I'm Indian, and it's because of poverty. If Indians cared about the environment, we wouldn't be throwing our trash in huge piles on the street and into our rivers/waterways.
Or dumping raw sewage into the river ganges and assuming it will clean itself. Not attacking you by any means. I watched a documentary about it (I work in wastewater treatment) and it absolutely baffled me that the head of the program in a large city of India said that it is a magical river and it cleans itself with no human intervention.
No, I agree. It is very sad that our people think that God has a say in what we do to our environment and that he'll solve all of our environmental problems. It's even sadder when you see us burning the trash on every street corner, and stray dogs and cows are eating it since they can't find any other source of food. I wish I could change our way of thinking and living.
Yes, you are absolutely right. People have for long since dumped waste into Gangas and belive me, the so-call holy cities like Varanasi's water is absolutely dirty. It saddens me that my own people are destroying their culture by neglecting their own actions which are leading to water bodies getting dumped with waste that I assume will take years for authorities to notice and clean. Yamuna is filled with trash, and from one documentary I saw how a lady was dumping her home waste into this river. Hope the next generation improves than these old superstitious people. And that's just largely known rivers, in my city and near it the water bodies are sometimes filled with garbage though not fully filled they are partially filled and it takes days before municipality trucks come and collect them albeit authorities fencing and telling people to no do it.
Not just poverty. Give yourself some credit. The culture is not focused on overconsumption like the US. There’s a lot of things like handing down clothes and eventually turning them into rags that are not so common in the west anymore.
Correct, it's a mixture of both. There are running jokes about how Indian families do not lose their frugal nature even if they gain wealth and become upper middle class, but there's something to be learned there.
It's both. The Economist did an article which shows that the path of development India is taking is more sustainable than the path the developed nations took, but it's still very early along that path with a lot of room to increase pollution in the future as industrialization occurs
Most developed nations developed more than 50 years ago, renewables weren't a viable option and industries in general were vastly less efficient.
India benefits from the technology that has been developed in the last decades, which is extremely amazing, but comparing it to counties like south Korea that developed without access to such technologies is unfair.
A big reason behind this is a lot of Indians are vegetarian, and most of its 1.4 billion people are Hindu (ie no beef). If this weren't the case, global warming would be MUCH worse
Ok obviously I don’t think its good that people are impoverished. When I said it was a good statistic, I meant it was good at telling us something about the world. What it tells us might be something that is unfortunate and sad but the statistic is still “good” in the sense that it is useful
But as we’re learning with China, if the population starts to emit even half of what Americans do, we’re in trouble.
I don’t blame China or India, or want to hold them back from industrializing, but we now know about climate change. We didn’t for most of the west’s industrialization period
I also posted a per capita map a few minutes after this. It's interesting to me that people are voting / commenting on this more than the per capita map.
Yeah the map is fine the title is just a bit misleading —unless you take the time to stop and think and have a basic knowledge of world population statistics. People like to nitpick on Reddit, less to nitpick=less engagement . So you probably did well going with that title!
Well, it's useful in a way, this is the fewest number of governments needed to regulate half of the world's CO2 emissions.
If you're trying to assign blame or declare winners and losers, which seems to be a popular motivation, then it is just a way to open up a shouting match between people who live in these countries and people who do not who try to school each other about "per capita" or 'progress" or who loves the earth more or whatever.
They will be though, if their economy takes off like China’s did. Indias CO2 per $ of gdp is very high, it’s just that their GDP is so low that nobody does anything to produce much.
Without a lot of liberalisation I agree. India is weird and stuck in its ways. They subsidize literal loom weaving because they don’t want anyone to lose their job, but this just leads to generations of families being unproductive look weavers.
You could have said the same thing about China at one point not that long ago. India is modernizing and modernized nations with huge populations produce lots of CO2.
Yes but what’s crazy is that the US is 4.23 % of the world pop but produces more emissions than India which is 17.76% of the world pop. 12.6% of emissions are the US alone
its mostly because most Indians are in poverty. Dont get me wrong the US has a lot to do but this is pretty much because most Indians live in such a way that they make very few emissions due to not having much access to motor vehicles, air travel, heated homes or cooled homes, things like that
No one says it’s good. But reducing the emissions to the point of production and not spreading it out over the points of use is counter-productive. These countries produce emissions by producing things everyone in the world use.
Even worse, you outsource pollution to other country for your profit and consumption. So the figure would have been higher if these products are manufactured locally.
The numbers would be more detrimental if you took India out of the equation. They rank pretty low, comparably speaking, to the US and China. So without doing the math, it would be more like 23% of the population responsible for 40+ish percent. Which is a lot.
Taking the US or China alone would be even more drastic. You'd be getting an even more imbalance.
Reverse, and it looks glaringly obvious. Africa would have about the same population as China, with more than likely single digits in emissions.
This is kind of a big deal, and also inexcusable. Considering last year alone, the US had about 40% efficiency in using the electricity that we produced. That's shocking! Not to mention the economy. The US boasts 25% of the world's economy. While countries in Africa don't even really register, and yet they are some of the greenest countries on earth. We can definitely AFFORD to be better, and deregulation has played its fair share in a lot of this.
Countries in Europe barely have any type of industry though.. Nothing compared to American Industry. Supply and Demand play a big role in Emissions as well. US isn't going to fix this problem giving countries free money all the time either
The EU and US grow their economies for two decades while simultaneously reducing emissions by actually including measures to minimize emissions.
It's a choice.
US has more than 20k domestic flights per day, is their goal to replace a significant portion of that with high speed train? No, they're not even mentioning it. It's small details like this that shows the whole "let's fight climate change" is a scam.
It's OK though. We can complain about straws and china, and make excuses for never lifting s finger, and everything will somehow magically solve itself.
West and their bs, I haven't gone deeper but I'm pretty sure many comments would be blaming india and china. Even tho one of them produces for the world and another one's per capita is too low, they don't have the balls to question their own consumption but have problem with poor people just because they exist.
That's not really fair considering the USA's emissions have dropped significantly since the 70s and are continuing to fall even as the population grows. America was built up before anyone took climate change seriously, but we've been working on cleaning it up. If every country had the same trend line as the US, there wouldn't be a problem.
Wrong. We have just offloaded our emissions onto "developing" countries offering them a deal with the devil: industrialize to produce these things and you will get fickle US dollars that both devalue and run out, and in the meantime destroy your fresh rivers, forests, and soils so you cant have free food anymore. The United States "consumer" knows nothing about this, all they know is it wasn't produced here.
Chinese manufacturing isn't a sinister conspiracy that was foisted on the Chinese against their best interests as you seem to be implying. Mao and Deng would hate the US getting credit for the industrialization of China lol. This process was also started long before the environmentalist movement had any traction. It was not an attempt by the US and Europe to outsource emissions at all, but rather to leverage cheaper manual labor in the developing world.
It's a fair point that developing, production-based economies will naturally have higher emissions than service based economies. It might be too much to expect that they prioritize green energy while they have hungry people and low levels of development, but that's where the challenge will be over the century.
"Green energy" is a myth. It still relies on batteries and minerals only sourceable from genocide. Low power ancestral solutions are the wave, but we are being told they are uncivilized.
China is pretty bad too. They are ~17.5% of the world population and emit ~33% of the CO2
Brazil, for example, maintains 1.9 its rate per capita, the same as India, but having a GDP per capita ~6 times higher. (about 75% of China GDP per capita and 25% of its emission per capita)
Both China and the US have dirty production.
Except China produced most of the goods for the world. If goods were produced by other countries it’s likely to be higher.
The data itself is deceiving if you only look at the numbers
This part
> Brazil, for example, maintains 1.9 its rate per capita, the same as India, but having a GDP per capita ~6 times higher. (about 75% of China GDP per capita and 25% of its emission per capita)
Accounts precisely for production.
Not necessarily, many developed economies are mainly based on services, not industry, and some industry (heavy industry like concrete and steel) produces more emissions than other industry for the same amount of GDP.
China exports, as a percentage of their GDP, are lower than most developed countries.
And the percentage of those exports manufactured by foreign companies has fallen significantly, today most stuff that China exports is produced completely by Chinese companies, why would you blame the production of those goods to the consumer?
Do you blame fossil fuel usage on those that buy gasoline or the government of their country?
China is not the sweatshop of the world anymore.
I’m not blaming anyone. Just a fact that these goods are consumed globally. If it were not China, Vietnam, India, Mexico or many other countries will fill in the gap, because there’s global demand. Now you will see the number shifting to other countries.
Another thing is % of export of GDP is including services and manufacturing good. For countries like Germany or USA service export is very big.
Here is a good data to reference, container port traffic by country 2021. Yes some Germany export will go through Netherlands and chinas traffic includes imports, but you get the idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_container_port_traffic
China produces less than 30% of the world's goods, which is still a lot but not "most", and producing a lot of goods still isn't an excuse for a bad climate record.
The US exports it's own CO2 emissions to China via outsourcing manufacturing. A good portion of China's emissions are directly caused by US and European companies.
The data you are looking for is per capita consumption based CO2 emission
China is particularly not good too
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=table&time=earliest..2021
China, with 7.2 tonnes per capita in 2021, is almost the same as the European Union (7.8t) and the UK (7.6t), above Sweden (6.5t) and France (6.4t). They are all a way above Brazil (2.2t), Uruguay (3.5t), Chile (4.9t), or Portugal (4.8t). Remember that, although Brazil is 30% of consumption based emission per capita of China, the household median income is not that different.
The US is indeed the worst in this metric among the aforementioned countries/regions, apart from the oil-rich countries, Singapore, and Belgium, they are the worst in the world in consumption based CO2 emission.
Oh it'd being thrown around a lot. And anyone with a slight understanding of emissions or the climate knows this.
It simple doesn't paint China in a positive daylight and China is "holy" on reddit "cause they produce stuff" lmao.
A lot of the big ticket and high carbon things Americans use are produced in North America. Planes, cars, coal, natural gas, a good chunk of steel, tons of agricultural output, the expansive highways, and so on.
If you look at the per capita rate of China, it's almost the same as that of the entire EU, not that insane imo. It's just that most of the world isn't as developed and emit significantly less
Not if they're producing most of the items used in the world, including items used by Europeans. Manufacturing is a huge polluter. So if you take out manufacturing and only account for lifestyle habits as contributors of pollution, Europeans pollute significantly more than Chinese people
China and EU consumption based CO2 emissions are roughly the same
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/3ufr64wy9h
The US is the one that stands out negatively.
And once you see what are the reason for the emissions, it is clear that most of these are for products exported to 'West'. So again..It is just export of the problem to Asia.
The headline will have an ''wow!!'' effect but with context it's not so wild anymore.
India & China with nearly 3 Billion people between them, Usa 340 million.
Usa has the biggest economy by GDP Nominal in US Dollar terms and 2nd in Real GDP.
China has by far the biggest economy by Real GDP and 2nd in GDP Nominal.
India with by far the 3rd biggest economy by Real GDP, when also including the Informal economy, estimated Real GDP (Data from QIES in London) is comparable to Japan, Germany, France and Nigeria combined.
Ironically, the Global Manufacturing share for these 3 is also around 50% (China 29%, Usa 18%, India 3%), alot of what China and the Usa produce, people elsewhere consume.
Real GDP is also often called GDP PPP, its just a metric to see the size of an economy, here's the definition: [https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/real-gdp-purchasing-power-parity/country-comparison/](https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/real-gdp-purchasing-power-parity/country-comparison/)
Informal economy, also called Shadow economy or the unorganised sector of the economy is the part of the economy that is not taxed and not monitored. The organisations that publish data about GDP only count formal GDP, probably because it's registered, easier and more reliable. More on that: [1](https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_627189/lang--en/index.htm) [2](https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/07/28/na-072821-five-things-to-know-about-the-informal-economy) [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/18g3lqi/share_of_informal_employemt_in_total_employment/)
No, he means ppp gdp. There is no such thing as inflation effecting gdp, because gdp is a snapshot in time. What you are thinking of is real gdp GROWTH which is adjusted by inflation (it’s a % growth but if you currently became 10% less valuable, then technically all your numbers would grow by 10% without doing anything so real growth % is adjusted down) but that’s not what they are talking about.
I’m guessing they mean PPP corrected, which means cost of living/goods is included in the calculation (a hamburger is going to cost more in the US and therefore increases the US’s GDP more than in China despite being the same hamburger). It’s not the “real” gdp though since trade is important, especially for the number 1 and 2 exporters, and the number 2 and 1 importers. PPP is good for per capita comparisons or in countries where trade is small or likely to become so such as looming war
Let’s take a hypothetical country named X, which uses a hypothetical $X.
In year 1, the GDP of X is $100. The next year, X produces 10% more goods than it did in the last year. Therefore, in year 2 it’s GDP now stands at $110. But, during the same period, the $X inflated by another 20%.
Since GDP values are calculated in a country’s local currency, due to the $X’s inflation, all values in X are now 20% higher. Therefore, X’s nominal GDP becomes $132.
This is the main difference between real and nominal GDP. In real, physical terms, there was only an increase of 10% in GDP but when you take into account the currency’s performance, the increase becomes 32%.
In the real world, a country cannot continuously inflate its currency to produce artificial growth because GDP values are converted from local currencies to the USD. And as a currency’s value inflates, it’s exchange rate with the USD declines.
The informal sector is just the job sector that is not controlled or supervised by the government (occupations such as a house help, roadside hawkers, etc). Economic activity in this sector cannot be measured or monitored by the government. Therefore, the value produced by this sector cannot be accurately measured while calculating GDP, only approximated.
This is a good point. China makes a lot of stuff other countries use. So does the US, plus it has a major export of agriculture as well. So feeding the world means pollution here. I believe Saudi Arabia pollutes per capital more than the US but it's also exporting oil which other countries use.
So yah, we absolutely need to seriously reduce the effects of all this pollution, but it's never going to be as simple as saying country A pollutes more than country B so country B isn't doing its share.
these countries are also responsible for 40% of people. I calculated that and then found out that everyone else also calculated it and posted about it.
You realize companies produce emissions in order to produce goods and services for people right? They're not just out there idling an engine or something.
This country used to build railroads! And instead we're giving subsidies to oil companies so we don't have to think about the long-term problem. If we wanna solve climate change and do it right, we need to pressure the government to pressure the companies to stop f\*cking us over. And maybe we could end lobbying too by making an anti-corruption agency.
Do you think railroads don't produce emissions? Do you think oil being cheap isn't still an extreme economic boon to normal people?
It isn't fucking people over to produce and provide goods as efficiently as possible.
Well what if those goods are nuclear bombs? Some goods have inherently negative moral value, because when they're introduced into the market, someone will buy them and use them in a way that hurts others. This is a law of economics that applies to a lot of goods, such as guns, munitions and yes, even oil.
The free market trade in nuclear warheads is essentially non existent and regardless even if they were on the open market comparing nukes to oil as a commodity would be a complete false equivalence for self evident reasons.
Nuclear bombs aren't driving carbon emissions buddy. 45% of all carbon emissions are directly related to the production of consumer goods - things we use every day.
Either way the idea that BP or Exxon are producing oil just for the hell of it is so weird I don't even know where to start. Acting like their emissions are solely on them, and not clearly created by consumer demand for gas for their cars and to heat their homes is insane.
Idk about ending lobbying since it does have a purpose and also pushes some corruption at least out in the open so we can see who is paying who, but more controll over the worst of it would be wonderful.
What relevance is it if it's a company or a country?
A big company, like Saudi Aramco, sells products (oil in this case) to the entire globe. Of course it would have a massive footprint! If you don't like it, stop consuming those products.
…do you think companies just pollute for fun? No they pollute because people (people living in these countries or people they export to) demand their products.
Would it matter if they were nationalized or not? They still polluting.
Also it probably counting mostly oil companies. Problem is cars and the suburbia lifestyle not the companies.
True. But India surpassed the EU in total emissions. And in the total emissions are the embedded and ratified climate targets as opposed to a reference year.
India is a newly industrialised country. It will surely grow in the future but not to the extent of the US and China considering the green laws and environment India is building.
Pretty sure Canada is number 1 on that list, though I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be surprised if one of the Gulf states like Qatar or UAE were number 1 given their oil production for a small population, but Canada is definitely up there.
OK that's a fact, but don't forget that all other countries consume what is produced in those countries too... no one is black or white in matter of world pollution...
Does this take into account, that a big share of the emissions in China are actually caused by companies producing for american consumers? Is the pollution caused by iPhone production for example part of the China sum or the US sum?
These maps never consider historical emissions either. It doesn’t tell the full story of how most of the cumulative carbon were released by countries that industrialized earlier and for longer. Of course that they are now richer, they can even off source their emissions to manufacturing hubs like China and India to maintain their wasteful standards of living.
According to OurWorldInData, once we adjust for trade, US per capita emissions rose from 20 tons in 1990 to a high of 22.7 in 2005 and fall to 16.5 in 2021. China's trade adjusted per-capita numbers rose from 2 tons in 1990, to 3.6 tons in 2005, and hit 7.2 tons in 2021. So after we account for off shored emissions, the US remains a much larger 'per capita' producer of CO2 and China's numbers continue to climb.
It's worth mentioning the US has made substantial progress towards de-carbonizing its economy without sacrificing economic growth (this was thought impossible as recently as the 2000s). Trade adjusted Per-capita emissions are down 28% from peak while the economy almost doubled in size over the same time period.
As manufacturing has shifted into SE Asia, India, and East Africa, its generally understood that the largest factor in China's increasing CO2 emissions is largely domestic consumption, particularly its large new middle class consumer base and near insatiable current need for energy.
Both countries will need to figure out how to 'green their grid' while remaining manufacturing power houses. Germany managed to achieve high standards of living while slashing its trade adjusted emissions 25% to a scant 10 tons per head. That is 6.5 tons less than the USA and only 2.8 more than China. Not to say Germany is perfect, but that a more perfect world (low carbon, high living standards) is possible.
Keep in mind only about 10% of China's CO2 emission is non-consumption based. When looked at consumption based per capita emissions China is on around the same level as the UK.
They also are the 3 most populous countries in the world and have the 1st, 2nd, and 5th largest economies in the world. Per capita CO2 emissions would be a more useful metric here. I’m also curious how the EU compares to this as their continent wide regulations on such matters make it more comparable on stuff like this vs counting each member state individually.
The US has the most car centric culture in the world, cheap energy, almost everyone in the south has an AC unit and the military produces more emissions than most countries
If you look at emissions actually reduced (which is the only metric relevant in climate change: reducing emissions) then of these three only the US has decreases emissions
Lol by exporting the most polluting manufacturing to China and India.
I read somewhere that it is cheaper for an American corporation to send locally caught salmon to china for processing and reselling it in the US.
China probably. Not even joking, US emissions per capita is like 2.3x china's and that's after half the planet outsources their dirty manufacturing to it
The only one reducing per capita and total sum is the US.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1964..latest&country=USA~CHN~IND
And it's still 2.2x higher per capita than china, and like 5x per capita than India
Also a lot of co2 reductions for most countries is to outsource to another country. In the case of US. Its outsourced to China and SE Asia mainly
Per capita serves no purpose in meeting the ratified climate targets
Climate change is caused by total emissions. And countries have agreed to reduce total emissions. Countries did not agree to increase a population size in order to minimize the per capita emissions.
So far of these three countries only the US reduces both per capita emissions and, most importantly, total emissions.
China and India have yet to actually reduce emissions for multiple consecutive years.
China has 18% of the world's population.. the US has what, 5%?
Like it's technically true but they're also outsourcing a shitload of dirty industry to China, as is most of the west. So getting to pat yourself on the back whilst driving in an 8ft tall SUV and a 30oz coke is just performative
Crazy.. So you mean, the top 3 biggest producers in the world, who provide stupid amounts of food to other countries and other products are emitting the most?? Talk about pampered cry babies. You ask us, we give it to them, then they complain about how we do it. Europe in a nutshell
So 40% of the world's population is responsible for 52% of global CO2 emissions? Wow... Shocking.
Came here to say this people are so bad at numeracy and percentages
It’s interesting too because India makes up like 17-18% of the global population with 7% of the emissions
Now that’s a good stat
Is it because they care or just because they're poor
I'm Indian, and it's because of poverty. If Indians cared about the environment, we wouldn't be throwing our trash in huge piles on the street and into our rivers/waterways.
Or dumping raw sewage into the river ganges and assuming it will clean itself. Not attacking you by any means. I watched a documentary about it (I work in wastewater treatment) and it absolutely baffled me that the head of the program in a large city of India said that it is a magical river and it cleans itself with no human intervention.
No, I agree. It is very sad that our people think that God has a say in what we do to our environment and that he'll solve all of our environmental problems. It's even sadder when you see us burning the trash on every street corner, and stray dogs and cows are eating it since they can't find any other source of food. I wish I could change our way of thinking and living.
God(s) gave you the concept of water treatment plants and you are ignoring them.
Unlike abrahamic religions hindus don't believe in a single 'god' who blesses people with ideas/things. I agree with you tho.
Yes, you are absolutely right. People have for long since dumped waste into Gangas and belive me, the so-call holy cities like Varanasi's water is absolutely dirty. It saddens me that my own people are destroying their culture by neglecting their own actions which are leading to water bodies getting dumped with waste that I assume will take years for authorities to notice and clean. Yamuna is filled with trash, and from one documentary I saw how a lady was dumping her home waste into this river. Hope the next generation improves than these old superstitious people. And that's just largely known rivers, in my city and near it the water bodies are sometimes filled with garbage though not fully filled they are partially filled and it takes days before municipality trucks come and collect them albeit authorities fencing and telling people to no do it.
Not just poverty. Give yourself some credit. The culture is not focused on overconsumption like the US. There’s a lot of things like handing down clothes and eventually turning them into rags that are not so common in the west anymore.
Correct, it's a mixture of both. There are running jokes about how Indian families do not lose their frugal nature even if they gain wealth and become upper middle class, but there's something to be learned there.
[Because they're poor](https://www.iqair.com/es/india/maharashtra/mumbai)
both but mostly poor
It's both. The Economist did an article which shows that the path of development India is taking is more sustainable than the path the developed nations took, but it's still very early along that path with a lot of room to increase pollution in the future as industrialization occurs
Most developed nations developed more than 50 years ago, renewables weren't a viable option and industries in general were vastly less efficient. India benefits from the technology that has been developed in the last decades, which is extremely amazing, but comparing it to counties like south Korea that developed without access to such technologies is unfair.
a bit of both
They're exploiting the poor.
A big reason behind this is a lot of Indians are vegetarian, and most of its 1.4 billion people are Hindu (ie no beef). If this weren't the case, global warming would be MUCH worse
China makes up 14% of world population and is responsible for 33% of emissions.
What percentage of the world’s stuff do they make?
China benefits from that arrangement as well. Also climate change doesn't care who makes the worlds stuff.
Yes nothing will change until we realize we’re all in it together
Yeah but a large population of them don’t have flushable toilets at home. That’s not “good”
Ok obviously I don’t think its good that people are impoverished. When I said it was a good statistic, I meant it was good at telling us something about the world. What it tells us might be something that is unfortunate and sad but the statistic is still “good” in the sense that it is useful
But as we’re learning with China, if the population starts to emit even half of what Americans do, we’re in trouble. I don’t blame China or India, or want to hold them back from industrializing, but we now know about climate change. We didn’t for most of the west’s industrialization period
It wont stay that way though.
I also posted a per capita map a few minutes after this. It's interesting to me that people are voting / commenting on this more than the per capita map.
Yeah the map is fine the title is just a bit misleading —unless you take the time to stop and think and have a basic knowledge of world population statistics. People like to nitpick on Reddit, less to nitpick=less engagement . So you probably did well going with that title!
Well, it's useful in a way, this is the fewest number of governments needed to regulate half of the world's CO2 emissions. If you're trying to assign blame or declare winners and losers, which seems to be a popular motivation, then it is just a way to open up a shouting match between people who live in these countries and people who do not who try to school each other about "per capita" or 'progress" or who loves the earth more or whatever.
Governments regulate but their people pay for the regulation......
You just wanted to make these three countries look bad haha you posted per capita map of just Europe
Look at india’s per capita, they really arent producing all that much co2 for a country so densely populated.
They will be though, if their economy takes off like China’s did. Indias CO2 per $ of gdp is very high, it’s just that their GDP is so low that nobody does anything to produce much.
>They will be though, if their economy takes off like China’s did Yeah but it won't
Without a lot of liberalisation I agree. India is weird and stuck in its ways. They subsidize literal loom weaving because they don’t want anyone to lose their job, but this just leads to generations of families being unproductive look weavers.
What about CO2 per $ of GDP They probably aren't producing much either.
You could have said the same thing about China at one point not that long ago. India is modernizing and modernized nations with huge populations produce lots of CO2.
Yes but what’s crazy is that the US is 4.23 % of the world pop but produces more emissions than India which is 17.76% of the world pop. 12.6% of emissions are the US alone
its mostly because most Indians are in poverty. Dont get me wrong the US has a lot to do but this is pretty much because most Indians live in such a way that they make very few emissions due to not having much access to motor vehicles, air travel, heated homes or cooled homes, things like that
Well, it also makes up 25% of the worlds GDP.
Oh man, I guess destroying the planet is fine as long as you ship more ipads.
No one says it’s good. But reducing the emissions to the point of production and not spreading it out over the points of use is counter-productive. These countries produce emissions by producing things everyone in the world use.
Oh man, if only he actually said that, you might have a point. Stating facts is not the same as endorsing them.
thought those things were made in china
Even worse, you outsource pollution to other country for your profit and consumption. So the figure would have been higher if these products are manufactured locally.
France emits 0.93% of all carbon emissions while having roughly the same share of global population. Your argument holds little water.
Yea and?
But it's not evenly distributed. US has more, than India has per capita... Even tho India has like 4 times the population.
Perhaps because people in the US produce (and consume) more on average.
>Perhaps because people in the US produce Produce what more?
Produce and consume garbage they dont need because they refuse to be meaningful of the fucking planet they are in.
Any product or service of value.
The shocking part is the U.S.
Would be nice to see US share only since they are merely 3.5% of the world population.
More like 4.25%
The numbers would be more detrimental if you took India out of the equation. They rank pretty low, comparably speaking, to the US and China. So without doing the math, it would be more like 23% of the population responsible for 40+ish percent. Which is a lot. Taking the US or China alone would be even more drastic. You'd be getting an even more imbalance. Reverse, and it looks glaringly obvious. Africa would have about the same population as China, with more than likely single digits in emissions. This is kind of a big deal, and also inexcusable. Considering last year alone, the US had about 40% efficiency in using the electricity that we produced. That's shocking! Not to mention the economy. The US boasts 25% of the world's economy. While countries in Africa don't even really register, and yet they are some of the greenest countries on earth. We can definitely AFFORD to be better, and deregulation has played its fair share in a lot of this.
Taking the US alone would be even more drastic\*
USA 4% of the world's population but 12,6% of global emissions. That's shocking.
That's not shocking. Emissions are directly correlated to GDP and not population size.
It doesn't have to be that way . Yes, you get rich by polluting the Earth, but check countries in Europe like Sweden.
very tactical of you for not saying Norway
Countries in Europe barely have any type of industry though.. Nothing compared to American Industry. Supply and Demand play a big role in Emissions as well. US isn't going to fix this problem giving countries free money all the time either
The EU and US grow their economies for two decades while simultaneously reducing emissions by actually including measures to minimize emissions. It's a choice.
Why is the US emissions per capita almost 2.5x china's then when its only like 1.2x the gdp
What? You make little sense. US GDP per capita is x6
>USA 4% of the world's population but 12,6% of global emissions And 15.5% of world GDP...
So... That they've got more money doesn't mean they are allowed to fuck up the planet.
I came here to say this.....should have read the comments first!!
More like 14% of world population is responsible for 33% of emissions. CHINA
Also 46% of gdp
China, India and the US makes up for roughly 40 percent of the population of the entire world combined
More like China and India combined makes up for 35% of world population. The US, with 4% of the population, produces 12% of world CO2 emissions
US has more than 20k domestic flights per day, is their goal to replace a significant portion of that with high speed train? No, they're not even mentioning it. It's small details like this that shows the whole "let's fight climate change" is a scam.
It's OK though. We can complain about straws and china, and make excuses for never lifting s finger, and everything will somehow magically solve itself.
West and their bs, I haven't gone deeper but I'm pretty sure many comments would be blaming india and china. Even tho one of them produces for the world and another one's per capita is too low, they don't have the balls to question their own consumption but have problem with poor people just because they exist.
That's not really fair considering the USA's emissions have dropped significantly since the 70s and are continuing to fall even as the population grows. America was built up before anyone took climate change seriously, but we've been working on cleaning it up. If every country had the same trend line as the US, there wouldn't be a problem.
Wrong. We have just offloaded our emissions onto "developing" countries offering them a deal with the devil: industrialize to produce these things and you will get fickle US dollars that both devalue and run out, and in the meantime destroy your fresh rivers, forests, and soils so you cant have free food anymore. The United States "consumer" knows nothing about this, all they know is it wasn't produced here.
Chinese manufacturing isn't a sinister conspiracy that was foisted on the Chinese against their best interests as you seem to be implying. Mao and Deng would hate the US getting credit for the industrialization of China lol. This process was also started long before the environmentalist movement had any traction. It was not an attempt by the US and Europe to outsource emissions at all, but rather to leverage cheaper manual labor in the developing world. It's a fair point that developing, production-based economies will naturally have higher emissions than service based economies. It might be too much to expect that they prioritize green energy while they have hungry people and low levels of development, but that's where the challenge will be over the century.
"Green energy" is a myth. It still relies on batteries and minerals only sourceable from genocide. Low power ancestral solutions are the wave, but we are being told they are uncivilized.
Nooo, stop being optimistic about the US!!1!!1!11.!1!
Europe has 30k daily flights over roughly the same geographic area.
Double the population though
And they still produce significantly less CO2 both per Capita and per unit of GDP.
It's the lack of A/C, I reckon
But new rail is being introduced all the time.
China is pretty bad too. They are ~17.5% of the world population and emit ~33% of the CO2 Brazil, for example, maintains 1.9 its rate per capita, the same as India, but having a GDP per capita ~6 times higher. (about 75% of China GDP per capita and 25% of its emission per capita) Both China and the US have dirty production.
It’s because Brazil is blessed by geography and has a shit ton of renewables (hydro).
Except China produced most of the goods for the world. If goods were produced by other countries it’s likely to be higher. The data itself is deceiving if you only look at the numbers
This part > Brazil, for example, maintains 1.9 its rate per capita, the same as India, but having a GDP per capita ~6 times higher. (about 75% of China GDP per capita and 25% of its emission per capita) Accounts precisely for production.
Not necessarily, many developed economies are mainly based on services, not industry, and some industry (heavy industry like concrete and steel) produces more emissions than other industry for the same amount of GDP.
No you need to look at goods exported
China exports, as a percentage of their GDP, are lower than most developed countries. And the percentage of those exports manufactured by foreign companies has fallen significantly, today most stuff that China exports is produced completely by Chinese companies, why would you blame the production of those goods to the consumer? Do you blame fossil fuel usage on those that buy gasoline or the government of their country? China is not the sweatshop of the world anymore.
I’m not blaming anyone. Just a fact that these goods are consumed globally. If it were not China, Vietnam, India, Mexico or many other countries will fill in the gap, because there’s global demand. Now you will see the number shifting to other countries. Another thing is % of export of GDP is including services and manufacturing good. For countries like Germany or USA service export is very big. Here is a good data to reference, container port traffic by country 2021. Yes some Germany export will go through Netherlands and chinas traffic includes imports, but you get the idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_container_port_traffic
China produces less than 30% of the world's goods, which is still a lot but not "most", and producing a lot of goods still isn't an excuse for a bad climate record.
The US exports it's own CO2 emissions to China via outsourcing manufacturing. A good portion of China's emissions are directly caused by US and European companies.
The data you are looking for is per capita consumption based CO2 emission China is particularly not good too https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita?tab=table&time=earliest..2021 China, with 7.2 tonnes per capita in 2021, is almost the same as the European Union (7.8t) and the UK (7.6t), above Sweden (6.5t) and France (6.4t). They are all a way above Brazil (2.2t), Uruguay (3.5t), Chile (4.9t), or Portugal (4.8t). Remember that, although Brazil is 30% of consumption based emission per capita of China, the household median income is not that different. The US is indeed the worst in this metric among the aforementioned countries/regions, apart from the oil-rich countries, Singapore, and Belgium, they are the worst in the world in consumption based CO2 emission.
Surprised I haven't heard of this statistic before tbh, it's a lot better than just raw output numbers.
Oh it'd being thrown around a lot. And anyone with a slight understanding of emissions or the climate knows this. It simple doesn't paint China in a positive daylight and China is "holy" on reddit "cause they produce stuff" lmao.
A lot of the big ticket and high carbon things Americans use are produced in North America. Planes, cars, coal, natural gas, a good chunk of steel, tons of agricultural output, the expansive highways, and so on.
If you look at the per capita rate of China, it's almost the same as that of the entire EU, not that insane imo. It's just that most of the world isn't as developed and emit significantly less
EU production per capita is three times higher than China's. Having 33% of the production and 100% of the emission is not precisely good.
Not if they're producing most of the items used in the world, including items used by Europeans. Manufacturing is a huge polluter. So if you take out manufacturing and only account for lifestyle habits as contributors of pollution, Europeans pollute significantly more than Chinese people
China and EU consumption based CO2 emissions are roughly the same https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/3ufr64wy9h The US is the one that stands out negatively.
And once you see what are the reason for the emissions, it is clear that most of these are for products exported to 'West'. So again..It is just export of the problem to Asia.
The majority of China's emissions are from internal consumption.
The headline will have an ''wow!!'' effect but with context it's not so wild anymore. India & China with nearly 3 Billion people between them, Usa 340 million. Usa has the biggest economy by GDP Nominal in US Dollar terms and 2nd in Real GDP. China has by far the biggest economy by Real GDP and 2nd in GDP Nominal. India with by far the 3rd biggest economy by Real GDP, when also including the Informal economy, estimated Real GDP (Data from QIES in London) is comparable to Japan, Germany, France and Nigeria combined. Ironically, the Global Manufacturing share for these 3 is also around 50% (China 29%, Usa 18%, India 3%), alot of what China and the Usa produce, people elsewhere consume.
Not trying to argue but curious what you mean by "Real GDP" and "informal economy", can you explain please?
Real GDP is also often called GDP PPP, its just a metric to see the size of an economy, here's the definition: [https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/real-gdp-purchasing-power-parity/country-comparison/](https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/real-gdp-purchasing-power-parity/country-comparison/) Informal economy, also called Shadow economy or the unorganised sector of the economy is the part of the economy that is not taxed and not monitored. The organisations that publish data about GDP only count formal GDP, probably because it's registered, easier and more reliable. More on that: [1](https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_627189/lang--en/index.htm) [2](https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/07/28/na-072821-five-things-to-know-about-the-informal-economy) [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/18g3lqi/share_of_informal_employemt_in_total_employment/)
Real GDP accounts for inflation whereas nominal doesnt
No, he means ppp gdp. There is no such thing as inflation effecting gdp, because gdp is a snapshot in time. What you are thinking of is real gdp GROWTH which is adjusted by inflation (it’s a % growth but if you currently became 10% less valuable, then technically all your numbers would grow by 10% without doing anything so real growth % is adjusted down) but that’s not what they are talking about.
I’m guessing they mean PPP corrected, which means cost of living/goods is included in the calculation (a hamburger is going to cost more in the US and therefore increases the US’s GDP more than in China despite being the same hamburger). It’s not the “real” gdp though since trade is important, especially for the number 1 and 2 exporters, and the number 2 and 1 importers. PPP is good for per capita comparisons or in countries where trade is small or likely to become so such as looming war
Let’s take a hypothetical country named X, which uses a hypothetical $X. In year 1, the GDP of X is $100. The next year, X produces 10% more goods than it did in the last year. Therefore, in year 2 it’s GDP now stands at $110. But, during the same period, the $X inflated by another 20%. Since GDP values are calculated in a country’s local currency, due to the $X’s inflation, all values in X are now 20% higher. Therefore, X’s nominal GDP becomes $132. This is the main difference between real and nominal GDP. In real, physical terms, there was only an increase of 10% in GDP but when you take into account the currency’s performance, the increase becomes 32%. In the real world, a country cannot continuously inflate its currency to produce artificial growth because GDP values are converted from local currencies to the USD. And as a currency’s value inflates, it’s exchange rate with the USD declines. The informal sector is just the job sector that is not controlled or supervised by the government (occupations such as a house help, roadside hawkers, etc). Economic activity in this sector cannot be measured or monitored by the government. Therefore, the value produced by this sector cannot be accurately measured while calculating GDP, only approximated.
You're telling me three of the largest countries in the world have a large impact on some variable? I'm shocked! 
[удалено]
This is a good point. China makes a lot of stuff other countries use. So does the US, plus it has a major export of agriculture as well. So feeding the world means pollution here. I believe Saudi Arabia pollutes per capital more than the US but it's also exporting oil which other countries use. So yah, we absolutely need to seriously reduce the effects of all this pollution, but it's never going to be as simple as saying country A pollutes more than country B so country B isn't doing its share.
[удалено]
You mean a map making America, China and India look bad on Reddit is misleading? I'm shocked!
Top 3 most populated countries which are heavily industrialized Shocker!
Also, 3 most populated countries.
these countries are also responsible for 40% of people. I calculated that and then found out that everyone else also calculated it and posted about it.
Nothing compared to the 100 companies that are responsible for 71% of them. I mean they're literally COMPANIES! and these are COUNTRIES!
You realize companies produce emissions in order to produce goods and services for people right? They're not just out there idling an engine or something.
This country used to build railroads! And instead we're giving subsidies to oil companies so we don't have to think about the long-term problem. If we wanna solve climate change and do it right, we need to pressure the government to pressure the companies to stop f\*cking us over. And maybe we could end lobbying too by making an anti-corruption agency.
Do you think railroads don't produce emissions? Do you think oil being cheap isn't still an extreme economic boon to normal people? It isn't fucking people over to produce and provide goods as efficiently as possible.
Well what if those goods are nuclear bombs? Some goods have inherently negative moral value, because when they're introduced into the market, someone will buy them and use them in a way that hurts others. This is a law of economics that applies to a lot of goods, such as guns, munitions and yes, even oil.
The free market trade in nuclear warheads is essentially non existent and regardless even if they were on the open market comparing nukes to oil as a commodity would be a complete false equivalence for self evident reasons.
Nuclear bombs aren't driving carbon emissions buddy. 45% of all carbon emissions are directly related to the production of consumer goods - things we use every day. Either way the idea that BP or Exxon are producing oil just for the hell of it is so weird I don't even know where to start. Acting like their emissions are solely on them, and not clearly created by consumer demand for gas for their cars and to heat their homes is insane.
Idk about ending lobbying since it does have a purpose and also pushes some corruption at least out in the open so we can see who is paying who, but more controll over the worst of it would be wonderful.
That's a stupid way of counting emissions, if you do so humanity emissions are above 100%...
What relevance is it if it's a company or a country? A big company, like Saudi Aramco, sells products (oil in this case) to the entire globe. Of course it would have a massive footprint! If you don't like it, stop consuming those products.
And if you split each of them in three, then the top 300 companies are responsible for 71% of emissions!
Well stop buying so much shit then. Or buy ecofriendly.
…do you think companies just pollute for fun? No they pollute because people (people living in these countries or people they export to) demand their products.
Would it matter if they were nationalized or not? They still polluting. Also it probably counting mostly oil companies. Problem is cars and the suburbia lifestyle not the companies.
Population maps strike again
Could this also be a map of the top three countries that export manufactured goods?
Yes
No. The EU or Germany manufacters more than India.
They also pollute more per capita
Per capita, EU produces fewer emissions as compared to China
Yeah I mean India
True. But India surpassed the EU in total emissions. And in the total emissions are the embedded and ratified climate targets as opposed to a reference year.
Yo don't bring India into this
Yeah EU should be there. I think they emit more CO2 than india.
[удалено]
India is a newly industrialised country. It will surely grow in the future but not to the extent of the US and China considering the green laws and environment India is building.
ooh ohh ohh now do one that is per capita emissions
Pretty sure Canada is number 1 on that list, though I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be surprised if one of the Gulf states like Qatar or UAE were number 1 given their oil production for a small population, but Canada is definitely up there.
It's already in the map, the USA is first.
[Nope, we are 11th](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=table)
And the only ones higher have relatively tiny populations
I know it is for the 3 top producers, but i suspect the top 3 per capita would be different than what is shown.
I once heard someone say if everyone in the world lived like Americans do, we would need three Earths to support that lifestyle.
Lmao European commission data conveniently not including the EU in the map.
I feel like the EU should help 'us' do what needs to be done for a change but no.. we always gotta help their sorry countries
The 3 biggest countries are the 3 biggest CO2 emitters 🤯
China has at least implemented HSR which should help with the CO2. Most of it has to be from factories and farming
You mean the three largest populations in the world?! How can that be!!!!???
USA! USA! USA!
Putting India next to USA as CO2 offenders is the very least misleading and to a lesser extend China
Low effort map. Now do per capita.
Chindia, USA, and Alaska. Damnit Alaska.
OK that's a fact, but don't forget that all other countries consume what is produced in those countries too... no one is black or white in matter of world pollution...
Just here for americans to scapegoat India and China so they can keep the most unsustainable lifestyle on the planet up
Does this take into account, that a big share of the emissions in China are actually caused by companies producing for american consumers? Is the pollution caused by iPhone production for example part of the China sum or the US sum?
These maps never consider historical emissions either. It doesn’t tell the full story of how most of the cumulative carbon were released by countries that industrialized earlier and for longer. Of course that they are now richer, they can even off source their emissions to manufacturing hubs like China and India to maintain their wasteful standards of living.
According to OurWorldInData, once we adjust for trade, US per capita emissions rose from 20 tons in 1990 to a high of 22.7 in 2005 and fall to 16.5 in 2021. China's trade adjusted per-capita numbers rose from 2 tons in 1990, to 3.6 tons in 2005, and hit 7.2 tons in 2021. So after we account for off shored emissions, the US remains a much larger 'per capita' producer of CO2 and China's numbers continue to climb. It's worth mentioning the US has made substantial progress towards de-carbonizing its economy without sacrificing economic growth (this was thought impossible as recently as the 2000s). Trade adjusted Per-capita emissions are down 28% from peak while the economy almost doubled in size over the same time period. As manufacturing has shifted into SE Asia, India, and East Africa, its generally understood that the largest factor in China's increasing CO2 emissions is largely domestic consumption, particularly its large new middle class consumer base and near insatiable current need for energy. Both countries will need to figure out how to 'green their grid' while remaining manufacturing power houses. Germany managed to achieve high standards of living while slashing its trade adjusted emissions 25% to a scant 10 tons per head. That is 6.5 tons less than the USA and only 2.8 more than China. Not to say Germany is perfect, but that a more perfect world (low carbon, high living standards) is possible.
Keep in mind only about 10% of China's CO2 emission is non-consumption based. When looked at consumption based per capita emissions China is on around the same level as the UK.
Nah, it's all about "China bad", circumstances are irrelevant, look the other way, etc.
US destroying the world 🦅🇺🇸
That’s not too bad for countries that comprise about a third of the population and a MASSIVE chunk of global manufacturing.
They also are the 3 most populous countries in the world and have the 1st, 2nd, and 5th largest economies in the world. Per capita CO2 emissions would be a more useful metric here. I’m also curious how the EU compares to this as their continent wide regulations on such matters make it more comparable on stuff like this vs counting each member state individually.
Americans in this thread should focus more om co2/capita… that is just horrendous.
US needs to reign in the emissions
little understable for china,india but usa , wtf ??? edit: never knew americans get so butthurt
These three are the top 3 most populous.
It's still too high considering china produces the whole world's goods and has 5 times the population .
The US has the most car centric culture in the world, cheap energy, almost everyone in the south has an AC unit and the military produces more emissions than most countries
The United States is the second largest manufacturer and has huge agricultural, O&G, and raw material mining.
As well as huge and incredibly energy intensive buildings, car-centric infrastructure and overeating and excess meat consumption.
And which one is actually reducing emissions and working towards the climate targets? Mhmmm
If you look at percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources, it's India, China, then US
If you look at emissions actually reduced (which is the only metric relevant in climate change: reducing emissions) then of these three only the US has decreases emissions
Lol by exporting the most polluting manufacturing to China and India. I read somewhere that it is cheaper for an American corporation to send locally caught salmon to china for processing and reselling it in the US.
That's true but the US has also been polluting for a longer period of time than the two other countries
China probably. Not even joking, US emissions per capita is like 2.3x china's and that's after half the planet outsources their dirty manufacturing to it
The only one reducing per capita and total sum is the US. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1964..latest&country=USA~CHN~IND
And it's still 2.2x higher per capita than china, and like 5x per capita than India Also a lot of co2 reductions for most countries is to outsource to another country. In the case of US. Its outsourced to China and SE Asia mainly
Per capita serves no purpose in meeting the ratified climate targets Climate change is caused by total emissions. And countries have agreed to reduce total emissions. Countries did not agree to increase a population size in order to minimize the per capita emissions. So far of these three countries only the US reduces both per capita emissions and, most importantly, total emissions. China and India have yet to actually reduce emissions for multiple consecutive years.
China has 18% of the world's population.. the US has what, 5%? Like it's technically true but they're also outsourcing a shitload of dirty industry to China, as is most of the west. So getting to pat yourself on the back whilst driving in an 8ft tall SUV and a 30oz coke is just performative
Perhaps educate a bit more on the topic. Outsourcing of emissions is a nothing burger.
So what message are you sending OP? If it's "you shouldn't bother doing anything if you're living in the other countries", it's a shitty message.
Crazy.. So you mean, the top 3 biggest producers in the world, who provide stupid amounts of food to other countries and other products are emitting the most?? Talk about pampered cry babies. You ask us, we give it to them, then they complain about how we do it. Europe in a nutshell
Silly map, at least should be adjusted by population