What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The Green Future Index 2023 is a composite ranking by MIT Technology Review Insights that compares 76 countries and territories on their progress and commitment toward a low-carbon economy. Iceland ranked first and Iran ranked last. It is a historical snapshot—not a current climate scorecard—with underlying research conducted from June 2022 to January 2023 and most data current through 2022 or earlier.
What the Green Future Index 2023 measures
The third annual index combines observed indicators with assessments of policy and investment across five pillars. Its purpose is broader than identifying countries with the lowest emissions: it also considers energy transition, social adoption, innovation and government action. The report and interactive index are available from MIT Technology Review Insights; the full 44-page report describes the methodology.
The report was produced by MIT Technology Review Insights with Kyndryl, Intel and Iris Ceramica Group named as sponsors or partners. Sponsorship is relevant context when evaluating a publication, but by itself does not show that sponsors determined the rankings.
The five pillars
| Pillar | What it includes |
|---|---|
| Carbon emissions | CO₂ emissions relative to GDP, average annual changes in total emissions, and emissions trends in industry, transportation and agriculture. A favorable score does not necessarily mean low absolute emissions. |
| Energy transition | Renewable-energy production growth from 2015 to 2020, renewables’ share of final energy consumption, and nuclear-energy production growth and share. The 2023 edition’s renewable measure focuses on modern renewables, excluding traditional biomass such as firewood. |
| Green society | LEED-certified green buildings per million urban residents, recycling rates, net forestation change and electric passenger vehicles per million urban residents. |
| Clean innovation | Green-patent growth relative to GDP, clean-energy investment received and provided as a percentage of GDP, and food-technology startups per million urban residents. These are proxies for innovation capacity, not direct measures of emissions avoided. |
| Climate policy | Policy action related to Paris Agreement goals and national contributions; carbon-capture frameworks; carbon taxes, bonds and emissions trading; sustainable agriculture; public spending for decarbonization; and exposure to LNG supply shocks as a transition incentive. |
How the scores are calculated
The 23 indicators are grouped into the five pillars. The first four pillars together account for 60% of the final index; climate policy accounts for 40%. That gives government ambition, regulation, finance and implementation substantial influence alongside measured outcomes.
#1 Best Overall
Quantitative indicators are normalized using minimum–maximum scaling. Qualitative or nonstandard indicators are mapped into categories and assigned scores. The resulting total is therefore a designed composite, not a direct physical unit such as tonnes of carbon dioxide.
2023 ranking at a glance
Top five
| Rank | Country | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Iceland | 6.69 |
| 2 | Finland | 6.68 |
| 3 | Norway | 6.37 |
| 4 | Denmark | 6.34 |
| 5 | Sweden | 6.34 |
Iceland retained first place, while Finland rose to second. Eight of the top 10 entries were European; South Korea, ranked eighth, was the sole non-European entry. The report describes the leaders as showing more consistency than dramatic progress: roughly half of the Green Leaders’ scores fell year over year even as climate efforts continued.
Bottom five
| Rank | Country | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 72 | Bangladesh | 3.45 |
| 73 | Qatar | 3.43 |
| 74 | Zambia | 3.31 |
| 75 | Algeria | 3.09 |
| 76 | Iran | 2.57 |
These are positions within this particular composite, not a universal judgment about sustainability or climate responsibility.
Selected country results
- United States: 19th, with a score of 5.39, compared with 20th in the 2022 edition. The rank movement alone does not establish the size or cause of a real-world performance change.
- Highest-ranked emerging economy: Costa Rica, at 24th.
- Other notable movers: South Africa ranked 25th, up from 31st; Uruguay 26th, up from 38th; Argentina 48th, up 20 places; Indonesia 49th, up 21; and Australia 42nd, up 10.
- Green Leaders movement: Luxembourg rose to 16th from 28th in 2022.
The report links some of these gains to stronger results in particular pillars. A higher overall position should not be read as proof of even progress across every part of a country’s climate transition.
Categories used by the report
| Report category | Ranks |
|---|---|
| Green Leaders | 1–20 |
| Greening Middle | 21–40 |
| Climate Laggards | 41–60 |
| Climate Abstainers | 61–76 |
These labels are the report’s own groupings, not universally accepted classifications. Its 76 entries include territories and economies as well as sovereign states, so they are not all politically equivalent.
Full Green Future Index 2023 ranking
The following scores and positions are from the report’s 2023 edition. The report’s category labels are shown alongside the ranks to make its group boundaries clear.
Rank #3
| Rank | Country or territory | Score | Report category |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Iceland | 6.69 | Green Leaders |
| 2 | Finland | 6.68 | Green Leaders |
| 3 | Norway | 6.37 | Green Leaders |
| 4 | Denmark | 6.34 | Green Leaders |
| 5 | Sweden | 6.34 | Green Leaders |
| 6 | Netherlands | 6.22 | Green Leaders |
| 7 | United Kingdom | 6.12 | Green Leaders |
| 8 | South Korea | 6.00 | Green Leaders |
| 9 | France | 5.99 | Green Leaders |
| 10 | Spain | 5.92 | Green Leaders |
| 11 | Germany | 5.92 | Green Leaders |
| 12 | Belgium | 5.84 | Green Leaders |
| 13 | Italy | 5.70 | Green Leaders |
| 14 | Canada | 5.69 | Green Leaders |
| 15 | Ireland | 5.69 | Green Leaders |
| 16 | Luxembourg | 5.57 | Green Leaders |
| 17 | Greece | 5.56 | Green Leaders |
| 18 | Portugal | 5.52 | Green Leaders |
| 19 | United States | 5.39 | Green Leaders |
| 20 | Switzerland | 5.38 | Green Leaders |
| 21 | Poland | 5.38 | Greening Middle |
| 22 | Austria | 5.37 | Greening Middle |
| 23 | Bulgaria | 5.31 | Greening Middle |
| 24 | Costa Rica | 5.26 | Greening Middle |
| 25 | South Africa | 5.23 | Greening Middle |
| 26 | Uruguay | 5.13 | Greening Middle |
| 27 | China | 5.12 | Greening Middle |
| 28 | Japan | 5.10 | Greening Middle |
| 29 | Hungary | 5.09 | Greening Middle |
| 30 | Chile | 5.08 | Greening Middle |
| 31 | Czech Republic | 4.97 | Greening Middle |
| 32 | Singapore | 4.96 | Greening Middle |
| 33 | Hong Kong, China | 4.89 | Greening Middle |
| 34 | Colombia | 4.83 | Greening Middle |
| 35 | Slovakia | 4.81 | Greening Middle |
| 36 | United Arab Emirates | 4.78 | Greening Middle |
| 37 | Morocco | 4.73 | Greening Middle |
| 38 | Brazil | 4.70 | Greening Middle |
| 39 | Romania | 4.66 | Greening Middle |
| 40 | Kenya | 4.66 | Greening Middle |
| 41 | New Zealand | 4.57 | Climate Laggards |
| 42 | Australia | 4.56 | Climate Laggards |
| 43 | Israel | 4.56 | Climate Laggards |
| 44 | Philippines | 4.56 | Climate Laggards |
| 45 | Mexico | 4.54 | Climate Laggards |
| 46 | Taiwan | 4.54 | Climate Laggards |
| 47 | Ukraine | 4.38 | Climate Laggards |
| 48 | Argentina | 4.31 | Climate Laggards |
| 49 | Indonesia | 4.29 | Climate Laggards |
| 50 | India | 4.25 | Climate Laggards |
| 51 | Nigeria | 4.18 | Climate Laggards |
| 52 | Ecuador | 4.14 | Climate Laggards |
| 53 | Vietnam | 4.13 | Climate Laggards |
| 54 | Kazakhstan | 4.13 | Climate Laggards |
| 55 | Thailand | 4.12 | Climate Laggards |
| 56 | Saudi Arabia | 4.11 | Climate Laggards |
| 57 | Kuwait | 4.05 | Climate Laggards |
| 58 | Ethiopia | 4.04 | Climate Laggards |
| 59 | Angola | 4.01 | Climate Laggards |
| 60 | Egypt | 3.99 | Climate Laggards |
| 61 | Dominican Republic | 3.98 | Climate Abstainers |
| 62 | Peru | 3.97 | Climate Abstainers |
| 63 | Turkey | 3.83 | Climate Abstainers |
| 64 | Cameroon | 3.82 | Climate Abstainers |
| 65 | Ghana | 3.80 | Climate Abstainers |
| 66 | Uganda | 3.73 | Climate Abstainers |
| 67 | Pakistan | 3.72 | Climate Abstainers |
| 68 | Malaysia | 3.67 | Climate Abstainers |
| 69 | Guatemala | 3.57 | Climate Abstainers |
| 70 | Russia | 3.57 | Climate Abstainers |
| 71 | Paraguay | 3.55 | Climate Abstainers |
| 72 | Bangladesh | 3.45 | Climate Abstainers |
| 73 | Qatar | 3.43 | Climate Abstainers |
| 74 | Zambia | 3.31 | Climate Abstainers |
| 75 | Algeria | 3.09 | Climate Abstainers |
| 76 | Iran | 2.57 | Climate Abstainers |
What changed from the 2022 edition
Some year-to-year comparisons are affected by revised definitions and indicators, not just changes in national performance. In 2023, the report separated modern renewables from traditional biomass, replacing a broader treatment that included biomass such as firewood. It also replaced the Pandemic Pivot with a broader Policy Pivot, added an indicator for the stimulus created by LNG supply shocks, and considered a wider range of public investment and transnational sustainability funding. Some earlier measures, including Vivid Economics’ “Greenness of Stimulus,” were discontinued.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to interpret the results
Rank is not the same as absolute emissions
The index combines current performance and change over time with policy, adoption and innovation. A country may do well on emissions relative to GDP or emissions trends without having low total emissions. Likewise, strength in one pillar does not guarantee a high overall score. The index is not a substitute for national emissions inventories and does not rank cumulative historical emissions, climate responsibility, climate justice, policy cost-effectiveness or the likelihood of reaching net zero.
Many inputs predate the report
The research ran from June 2022 to January 2023, and most datasets were the latest publicly available at the time, generally updated in 2022. Specific measures also draw on earlier periods: carbon-emissions changes commonly run through 2020; renewable-energy growth covers 2015–2020; green-building counts use 2020; electric-vehicle stock uses 2021; patent growth covers 2017–2021; and clean-energy investment covers 2016–2020. The ranking should not be described as measuring conditions in 2023 or 2026.
Wealth can shape capacity as well as outcomes
The report highlights an association between GDP per capita and ranking performance. Wealth can make technology, expertise, infrastructure, financing and administrative capacity more accessible. As a result, the index may reflect a country’s ability to pursue and document a transition as well as the effectiveness or fairness of its policies. It is not a direct measure of climate justice. The World Economic Forum’s discussion of emerging economies and a low-carbon future offers additional context on the challenges facing lower-income countries.
Some scoring involves judgment
Minimum–maximum scaling makes quantitative indicators comparable within the index, but it does not remove the choices involved in selecting indicators, setting weights or defining categories. The report also uses categorization systems for qualitative and nonstandard measures, including parts of climate-policy scoring. That makes the composite less reproducible than a ranking based only on standardized statistics.
What the index is useful for—and what it cannot tell you
For policy, sustainability and business readers, the index is a structured starting point for comparing national transition signals and identifying questions to investigate. It can help reveal where policy, technology and social indicators diverge, and provide context for comparing editions when methodology changes are kept in view.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallBest Value
It cannot, on its own, establish which country bears the greatest historical responsibility, which has the fairest climate policy, or which will meet a future net-zero target. For an investment decision or policy assessment, use it alongside current emissions inventories, national climate plans, energy statistics and independent climate-policy evaluations rather than treating a single rank as a complete country profile.
MIT Technology Review Insights’ launch summary provides its stated key findings; the full report is the source for the indicator definitions and country scores.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
