4 ms·

Im not sure how accurate this is, but Wikipedia lists the US carbon emmissions per capita as 18.67, Australia as 18.74 and China has 4.57. This seems to correl

• bilbo0s 17y ago
  See response to @ryanwaggoner, who, in all fairness, asked first.
  • bilbo0s 17y ago
    EDIT: Just like I mentioned to @ryanwaggoner, I think, given incidents like 'climategate' we should be careful of quoting sources like wikipedia. For instance, the source data used for the wikipedia article is not carbon emissions per capita, it is data on carbon emissions per capita . . . PER USD1 GDP. That is, per capita per $1 GDP. The authors of the wikipedia article either mistook the data to be data on per capita emissions, or really didn't understand the difference. At any rate, that is the reason for the confusion I think. By the way, here is the source data that the wikipedia article uses: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx
    • carpo 17y ago
      One of the rows of data in that link provides the total carbon emissions (the row titled: "Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), thousand metric tons of CO2"). Dividing this number by the population of the US and Australia provides a very similar result to the Wikipedia article. The per GDP data is another row entirely. Maybe I'm confused, as I don't look at stuff like this much, and I've only given it a cursory glance ... but this data doesn't look to be backing up your original argument either.
      • bilbo0s 17y ago
        I am going to copy the same response given to @nkurz, EDIT:END EDIT, as you do seem to have a genuine intellectual curiosity. I hope you don't mind. At any rate if you follow this link: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=28&SeriesId=0 http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=28&#38... as @nkurz suggests, then you will come to a page with two 'per capita' data charts on it. Click either, and under the 'Series Detail' section of the resultant page you will see something like the following: Series Name: Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (UNFCCC) Goal: Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainability Target: Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources ----HERE---->> Indicator: Indicator 7.2 Carbon dioxide emissions, total, per capita and per $1 GDP (PPP) <<<----HERE---- As you can see it is per capita per $1 GDP (PPP). By the way, the (PPP), Purchasing Power Parity, makes this data even less useful. But I didn't want to get into ALL of the things that are wrong with this dataset. Alternatively, here is a direct link to: Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (UNFCCC) http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=752 http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=752 Again, check under 'Series Detail' and you will see the above dataset description.
        • thaumaturgy 17y ago
          Ah, the infamous "Oxford comma" strikes again! They appear to be listing the various data elements compiled. As in: * Total carbon dioxide emissions * Per Capita carbon dioxide emissions * per $1 GDP carbon dioxide emissions I guessed that this might be the case, but did not pre-conclude it. Instead I downloaded all of their actual data sets and compared the numbers in the charts, and indeed, the numbers for per-capita carbon dioxide emissions, which include no mention of per-GDP calculations, support Wikipedia's numbers to the same effect. i.e., Australia in 2006 was showing 19 metric tons of CO2 emissions per capita to the United States' 19.7, etc. (And I swore I was never again going to get involved in a climate "discussion" on HN.)
          • bilbo0s 17y ago
            So if we assume that your interpretation of the data is correct, Australia is just as big an emitter as the US, and they emit roughly 4 TIMES as much as China does. If my interpretation was correct, they emit 5 TIMES the US and 11 TIMES China. My point being that the material point stands in either case. That is, even if we were to all agree to your interpretation of the data, nations like China are still not the problem. Why then, is all of the negative attention on China and the US? Clearly there are other emitters just as profligate. In fact, in the case of China, most of the other nations are far more profligate per capita. I maintain that the negative attention given to China and the US is due to the fact that being anti US and anti China is the height of political fashion. Clearly, the people denigrating China don't take Australia to task for what we have both established as demonstrably far more egregious behavior.
    • nkurz 17y ago
      I think you are mistaken. In my reading, the series has data for both GDP and per capita. Each individual page shows only one or the other. It is not per/per as you imply. http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=28&SeriesId=0 http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=28&#38... Follow either of the links to 'Metric tons of CO2 per capita' and you'll find numbers very close to Wikipedia. (in any case, could you delete one of your responses so that replies aren't scattered?)
      • bilbo0s 17y ago
        Nkurz, if you follow the link in your comment you will come to a page with two 'per capita' data charts on it. Click either, and under the 'Series Detail' section of the resultant page you will see something like the following: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=752 http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=752 Series Name: Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (UNFCCC) Goal: Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainability Target: Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources ----HERE---->> Indicator: Indicator 7.2 Carbon dioxide emissions, total, per capita and per $1 GDP (PPP) <<<----HERE---- EDIT: I apologize, I mistook the meaning of your response. END EDIT
        • thaumaturgy 17y ago
          Also repeating my reply upthread: This is a case of an "Oxford comma". The data would be more correctly described as "...emissions, total, per capita, and per $1 GDP". Including or not including the comma is a style choice; journalists tend not to include it, and often don't realize that it can change the meaning of a sentence. If you examine the data sets themselves, rather than only the one sentence, I think you'll see.
          • bilbo0s 17y ago
            repeat of my reply upthread: So if we assume that your interpretation of the data is correct, Australia is just as big an emitter as the US, and they emit roughly 4 TIMES as much as China does. If my interpretation was correct, they emit 5 TIMES the US and 11 TIMES China. My point being that the material point stands in either case. That is, even if we were to all agree to your interpretation, China is still not the problem. Why then, is all of the attention on China and the US? Clearly there are other emitters just as profligate. In fact, in the case of China, most of the other nations are far larger emitters per capita. I maintain that the negative attention given to China and the US is due to the fact that being anti US and anti China is the height of political fashion. Clearly, the people denigrating China don't take Australia to task for what we have both established as demonstrably far more egregious behavior.
    • yread 17y ago
      Well if you look at the original data of total emissions it still holds that US emits much more: # 1 United States: 5,762,050 # 2 China: 3,473,600 # 3 Russia: 1,540,360 take a look at this :) http://cait.wri.org/figures/USToIntlGHGMap-Regions-thumb.gif http://cait.wri.org/figures/USToIntlGHGMap-Regions-thumb.gif
• jbooth 17y ago
  Also, be mindful that your figures, when multiplied by population, add up to almost as much Chinese carbon production as America. The numbers matter.