Talk:List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Updated Data for Top 10 emitters

Since the world top 10 emitters emits 67.2% of total GHG, it will be benificial to have the more updated number for those countries. Maybe have a new section that lists the top 10 countries and the current table to be changed to alphabetical order. I am sure data for top 10 countries will be easier to obtain than all the countries. Calvingao (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Number doesn't match

Numbers in the table do not match the numbers in the diagram. Why?Calvingao (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Emission data (mis)represented by imports and exports

I noted that the data does not account for emissions either avoided by importing goods or appearing so excessive due to exporting. These are both important factors as some wealthy countries are not credited with their fair share of emissions and vice-versa. In my opinion this injects a biased accounting. Another two columns would helpful. For example, subtracting the third of China's emissions due to exports and including emissions avoided would be more informative. It should be noted that increasing the U.S. and European Union emissions by the amount avoided would probably put them ahead of China. Although the study I found and referenced only gives data for China, the list would be much more interesting to have import/export data for all countries included. If anyone can find sources please help update this information.172.162.77.5 (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

99.0%

Why is the world emission level 99.0%? Shouldn't it be 100% no matter what? Eugeniu Bmsg 13:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why someone changes it from 100% to 99% but I have now changed it back.Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 15:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ranking Countries by CO2 Emmisions per km2 of Land Surface Area

Data on CO2 emissions can be presented in many formats, each projecting a certain point of view.

Ranking countries according to Total CO2 Emissions identifies the countries that emits the most CO2. Ranking countries according to Total CO2 Emisions per capita identifies the countries which emits the most CO2 per individuals. These two data sets will not neccessarily correspond. Neither of these data sets offer any insight into whether any specific country would be emitting above its own natural sustanaible emission limit.

Ranking countries by their CO2 emissions per km2 of land surface area decouples the interpretation of the data from population density. It effectively lists countries according to total emission density. It will clearly identify the countries where the emission density is above the world average, and remains independent of population growth. It places the focus back on the land and the emissions that can be sustained from it.

For example, based on the current Wikipedia data for CO2 emissions and land surface areas for different countries, it places Singapore at a CO2 emission density of 79.74 thousand metric tons CO2 per km2, and the United States of America at 0.597 thousand metric tons per km2. This can be compared against a world land surface emission density of 0.191 thousand metric tons CO2 per km2.

Perhaps the existing data can be presented in this way as well. Henks (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally second this opinion. Governments need to understand that the target should be to reduce total emissions and not emissions per capita. The current idea of projecting targets as emissions per caipta gives unfair advantages to countries like India and China. If nothing else, it would give an additional metric to compare the carbon emissions intensity of different countries. I tried to google if this information is readily available online but can't seems to find it. Can we upload this ourselves with separate references for total carbon emissions and total land area? Shyguy24x7 (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

2006 Emissions Linked to 2009 Population

Is the CO2 per capita figure based on the 2006 emissions divided by the 2009 population? Doesn't that seem inaccurate? I think it would be better to link 2006 emissions to the 2006 population for the CO2 per capita. TimeClock871 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 2006 emissions should not be divided by 2009 populations. Additionally there already is a per capita page for emissions List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita. This page duplicates it. I was wondering why no-one discussed making such a huge change on the talk page. I am therefore, for the time being, reverting the page. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 01:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous user has re-added clearly erroneous data. 2006 emissions should not be divided by 2009 populations. I am again going to delete this. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 14:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not the anonymous user, but I agree with him. It would be better to use matching 2006 population data, but we should keep the 2009 data until someone puts in better numbers. The error introduced by mismatching data is small, and the page is more useful with it than without. It is not redundant with the per capita page because it is insightful to see the absolute and per capita emissions all in one table.--Yannick (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Total CO2 emissions?

Is there a list here for total emissions? By country? Why is deforestation missing from this list? FX (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There are no sources for emissions including lulucf for all countries. If you have some, please link it. --78.108.106.253 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan added

I added Taiwan, as it is included in source CDIAC dataset. It is notable emitter, also Hong Kong and Macau are already in the list. --78.108.106.253 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

New 2007 Data

The new 2007 figures are out. I will start updating the page with them. I will also update the population figures for 2007 so they are consistent. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

First 9 countries are now done. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 22:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

First 19 countries done. I have also started using 2007 population data and added that in so that accurate per capita data can be generated. I will update the per capita data when finished with the population and emissions data. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

First 27 countries done.Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 04:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have completed updating the page with the new 2007 data set. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 23:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I plan now on adding a time series for this data hopefully going back to 2000 and perhaps with some graphs.Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about Taiwan. It is not listed on the UN data. I am not sure if it is subsumed within China's data or just left out. I am wary about using another data set for Taiwan as it may not be comparable. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 03:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan is not listed on UN data, but it it listed in source CDIAC data. In UN data it is not included in China data, just omitted (despite in top 25 producers) because of political reasons.--Jklamo (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

To / from List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly no need for two articles so there should be a merger, no clue which one should remain though. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Woops, clearly this page should be the one to remain as its better developed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically, the two lists are different. This on is for CO2, while the other is for CO2 equivalent. 2c. -128.196.30.219 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what the difference is with that, but why could an extra column not be added on this page to contain that data? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas emitted. See also: Carbon dioxide equivalent and Global warming potential. -128.196.30.219 (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The articles address distinct things so no merger. This one addresses just carbon dioxide emissions from industrial emissions only. The other addresses carbon dioxide from all sources (not just industrial ones) and all other greenhouse gases including methane, nitrous oxide, perfluorocarbon, hydrofluorocarbon, and sulfur hexafluoride and is measured in Equivalent carbon dioxide. This measure describes how much global warming a given type and amount of greenhouse gas may cause, using the amount of carbon dioxide that would give the equivalent warming. For example one molecule of methane gives the same warming as 25 to 33 molecules of carbon dioxide.[1] Additionally The data for carbon dioxide is much more complete and is available for 2007. The greenhouse gas inventory is only available until 2005. The carbon dioxide emissions calculations are also based on a wider range of countries. Being able to differentiate between the two gives one an idea where the problem areas are. For example Indonesia and Brazil feature prominently when accounting for all greenhouse gases where as China and the USA are much more dominant when looking at industrial carbon dioxide alone. These distinctions are manifest in that there are different per capita articles which relate to each category. There is a List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita as well as List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita. Ideally there should be a time series for both. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 10:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For a further explanation of CO2 equivalent see Greenhouse_gas#Global warming potential and Global warming potential.Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 10:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The timeframe of the data

Data that uses different data points from different years in meaningless. Carbon emissions are rapidly changing - to use different years for different countries creates a confusing and inaccurate picture. I am going to revert the page to what it was before the data had different years in it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 03:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

2008 data

are out [2]. --Jklamo (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Also updated on UN page (except Taiwan due to politics). --Jklamo (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have updated top 75. --Jklamo (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

2010 data

There is available 2010 data presented by BP BP statistical review 2011. I think it would be good idea to include this more updated information, while keeping official, older data of UN. I would do it by my self, but I don't really know how to edit Wikipedia and I don't have time right now. Hope somebody will do it. 84.237.204.241 (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Janis Brizs

BP data are just estimates based on coal, oil and natural gas consumption (cement manufacture is not included), based on simple formula for converting (thus do not respect different technologies) and also the source consumption data are sometime just estimates. Thus they are not comparable to UN (CDIAC) data. Although adding them as separate table is not so bad idea. Also there are available 2009 CDIAC estimates partially based on BP data (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2_emis/Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2009.xls). --Jklamo (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You might be right regarding BP data quality, however it is interesting that BP data of 2008 indicates higher global CO2 emissions than UN data even excluding cement production. 84.237.204.241 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Janis Brizs

2010 data - lack of units suggests 10-fold error in tonne CO2/sq km and tonne CO2/person The 2010 data gives unit emissions of CO2, both in CO2 per unit of land area and per person. There is no indication of the units, which are normally reported elsewhere in tonne CO2/km and tonne CO2/person, eg, Wikipedia at List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita. Based on the primary data in the table, the unit values given on current page under comment (List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions), are for 100 kg CO2/km and 100 kg/person. Perhaps an error in calculation? The page should be amended [am not skilled to do this yet]. Change the headings to ‘normal’ units, ie, • CO2 Emissions (tonne CO2/sq km) • CO2 Emissions (tonne CO2/person)

and change the respective data by dividing the previous values by 10, though better to recalculate from primary data in the table, and round the results to whole numbers. Also best to change the heading for each country’s emissions to “CO2 Emissions[14] (thousand tonne)” to assist reading. And leave out the redundant “metric” which is in the current text which says, “annual CO2 emissions estimates (in thousands of CO2 metric tonnes)” [my emphasis]. Read Wiki’s style guide on preferred use of SI units. Hjlwright (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC) ....A friend of mine skilled in this data, made this comment to me, but he wasn't able to log in and edit. I paste his comments here for someone else to check.... at the end, under 2010 data, 2nd part of comments. There’s an error, some data is out by a factor of 10! Look at the per capita CO2 values. Note, these are CO2 only, not CO2e, which of course is bigger [may be by say 30%]. (Spelio (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)signed Spelio) ...........

The data currently available at the CDIAC website are in units of carbon. (They are mislabled on the spreadsheet as being units of carbon dioxide.) According to CDIAC's protocol, explained elsewhere on their website, the units of carbon should be multiplied by 3.667 to obtain equivalent units of carbon dioxide. Making this calculation with data currently available on the CDIAC website results in slightly different numbers than those now in this article. Perhaps the source data have been updated? DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Emissions per person?

What are the units for the "emissions per person" table in the final table? The units are quoted as "thousand metric tons," but I can't see any way to make the World emissions per person, 33,508,901 thousand metric tons divided by 6,852,472,823 people equal 49 thousand metric tons per person. It looks more like 4.9 metric tons per person. I think somebody missed a decimal point, and the units are wrongly quoted.

So I corrected the numbers, and put the units (tons per person per year) in the table explanation.

Likewise, the emissions per square km seems to be wrong. Instead of correcting the wrong numbers, I just deleted them, since I can't think of any particular reason why this is interesting (it's equal to population density times emission per person; why is the population density important?) If it's important, I did leave the land areas in the table, so the data is there to calculate it. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I also don't think there's a good purpose for keeping both the 2009 estimated list and also the 2010 estimated list in the article. We already have the (long) 2008 list; I think it's sufficient to update that with the 2010 preliminary estimate, and we don't need to keep the 2009 preliminary estimate. (It would be nice if somebody could find and post final values, instead of just these preliminary ones)Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there an error in Australia's ranking

I notice Australia is ranked as #7, however the emissions are 399,21 / 1.32% which are lower than 16th placed Canada. Error, or is this ranked per capita? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bprazner (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

EU double counting

How is it that EU has a listing and then underneath individual states are listed? Is this double counting or twice the polution? This data looks very dodgy indead.

Because math allowes for it. It's not like that column is called "% of emissions between these countries" - it's called "% of world emissions". Try to add them up and you'll get more than 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.30.129 (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no cumulative EU / Eurozone emissions figure on this list???

Normally the Europas are only too happy to have their entries on "lists of countries" aren't they? GDP, trade and so on. The reason is that if you add up European emissions, it would easily exceed US emissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.99.135 (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well someone would have to take the time to add them all up. Being that it's mostly EU-ers that care the most of the EU, they have that natural bias to do that grunt work, unless its in a negative light. But if you want to make that list, go right ahead.Woody60707 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Why is there no cumulative EU" ---> there is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.250.30.129 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The EU as itself should not even be there as it is not a _country_ by itself however as above is said US is. However if people want grouping it should done by all areas, middle east, africa, india surroundings and asia exluding china. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.147.59 (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

2009 data

2009 data are already at UN site. I start updating at User:Jklamo/List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions. Feel free to help (but use template:In use), sorted data are on https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AscXr7ehAHlydHBVNGFnUHlNTjlZWWJ6eTdORTFZLVE (note that there is decimal mark error). I also removed unnecessary source column (as all data are from CDIAC - although presented by UN), readded ranking column (not sure why was removed) and added columns per capita and per $1 GDP (PPP) (unfortunately 2009 data for per $1 GDP are currently erroneous). --Jklamo (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am updating with 2010 data. I thought this page used to show multiple years, and let people sort by the year they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.164.245.22 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to wade in and change it without raising the issue in the talk page first, but the U.S. percentage is wrong. 4,422,057/31,350,455=14.14%, not 17.33% The math for China is correct, but the U.S. percent is wrong. But, again, I'm not going to wade in and change it without seeing whether whoever put this together has some explanation (and, also because I wouldn't do that without recalculating all the percentages, which I'm too dang lazy to do). Spiff221 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

per capita data

We have a separate article call List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita. So isn't it a bit strange to also have per capita data here? --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The horse race. --chart needed

It would be helpful to see the data in a 2 dimentional chart.

The primary axis would be percapita carbon output.

The secondary axis can be: Most prevalent usage like home heatong and air conditioning. Or percent of total carbon emission (this can help encurrage large countries)

This one is prety good Chart of emissions, population and wealth Perhaps a similar chart could show "percapita usage" and gdp without the log graph..

Tim

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.239.243 (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC) 

Incomplete article

The list of countries is super incomplete! (source 2014).--179.37.128.50 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Australia

Where is Australia on this list? They should be high up on the list of carbon dioxide emissions per capita. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E3:B3D0:3F00:9191:67F3:3EFD:3A7F (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The list is sorted in the wrong order

The list of countries is currently sorted in alphabetical order instead of listing the countries by total emissions. Is it possible to fix this? Jarble (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a sortable list, just use the up/down arrows in the header, the default sort order is a product of the source data and largely immaterial. -Oosh (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a large group of entities listed that are not countries. I understand EU, and continent listings, but there are other numbers which are cluttering the top of the rankings.

Sorting countries by "carbon emission" or by "carbon emission per capita" is not correct. More population would decrease carbon emission capita for any given country. Certainly the solution for this greenhouse gas is not rooted in increasing the population of a country. Countries should be normalized based on land mass. A larger country has a larger CO2 sink (i.e plants and ocean). If you are putting out a large amount of CO2 without the sink....then you are polluting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.199.52 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"Countries should be normalized based on land mass. A larger country has a larger CO2 sink (i.e plants and ocean)." Not necessarily; e.g. Algeria has a very large land mass, but most of it is in the Sahara Desert. Emissions per capita is not a perfect figure-of-merit (a country that's mostly in a very cold area, like Norway or Russia, obviously needs to consume more energy per capita than a country in a temperate zone like France) but it's by far the best measure that anyone has come up with. Sayitclearly (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but the first and third numerically sortable columns appear to sort in "alphabetical" order, so that any number no matter how large or small whose left-most digit is a "1" is "higher" than any number no matter how large or small whose leftmost digit is a "2" etc. In other words, the sortability of these numerical columns is completely useless. (Actually, all three columns do this, but it's less noticeable in the middle column.) Agent Cooper (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

64.229.199.52, you have made a good point. That said, the top three entries on that list, China, US and EU, have annual population growth rate at 0.46%, 0.7% and 0.25% respectively. In addition, the US figure is partly due to immigration, not natural population growth; the China fertility rate is even lower than the population growth rate shows. So the top three all have *very* low population growth rate in reality. I think your blame on "increasing the population of a country" is a bit off. Ahyangyi (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

(on the other hand, I think blaming the top three entries for emitting too much carbon per capita is fair.) Ahyangyi (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Misleading

What is that first chart referring too- world CO2 emissions are 35 gt/year????!##$% They are maybe 10.5gt/year now, AFAIK. Ahhh, that's CARBON (C) emissions vs CO2 emissions (mol. weight 12 vs 44= 3.6x more)- I was always using the first for a decade. first time I noticed actual CO2 weights used, which is probably better, but perhaps there must be a footnote accentuating the difference

omitting the per capita factor makes this an extremely misleading article, in favour of the worst world polluters and nature destroyers, ie USA, CANADA and AUSTRALIA. this article is bad and also biased. mad , Greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.24.152 (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would avoid political invective in your post. However, looking just at information content, you are right that the per-capita number would be a useful good addition. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. As you can see there are a several worse "vandals" than those you, in your bias, chose to highlight. -Oosh (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The second table in the article, "2016 Top Emitters", also needs a per-capita column. Otherwise, the information it presents is so misleading as to be pointless. What does it really tell us, for example, that Japan (population 126 million) emits more CO2 than Saudi Arabia (population 33 million)? It would be astonishing if it did not. Sayitclearly (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is the "European Union" listed with its totals, and then Germany, Spain, UK (2015), etc. are also listed separately? 2606:6000:CFC0:2:6D52:92BD:2B15:45B6 (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a good point, but I would go another step further and say there should be some sort of "treeview" or breakdown beneath both "United States" and "European Union" that expands to show their respective member states' contributions to the union total as a means of better granularity of data. Omnilord (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Per area

This is a meaningless measure that has no place here. CO2 absorption has nothing to do with a country's area as presented here. Sure, Canada's forests absorb CO2, but its permafrost doesn't. Saudi Arabia's deserts do not absorb CO2. CO2 absorption in Australia's outback is not comparable to that of Brazil's forests. And the oceans, which absorb much more than the forests do, don't belong to any country! If you want to "reference how much CO2 can be absorbed", a comparison of emissions to land area does not provide this content. Your supposed source does NOT discuss the relevance of land area to emissions, which is based on population and those people's affluence; this is not a citation for the numbers presented. Per area emissions is not a factor in I = PAT; population and affluence are, which is why per capita and per GDP are listed.

You said "A map that China emits 1000, the US 600, and France 50 is just a size factor." Yes, a POPULATION size factor: China has more people than the US, which has more people than France. The fact that the US and China have approximately the same land area, each with a variety of ecosystems, deserts, mountains, plains, forests, has no relevance whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 00:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate/Misleading Chart

So why is it that the charts group all of the European nations together into a "European Union" category, but then declares Deutschland and Frankreich to be separate nations not a part of the European Union CO2 count? Since the European Union is merely a trade block and not an actual sovereign nation, it would be both prudent and accurate to list the 28 various nation-states' individual CO2 emissions separately on the chart. This would also clear up some misinformation considering that we haven't grouped all of the African, Asian, South American, or North American nations into their respective trade blocks when tallying their numbers as well, which makes these nations appear to pollute less although some of them have less efficient and more environmentally destructive industries in comparison to European nations. It's just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.68.3 (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

When I first viewed this page it caused me concern, mainly for the same reason. I noticed that the European Union values were included as well as some of the 28 countries in the EU which seemed odd. I copied and pasted the table data into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and totaled the kilotons of carbon emissions for all rows in the table except the row labeled "World". My hope was that the calculated total would not equal the value listed for "World", since my total would certainly be counting emissions for the EU countries twice. In fact, my total did not match the "World" total. My total was 37,412,734 kt as compared to 36,061,710 for the "World" value (a difference of 1,351,024 kt). I did not take the time to add up the EU Countries shown to see if that total would equal 1,351,024 kt. In any case, it is at least misleading if not worse to show a value for "World" which implies that it is a sum of all values below it. I similarly checked the % Fossil Fuel CO2 emissions by Country column and found similar discrepancies. This is the first time I checked and commented on a Wiki page as maybe you can notice. It's disheartening for me as now I will lose confidence for all wiki pages in general. WWISCONSIN (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

A similar problem is the separate listings for United States and Puerto Rico (which is part of the United States).

W/r/t your last sentence, WWISCONSIN, I'm sorry that I cannot reassure you. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source for anything controversial. Inevitably, partisans for one side of the argument take over the articles, and turn them into propaganda. Gender issues and climate change are particularly notorious examples, but you really cannot trust Wikipedia for information about anything controversial.

Since Wikipedia czar Jimbo Wales is a confirmed leftist, his thumb on the scale ensures that that side of the argument generally "wins" on Wikipedia. E.g., when activists on a controversial issue rewrote thousands of articles, censoring them to prevent any but the leftist point of view from being represented, Jimbo Wales cheered them on.

Wikipedia is fine for looking up data cable pinouts.

And in other news, Captain Renault is shocked! shocked! to find that gambling is going on in a casino. NCdave (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The data is collected by the EDGAR group which is an EU organisation, hence their interest in EU totals. Since the article is of political interest, and CO2 emission allowance will be decided collectively in the EU, I think this is consistent. If you have good reason for removing the EU I can take it out. My personal opinion is that it provides more useful information that saves people adding up numbers themselves, and is not an arbitrary geographical grouping (policy decisions are actually made by the EU-28). Mgcontr (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Up to date ?

2015 - is this really the newest information available?

109.40.2.107 (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - would love to see more recent data. Where is this data coming from, and how is it calculated etc ? Perhaps a paragraph about this as well

The graphs come from the EDGAR database. I just updated them to reflect data in the 2018 report. Mgcontr (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Cumulative sum of per capita emissions per year not meaningful

FYI in updating the blue bar charts I removed the comparison of cumulative emissions with per capita values. From a mathematical/scientific point of few I don't think it is meaningful to sum emissions per capita. Populations are always changing, so the sum of a ratio is not really meaningful. Extreme example Montserrat lost a huge amount of its population when the volcano erupted and 8000 people moved to UK. Now Montserrat has a very high per capita CO2 emission. If it keeps going this way it will start to be comparable to USA's cumulative emissions by summing. This is meaningless though. Montserrat is a tiny island. I can't imagine how cumulative CO2 per capita emissions would ever be useable. Mgcontr (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Graph on right, starting at "Bahrain"

This graph covers data. Can it be made collapsible? Gerry Myers--84.109.189.94 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Charts not matching

The charts for total CO2 emissions 2017 has the values in gigatons though the table shows that same numeric value as megatons. This becomes more obvious when you look at the cumulative 1990-2017 chart which also is in gigatons. The interesting part being the cumulative totals for a country are less then the single year total. Alklaver (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)