% Of World CO2 Emissions By Country

[Blib]

I am liking lists.

Figures for 2004.
Source: U.S. Department Of Energy.

Rank Country Annual CO2 emissions
(in thousands of metric tons) Percentage of total emissions[7]

- World 27,245,758 100.0 %

1 United States [8] 6,049,435 22.2 %
2 China and Taiwan 5,010,170 18.4 %
- European Union 4,001,222 14.7 %
3 Russia 1,524,993 5.6 %
4 India 1,342,962 4.9 %
5 Japan 1,257,963 4.6 %
6 Germany 860,522 3.1 %
7 Canada 639,403 2.3 %
8 United Kingdom 587,261 2.2 %
9 South Korea 465,643 1.7 %
10 Italy [9] 449,948 1.7 %
11 Mexico 438,022 1.6 %
12 South Africa 437,032 1.6 %
13 Iran 433,571 1.6 %
14 Indonesia 378,250 1.4 %
15 France [10] 373,693 1.4 %
16 Brazil 331,795 1.2 %
17 Spain 330,497 1.2 %
18 Ukraine 330,039 1.2 %
19 Australia 326,757 1.2 %
20 Saudi Arabia 308,393 1.1 %
21 Poland 307,238 1.1 %
22 Thailand 268,082 1.0 %
23 Turkey 226,125 0.8 %
24 Kazakhstan 200,278 0.7 %
25 Algeria 194,001 0.7 %
26 Malaysia 177,584 0.7 %
27 Venezuela 172,623 0.6 %
28 Egypt 158,237 0.6 %
29 United Arab Emirates 149,188 0.5 %
30 Netherlands 142,061 0.5 %
31 Argentina 141,786 0.5 %
32 Uzbekistan 137,907 0.5 %
33 Pakistan 125,669 0.5 %
34 Czech Republic 116,991 0.4 %
35 Nigeria 114,025 0.4 %
36 Belgium 100,716 0.4 %
37 Kuwait 99,364 0.4 %
38 Vietnam 98,663 0.4 %
39 Greece 96,695 0.4 %
40 Romania 90,425 0.3 %
42 Iraq 81,652 0.3 %
43 Philippines 80,512 0.3 %
44 North Korea 79,111 0.3 %
45 Israel 71,247 0.3 %
46 Austria 69,846 0.3 %
47 Syria 68,420 0.3 %
48 Finland 65,799 0.2 %
49 Belarus 64,890 0.2 %
50 Chile 62,418 0.2 %

[jamoor]

How is that "calculated"

[anonymous-user]

Blib said:

7 Canada 639,403 2.3 %

Aren't there only 12 people living there? What are they doing to be so high up the list?

[kambites]

El stovey said:

Blib said:

7 Canada 639,403 2.3 %

Aren't there only 12 people living there? What are they doing to be so high up the list?

Lots of heating and lots of air conditioning at a rough guess. Plus the need to drive huge distances to actually get to the next town.

Think they have about half our population.

Edited by kambites on Monday 15th September 11:12

[Fetchez la vache]

El stovey said:

Blib said:

7 Canada 639,403 2.3 %

Aren't there only 12 people living there? What are they doing to be so high up the list?

Lots of moose

[Muntu]

and what is the relevance of this list?

[2something]

El stovey said:

Blib said:

7 Canada 639,403 2.3 %

Aren't there only 12 people living there? What are they doing to be so high up the list?

Beaten to it!

Blame Canada . . .

[kambites]

Muntu said:

and what is the relevance of this list?

Is intellectual interest banned on pistonheads these days?

[Blib]

jamoor said:

How is that "calculated"

The data considers only carbon dioxide emissions via the burning of fossil fuels, not by deforestation or other sources.

[kambites]

Blib said:

jamoor said:

How is that "calculated"

The data considers only carbon dioxide emissions via the burning of fossil fuels, not by deforestation or other sources.

Why would deforestation produce CO2? Unless they burn the trees, of course.

[Blib]

Muntu said:

and what is the relevance of this list?

I like lists.

[jamiebae]

I wonder what those figures would look like for today?

[rhinochopig]

Would be interested to see that adjusted for per head / capita.

[tonyvid]

To be honest, I am suprised we are that far up the list. That's what comes from a big population in a small country I guess? If ever there was a good reason to reduce population in this country....

[kambites]

We're one of the bigger (by population) western (in the political sense) countries so it's not really surprising that we're near the top.

We're. what? 1% of the world's population and 2.2% of the CO2. I'm actually quite surprised we're not higher. That means we only produce just over twice as much per capita than the mean.

Edited by kambites on Monday 15th September 11:27

[BigLepton]

kambites said:

Blib said:

jamoor said:

How is that "calculated"

The data considers only carbon dioxide emissions via the burning of fossil fuels, not by deforestation or other sources.

Why would deforestation produce CO2? Unless they burn the trees, of course.

Because trees 'eat' CO2 and produce O2. Less trees, less CO2 absorbed/converted.

[kambites]

BigLepton said:

Because trees 'eat' CO2 and produce O2. Less trees, less CO2 absorbed/converted.

Well yes, but this makes no attempt at measuring CO2 absorbtion; only production. Many of the numbers on there would be negative if they were measuring net rather than gross CO2 production.

ETA: I actually think that net CO2 would make for a very interesting list; although it's probably almost impossible to work out.

Edited by kambites on Monday 15th September 11:50

[Muntu]

kambites said:

Muntu said:

and what is the relevance of this list?

Is intellectual interest banned on pistonheads these days?

Clearly not, hence my question

[kambites]

Muntu said:

kambites said:

Muntu said:

and what is the relevance of this list?

Is intellectual interest banned on pistonheads these days?

Clearly not, hence my question

OK, well the answer is that they're interesting.

[Witchfinder]

It'd be interesting to see how that works out per head of population. Not that it's relevant, mind, just in QI sort of way.

Edited by Witchfinder on Monday 15th September 12:49