I'd say most attention need to go to the ones that have (considerable) growth. Of course all the big ones too, biggest overall reduction to be achieved there of course. But like vietnam 2000% growth wtf.. Sure Germany for instance is (slightly) higher but is decreasing by -43%
And yes per capita does make sense but is at the same time no excuse because in several cases the over-/rapid increase of population is actually the problem.
More sense would be per km2 or something. Still not perfect (but otherwise it would be like a neighbour saying you can't complain about their excessive round the clock noise because they are living with 14 people there (a small terraced/row house, where usually 2 people live) )
The problem with growth alone is that focusing on growth can lock some countries into poverty. Does it really matter if your emissions are growing 100% per decade if you're still 1% of the emissions per capita of the US?
There's a logical balance somewhere. Those saying the US didn't need to do anything if China and India were growing were just making excuses for inaction. That said, China and India really couldn't be allowed to grow as high per capita as the US, and the US needed to cut dramatically. Interestingly, China seems to be plateauing well below the emissions levels of the US, so its a bit rich of us Americans complaining about China's 236% growth since 1990 while we've cut 28% (on per capita bases)
I don't care how big my or your country is. China and the USA are the ones that are responsible for almost half of all greenhouse gas emission. Kuwait can cut its emissions all it wants, but the world is going to suffer if China doesn't improve its environmental impact.
And now it seems the USA is reversing its course, so we can assume we’re pretty much boned. It’s sure hard to be optimistic these days for a political science and history person.
Funny you should say that; whilst leading the world in Carbon dioxide emissions, China also tops the table for sustainable and renewable energies. Along the line they realised coal wasn't gonna cut it for their population size and began the switch to solar power on a massive scale. So at least they're trying, which is more than one can say for the US, or the worst of the lot for its population, Australia.
We've barely got 25 million people here yet our emissions are up with those of countries with hundreds of millions/billions of people. On top of that, we're yet to have a federal government to acknowledge global warming, let alone honouring the kyoto reform. What small carbon tax we had got voted down and overturned by the oligarchy (who, to be fair, just do what the mining industry tell them to). But we are, without a doubt, one of the worst in the world in Australia.
China is still by far the biggest user of coal in the world, producing over 40% and importing the greatest amount from others. The US and India, the next largest producers, produce less than 10% each. The US has regulations which makes coal cleaner burning than in China. I know, because I pay for it on my electric bill. After our electric cooperative spent millions to make cleaner-burning coal, then the government came in and said we couldn't burn it anyway and they weren't going to give our co-op time to transition to other alternatives which meant our electric bills would triple from having to purchase energy from other sources. But at the same time they had no problem with allowing coal exports to China where they don't require it to be scrubbed. Things have eased up some for now, but we'll see what happens. I'm all for ending global warming but I think sometimes we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel instead of using common sense to develop real answers to the problem.
After all, it makes up over one quarter the world's manufacturing output and nearly one fifth the world's population. With increasing demands (and population, in the US's case) in the West, it's honestly not that surprising.
Also keep in mind that pollution is more than just carbon dioxide emissions. The US produces over 30% of the world's waste. None of those countries here are exactly calm.
Oh and of course, a lot of wealthy countries with small population pollute a lot per capita. Although, yes, they do have way less people as well as total emission. But, say that these countries spent a good portion of the money they own to reduce pollution rather than wasting it all on empty luxurious buildings nobody lives in (like in Dubai) or other useless luxurious products, it would probably cut down on the pollution significantly.
Yeah, I agree. We produce a shocking amount of Carbon Dioxide, considering our small population. And all the while we pride ourselves on being one of the world's most environmentally friendly countries. Not sure if our visions stack up with reality.
Included: Fossil fuel use and industrial processes (cement production, carbonate use of limestone and dolomite, non-energy use of fuels and other combustion, chemical and metal processes, solvents, agricultural liming and urea, waste and fossil fuel fires).
Excluded: Short-cycle biomass burning (such as agricultural waste burning), large-scale biomass burning (such as forest fires) and carbon emissions/removals of land-use, land-use change and forestry.
co2 is plant food. If you truly care about the climate and the environment beyond the politics of carbon taxing, look at methane, fluorocarbons, nuclear waste, deforestation, damning of river flows, ocean pollution, and deprivation of oxygenation to our waters. If CO2 scares you, respirate slower. BTW, how did Turkey make the list?
Wow, this was surprisingly easy. Usually I make a lot of wrong guesses on these, but I got the first 19 on my first 19 guesses...Took me another minute to get #20 though.
Yes, mostly. Combined with EU legislation that limits what French industries can emit into the atmosphere. But compared to Poland, which is also subject to those same regulations and has a somewhat similar population, but burns mostly coal for its electricity generation, it's clear that nuclear power does a tremendous job at keeping France off this list.
The west astroturfs its contribution to global warming by offsetting emissions to developing countries, for armchair climate economists like you to make nonsensical opinions about.
@Danem20, that might have made sense 20 years ago, but not today.
China's emissions are largely their own at this point. They are a superpower on par (or nearly on par) with the United States. And they are opening new coal plants every day. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to continue to blame other countries for their choices.
The reality is simple. China doesn't believe global warming is a major problem. And they are in good company. Most people here commenting, for example, will do nothing to offset their own carbon usage.
People blaming China for their high CO2 emissions need to get a reality check. First you outsource all your manufacturing to them & then you blame them for high emissions. Try bringing all that manufacturing back to your home & then see how clean your air & water is.
Americans especially need to be aware of this as they are the worst offenders being China's biggest export market & still having the 2nd highest emissions.
Because they are supplying the fossil fuels that other countries rely on to maintain their standard of living. National borders tell a very flawed version of the story about a global problem.
Vietnam has developed significantly in the past 35 years (note: this is change from 1990). In 1990, the country was still pretty impoverished and recovering from the Vietnam War. At present day though, it’s a large manufacturing hub somewhat akin to China with a population of 100 million.
That said, we need to do more than just reduce emissions. We need to actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Edit 2023: We didn't peak. 2022 emissions were about 2% higher than in 2019.
Edit 2025. Still haven't peaked. 2024 was the most ever with no end in sight.
CO2 per capita
easy to make. A little more difficult to take. So I added 30 seconds.
And yes per capita does make sense but is at the same time no excuse because in several cases the over-/rapid increase of population is actually the problem.
More sense would be per km2 or something. Still not perfect (but otherwise it would be like a neighbour saying you can't complain about their excessive round the clock noise because they are living with 14 people there (a small terraced/row house, where usually 2 people live) )
There's a logical balance somewhere. Those saying the US didn't need to do anything if China and India were growing were just making excuses for inaction. That said, China and India really couldn't be allowed to grow as high per capita as the US, and the US needed to cut dramatically. Interestingly, China seems to be plateauing well below the emissions levels of the US, so its a bit rich of us Americans complaining about China's 236% growth since 1990 while we've cut 28% (on per capita bases)
Edit Ok there is russia too, never feels european to me though so I overlooked it.
And why don't you adress Australia the more than 10x amount argument is even more valid for them. (and increasing much less)
So of the ones ALA listed Brazil belongs there most after North america>
Not that I agree with the list btw, just found it odd you went to defend only brazil.
It is more like North America plus Asian Countries. (I would say look at the top ones plus the increasing ones)
We've barely got 25 million people here yet our emissions are up with those of countries with hundreds of millions/billions of people. On top of that, we're yet to have a federal government to acknowledge global warming, let alone honouring the kyoto reform. What small carbon tax we had got voted down and overturned by the oligarchy (who, to be fair, just do what the mining industry tell them to). But we are, without a doubt, one of the worst in the world in Australia.
Also keep in mind that pollution is more than just carbon dioxide emissions. The US produces over 30% of the world's waste. None of those countries here are exactly calm.
Included: Fossil fuel use and industrial processes (cement production, carbonate use of limestone and dolomite, non-energy use of fuels and other combustion, chemical and metal processes, solvents, agricultural liming and urea, waste and fossil fuel fires).
Excluded: Short-cycle biomass burning (such as agricultural waste burning), large-scale biomass burning (such as forest fires) and carbon emissions/removals of land-use, land-use change and forestry.
SAD :(
US and Europe make Asia and other countries produce what they consume.
If we want to reduce the emissions globally, we need to produce locally ;)
You'll see drastically different results if you add in indirect emissions
China: 7.5 tons per year per capita
Nigeria: 0.44 tons per year per capita
Maybe don't start lecturing the developing countries just yet...
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
China's emissions are largely their own at this point. They are a superpower on par (or nearly on par) with the United States. And they are opening new coal plants every day. It takes some serious mental gymnastics to continue to blame other countries for their choices.
The reality is simple. China doesn't believe global warming is a major problem. And they are in good company. Most people here commenting, for example, will do nothing to offset their own carbon usage.
Americans especially need to be aware of this as they are the worst offenders being China's biggest export market & still having the 2nd highest emissions.
https://www.jetpunk.com/user-quizzes/30947/countries-by-carbondioxide-emissions-per-capita
At least China is not in denial.