Who has the world's largest per capita carbon footprint?

OK, and now let's how the total populations of the above five Countries.

1, 8 million [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates"]United Arab Emirates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

2, 1.7 million [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar"]Qatar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

3, 5.5 million [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark"]Denmark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

4, 11 million [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belguim"]Belgium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

5, 312 million


Yep that should make you feel better and appease your conscience. Being fifth is still massively shameful. You have 312 million people with a bigger carbon footprint per capita than everyone else on the planet (excluding 26 million others).

Hmmm, something to cheer then. The Canadians had better get on with extracting those tar sands and you never know, America might just fall into sixth place. Gotta keep the 6 litre gass guzzlers running eh?

 

and don't i deserve the best?

 

I would have thought Canada - with its tar sands - and Australia - with its coal - would have been right up there. Not that they should be; Canada has significant hydroelectric power and huge geothermal potential, while Australia has huge solar potential.

Just out of curiosity, is CO2 attributed to the country of production, or of use? For countries that either import or export considerable quantities of oil, this would make a significant difference.

 

Being 5th per capita is significant, but being #1 over all is also significant.

I too would have thought that Canada was higher,,, I actually think it is.

Icarus

 

Luxembourg should be number 4, US is really 7 on my list, but per capita all of the top 10 are really high. Don't you worry about them Canadians though, if you include land use which increases ghg they are already creating more net ghg per capita than the United states. The list looks something like this when land use is included, this list is a little old, so canada may have moved up a few spots

Belize
Qatar
Guyana
Malaysia
Kuwait
Papua New Guinea
Brunei
Australia
Antigua & Barbuda
Zambia
Canada
Bahrain
United States

 

It is the country that the ghg is emitted. Last summer texas imported electricity from mexico, the ghg from this energy went to mexico even though texas used the electricity. If the oil is refined in canada, then this refining ghg goes to canada, the ghg of burning it goes to the country that burns it. Australian coal burned in china will have ghg of mining go to australia, the ghg of burning attributed to china. A manufactured good produced in china and used in Europe, will have its ghg go to china. That is why land use and destination of refined or manufactured goods adjustments are important.

 

donno why you fuss.. you are top 10? maybe 11th now?

 

I was thinking Australia because Canada has a larger amount of hydro. Perhaps, because Australia is warmer, the lower heating energy makes a big difference.

Denmark is an obvious surprise (too many old cars and an inefficient agricultural sector), but at least they're actually improving.

 

China certainly not. If they burned as much oil per capita as US does, they would be burning ALL of it.

 

...any SOx coming my way from the Mexico power plants?

 

I would have bet my last nickel on either China or the USA. Quite a surprise?!>!

 

Remember,, PER CAPITA,,, not total.

Icarus

 

what is belgium doing.... to have a high output like that?
last year 10% of energy was solar...... home generated GRID!

 

From:Sustainable Energy - without the hot air: Ch 1 Page 13 | David MacKay

Area of box indicates total use.

 

True- my Prius uses gas but there are other cars that use a lot more gas. When electric cars are improved I plan on getting one of them. Just saying.

 

That's a very good graph, in that it shows both per capita and total use.

 

Yes, but less per kwh than the average US grid. The energy texas imported last summer was because of a screw up on worst case scenario calculations, the grid was supposed to be 15% higher than worst case, and it was lower, so importing power stopped rolling black outs from happening during peak air conditioning time (3-7).

The problem with the way of counting is potentially california not texas. California has much more expensive power and regulation that makes them produce less and buy from other place meaning other states right now. Environmentalists here think that california politics may simply move some power generation to mexico where the ghg numbers won't be counted.

 

+1

Excellent visualization. Now what happens when the height of the chinese box gets bigger