Talk:List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita

Greenland massive increase

So apparently Greenland's carbon emission per capita increase at just under 40,000% between 1990 and now... surely that can't be correct? Needs attention.

Chart

The chart needs fixing to make it more visible!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.24.152 (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes - this table has a big problem. You can't use it effectively as each country and its most recent data are not visible at the same time. Suggest that old data (older than 2000) be removed and that columns are made to appear such that most recent is left most column. I.E. reverse the year columns. As is now, the table is almost worthless. --66.41.154.0 (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If the older data is removed, it wouldn't be necessary to also reverse the columns, as they'd all be visible. A problem with removing all the older data is that it reduces the scope for comparing how a country's emissions have changed over time. Two possible alternative solutions are either to insert the countries again at the right hand side of the table, or to remove selective older years so that some temporal comparison into earlier times is retained (e.g. retain 1990 and 1995 from the 1990s, but remove the rest). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Someone really should divide this chart into two and put it side by side, like they do in the HDI for different regions. Jewnited (talk) 03:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What do the second chart's rankings indicate? It doesn't correspond to either 1990 or 2011 levels (the endpoints). MaxGhenis (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting Image

The image does not reflect the information provided. There is a more accurate image at http://cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_1149_4cda81a26c6f04959bf26c91f213752a (189.161.104.58 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC))

Yes, the image has multiple problems. First of all, with 2000 data, it's woefully out of date. China's per capita emissions have more than doubled since then. Also, it doesn't seem to differentiate between zero emissions and no data. If you compare Argentina and Brazil, it looks like Brazil has higher per capita emissions, but if you look at the table, you can see that in 2000 Argentina's per capita emissions were twice Brazil's. The image above looks better. I wonder if no image at all is better than the current one.Dansan99 (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Should we just delete the map as no one wants to create an updated version? Lots of personpower has been put to climate change related graphics, it's kind of odd how this central statistics has been completely neglected. --91.153.156.26 (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Pointless

This page is largely pointless; List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions has a table that can be sorted by total or per-capita William M. Connolley (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This list contains data for many more countries than the other one. The List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions only lists 20 countries. Bouchecl (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Then merge them William M. Connolley (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, this page is out-of-date - it only goes up to 2013 as of now. Maintaining two separate pages with overlapping data is unnecessary work, which may explain why it isn't being done. Sayitclearly (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources?

The lede says "All data were calculated by the US Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC)", but no hardlink to the source material is provided. This page is more complete than this one, but it is useless if it can't be verified. Bouchecl (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What?

Apparently, there are countries with higher carbon emmissions than the entire world including themselves. Sea Captain Cormac 19:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Nocton (talk • contribs)

Split production based on consumption based

I think making two page instead of one would be better, one for the production based and one for the consumption based calculatio. @Fa suisse: Gagarine (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

For the moment being I disagree : I believe that a general article with the two approaches is convenient. Maybe if we add a lot more data, we could start having detailed articles for each version. Fa suisse (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to agree more long term as well because, especially in light of the interconnected problem that is global warming, the distinction appears somewhat irrelevant. Production based emissions are ultimately and inescapably in direct service of per-capita consumption abilities. Qatar or SA or Canada could have the greenest of local populations, but selling all those fossil-fuels would nevertheless serve to offshore emissions from their wealth and quality of life. If a distinction is made, it should be contextualized as such. Nandofan (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Use wikidata to generate the list?

This data could be added in wikidata no? And then use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikidata_list to generate the list. Gagarine (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this per capita per year?

Do you mean carbon dioxide emissions per capita per year? I assume so, in other "per capita" articles like the GDP per capita article it says "value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given year, divided by the average (or mid-year) population for the same year". It is worth a sentence just to clarify this for people who are not 100% on every single detail but since I am a random and lazy I will leave it to someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:69A6:D01:8D28:414E:3DCD:AF9D (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

The data is old and not well presented. It is not GHG ... so agricuulural econmies are underrepresented and the data and comparisons are likely to mislead.

Conceivably somebody could update and clarify the article and the data. But I don't think anybody will be motivated to do so. There are more recent tables avaialble which also need to be worked on, and already for those, there don't seem to be many people ready to do the dogwork TGcoa (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree on deletion. Anybody who wants a table both yearly and by country should be directed to the references section of a real article. List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions includes per-capita - not that it's perfect, but it's clearly better and makes this page obsolete. See WP:NOTDATABASE Wizmut (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like someone has updated the data to 2023. Do you still have these concerns? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at it much later, I probably wouldn't support a delete anymore. But I still don't like having so many columns for each year. The column order should also be reconsidered - I would put the most recent column 2nd. The columns in the first table I would say should be

• (rank)
• Location
• % compared to global average
• 2023 (or most recent year)
• % change from previous milestone year such as 2000
• milestone year

and perhaps one more milestone year. But four data columns is already a lot to take in for a casual reader. Wizmut (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the table simpler as I suggested. If someone thinks that (say) 1980 is really necessary, I could add it back. But I really think the current columns are sufficient for telling the reader, very simply, the following two facts:

• current conditions
• long-term change

Having multiple years is a neat curiosity but makes 'the point' harder to find, namely that some countries currently have a lot more emissions and some countries have increased by more than others. Having a lot of years and trying to find the trend for each country is really not that interesting, as most countries have the same trend. Wizmut (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Wizmut! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Math not mathing

Canada emits over 300% of the world’s CO2? Something isn’t right here… 45.44.87.111 (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Change 1990-2022

The calculation is wrong for a lot of countries.

e.g

Ukraine 1990: 15.15 2022: 3.07 Change 20.28% decrease ?

Qatar 1990: 35.67 2022: 35.52 Change: 99.58% decrease ? Truc19much19 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Content cut from lead

I've removed the following content that seems to be good-quality, but does not fit with the mandate of A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected, unless inclusion criteria are unambiguously clear from the article title (from Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists). :

Space-based measurements of carbon dioxide should allow independent monitoring in the mid-2020s.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report finds that the "Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)" sector on average, accounted for 13-21% of global total anthropogenic GHG emissions in the period 2010–2019. Land use change drivers net AFOLU CO₂ emission fluxes, with deforestation being responsible for 45% of total AFOLU emissions. In addition to being a net carbon sink and source of GHG emissions, land plays an important role in climate through albedo effects, evapotranspiration, and aerosol loading through emissions of volatile organic compounds. The IPCC report finds that the LULUCF sector offers significant near-term mitigation potential while providing food, wood and other renewable resources as well as biodiversity conservation. Mitigation measures in forests and other natural ecosystems provide the largest share of the LULUCF mitigation potential between 2020 and 2050. Among various LULUCF activities, reducing deforestation has the largest potential to reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions, followed by carbon sequestration in agriculture and ecosystem restoration including afforestation and reforestation. Land use change emissions can be negative.

CO₂ emissions from the top 10 countries with the highest emissions accounted for almost two thirds of the global total. Since 2006, China has been emitting more CO₂ than any other country. However, the main disadvantage of measuring total national emissions is that it does not take population size into account. China has the largest CO₂ emissions in the world, but also the second largest population. Some argue that for a fair comparison, emissions should be analyzed in terms of the amount of CO₂ per capita. Their main argument is illustrated by CO₂ per capita emissions in 2023, China's levels (9.24) are almost two thirds those of the United States (13.83) and less than a sixth of those of Palau (62.59 – the country with the highest emissions of CO₂ per capita).

Greenhouse gases (GHG) – primarily carbon dioxide but also others, including methane and chlorofluorocarbons – trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to global warming. Higher temperatures then act on the climate, with varying effects. For example, dry regions might become drier while, at the poles, the ice caps are melting, causing higher sea levels. In 2016, the global average temperature was already 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)