The 32 Companies Driving Half of Global Emissions
Thirty-two companies. That is the number of corporate entities responsible for more than half of the carbon dioxide emitted from the world’s fossil fuels and cement in 2024. Not nations. Not industries. Companies. Their names are on stock exchanges, sovereign wealth funds, and quarterly reports. Their emissions have names, too: 34.7 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, a figure that rose 0.8% from the year before.
The concentration is accelerating. Five years ago it took 38 companies to account for half of global fossil CO2. Now it takes 32. As smaller producers have held steady or declined, the largest emitters have continued to grow — through acquisitions, through expanded production, through what their CEOs call “the demand decade.”
This is not opinion. It is the annual update to the Carbon Majors database, first built by researcher Richard Heede in 2013 and now maintained by the think tank InfluenceMap. It traces production data from 178 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers back to 1854. The methodology has been scrutinised in courtrooms, cited in international legal opinions, and used to attribute heatwaves and economic losses to specific companies. Every number below is real. Every source is cited.
The Carbon Majors
The Carbon Majors database quantifies something that was largely invisible until Richard Heede published his first results in 2013: the direct link between specific corporate entities and the cumulative CO2 that is heating the planet. Before Heede’s work, emissions were attributed to countries or sectors. After it, a new question became answerable: Which companies did this?
The database now covers 178 entities — 100 investor-owned companies, 72 state-owned companies, and 6 nation-state producers — tracking 1.44 trillion tonnes of CO2 equivalent. That represents 70% of all fossil fuel and cement CO2 emitted since the Industrial Revolution began in 1750. In the most recent year alone, 2024, the database traced 34.7 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent to 166 active entities. That is 80% of global fossil fuel and cement CO2 for the year.
The finding that has made headlines globally: 32 companies produced over half of global fossil CO2 in 2024. The figure was 36 companies in 2023, 38 five years ago, and consistently above 40 between 2005 and 2013. Emissions are concentrating. The largest producers are getting larger.
The Top 10
Here is a fact that should stop you: the ten largest emitters in 2024 are responsible for 27.6% of all global fossil CO2. All ten are fully or majority state-owned. Not one investor-owned company appears until position 13.
2024 — Top Emitters by Company
| Rank | Entity | Emissions (MtCO₂e) | % Global CO₂ | Type | Country | Primary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Saudi Aramco | 1,786 | 4.28% | State | Saudi Arabia | Oil & Gas |
| 2 | Coal India | 1,684 | 3.92% | State | India | Coal |
| 3 | CHN Energy | 1,679 | 3.91% | State | China | Coal |
| 4 | National Iranian Oil | 1,387 | 3.13% | State | Iran | Oil & Gas |
| 5 | Gazprom | 1,293 | 2.76% | State | Russia | Oil & Gas |
| 6 | Jinneng Group | 1,129 | 2.63% | State | China | Coal |
| 7 | China (Cement) | 950 | 2.46% | Nation | China | Cement |
| 8 | Rosneft | 763 | 1.79% | State | Russia | Oil & Gas |
| 9 | CNPC | 750 | 1.70% | State | China | Oil & Gas |
| 10 | Shandong Energy | 750 | 1.74% | State | China | Coal |
* Total emissions include fugitive methane (CO₂e). % of global column uses CO₂ only. Source: InfluenceMap, Carbon Majors 2024 Data Update, January 2026. | ||||||
Some translations of those numbers:
Saudi Aramco alone emitted 1.79 billion tonnes of CO 2 equivalent. If Aramco were a country, it would be the world’s fifth-largest carbon polluter — behind China, the United States, India, and Russia. Most of those emissions come from oil that Aramco extracts, exports, and someone else burns. That someone else could be you.
ExxonMobil, the largest investor-owned emitter at position 13 (677 MtCO2e), would rank as the ninth-largest country polluter — ahead of South Korea. In January 2026, CEO Darren Woods told a White House meeting: “We’re in a depletion business for a product that is in great demand and will be in demand for many, many, many decades to come.” The American Petroleum Institute’s CEO called the next ten years “the Demand Decade.”
Eight Chinese companies appear in the top 20. Six of them are coal producers. Chinese companies alone account for 22.8% of global fossil CO2 tracked by the database. Asia as a whole: 31.9%, with 58% of Asian companies increasing emissions year-over-year.
Who Built the Problem
The annual rankings tell one story. The historical rankings tell another — and it is the one that matters for warming. CO2 accumulates. A tonne emitted in 1965 is still trapping heat today. The Carbon Majors database traces emissions back to 1854, and the cumulative totals reveal which entities built the bulk of the atmospheric carbon that now drives 1.55°C of global heating.
Cumulative Emissions, 1854–2024 — Top 10
| Rank | Entity | Total (MtCO₂e) | % Global CO₂ | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Former Soviet Union (1900–1991) | 135,113 | 6.54% | Nation State |
| 2 | China Coal (1945–2004) | 104,888 | 5.10% | Nation State |
| 3 | Saudi Aramco | 72,457 | 3.66% | State |
| 4 | Chevron | 62,503 | 3.08% | Investor |
| 5 | ExxonMobil | 57,458 | 2.79% | Investor |
| 6 | Gazprom | 53,116 | 2.33% | State |
| 7 | National Iranian Oil | 45,826 | 2.25% | State |
| 8 | BP | 43,231 | 2.13% | Investor |
| 9 | Shell | 41,517 | 2.02% | Investor |
| 10 | Coal India | 35,221 | 1.71% | State |
Historically, investor-owned companies account for 24.1% of cumulative global fossil CO2. State-owned companies account for 31.0%. Nation-state producers account for 14.8%. But the proportions are shifting rapidly: in 2024, state-owned companies were linked to 53.4% of global fossil CO2, compared with 23.7% for investor-owned companies. Most state-owned companies increased emissions year-over-year. A majority of investor-owned companies reduced theirs. The centre of gravity is moving east, and it is moving into state hands.
The Production Gap
There is a concept in climate policy called the production gap — the difference between what governments plan to extract and what the planet can absorb. The 2025 Production Gap Report, published by the UN Environment Programme and leading research institutes, found that ten years after the Paris Agreement, governments collectively plan to produce more than 120% more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C.
The breakdown is stark:
Planned Production vs 1.5°C Pathway (2030)
| Fuel | Planned vs 1.5°C Limit |
|---|---|
| Coal | 500% above limit |
| Oil | 31% above limit |
| Gas | 92% above limit |
At COP30 in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025, an EU-led coalition of more than 80 countries proposed a formal roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. It was blocked. The opposition came from Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Iraq, and Qatar. Seventeen of the top 20 Carbon Majors entities in 2024 are controlled by countries that opposed the phaseout plan.
Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute’s CEO called this “the Demand Decade.” Chevron has filed to acquire Hess Corp. ExxonMobil completed its acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources. ConocoPhillips absorbed Marathon Oil. Core Natural Resources was formed in 2025 from the merger of CONSOL Energy and Arch Resources. The biggest emitters are not just maintaining output. They are consolidating.
Who Owns These Companies
The line between “state-owned” and “investor-owned” is not academic. It defines who profits, who decides, and who can be held to account.
State-owned entities dominate the 2024 rankings: 16 of the top 20. Their combined footprint in 2024 was 53.4% of global fossil CO2. These companies answer not to shareholders but to governments — many of which are actively blocking international climate agreements. Saudi Aramco, the single largest emitter, funds the Saudi state budget. Gazprom funds the Russian one. Coal India is the engine of India’s power grid. Their emissions are not accidents of the market. They are deliberate, state-directed production decisions.
Investor-owned companies — ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips — account for a smaller but still enormous share: 23.7% in 2024. Their shareholders include pension funds, university endowments, index funds owned by ordinary people. InfluenceMap’s parallel LobbyMap database rates the policy engagement of these companies on an A+ to F scale. Chevron scores D− with 33% engagement intensity. ExxonMobil scores D with 39%. Shell scores C−. BP scores C−. None of the assessed top 20 companies scores above C−. These are not passive observers of climate policy. They are active, well-funded opponents of it.
The Legal Tide
Something has shifted in the last five years. The Carbon Majors database, originally a research project by one man compiling production records, is now a central piece of evidence in courtrooms on three continents.
In 2021, a Dutch district court ordered Shell to reduce its global emissions by 45% by 2030, including the emissions from the products it sells — the first time a court had held a corporation to the Paris Agreement’s temperature targets. Shell appealed. In November 2024, the appeals court overturned the specific reduction target, ruling there was no “social standard of care” for a precise percentage. But the court affirmed the principle: companies do have a duty to contribute to combating climate change. The door remains open.
In Germany, a Peruvian farmer named Saúl Luciano Lliuya sued the energy company RWE, arguing that its historical emissions contributed to the melting of a glacier threatening his community. In May 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm dismissed the case — but in doing so, it accepted the scientific evidence that traced specific emissions to RWE through the Carbon Majors database. For the first time, a German court recognised that companies can be held liable for climate-related harm. The case is being appealed further.
In the United States, two states have passed Climate Superfund laws — New York (seeking up to $75 billion) and Vermont (approximately $2.5 billion) — requiring major fossil fuel companies to pay for climate adaptation based on their historical share of emissions. More than a dozen additional states are advancing similar legislation. The bills explicitly reference Richard Heede’s methodology. California’s analysis suggests recoverable damages could reach hundreds of billions of dollars.
In 2024, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an advisory opinion citing Carbon Majors as evidence that a small group of corporate producers are disproportionately responsible for global emissions, concluding that states have a duty to regulate corporate climate harms on human rights grounds. At least 226 new climate cases were filed globally in 2024, and 20% now target corporations — a category where plaintiffs have a higher success rate than against governments.
What This Means
It is easy to read this data as an indictment of 32 specific companies. That is the wrong interpretation. It is not wrong factually — the data is unambiguous — but it misses the structure that produces the data.
These 32 companies exist because demand exists. Saudi Aramco pumps 12 million barrels a day because the world burns 100 million barrels a day. Coal India extracts 700 million tonnes a year because India’s grid needs it, because hundreds of millions of people need electricity, because coal is the cheapest and most available source. The emissions are not a conspiracy. They are a system — an energy system that the entire global economy was built on, that lifted billions out of poverty, and that is now destroying the conditions that made that progress possible.
The Carbon Majors database does something useful: it names names. It quantifies responsibility. It provides the evidence base for legal accountability, for policy targeting, for financial risk assessment. But the most important number in this report is not the ranking. It is the trend. Emissions are rising. Concentration is increasing. The companies with the most to lose from the energy transition are growing fastest and lobbying hardest against it. This is not inertia. It is acceleration in the wrong direction.
Read the full letter: A Letter to Humanity →