footprint is unknown (Supplementary Note 2.2.1).
  • Ratio of emitting establishments to total establishments (scraped assets)
    Derived from web-scraped asset lists and applied to UNIDO establishment counts to estimate emitting facilities (Supplementary Note 1.1).
  • Country-specific emission factor = total emissions / total activity
    Used to impute emissions for scraped assets with activity data but no emissions data (Supplementary Note 1.1).
  • Median/mean imputation values for capacity, capacity factor, and emission factor
    Missing asset data filled with medians/means from same-country assets or global averages (Supplementary Note 1.1, 1.4).
  • Spatial proxy weights (population, nightlights, industrial activity) for remainder allocation
    Used to distribute spatially uncertain emissions in the absence of asset locations (Supplementary Note 1.2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Satellite-detected water vapor plume size is a consistent proxy for electricity generation across all regions and fuel types.
    Used in Supplementary Note 2.1.1 to estimate power generation; models trained only on US/EU/Australia data but applied globally.
  • domain assumption Country-level emissions from external inventories represent a lower bound; true emissions are never below the asset-level total.
    Foundational to the spatial disaggregation protocol in Supplementary Note 1.2, where asset-level totals are assumed more complete if they exceed country-level estimates.
  • domain assumption IPCC, EPA AP-42, and EMEP/EEA emission factors are globally representative for all assets.
    Applied across sectors and countries (Supplementary Note 2.3, Data S2); no evidence that these factors capture regional variability.
  • domain assumption Population, nightlight, and industrial activity proxies reflect the spatial distribution of unlocated emissions.
    Used to allocate remainder emissions to administrative boundaries and grid cells (Supplementary Note 1.2).
  • standard math Equations 1–2 (activity × emission factor = emissions) hold for all sectors and pollutants.
    This is the definitional identity underlying all estimates (Main text, Equations 1 and 2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Closing Gaps in Emissions Monitoring with Climate TRACE." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLBCUGVA

@misc{pith2026251119277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Closing Gaps in Emissions Monitoring with Climate TRACE},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLBCUGVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.19277}
}
read the original abstract

Global greenhouse gas emissions estimates are essential for monitoring and mitigation planning. Existing emissions datasets provide critical foundations for understanding emissions patterns across sectors, geographies, and time scales. Through a structured assessment of recent emissions datasets, we identified opportunities to further increase the actionability of emissions data through more comprehensive source-level coverage, finer spatial and temporal resolution, and more frequent updates. Building on existing resources to address these opportunities, we present the Climate TRACE framework and resulting dataset, which is available on an open-access platform (climatetrace.org). The Climate TRACE framework synthesizes existing emissions data, prioritizing accuracy, coverage, and resolution, and fills remaining gaps using sector-specific estimation approaches. The resulting dataset is the first to provide global emissions estimates for individual sources (e.g., individual power plants) for most anthropogenic emitting sectors. The dataset spans January 1, 2021, to the present, with a two-month reporting lag and monthly updates. This dataset and open-access platform provides access to detailed emissions estimates for most subnational governments worldwide. By combining source-level spatial detail, monthly updates, and broad sectoral coverage, the dataset is designed to support analyses relevant to emissions monitoring and mitigation planning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Global Building Area Estimation Products: How Accurate Are They?

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An independent multi-grid benchmark finds GBA and TEMPO most accurate global building-area products overall, with accuracy dropping sharply in Africa, Asia, and high-density urban areas.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Masson-Delmotte, H.-O

    V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, J. Skea, P. Zhai, D. Roberts, P. R. Shukla, A. Pirani, R. Pidcock, Y. Chen, E. Lonnoy, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, S. Connors, J. B. R. Matthews, X. Zhou, M. I. Gomis, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, T. Waterfield, An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial Page 15 of 33 levels and relate...

  2. [2]

    Roelfsema, H

    M. Roelfsema, H. Fekete, N. Höhne, M. Den Elzen, N. Forsell, T. Kuramochi, H. De Coninck, D. P. Van Vuuren, Reducing global GHG emissions by replicating successful sector examples: the ‘good practice policies’ scenario. Clim. Policy 18, 1103–1113 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Bastviken, J

    D. Bastviken, J. Wilk, N. T. Duc, M. Gålfalk, M. Karlson, T.-S. Neset, T. Opach, A. Enrich-Prast, I. Sundgren, Critical method needs in measuring greenhouse gas fluxes. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 104009 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Perugini, G

    L. Perugini, G. Pellis, G. Grassi, P. Ciais, H. Dolman, J. I. House, G. P. Peters, P. Smith, D. Günther, P. Peylin, Emerging reporting and verification needs under the Paris Agreement: How can the research community effectively contribute? Environ. Sci. Policy 122, 116–126 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Rypdal, W

    K. Rypdal, W. Winiwarter, Uncertainties in greenhouse gas emission inventories — evaluation, comparability and implications. Environ. Sci. Policy 4, 107–116 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    Yona, Emissions Omissions: Greenhouse Gas Accounting Gaps

    L. Yona, Emissions Omissions: Greenhouse Gas Accounting Gaps. Harv. Environ. LAW Rev. (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    M. R. Boswell, A. I. Greve, T. L. Seale, An Assessment of the Link Between Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories and Climate Action Plans. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 76, 451–462 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    T. Oda, S. Maksyutov, A very high-resolution (1 km×1 km) global fossil fuel CO2 emission inventory derived using a point source database and satellite observations of nighttime lights. Atmospheric Chem. Phys. 11, 543–556 (2011)

    2011

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Yaman, A Review on the Process of Greenhouse Gas Inventory Preparation and Proposed Mitigation Measures for Reducing Carbon Footprint

    C. Yaman, A Review on the Process of Greenhouse Gas Inventory Preparation and Proposed Mitigation Measures for Reducing Carbon Footprint. Gases 4, 18–40 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Paris Agreement

    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Paris Agreement. UNFCCC (2015). https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/parisagreement_publication.pdf

    2015

  3. [11]

    Greenhouse Gas Emissions Information for Decision Making: A Framework Going Forward

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Information for Decision Making: A Framework Going Forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2022. https://doi.org/10.17226/26641

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Swart, P

    R. Swart, P. Bergamaschi, T. Pulles, F. Raes, Are national greenhouse gas emissions reports scientifically valid? Clim. Policy 7, 535–538 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    K. M. Dittmer, E. Wollenberg, M. Cohen, C. Egler, How good is the data for tracking countries’ agricultural greenhouse gas emissions? Making use of multiple national greenhouse gas inventories. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7 (2023). Page 16 of 33

    2023

  6. [14]

    Gurney, P

    K. Gurney, P. Shepson, The power and promise of improved climate data infrastructure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2114115118 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emission Data Uncertainties

    Macknick, J., & Grubler, A. Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emission Data Uncertainties. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Working Paper IR-09- 032 (2009). https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/9119/1/IR-09-032.pdf. Accessed 7 October 2025

    2009

  8. [16]

    Milojevic-Dupont, F

    N. Milojevic-Dupont, F. Creutzig, Machine learning for geographically differentiated climate change mitigation in urban areas. Sustain. Cities Soc. 64, 102526 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    L. Yona, B. Cashore, R. B. Jackson, J. Ometto, M. A. Bradford, Refining national greenhouse gas inventories. Ambio 49, 1581–1586 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    R. M. Andrew, A comparison of estimates of global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil carbon sources. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 1437–1465 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Macknick, Energy and CO2 emission data uncertainties

    J. Macknick, Energy and CO2 emission data uncertainties. Carbon Manag. 2, 189–205 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    Marland, A

    G. Marland, A. Brenkert, J. Olivier, CO2 from fossil fuel burning: a comparison of ORNL and EDGAR estimates of national emissions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2, 265–273 (1999)

    1999

  13. [21]

    van Amstel, J

    A. van Amstel, J. Olivier, L. Janssen, Analysis of differences between national inventories and an Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR). Environ. Sci. Policy 2, 275–293 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    Global Inversion-Optimised Greenhouse Gas Fluxes and Concentrations (2025)

    Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS). Global Inversion-Optimised Greenhouse Gas Fluxes and Concentrations (2025). https://www.copernicus.eu/en/access-data/copernicus-services-catalogue/cams-global- inversion-optimised-greenhouse-gas-fluxes-and. Accessed 25 August 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    CarbonTracker Documentation CT2022 release

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). CarbonTracker Documentation CT2022 release. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/documentation.php. Accessed 25 August 2025 (2023)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Crippa, D

    M. Crippa, D. Guizzardi, F. Pagani, M. Schiavina, M. Melchiorri, E. Pisoni, F. Graziosi, M. Muntean, J. Maes, L. Dijkstra, M. Van Damme, L. Clarisse, P. Coheur, Insights on the spatial distribution of global, national and sub-national GHG emissions in EDGARv8.0. (2024). https:...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    E. E. McDuffie, S. J. Smith, P. O’Rourke, K. Tibrewal, C. Venkataraman, E. A. Marais, B. Zheng, M. Crippa, M. Brauer, R. V. Martin, A global anthropogenic emission inventory of atmospheric pollutants from sector- and fuel-specific sources (1970–2017): an application of the Com...

    1970

  18. [26]

    Yale E360 (2024)

    Nations Are Undercounting Emissions, Putting UN Goals at Risk. Yale E360 (2024). https://e360.yale.edu/features/undercounted-emissions-un-climate-change. Accessed 25 August 2025. Page 17 of 33

    2024

  19. [27]

    Emissions Inventory (2021)

    Global Infrastructure Emissions Detector (GID). Emissions Inventory (2021). http://gidmodel.org.cn/?page_id=1425. Accessed 25 August 2025

    2021

  20. [28]

    R. Bun, Z. Nahorski, J. Horabik-Pyzel, O. Danylo, L. See, N. Charkovska, P. Topylko, M. Halushchak, M. Lesiv, M. Valakh, V. Kinakh, Development of a high-resolution spatial inventory of greenhouse gas emissions for Poland from stationary and mobile sources. Mitig. Adapt. Strat...

    2019

  21. [29]

    A. Kato, K. R. Gurney, G. S. Roest, P. Dass, Exploring differences in FFCO2 emissions in the United States: comparison of the Vulcan data product and the EPA national GHG inventory. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 124043 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    IEA CO2 Emissions in 2022

    International Energy Agency (IEA), “IEA CO2 Emissions in 2022” (2023)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Fossil Fuel Data Assimilation System (FFDAS) Data

    Gurney, K. Fossil Fuel Data Assimilation System (FFDAS) Data. https://ffdas.rc.nau.edu/Data.html. Accessed 25 August 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    M. W. Jones, R. M. Andrew, G. P. Peters, G. Janssens-Maenhout, A. J. De-Gol, X. Dou, Z. Liu, P. Pickers, P. Ciais, P. K. Patra, F. Chevallier, C. Le Quéré, Gridded fossil CO2 emissions and related O2 combustion consistent with national inventories, version GCP-GridFEDv2024.0, ...

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    T. Oda, S. Maksyutov, R. J. Andres, The Open-source Data Inventory for Anthropogenic CO2, version 2016 (ODIAC2016): a global monthly fossil fuel CO2 gridded emissions data product for tracer transport simulations and surface flux inversions. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 87–107 (2018)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Carbon Monitor, near-real time daily datasets of global and regional CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and cement production (2020)

    Carbon Monitor. Carbon Monitor, near-real time daily datasets of global and regional CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and cement production (2020). https://carbonmonitor.org/. Accessed 25 August 2025

    2020

  27. [35]

    Climate Watch Data Explorer

    Climate Watch. Climate Watch Data Explorer. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/data- explorer (2025). Accessed 25 August 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    FAOSTAT Emissions Totals (2025)

    Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics (FAOSTAT). FAOSTAT Emissions Totals (2025). https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/Gt. Accessed 25 August 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Romijn, V

    E. Romijn, V. De Sy, M. Herold, H. Böttcher, R. M. Roman-Cuesta, S. Fritz, D. Schepaschenko, V. Avitabile, D. Gaveau, L. Verchot, C. Martius, Independent data for transparent monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions from the land use sector – What do stakeholders think and need?...

    2018

  30. [38]

    J. C. Minx, W. F. Lamb, R. M. Andrew, J. G. Canadell, M. Crippa, N. Döbbeling, P. M. Forster, D. Guizzardi, J. Olivier, G. P. Peters, J. Pongratz, A. Reisinger, M. Rigby, M. Saunois, S. J. Smith, E. Solazzo, H. Tian, A comprehensive and synthetic dataset for global, regional, ...

    1970

  31. [39]

    2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories

    H. S. Eggleston, L. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, K. Tanabe, “2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories” (2006). https://www.ipcc- nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/. Accessed 25 August 2025 Page 18 of 33

    2006

  32. [40]

    D. Saha, B. Basso, G. P. Robertson, Machine learning improves predictions of agricultural nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from intensively managed cropping systems. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 024004 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Accessed 7 October 2025

    UNFCCC, UNFCCC Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - Detailed data by Party; https://di.unfccc.int/detailed_data_by_party?_gl=1*kr0f9o*_ga*MTY2NjQ5OTQyMy 4xNzIxNjU3Mjk5*_ga_7ZZWT14N79*MTczMzI0NzE5Ny4zOC4wLjE3MzMyNDcy MDAuMC4wLjA. Accessed 7 October 2025

    2025

  34. [42]

    Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting, (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Crippa, D

    M. Crippa, D. Guizzardi, F. Pagani, M. Schiavina, M. Melchiorri, E. Pisoni, F. Graziosi, M. Muntean, J. Maes, L. Dijkstra, M. Van Damme, L. Clarisse, P. Coheur, Insights into the spatial distribution of global, national, and subnational greenhouse gas emissions in the Emission...

    2024

  36. [44]

    https://www.ipcc.ch/data/

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Data. https://www.ipcc.ch/data/. Accessed 7 October 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    S. A. Markolf, Pledges and progress: Steps toward greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the 100 largest cities across the United States. (2020). https://www.brookings.edu/articles/pledges-and-progress-steps-toward-greenhouse- gas-emissions-reductions-in-the-100-largest-cities...

    2020

  38. [46]

    GADM: Global Administrative Areas database, (2024); https://gadm.org/

    2024

  39. [47]

    GHSL data package 2019, GHS functional urban areas (GHS-FUA), derived from Sentinel data, R2019A; https://human-settlement.emergency.copernicus.eu/

    2019

  40. [48]

    Lepere, S

    M. Lepere, S. Maso, Y. Dong, D. Aikman, Emissions dissonance: Examining how firm-level under-reporting undermines policy (2025). https://d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net/production/uploaded- files/Lepere_Emissions_Dissonance_SELE2025-35ef4e3f-465b-46a7-81e9- 02e562d99575.pdf. Acc...

    2025

  41. [49]

    S. E. Hancock, D. J. Jacob, Z. Chen, H. Nesser, A. Davitt, D. J. Varon, M. P. Sulprizio, N. Balasus, L. A. Estrada, M. Cazorla, L. Dawidowski, S. Diez, J. D. East, E. Penn, C. A. Randles, J. Worden, I. Aben, R. J. Parker, J. D. Maasakkers, Satellite quantification of methane e...

    2025

  42. [50]

    L. M. da Costa, A. Davitt, G. Volpato, G. C. de Mendonça, A. R. Panosso, N. La Scala, A comparative analysis of GHG inventories and ecosystems carbon absorption in Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 958, 177932 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    F. I. Ginting, R. Rudiyanto, Fatchurrachman, R. Mohd Shah, N. Che Soh, S. G. Eng Giap, D. Fiantis, B. I. Setiawan, S. Schiller, A. Davitt, B. Minasny, High-resolution maps of rice cropping intensity across Southeast Asia. Sci. Data 12, 1408 (2025). Page 19 of 33

    2025

  44. [52]

    Fatchurrachman, Rudiyanto, N. C. Soh, R. M. Shah, S. G. E. Giap, B. I. Setiawan, B. Minasny, High-Resolution Mapping of Paddy Rice Extent and Growth Stages across Peninsular Malaysia Using a Fusion of Sentinel-1 and 2 Time Series Data in Google Earth Engine. Remote Sens. 14, 1...

    2022

  45. [53]

    Inferring Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Power Plants Using Satellite Imagery and Machine Learning

    M. Hobbs, A. R. Kargar, H. Couture, J. Freeman, I. Söldner-Rembold, A. Ferreira, J. Jeyaratnam, J. O’Connor, J. Lewis, H. Koenig, C. McCormick, T. Nakano, C. Dalisay, A. Davitt, L. Gans, C. Lewis, G. Volpato, M. Gray, G. McCormick, “Inferring Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Powe...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Kruse, E

    C. Kruse, E. Boyda, S. Chen, K. Karra, T. Bou-Nahra, D. Hammer, J. Mathis, T. Maddalene, J. Jambeck, F. Laurier, Satellite monitoring of terrestrial plastic waste. PLOS ONE 18, e0278997 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    X. Lu, D. J. Jacob, H. Wang, J. D. Maasakkers, Y. Zhang, T. R. Scarpelli, L. Shen, Z. Qu, M. P. Sulprizio, H. Nesser, A. A. Bloom, S. Ma, J. R. Worden, S. Fan, R. J. Parker, H. Boesch, R. Gautam, D. Gordon, M. D. Moran, F. Reuland, C. A. O. Villasana, A. Andrews, Methane emiss...

    2010

  48. [56]

    Towards Indirect Top-Down Road Transport Emissions Estimation

    R. Mukherjee, D. Rollend, G. Christie, A. Hadzic, S. Matson, A. Saksena, M. Hughes, “Towards Indirect Top-Down Road Transport Emissions Estimation” (2021). https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/CVPR2021W/EarthVision/papers/Mukherjee_T owards_Indirect_Top- Down_Road_Transport_E...

    2021

  49. [57]

    D. L. Northrup, B. Basso, M. Q. Wang, C. L. S. Morgan, P. N. Benfey, Novel technologies for emission reduction complement conservation agriculture to achieve negative emissions from row-crop production. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2022666118 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Rollend, K

    D. Rollend, K. Foster, T. M. Kott, R. Mocharla, R. Muñoz, N. Fendley, C. Ashcraft, F. Willard, E. P. Reilly, M. Hughes, Machine learning for activity-based road transportation emissions estimation. Environ. Data Sci. 2, e38 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Minasny, R

    Rudiyanto, B. Minasny, R. Shah, N. Che Soh, C. Arif, B. Indra Setiawan, Automated Near-Real-Time Mapping and Monitoring of Rice Extent, Cropping Patterns, and Growth Stages in Southeast Asia Using Sentinel-1 Time Series on a Google Earth Engine Platform. Remote Sens. 11, 1666 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    T. R. Scarpelli, D. J. Jacob, S. Grossman, X. Lu, Z. Qu, M. P. Sulprizio, Y. Zhang, F. Reuland, D. Gordon, J. R. Worden, Updated Global Fuel Exploitation Inventory (GFEI) for methane emissions from the oil, gas, and coal sectors: evaluation with inversions of atmospheric metha...

    2022

  53. [61]

    & Maron, M

    Strong, B., Boyda, E., Kruse, C., Ingold, T. & Maron, M. Digital Applications Unlock Remote Sensing AI Foundation Models for Scalable Environmental Monitoring. Frontiers in Climate. 7 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    L. Xu, S. S. Saatchi, Y. Yang, Y. Yu, J. Pongratz, A. A. Bloom, K. Bowman, J. Worden, J. Liu, Y. Yin, G. Domke, R. E. McRoberts, C. Woodall, G.-J. Nabuurs, S. de- Miguel, M. Keller, N. Harris, S. Maxwell, D. Schimel, Changes in global terrestrial live biomass over the 21st cen...

    2021

  55. [63]

    H. D. Couture, M. Alvara, J. Freeman, A. Davitt, H. Koenig, A. Rouzbeh Kargar, J. O’Connor, I. Söldner-Rembold, A. Ferreira, J. Jeyaratnam, J. Lewis, C. McCormick, T. Nakano, C. Dalisay, C. Lewis, G. Volpato, M. Gray, G. McCormick, Estimating Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Powe...

    2024

  56. [64]

    Moeini, R

    O. Moeini, R. Nassar, J.-P. Mastrogiacomo, M. Dawson, C. W. O’Dell, R. R. Nelson, A. Chatterjee, Quantifying CO2 Emissions From Smaller Anthropogenic Point Sources Using OCO-2 Target and OCO-3 Snapshot Area Mapping Mode Observations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 130, e2024JD04...

    2025

  57. [65]

    Sharma, B

    P. Sharma, B. Basso, Agriculture sector: Emission from Synthetic Fertilizer Application. (2025). https://github.com/climatetracecoalition/methodology- documents/blob/main/2025/Agriculture/Agriculture%20sector- Emissions%20from%20Synthetic%20Fertilizer%2C%20Crop%20Residue%2C%20...

    2025

  58. [66]

    Collins, A

    G. Collins, A. Jain, L. Sridhar, E. Reilly, Waste sector: Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants. (2025). https://github.com/climatetracecoalition/methodology- documents/blob/main/2025/Waste/Waste%20sector- Emissions%20from%20Wastewater%20Treatment%20Plants.docx.pdf. Acces...

    2025

  59. [67]

    Schmeisser, A

    L. Schmeisser, A. Tecza, R. Wang, M. Huffman, S. Schadel, S. Bylsma, J. Hansen, Z. Schmidt, T. Conway, D. Gordon, Fossil Fuel Operations sector: Oil and Gas Production and Transport Emissions. (2025). https://github.com/climatetracecoalition/methodology- documents/blob/main/20...

    2025

  60. [68]

    UNIDO INDSTAT Database

    United Nations Industrial Development Organization Statistics Portal (UNIDO). UNIDO INDSTAT Database. https://stat.unido.org/

  61. [69]

    Crippa, E

    M. Crippa, E. Solazzo, G. Huang, D. Guizzardi, E. Koffi, M. Muntean, C. Schieberle, R. Friedrich, G. Janssens-Maenhout, High resolution temporal profiles in the Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research. Sci. Data 7, 121 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    Raniga, D

    K. Raniga, D. Moore, Z. Doctor, C. Lewis, L. Sridhar, P. Thomas, I. Saraswat, G. Collins, A. Nellis, N. Brown, M. Pekala, E. Reilly, M. Hughes, G. McCormick, Temporal Disaggregation of Emissions Data for the Climate TRACE Inventory (2024). https://github.com/climatetracecoalit...

    2024

  63. [71]

    Rolnick, P

    D. Rolnick, P. L. Donti, L. H. Kaack, K. Kochanski, A. Lacoste, K. Sankaran, A. S. Ross, N. Milojevic-Dupont, N. Jaques, A. Waldman-Brown, Tackling climate change with machine learning. ArXiv Prepr. ArXiv190605433 (2019)

    2019

  64. [72]

    D. H. Cusworth, R. M. Duren, A. K. Thorpe, E. Tseng, D. Thompson, A. Guha, S. Newman, K. T. Foster, C. E. Miller, Using remote sensing to detect, validate, and quantify methane emissions from California solid waste operations. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 054012 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    Bovensmann, M

    H. Bovensmann, M. Buchwitz, J. P. Burrows, M. Reuter, T. Krings, K. Gerilowski, O. Schneising, J. Heymann, A. Tretner, J. Erzinger, A remote sensing technique for global monitoring of power plant CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from space and related applications. Atmosph...

    2010

  66. [74]

    DeFries, F

    R. DeFries, F. Achard, S. Brown, M. Herold, D. Murdiyarso, B. Schlamadinger, C. De Souza, Earth observations for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing countries. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 385–394 (2007)

    2007

  67. [75]

    K. R. Gurney, J. Liang, R. Patarasuk, Y. Song, J. Huang, G. Roest, The Vulcan Version 3.0 High-Resolution Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions for the United States. J. Geophys. Res. Atmospheres 125, e2020JD032974 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    K. R. Gurney, B. Aslam, P. Dass, L. Gawuc, T. Hocking, J. J. Barber, A. Kato, Assessment of the Climate Trace global powerplant CO2 emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 19, 114062 (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Lynch, Availability of disaggregated greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle production: A systematic review

    J. Lynch, Availability of disaggregated greenhouse gas emissions from beef cattle production: A systematic review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 76, 69–78 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    C. A. Rotz, Modeling greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 101, 6675–6690 (2018)

    2018

  71. [79]

    L. A. Harper, T. K. Flesch, J. M. Powell, W. K. Coblentz, W. E. Jokela, N. P. Martin, Ammonia emissions from dairy production in Wisconsin1. J. Dairy Sci. 92, 2326–2337 (2009)

    2009

  72. [80]

    N. T. Vechi, J. Mellqvist, C. Scheutz, Quantification of methane emissions from cattle farms, using the tracer gas dispersion method. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 330, 107885 (2022)

    2022

  73. [81]

    M. A. Hasan, A. A. Mamun, S. M. Rahman, K. Malik, M. I. U. Al Amran, A. N. Khondaker, O. Reshi, S. P. Tiwari, F. S. Alismail, Climate Change Mitigation Pathways for the Aviation Sector. Sustainability 13, 3656 (2021)

    2021

  74. [82]

    ICAO Carbon Calculator Methodology

    International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), “ICAO Carbon Calculator Methodology” (2018); https://icec.icao.int/Home/Methodology?_gl=1*zqzpic*_ga*MjEyOTEwNDY5OS4xN Page 22 of 33 zU5ODU1MTMy*_ga_992N3YDLBQ*czE3NTk4NTUxMzEkbzEkZzAkdDE3NTk4 NTUxMzEkajYwJGwwJGgw. Accessed 7 O...

    2018

  75. [83]

    M. J. Eckelman, J. D. Sherman, A. J. MacNeill, Life cycle environmental emissions and health damages from the Canadian healthcare system: An economic- environmental-epidemiological analysis. PLOS Med. 15, e1002623 (2018)

    2018

  76. [84]

    AP-42: Compilation of Air Emissions Factors from Stationary Sources (2016)

    United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). AP-42: Compilation of Air Emissions Factors from Stationary Sources (2016). https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions- factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors-stationary-sources. Accessed 7 October 2025

    2016

  77. [85]

    Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2023 (2023)

    European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme/European Environment Agency (EMEP/EEA). Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2023 (2023). https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/emep-eea-guidebook-2023. Accessed 7 October 2025

    2023

  78. [86]

    Miyazaki, K

    K. Miyazaki, K. Bowman, Predictability of fossil fuel CO2 from air quality emissions. Nat. Commun. 14, 1604 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    R. M. Hoesly, S. J. Smith, L. Feng, Z. Klimont, G. Janssens-Maenhout, T. Pitkanen, J. J. Seibert, L. Vu, R. J. Andres, R. M. Bolt, T. C. Bond, L. Dawidowski, N. Kholod, J. Kurokawa, M. Li, L. Liu, Z. Lu, M. C. P. Moura, P. R. O’Rourke, Q. Zhang, Historical (1750–2014) anthropo...

    2014

  80. [88]

    GHG Emissions of all World Countries: 2023

    M. Crippa, D. Guizzardi, F. Pagani, M. Banja, M. Muntean, E. Schaaf, W. Becker, F. Monforti-Ferrario, R. Quadrelli, A. Risquez Martin, P. Taghavi-Moharamli, J. Koykka, G. Grassi, S. Rossi, J. Brandao De Melo, D. Oom, A. Branco, J. San-Miguel, E. Vignati, “GHG Emissions of all ...

    2023

  81. [89]

    data-informed disaggregation approach

    Climate TRACE, Climate TRACE Emissions Data: All Sectors (2025). https://climatetrace.org/explore. Accessed 7 October 2025. Page 23 of 33 Supplementary Materials for Closing Gaps in Emissions Monitoring with Climate TRACE Brittany V. Lancellotti*, Jordan M. Malof, Aaron Davitt...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.