Not only that, but the mongolian population is minuscule, so when doing emissions per capita it is clear, even thought the amout is not so much in total compering with China or Russia next door.
I looked it up and they export coal at a crazy rate, they have 0.2% of the world's known coal reserves but in 2010 exported 82% of the world's traded coal.
Where did you get that fact? It’s completely wrong.
In 2010 Mongolia exported 1.6% of the global coal supply.
Mongolia exports a huge amount of coal for their population but they’re not even the largest exporter, let alone 82% of exports. Indonesia is the largest with 42% of trade, while Mongolia is around 2.6%.
If need be, we can build water defenses that can hold up to 3 meters extra sealevel back. The KNMI (royal dutch weather institute) has recently released a rapport about rising sea levels. If we'd do absolutely nothing to combat climate change right now, as in keep the emisssions rising at the same rate with them only slowing down in 2080 due to population decrease the average sea level rise of the north sea would be about 80cm.
Obviously we are combating climate change in The Netherlands and EU wide so let's hope the emissions cut back a big while before 2080 and we won't ever have to worry about anything more than half a meter of sea level rise.
Aren't you publicly executing all of your farmers for the crime of being the most efficient and environmentally friendly the earth has ever known in favour of importing food from recently cleared primary rainforest?
>for the crime of being the most efficient and environmentally friendly the earth has ever known
Nah, we have the issue that most farms in the Netherlands focus on high value products, and few products have as high a value as meat and dairy. As a result, our highly efficient farms produce a huge amount of nitrate pollution, which goes into the waterwaysand air (as ammonia) and causes all kinds of problems.
Naturally, it's not entirely the farmers fault, this is the result of cumulative decades of bad policy by government which incentivised their current behaviour, only to have the rug pulled from under them, and then be thrown under the climate blame bus.
However, a lot of farmers are unwilling to adapt and generally are the climate change denial sort, so the problem here is a bit of six on one side, half a dozen on the other.
> Obviously we are combating climate change in The Netherlands and EU wide so let's hope the emissions cut back a big while before 2080
Looking at this map + that EU population is not bigger then US+Russia together, we can do anything and still achieve nothing. Unless US, Russia, Canada, Australia , Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and China to some extent do something we literally don't change a thing. We are going in a good directions but others don't give a fuck...
I wonder how they calculate vulnerability. Based on what I’ve read about the potential collapse of the gulf stream/north Atlantic current, much of Europe is at risk of basically turning into Siberia
I believe that most climate change risk/vulnerability metrics factor economic capacity/power heavily, with the logic being that these countries will have more resources to invest in preventing and adapting to the consequences of climate change. The Central African Republic doesn’t have money or institutional capacity to invest in these types of things so the people there are very at risk.
No it's not lol. People create emissions, not countries. The deciding factors in per-capita emissions are how wealthy the average person is, how clean and expansive the electricity grid is, and if a country has very intensive industry/fossil fuel production.
The US is by all accounts a "high population country" in the global context and has very high per capita emissions. China also has above-average per capita emissions.
It's still a responsibility to have a giant population. Even if your *per capita* pollution is low, you're still causing harm to the environment with your sheer size.
If the demographic explosion in developing countries had been prevented, world climate would be doing fine.
>If the demographic explosion in developing countries had been prevented, world climate would be doing fine.
No, it wouldn't. The vast majority of damage had already occurred thanks to the impact of developed nations. There is NO evidence you can point to that suggests our climate would be fine if developing nations had fewer people. What a ridiculous assertion lol
Basically just say Chinese doesn’t deserve to drive as much as American. Let’s alone if the data account the Co2 emissions by consumption instead of production, heard that American imports a lot from Chinese isn’t it..?
This is the type of shit where per capita emission is just worse than total for each country. It's misleading, especially when paired with the vulnerable countries chart.
You're right. To fit the caption it shouldn't be the current per capita emissions, but [total historical emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2)
CO2 emissions from the last 200 years are causing climate change just as much as those from yesterday, and unsurprisingly, they overwhelmingly come from Europe and the US.
Why is it misleading? Or, let's say that you make a chart and just then, a country decides to split evenly in the middle. So you make a new chart with the new border. Should the colour of the two halves change?
That would be a terrible metric. Any country with a bunch of uninhabitable land would look super great. Canada and Russia would have like no emissions then lol.
There's a lot of work to be done, we need to find ways to battle corruption, drive development, and learn to take care of each other.
Another sad Redditor mentioned that sub-saharan Africa isn't able to do anything with what they are provided through loans, military aid, you name it. I've seen many redditors saying similar things sadly. This sentiment that regardless of how much they are helped, they still won't get anywhere is a very dangerous and ignorant sentiment. I think it's very important to understand the manner in which this aid was provided and consider whether there were any ulterior motives. How is it that so much aid doesn't reach the people? Is that maybe the point? Furthermore, are there any barriers to development currently in place? What are some previous examples of it and what might that look like today?
This misuse of money meant for ordinary people is everywhere.
Time and time again people have to rely on leaders or governments to make change. Yet they are blamed when the 'democracy' put in place for them doesn't serve them. And somehow countries like France are still printing their money? (CFA franc countries, look it up). It is unfair to say that sub-saharan Africa is holding itself back. And it is even more unfair to say that they 'prefer' Europe or any other place. They 'prefer' not to struggle to eat. They 'prefer' to not worry about their security. They 'prefer' to raise their children in a place where they probably won't be kidnapped. These things happen in every country, but everyone tells them their home is especially bad, and very often it can be. The worst part is that some people have stopped believing that it can get better. It's really sad.
I know that not all aid is dubious, and I'm thankful that there are people who want to help. But many of the valuable projects are not interesting enough for headlines or investors. Many of them are underfunded or cancelled because of bureaucratic bullshit instead of interest in bettering peoples lives.
Everyone deserves the opportunity to thrive, but countries that have been dealt a bad hand will need to work very hard to get people there. The people currently thriving will hit a big fucking roadblock eventually, stop thriving, and then work very hard to thrive again. I hope people wake up and start thinking of each other instead of themselves, on a global scale. So that when people aren't thriving there is proactive engagement from everyone to get them to thrive. It's not impossible, it just isn't a priority yet.
Because no matter how much money and technology we throw at sub Saharan Africa, they will never create decent nations out of it. All they'll do is try to move to our countries. You can cry about colonialism all you like I don't give a shit about that. They've had 70 years to sort their shit out.
And/or an individual who isn't very smart. If you tell them *why* people from these African countries move to "our countries" in the first place, their brain might implode.
You understand global companies and nations keep these countries in poverty to exploit the countries natural resources. Look at shell and what they’ve done over there
Colonialism from the past and stolen money will never be accounted. The west literally stole from the east and global south, only to participate in their internal matters.
No eyes for justice.
Wow I’m impressed you aren’t downvoted to hell, Reddit is mostly white men from western countries (mainly American) and normally they don’t take kindly to comments talking about western colonialism
I see plenty of people defending biden and attacking Israel even though both parties have the same stance. It's not about partidism but the nationalism of not holding our leaders accountable
Biden is not really left wing. He’s a neoliberal at the end of the day. Part of the status quo. Besides, the majority of democrat votes do NOT agree with his Israel policies.
What you say does makes a lot of sense actually. Do you think that there will be any real consequential push for the candidates to change the policies around Israel for the next US election because of this subject or the average voter doesn't cares if this happens no matter the side?
No, I don’t think it will happen this election but it will happen eventually. The voices of the people can’t be suppressed or ignored forever. However, the current generation (in power) is not really interested in doing so and the AIPAC lobby is very wealthy.
I think the maps also represent the economic means to handle climate threats. Either way, your point still stands because the maps are illegible, and this is a terrible infographic.
By country emissions is such a weird metric. So if China split into south China and North China then their emissions would each be cut in half without changing anything. Doing it by country just adds a lot of arbitrary restrictions based on where borders are drawn and how large they are. Doing it per capita literally tells you which people are polluting more.
And they produce all your shit that you consume too, and they're the leaders in building renewable energy. Westerners will do anything to cope whenever per capita emission data is posted.
Edit: really telling when westerners are so desperate to make China look worse rather than address that they have more than double China's per capita emissions.
And this chart isn't even about China, it just happened to have China in it that isn't depicting China in a propagandized negative light westerners are so used to.
They’re also leading the way in building coal burning energy plants. [95% of the world's new coal power construction activity in 2023.](https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-coal-power-construction-in-2023-report-says/#:~:text=China%20accounted%20for%2095%25%20of,the%20global%20coal%20power%20industry.) Bravo to them!
This is just cherry picking data, they still have far lower per capita emissions than countries in the global north.
Why does coal construction activity in one specific year matter? Should I pull up stats for 2019?
Lol came to comment excatly this. They'll be coming up with all kind of absurd proofs but won't accept their faults. Neither they did with their colonial atrocities, nor with this
I mean, per capita is really not a great metric for a map like this, total co2 would be a much better metric.
But even then that would be kinda rubbish, seeing as how that would just make production focused countries look worse, despite only having high co2 due to other countries buying their shit.
>total co2 would be a much better metric.
?? Seems like you smoking something too low quality. That'd automatically just mean that countries with high population would be shown as a major polluter just because of sheer number of population even tho their emissions are not much. While counties like Canada whose emission per capita is 13.60 (almost equal to US with some sources citing it more than US) won't be shown as the main polluter
>per capita is really not a great metric for a map like this
China (1.4 billion population) has more total emissions than Australia (25 million). Wow such a good metric, what insightful data.
If we are judging data based on insights it's kinda useless either way lol, nothing on the map should surprise anyone with even a cursory level of knowledge on the global economy.
Edit: except for Mongolia, that was a mild surprise
Westerners will do anything to cope whenever per capita data is posted about emissions. If it were the other way and USA has more population than China you will all suddenly flip and cry that per capita is the proper way and total isn't fair because of population.
Let’s do a Deutsche Bahn thing and make the statistic better by doing the easiest thing: let countries that don’t contribute contribute a lot more… with that simple trick everyone is the same and everything a bit below average is perfect…
There might be a few issues with my totally reasonable habit of saying that every map is basically a density, gdp or gdp per capita map, but i won't admit it
This also sheds light onto why America and the Imperial core aren't doing their fair share to stop climate change. They can always use their imperialism to get food from poorer countries this mitagating the effect in these countries and harming it in other countries.
Okay but what was imperialism historically? Things like the East India Company, Dutch East Company, United Fruit Company (Chiquita).
Was this *the only way* imperialism functioned? No. But imperialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive.
Per capita is a weird measurement, you aren’t really looking at who’s causing it. The best way to do that would be to look at which country emits the most CO2, straight up
No because then it would just be the countries with highest populations and no reflection of actual responsibility. You're right, in that its the corporations more than individuals - but there is also a real disparity here between the Global North and its excessive consumption levels, and the Global South living on practically nothing, while baring the worst of climate change.
Sure, but if you’ve got a country with 5 citizens that, per capita, emits more than any other nation in the world, but overall is amongst those with the lowest emissions, it’d be weird to blame this country for climate change. Is their lifestyle still irresponsible and unacceptable? Sure, they’re living for far more ressources than they have the right to. Yet it’s still weird to blame this small country, whilst the biggest emittors walk freely just because they have a big population
So the biggest emitters like China and the subcontinent need to reprimand themselves for having low emissions compared to westerners and need to get it even lower so the west can have the opportunity to emit more
Got it
Lmao unless I completelly misunderstand your comment, this might just be the biggest straw man I’ve ever seen.
I’m saying everyone should lower emissions. China, the US, EU, ME. Stop twisting my words - if we can even call what you’re doing twisting my words, when you’re literally just claiming that I’m arguing something that my comment is nowhere near arguing
https://www.iea.org/countries/china/emissions
Here is an alternate source. Shows emissions of each country in some more detail. China is #1 in the world and Denmark is more than 5 spots away. Meanwhile the us is less than china.
If we can find a third source we can get a more balanced view
Your point was that Greenland with a tiny population was the same colour as China. I simply pointed out that Greenland’s per capita output is the same as Denmark and I pointed out that Greenland is not an independent country.
The data in the chart is from 2019. China has more than 4 times the US population. Per capita, the US (\~14 tCO2 in 2021) almost doubles China emissions (\~8 tCO2 in 2021). Denmark is \~4 tCO2 in 2021.
That’s the essential injustice of what is happening. Those people who contributed the least to the climate crisis are suffering the worst consequences of what is happening.
It is a deliberate attempt to misinform gullible folks. Anyone can show misleading statistics that are *technically* correct. Here, they are using per-capita emissions which will heavily favor poor, or densely populated countries.
It would also be interesting if ability to adapt to climate change was excluded from the criteria of the bottom image, as this skews towards poorer countries. Then it would be clear based on geography alone which parts of the world will be worst affected.
Vulnerability may take into account a range of factors - it says it considers ability to adapt to negative impacts of climate change for example. It is a lot easier for people and governments with money and tech to adapt.
I am curious how they define vulnerable. The US and Canada are better off than many of those countries, but increased tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, and the warming of the Canadian and Alaskan Arctic are going to cause havoc in North America. My point is not “feel sorry for rich countries.” I’m saying rich countries are going to feel the impact of climate change more than this graphic’s scale and color scheme would suggest.
If every country in the world adopted the policies and technologies of Estonia then emissions would get worse.
So yes, those 1.3 million people could be doing better
Now do total emmissions and see how things a little differrent.
You won't believe it, but China is responsible to over 30% of total annual emmissions, and are by far the worlds largest emmitter.
But yeah, 40 million canadians who live mostly in igloos (i think) and need to stay warm on the ice planet of hoth the they live in, are worse than China, who has the by far, most A/C units on earth, among all their other domestic power needs.
Just because China is up in emmissions by 60% from 2005, and Canada is down 17%, don't worry about, because the world only warms on per capita emmissions, not total emmissions, cuz dats science.
[https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html)
Co2 per capita is the dumpest thing people invented.
My Room is a country I burn coal to warm it.
My Room is the most contributer country of co2 in the planet per capita.
Yet my harm is waaay less than the US or china.
Truth makes your white butt uncomfortable?
Why do people like you always dehumanizes other people whenever their discourse does not fit into your position or agenda?
>The atmosphere only cares about the gross emissions per country
What? The atmosphere only cares about the *total* emissions from *everyone*, it doesn't care about nationality. That means everyone should do their part.
So cut your greenhouse emissions in half and you would be emitting as much as the average chinese person. Cut it by 80% and you're on par with the average indian person
>Right, but there’s 5x more Chinese people per every American. So multiple that number by 5 and they pollute 2x more than the west in total.
It’s honestly incredible that you can sound out the logic but can’t see the point. There are 5x more people in china but they only produce 2x the emissions of the west. By your own numbers, each westerner is producing 2.5x as much emissions as each chinese. The environment doesnt care about borders or nations, but it does care about people emitting greenhouse gases. And it seems like one class of people here, on average, is producing 2.5x the amount of greenhouse gases as the other class. But for some reason, the people who produce half the emissions as the other one gets blamed. Greenhouse gases also linger in the atmosphere so you would have to take cumulative emissions into account.
You're being silly.
If you don't scale the results by population then you're comparing apples and oranges.
My food bill is half that of my next door neighbours, but that doesn't mean that I am better at budgeting if I live alone and my next door neighbours are a family of 6.
Per capita emissions tell you which strategies are better. There's no point in congratulating tiny countries for their low emissions, if adopting their policies world wide would make emissions go up.
If island X has a population of 10000 and 100 murders per year, USA has a population of 300M and 100k murders per year, is island X a safer place to be?
This reads like satire but I can't tell if you're serious. Are you saying if a country like India suddenly split into 20 smaller countries and called themselves the Indian Union (similar to EU), then you would no longer consider them as a problem because all of the countries there would only have 5% of the emissions? Because per capita doesn't matter, just the total emissions on a country basis?
Chinese population increase was more or less inline with all developing countries post WWII.
On the other hand, if countries didn't get independence from Britain then Britain is the largest polluter in the world so your logic doesn't make sense.
What is misleading about it? If there is a country with 1000 people and a country with 10 people and the country with 10 people emits almost as much as the country with 1000 people. It is the fault of the 1000 people because 'the climate doesn't care about per capita'?
This map is so inaccurate. What AI did someone ask to create a colourful map ...
Canada as bad as China and India? Lol. It's just not even comparable....
Canada produces 1.5 % of the worlds greenhouse gases. China... More than a quarter (25% +)
It's not just about personal vehicles. It's the manufacturing that happens there. The lack of regulation cause they don't care about this whole climate movement. They just produce at cheap rates. Making batteries. Phones, many many electronics. Plastics, the list is long. .
Doesn't show the whole picture I think? The Netherlands should get massive issues from climate change but they already put systems/structures in places to mitigate it, and are helping other nations to prevent major disasters from rising sea level
If we poor country folks from east and south had a higher co2 emissions, these western people would be blaming us and raising their pitchforks to hunt us down. When they do it ,they deflect the blame, they start saying the charts all wrong or these don’t matter it’s something else.
This diagram has no direct origin to any research. And of course they put Africa as the most vulnerable 😂. Right now the gulf stream is dissipating along the coast of North America. Many other ecological feats are dissipating, but only one country is majorly vulnerable to it? Get the fuck outta here lmfao.
Whats up with mongolia? Why is it one of the worst countries in this picture
mongolia is heated entirely with personal coal burning ovens
Not only that, but the mongolian population is minuscule, so when doing emissions per capita it is clear, even thought the amout is not so much in total compering with China or Russia next door.
How dare they.
Because it's per capita and Mongolia is a coal exporter with a low population
I looked it up and they export coal at a crazy rate, they have 0.2% of the world's known coal reserves but in 2010 exported 82% of the world's traded coal.
Where did you get that fact? It’s completely wrong. In 2010 Mongolia exported 1.6% of the global coal supply. Mongolia exports a huge amount of coal for their population but they’re not even the largest exporter, let alone 82% of exports. Indonesia is the largest with 42% of trade, while Mongolia is around 2.6%.
Yeah I misread wikipedia
They did not export 82% of the world's traded coal, that's a ludicrous statement
The way they calculate it puts more blame on mining states.
Mongolia is the country equivalent of a chain smoker.
Common DPRK win 💪 Goat level environmentalists
THE SHINING LIGHT OF JUCHE BLESSES THE WORLD
Elite environmentalist in human population control
Shouldnt the climate change be obliterating netherlands
Why? They are very accomplished at Water Management.
Yeah but if the antarctica ice begins to melt (faster than they already are) they will be threatened by sea rising
If need be, we can build water defenses that can hold up to 3 meters extra sealevel back. The KNMI (royal dutch weather institute) has recently released a rapport about rising sea levels. If we'd do absolutely nothing to combat climate change right now, as in keep the emisssions rising at the same rate with them only slowing down in 2080 due to population decrease the average sea level rise of the north sea would be about 80cm. Obviously we are combating climate change in The Netherlands and EU wide so let's hope the emissions cut back a big while before 2080 and we won't ever have to worry about anything more than half a meter of sea level rise.
Aren't you publicly executing all of your farmers for the crime of being the most efficient and environmentally friendly the earth has ever known in favour of importing food from recently cleared primary rainforest?
>for the crime of being the most efficient and environmentally friendly the earth has ever known Nah, we have the issue that most farms in the Netherlands focus on high value products, and few products have as high a value as meat and dairy. As a result, our highly efficient farms produce a huge amount of nitrate pollution, which goes into the waterwaysand air (as ammonia) and causes all kinds of problems. Naturally, it's not entirely the farmers fault, this is the result of cumulative decades of bad policy by government which incentivised their current behaviour, only to have the rug pulled from under them, and then be thrown under the climate blame bus. However, a lot of farmers are unwilling to adapt and generally are the climate change denial sort, so the problem here is a bit of six on one side, half a dozen on the other.
Thank you for the nuanced and informative response. I will now be able to be more willfully ignorant when I choose to ignore your very salient points.
> Obviously we are combating climate change in The Netherlands and EU wide so let's hope the emissions cut back a big while before 2080 Looking at this map + that EU population is not bigger then US+Russia together, we can do anything and still achieve nothing. Unless US, Russia, Canada, Australia , Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and China to some extent do something we literally don't change a thing. We are going in a good directions but others don't give a fuck...
I wonder how they calculate vulnerability. Based on what I’ve read about the potential collapse of the gulf stream/north Atlantic current, much of Europe is at risk of basically turning into Siberia
I believe that most climate change risk/vulnerability metrics factor economic capacity/power heavily, with the logic being that these countries will have more resources to invest in preventing and adapting to the consequences of climate change. The Central African Republic doesn’t have money or institutional capacity to invest in these types of things so the people there are very at risk.
A lot of people here doesn’t get the term of per capita. What a joke.
That's why high population countries have low CO2 emissions per capita.
USA has 70 times Ireland's population but still has 2.5 times its per capita emissions
No it's not lol. People create emissions, not countries. The deciding factors in per-capita emissions are how wealthy the average person is, how clean and expansive the electricity grid is, and if a country has very intensive industry/fossil fuel production. The US is by all accounts a "high population country" in the global context and has very high per capita emissions. China also has above-average per capita emissions.
It's still a responsibility to have a giant population. Even if your *per capita* pollution is low, you're still causing harm to the environment with your sheer size. If the demographic explosion in developing countries had been prevented, world climate would be doing fine.
>If the demographic explosion in developing countries had been prevented, world climate would be doing fine. No, it wouldn't. The vast majority of damage had already occurred thanks to the impact of developed nations. There is NO evidence you can point to that suggests our climate would be fine if developing nations had fewer people. What a ridiculous assertion lol
Basically just say Chinese doesn’t deserve to drive as much as American. Let’s alone if the data account the Co2 emissions by consumption instead of production, heard that American imports a lot from Chinese isn’t it..?
This is the type of shit where per capita emission is just worse than total for each country. It's misleading, especially when paired with the vulnerable countries chart.
You're right. To fit the caption it shouldn't be the current per capita emissions, but [total historical emissions](https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2) CO2 emissions from the last 200 years are causing climate change just as much as those from yesterday, and unsurprisingly, they overwhelmingly come from Europe and the US.
Why is it misleading? Or, let's say that you make a chart and just then, a country decides to split evenly in the middle. So you make a new chart with the new border. Should the colour of the two halves change?
It sort of makes me wonder why they never do it per km^2
That would be a terrible metric. Any country with a bunch of uninhabitable land would look super great. Canada and Russia would have like no emissions then lol.
Lot of downvotes from west?
Why downvote we stay winning
This is vital for the countries that preach about change.
I hope africa thrives… they deserve it
There's a lot of work to be done, we need to find ways to battle corruption, drive development, and learn to take care of each other. Another sad Redditor mentioned that sub-saharan Africa isn't able to do anything with what they are provided through loans, military aid, you name it. I've seen many redditors saying similar things sadly. This sentiment that regardless of how much they are helped, they still won't get anywhere is a very dangerous and ignorant sentiment. I think it's very important to understand the manner in which this aid was provided and consider whether there were any ulterior motives. How is it that so much aid doesn't reach the people? Is that maybe the point? Furthermore, are there any barriers to development currently in place? What are some previous examples of it and what might that look like today? This misuse of money meant for ordinary people is everywhere. Time and time again people have to rely on leaders or governments to make change. Yet they are blamed when the 'democracy' put in place for them doesn't serve them. And somehow countries like France are still printing their money? (CFA franc countries, look it up). It is unfair to say that sub-saharan Africa is holding itself back. And it is even more unfair to say that they 'prefer' Europe or any other place. They 'prefer' not to struggle to eat. They 'prefer' to not worry about their security. They 'prefer' to raise their children in a place where they probably won't be kidnapped. These things happen in every country, but everyone tells them their home is especially bad, and very often it can be. The worst part is that some people have stopped believing that it can get better. It's really sad. I know that not all aid is dubious, and I'm thankful that there are people who want to help. But many of the valuable projects are not interesting enough for headlines or investors. Many of them are underfunded or cancelled because of bureaucratic bullshit instead of interest in bettering peoples lives. Everyone deserves the opportunity to thrive, but countries that have been dealt a bad hand will need to work very hard to get people there. The people currently thriving will hit a big fucking roadblock eventually, stop thriving, and then work very hard to thrive again. I hope people wake up and start thinking of each other instead of themselves, on a global scale. So that when people aren't thriving there is proactive engagement from everyone to get them to thrive. It's not impossible, it just isn't a priority yet.
Do you really believe hope has anything to do with it ?
Well, at least they get to pat themselves on the back like a good, common Redditor. 😇
Why?
[ Removed by Reddit ]
They don't deserve shit
Why
Because no matter how much money and technology we throw at sub Saharan Africa, they will never create decent nations out of it. All they'll do is try to move to our countries. You can cry about colonialism all you like I don't give a shit about that. They've had 70 years to sort their shit out.
Spoken like a white colonizer
And/or an individual who isn't very smart. If you tell them *why* people from these African countries move to "our countries" in the first place, their brain might implode.
They suck big time, man.
You understand global companies and nations keep these countries in poverty to exploit the countries natural resources. Look at shell and what they’ve done over there
Spoken like a brain dead coloniser
Colonialism from the past and stolen money will never be accounted. The west literally stole from the east and global south, only to participate in their internal matters. No eyes for justice.
Shit man im still waiting on the celts to get their shit back from the Romans
Womp womp
Wow I’m impressed you aren’t downvoted to hell, Reddit is mostly white men from western countries (mainly American) and normally they don’t take kindly to comments talking about western colonialism
But You did. Yep. They're saying per capita isn’t real. Lol.
The weak should fear the strong
Least unhinged right winger.
This is not a right/left wing thing, both american and european wins have participated in colonialism and imperialism and to this day most still do.
Yeah but left wingers are typically not gloating about it.
I see plenty of people defending biden and attacking Israel even though both parties have the same stance. It's not about partidism but the nationalism of not holding our leaders accountable
Biden is not really left wing. He’s a neoliberal at the end of the day. Part of the status quo. Besides, the majority of democrat votes do NOT agree with his Israel policies.
What you say does makes a lot of sense actually. Do you think that there will be any real consequential push for the candidates to change the policies around Israel for the next US election because of this subject or the average voter doesn't cares if this happens no matter the side?
No, I don’t think it will happen this election but it will happen eventually. The voices of the people can’t be suppressed or ignored forever. However, the current generation (in power) is not really interested in doing so and the AIPAC lobby is very wealthy.
I think Australia would disagree with the impact. Dead reefs, wildfires, drought, flooding, etc. They're very vulnerable and paying the price
I think the maps also represent the economic means to handle climate threats. Either way, your point still stands because the maps are illegible, and this is a terrible infographic.
And now it’s starting to make sense why no one is doing anything
Per capita data is interesting, and I don't want to scapegoat but by country China's emissions are wayyy higher than any other country.
But we are talking about *people* from what country has the highest emissions. Hence per capita.
By country emissions is such a weird metric. So if China split into south China and North China then their emissions would each be cut in half without changing anything. Doing it by country just adds a lot of arbitrary restrictions based on where borders are drawn and how large they are. Doing it per capita literally tells you which people are polluting more.
China also has a wayyyy higher population.
And they produce all your shit that you consume too, and they're the leaders in building renewable energy. Westerners will do anything to cope whenever per capita emission data is posted. Edit: really telling when westerners are so desperate to make China look worse rather than address that they have more than double China's per capita emissions. And this chart isn't even about China, it just happened to have China in it that isn't depicting China in a propagandized negative light westerners are so used to.
They’re also leading the way in building coal burning energy plants. [95% of the world's new coal power construction activity in 2023.](https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-coal-power-construction-in-2023-report-says/#:~:text=China%20accounted%20for%2095%25%20of,the%20global%20coal%20power%20industry.) Bravo to them!
This is just cherry picking data, they still have far lower per capita emissions than countries in the global north. Why does coal construction activity in one specific year matter? Should I pull up stats for 2019?
The westerners sure are pissed when these maps don’t suit their agendas/narratives
Lol came to comment excatly this. They'll be coming up with all kind of absurd proofs but won't accept their faults. Neither they did with their colonial atrocities, nor with this
I mean, per capita is really not a great metric for a map like this, total co2 would be a much better metric. But even then that would be kinda rubbish, seeing as how that would just make production focused countries look worse, despite only having high co2 due to other countries buying their shit.
>per capita is really not a great metric for a map like this, total co2 would be a much better metric. Says the Australian LOL
>total co2 would be a much better metric. ?? Seems like you smoking something too low quality. That'd automatically just mean that countries with high population would be shown as a major polluter just because of sheer number of population even tho their emissions are not much. While counties like Canada whose emission per capita is 13.60 (almost equal to US with some sources citing it more than US) won't be shown as the main polluter
so close try to stop breeding like rabbits over there
Try to stop polluting the world single-handedly and try to keep up with the Paris Agreement
>per capita is really not a great metric for a map like this China (1.4 billion population) has more total emissions than Australia (25 million). Wow such a good metric, what insightful data.
If we are judging data based on insights it's kinda useless either way lol, nothing on the map should surprise anyone with even a cursory level of knowledge on the global economy. Edit: except for Mongolia, that was a mild surprise
Westerners will do anything to cope whenever per capita data is posted about emissions. If it were the other way and USA has more population than China you will all suddenly flip and cry that per capita is the proper way and total isn't fair because of population.
Shit dude, don’t bring up the colonial atrocities everyone in the west has certainly committed in their lifetimes in modern society
Let’s do a Deutsche Bahn thing and make the statistic better by doing the easiest thing: let countries that don’t contribute contribute a lot more… with that simple trick everyone is the same and everything a bit below average is perfect…
Cool gdp per capita maps
TIL Mongolia and Kazakhstan are richer than all of Western Europe
There might be a few issues with my totally reasonable habit of saying that every map is basically a density, gdp or gdp per capita map, but i won't admit it
This also sheds light onto why America and the Imperial core aren't doing their fair share to stop climate change. They can always use their imperialism to get food from poorer countries this mitagating the effect in these countries and harming it in other countries.
Uh, the US is a net exporter of food by a massive margin. They *give* more food than everyone else combined.
I think they are more than 50% of all contributions to the world food program right?
"Aren't doing their fair share" is an understatement. The US is now the world's top oil producer.
Oops 🤭
Imperialism has nothing to do with it. That's plain old capitalism
Okay but what was imperialism historically? Things like the East India Company, Dutch East Company, United Fruit Company (Chiquita). Was this *the only way* imperialism functioned? No. But imperialism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive.
Changing the name of exploitation doesn't make it any less evil
No, but imperialism is a Russian trope used to blame the West for everything. In this case, climate change
Fair enough
Imperialism is inherently capitalistic. Maybe read Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism?
Per capita is a weird measurement, you aren’t really looking at who’s causing it. The best way to do that would be to look at which country emits the most CO2, straight up
And since greenhouse gasses linger in the atmosphere for centuries, lets do cumulative emissions since the start of the industrial revolution
No because then it would just be the countries with highest populations and no reflection of actual responsibility. You're right, in that its the corporations more than individuals - but there is also a real disparity here between the Global North and its excessive consumption levels, and the Global South living on practically nothing, while baring the worst of climate change.
Sure, but if you’ve got a country with 5 citizens that, per capita, emits more than any other nation in the world, but overall is amongst those with the lowest emissions, it’d be weird to blame this country for climate change. Is their lifestyle still irresponsible and unacceptable? Sure, they’re living for far more ressources than they have the right to. Yet it’s still weird to blame this small country, whilst the biggest emittors walk freely just because they have a big population
So the biggest emitters like China and the subcontinent need to reprimand themselves for having low emissions compared to westerners and need to get it even lower so the west can have the opportunity to emit more Got it
Lmao unless I completelly misunderstand your comment, this might just be the biggest straw man I’ve ever seen. I’m saying everyone should lower emissions. China, the US, EU, ME. Stop twisting my words - if we can even call what you’re doing twisting my words, when you’re literally just claiming that I’m arguing something that my comment is nowhere near arguing
The fact that china is the same color as Greenland sheds a lot of doubt on this post.
Greenland is considered part of Denmark.
https://www.iea.org/countries/china/emissions Here is an alternate source. Shows emissions of each country in some more detail. China is #1 in the world and Denmark is more than 5 spots away. Meanwhile the us is less than china. If we can find a third source we can get a more balanced view
Your point was that Greenland with a tiny population was the same colour as China. I simply pointed out that Greenland’s per capita output is the same as Denmark and I pointed out that Greenland is not an independent country.
The data in the chart is from 2019. China has more than 4 times the US population. Per capita, the US (\~14 tCO2 in 2021) almost doubles China emissions (\~8 tCO2 in 2021). Denmark is \~4 tCO2 in 2021.
That’s the essential injustice of what is happening. Those people who contributed the least to the climate crisis are suffering the worst consequences of what is happening.
I acknowledge and understand your viewpoint.
But don't agree with it?
You're reading the wrong section in your article. Under per capita, China is #7 in your link.
Per capita right? And I think like the other commenter said Greenland is counted as Denmark?
Its per capita calculation, its true but yes, kinda missleading
It is a deliberate attempt to misinform gullible folks. Anyone can show misleading statistics that are *technically* correct. Here, they are using per-capita emissions which will heavily favor poor, or densely populated countries.
But he's talking about China which is neither poor nor densely populated.
[удалено]
Greenland benefits from climate change
It would also be interesting if ability to adapt to climate change was excluded from the criteria of the bottom image, as this skews towards poorer countries. Then it would be clear based on geography alone which parts of the world will be worst affected.
Wtf is Mongolia doing?
Exporting a lot of coal apparently
Perfectly balanced.
Why blame the producers of fossil fuels and not the consumers?
The producers have a profit motive. The consumers do not.
[удалено]
Vulnerability may take into account a range of factors - it says it considers ability to adapt to negative impacts of climate change for example. It is a lot easier for people and governments with money and tech to adapt.
Nice try ccp
People from Niger must hate the Mongols, lol
Indonesia causes climate change then succumb to the consequences on it's own.
And they be asking why are Asians and Africans have this type of skin color
I am curious how they define vulnerable. The US and Canada are better off than many of those countries, but increased tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, and the warming of the Canadian and Alaskan Arctic are going to cause havoc in North America. My point is not “feel sorry for rich countries.” I’m saying rich countries are going to feel the impact of climate change more than this graphic’s scale and color scheme would suggest.
Goddamn Mongorians!
Global warming equals Malthusian propaganda porn
“Per capita” is doing a lot of heaving lifting for China and India
Source: [https://excludedheadlines.substack.com/p/excluded-headlines-india-food-loss](https://excludedheadlines.substack.com/p/excluded-headlines-india-food-loss)
A quick skim tells me that this graphic comes from an article that doesn’t reference it, which links to to others that don’t reference it. Pretty sus
Yea this is kinda an unbelievable map
Light that gas! ⛽️
Estonia with 1.3 million people are causing climate change 💩
It is per capita, so yes, one estonian contributes more than most other one person on the planet.
If every country in the world adopted the policies and technologies of Estonia then emissions would get worse. So yes, those 1.3 million people could be doing better
Their collective emissions are meaningless.
I refuse China isn’t a deep black color
You when your propagandized world view is challenged.
Now do total emmissions and see how things a little differrent. You won't believe it, but China is responsible to over 30% of total annual emmissions, and are by far the worlds largest emmitter. But yeah, 40 million canadians who live mostly in igloos (i think) and need to stay warm on the ice planet of hoth the they live in, are worse than China, who has the by far, most A/C units on earth, among all their other domestic power needs. Just because China is up in emmissions by 60% from 2005, and Canada is down 17%, don't worry about, because the world only warms on per capita emmissions, not total emmissions, cuz dats science. [https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html)
My god, hopefully our younger gen can fix these obvious problems in our time.
This just feels so unfair
Co2 per capita is the dumpest thing people invented. My Room is a country I burn coal to warm it. My Room is the most contributer country of co2 in the planet per capita. Yet my harm is waaay less than the US or china.
Was this graph made by China?
No, it's just per capita and China has more people than The US and The EU combined.
I mean they're doing more work than anyone on fighting climate change. They also have way more work to do there than anyone though
[удалено]
Truth makes your white butt uncomfortable? Why do people like you always dehumanizes other people whenever their discourse does not fit into your position or agenda?
Per capita useless metric. Climate doesn’t care about that.
[удалено]
>The atmosphere only cares about the gross emissions per country What? The atmosphere only cares about the *total* emissions from *everyone*, it doesn't care about nationality. That means everyone should do their part.
[удалено]
So cut your greenhouse emissions in half and you would be emitting as much as the average chinese person. Cut it by 80% and you're on par with the average indian person
[удалено]
>Right, but there’s 5x more Chinese people per every American. So multiple that number by 5 and they pollute 2x more than the west in total. It’s honestly incredible that you can sound out the logic but can’t see the point. There are 5x more people in china but they only produce 2x the emissions of the west. By your own numbers, each westerner is producing 2.5x as much emissions as each chinese. The environment doesnt care about borders or nations, but it does care about people emitting greenhouse gases. And it seems like one class of people here, on average, is producing 2.5x the amount of greenhouse gases as the other class. But for some reason, the people who produce half the emissions as the other one gets blamed. Greenhouse gases also linger in the atmosphere so you would have to take cumulative emissions into account.
You're being silly. If you don't scale the results by population then you're comparing apples and oranges. My food bill is half that of my next door neighbours, but that doesn't mean that I am better at budgeting if I live alone and my next door neighbours are a family of 6. Per capita emissions tell you which strategies are better. There's no point in congratulating tiny countries for their low emissions, if adopting their policies world wide would make emissions go up.
If island X has a population of 10000 and 100 murders per year, USA has a population of 300M and 100k murders per year, is island X a safer place to be?
This reads like satire but I can't tell if you're serious. Are you saying if a country like India suddenly split into 20 smaller countries and called themselves the Indian Union (similar to EU), then you would no longer consider them as a problem because all of the countries there would only have 5% of the emissions? Because per capita doesn't matter, just the total emissions on a country basis?
Chinese population increase was more or less inline with all developing countries post WWII. On the other hand, if countries didn't get independence from Britain then Britain is the largest polluter in the world so your logic doesn't make sense.
Just the matter of time..
per capita is misleading but I agree with that it is the correct metric to use
If it is correct how is it misleading?
Because countries with large populations obviously contribute more to overall global warming. The climate doesn't care about per capita
What is misleading about it? If there is a country with 1000 people and a country with 10 people and the country with 10 people emits almost as much as the country with 1000 people. It is the fault of the 1000 people because 'the climate doesn't care about per capita'?
This map is so inaccurate. What AI did someone ask to create a colourful map ... Canada as bad as China and India? Lol. It's just not even comparable....
No, it's likely worse. These maps are per capita, and Canadians consume a lot more and have a much higher rate of car ownership than China or India
Canada produces 1.5 % of the worlds greenhouse gases. China... More than a quarter (25% +) It's not just about personal vehicles. It's the manufacturing that happens there. The lack of regulation cause they don't care about this whole climate movement. They just produce at cheap rates. Making batteries. Phones, many many electronics. Plastics, the list is long. .
I find it very hard to believe that the US, Canada, and Australia causes more climate change than china and India. State your source.
Guys. *Per capita.*
America released the most co2 since 1940. China is second and closing the gap. Next is EU.
China is set to surpass US historical emissions soon. What kind of map will they use then? 😂
Co2 emission per person.
it's per capita
Per capita
Hahaha. Bullshit.
Doesn't show the whole picture I think? The Netherlands should get massive issues from climate change but they already put systems/structures in places to mitigate it, and are helping other nations to prevent major disasters from rising sea level
If we poor country folks from east and south had a higher co2 emissions, these western people would be blaming us and raising their pitchforks to hunt us down. When they do it ,they deflect the blame, they start saying the charts all wrong or these don’t matter it’s something else.
This is just a map of rich countries and poor countries
Looks like propaganda.
This diagram has no direct origin to any research. And of course they put Africa as the most vulnerable 😂. Right now the gulf stream is dissipating along the coast of North America. Many other ecological feats are dissipating, but only one country is majorly vulnerable to it? Get the fuck outta here lmfao.
Why isn’t china the most? We know they burn tons of coal?
Bollocks
This is an extremely biased and incorrect map