Jump to content

Talk:List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) at 12:36, 24 June 2008 (→2005 data: whats the description). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Pb with dependencies

Have you found a mean to correct the align problem with the countries that have many dependencies with flags (UK, USA) for the figures to face the names ? I've searched in vain. Helldjinn 23:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Emissions by population

Emissions per capita is completely misleading and dishonest. Taking the total emissions of a country and dividing it by population does not give a useful statistic. People are supposed to look at the number and think "greedy americans/westerners, you should consume less." This is completely wrong. A third of industrialized countries emissions come from industry. A full third. Every time someone says we should leave some nations out of a carbon limiting scheme some corporate honcho rubs his/her hands together with glee. Why? Because they'll just pack up their factories and move to the countries where they can pollute in unlimited amounts, conveniently there'll be cheaper labor and lax laws there too. Wake up you people. We have to stabilize the level of carbon in the atmosphere (I believe the tipping point is somewhere around 450-500ppm) or we're all screwed. Per capita emissions is a total scam. -P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.11.112 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be possible for someone to add what the per capita emissions are also? Oops.. I see that there is already a page with that. Nevertheless, it might be useful to have everything together.

Whats the page?? Still would still be nice to have population listed in a column also. You can readily work out per capita figures easily from that without having to hunt and search for it. The world population could then go in also. Makes sense as ecological footprint is an important concept and obviously relates to per capita impact as well. Mattjs 04:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again makes sense as it is harder to find the countries you are looking for in the other page: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita. Mattjs 04:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least add a "see also" link to it. Lionfish0 08:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Flex Flint 01:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to strongly object to the format of this article. There is a growing level of argument being forwarded by those who are opposed to carbon limits which states that no agreement can be put forward that does not include; or minimizes the commitments of China and India as they “contribute more emissions than almost anyone else”. As this is the second article listed in a Google search for "co2 emissions by country", I think we have a vital duty to provide per-capita info ON THIS PAGE. We cannot allow people to walk away with the simple impression that China is the third leading contributor of CO2 and that India is the fourth. These numbers are incredibly misleading to the average person who will be searching via the most likely search terms: "co2 emissions by country". I have seen the link you have added, and I see that the per capita list is linked directly below this on the Google results (currently); however, the fact that the US is the number one contributor per capita, and that China is 99th, and India 133rd - the info that this article gives at a glance is incredibly dangerous as far as public perception goes!! We cannot expect these countries to immediately match the levels of reduction that we should expect from the minority world countries as it would result in economic catastrophe and starvation if they were to agree. This article is immoral!!! Please – either add the per capita info directly – or remove it altogether.

Thank you Hermann Luyken, for adding the Per Capita chart.

You have several good points, but "this article is immoral" is not one of them. I don't believe such a standard exists, to call an article into question. If it did then fundies could tag an article about sex. Per capita data is relevent but the article is titled "list of countries" so rationally speaking it should rank by country totals. It seems to me you would like to give China and India preferential treatment re: GHG emissions in this article because they are "poor" or developing, which ignores that the reason they are backwards and poor societies is the repressive corrupt governments within. These governments have not allowed outside monitoring or verification of the data used to collect GHG emissions, whereas the west, particularly the US, has been under a journalistic microscope for decades. As for "morals", China doesn't recognize patents, copyrights, licensing fees, any of that, and has a giant brown cloud floating over it- nobody can do anything about it. Let's be real here. If you want to pursue environmental villification on an individual level rather than by sovereign nation, there is certainly room and interest for such a page, right? Finally consider that it is hardly immoral that US is higher per capita, if this is what you imply. All US citizens enjoy a higher standard of living because our government is not set up to so easily enslave a large populace to work for their own selfish luxury, and hide their living conditions from the world. Batvette 06:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
China does recognize intellectual property rights and has been improving the enforcement. And if you follow the news, you see giant American companies violating all kinds of intellectual property rights to great extents. And those companies are exactly the ones who always accused China not enforcing intellectual property rights. One of the latest would be Apple uses iPhone as its product name knowing that it was already registered. Countless examples in countries accusing others of violations. XG (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

marked twice

Why is Burkina Faso marked as both 165 and 145? which one is correct? -- Astrokey44|talk 13:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Ah.. Burundi is missing, so I guess one of them is Burundi - probably the smaller one -- Astrokey44|talk 13:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is confirmed by the article on fr.wikipedia.org and I have updated the page accordingly. --Lemmy Kilmister-- 04/06/06

Total atmospheric CO2

I have a problem with the figure given for the total atmospheric CO2 (810 e9 tonnes). If you divide this by the accepted figure for the total mass of the atmosphere of 5 e15 tonnes this gives you 162 ppm by mass of CO2. Converting this to ppmv gives 106ppmv which is in contrast to the accepted figure of around 380ppmv. Can someone please explain the discrepancy? Colin Mill 09:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found the problem. The figure of 810 e9 tonnes quoted here from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle is actually for the total carbon in the atmosphere not carbon dioxide. Since carbon constitutes only 30% of the mass of the CO2 molecule the figure for CO2 in the atmosphere is closer to 2700 e9 tonnes. Colin Mill 11:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per year?

Is this emmisions per year? Link hyrule5 03:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should say. Lionfish0 08:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are very Out Of Date

These numbers are very out of date. I have scoured the internet for more recent ones but cannot find any. If anyone knows where more recent data can be found please let post it. For an example of how things have changed here is quote from the AP (April 24, 2007)

'SHANGHAI, China (AP) - China will pass the United States as the world's biggest source of greenhouse gasses this year, an official with the International Energy Agency was quoted as saying. China had been forecast to surpass the U.S. in 2010, but its sizzling economic growth has pushed the date forward, the IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, was quoted as saying in an interview appearing in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal newspaper.' Custodiet ipsos custodes

The Guardian reports that in 2006 China emitted about 8% more CO2 than the US. [1] The Guardian meets WP:RS criteria. Is this 2006 datum worth adding into the opening text of the article, or should the article be based only on the 2002 figures in the table? (I guess if we wait for some months, more figures will be forthcoming... maybe?) 18.252.7.187 05:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this too...[2]--I'm not sure how useful the entry seems in this context....Cyrusc 06:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the source of the data from The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. [3]
Here is a quote from the Guardian article stating that in all probability China is now number one in terms of all greenhouse emissions.

Jos Olivier, a senior scientist at the government agency who compiled the figures, said: "There will still be some uncertainty about the exact numbers, but this is the best and most up to date estimate available. China relies very heavily on coal and all of the recent trends show their emissions going up very quickly." China's emissions were 2% below those of the US in 2005. Per head of population, China's pollution remains relatively low - about a quarter of that in the US and half that of the UK.

The new figures only include carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production. They do not include sources of other greenhouse gases, such as methane from agriculture and nitrous oxide from industrial processes. And they exclude other sources of carbon dioxide, such as from the aviation and shipping industries, as well as from deforestation, gas flaring and underground coal fires.

Dr Olivier said it was hard to find up to date and reliable estimates for such emissions, particularly from countries in the developing world. But he said including them would be unlikely to topple China from top spot. "Since China passed the US by 8% [in 2006] it will be pretty hard to compensate for that with other sources of emissions."

Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 17:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a longer discussion of this on Talk:Global warming#Jumping_the_gun_with_.22China_the_no._1_emitter.22. The dutch study is interesting, and may prove to be correct, but currently it is based upon preliminary (and incomplete) data. When the findings are confirmed with complete data, it should go onto the page.
Given that it has been widely reported in the media and given that it has not been questioned I see no evidence for it preliminary nature. It would be useful if you could perhaps provide some evidence that it is such. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data from an oil company are inherently unreliable and no substitute for scientifically published data:

These figures are based on a preliminary estimate by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), using recently published BP (British Petroleum) energy data and cement production data.

There are still many unknowns... do you want to include a disclaimer for each one?

The estimates of CO2 emissions do not include emissions from flaring and venting of associated gas during oil and gas production and CO2 emissions from deforestation/logging/decay of remaining biomass and are calculated using default CO2 emission factors recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CO2 emissions from underground coal fires in China and elsewhere are not included either. The magnitude of these sources is very uncertain.

Your questioning of the data is classic original research. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for information on pages. If reliable sources say things you need other reliable sources to rebut them. You cannot do that yourself. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 19:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I offer the following text for the opening paragraph as a compromise. It is based on the latest academic article on the subject, although I regret the conclusions border on OR:

Data was collected in 2002 by the United Nations Statistics Division--numbers known to two significant figures at best. This data has rapidly dated due to huge growth of emissions in Asia, especially China.[1]

Bendž|Ť 18:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above if you wish to challenge the assertion that China is currently the number 1 emitter you need a reliable source to do so. I would be ok with this text:
As of 2002 the United States was the largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions. The Netherlands Environment Protection Agency has released data indicating that as of 2006 China was the number one carbon dioxide emitter. The UN has not released any new data since 2002 that either confirms or contradicts such findings. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The United States is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. I find the above line the most problematic because the latest data says that it is not true. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should contain only contain blanket assertions about the present that are both backed up by reliable sources and not contradicted by other reliable sources. At the very least both sides of a discussion need to be presented if there is a dispute amongst reliable sources. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Articles in Reliable Sources that say China is Number One Emitter of carbon dioxide in 2006

The New York Times
The Guardian
The Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency
Chicago Tribune
Boston Globe
The Daily Telegraph
NPR
Foxnews
Greenpeace
Environment News Service
The Seattle Times
San Jose Mercury News
Time
Business Week

The list goes on and on. I have not seen any reliable source that disputes it. Indeed if you read these articles you will read experts who say its inevitable that China either is or very soon will be the number 1 polluter. One says its just a question of 2006, 2007 or 2008. And given their tremendous growth rate and building an average of 2 new coal power stations a week its quite logical. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 19:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, isn't google news great? Newspapers are necessary to use for putting together some articles, but for scientific topics that receive so much coverage in academia, there's no reason to resort to them when their chief purpose is to sell headlines. I've found data from 2004 that closes the gap between US and China, from America's own Energy Information Administration. Between this, and the opening paragraph suggested above, can we lay this one to rest for the moment? Bendž|Ť 19:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what is wrong with citing the finding of the The Netherlands Environment Protection Agency. They are a scientific agency. Their finding is not disputed. So why not state it - especially when many have predicted an imminent overtaking of the USA by China. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As already said on other talk pages - the main discussion is here. The trouble (once more) is that the MNP (which is not the EPA of the Netherlands, but an independent agency) is listing quite a few caveats - amongst others that its a preliminary study, based on trend-projection of incomplete data, with large uncertainties. While its interesting, may even be correct, and certainly news-worthy, it is jumping the Gun to put it out as fact. (which is something the MNP doesn't). Please continue this discussion on the Talk:Global_warming#Jumping_the_gun_with_.22China_the_no._1_emitter.22, as it is rather foolish to have the same debate over and over again on different Talk pages. Nb: as for News vs. scientific sources - please see WP:RS#Scholarly_and_non-scholarly_sources :-) --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said above, questioning of the data is classic original research. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for information on pages. If reliable sources say things you need other reliable sources to rebut them. You cannot do that yourself. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As said before - I do not question the data. All the caveats that i've mentioned are taken directly from the MNP's press-release - which is the one that all the news-bytes are referring to. [4] --Kim D. Petersen 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No where in the report is it even suggested it is incorrect or incomplete.Prester John 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? I know you have read this section before from the report (at least you've said you have read the MNP press-release) [5]:
  • "preliminary":

    These figures are based on a preliminary estimate by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP) using BP energy data (BP, 2007).

  • "incomplete:

    The estimates of CO2 emissions do not include emissions from flaring and venting of associated gas during oil and gas production and CO2 emissions from deforestation/logging/decay of remaining biomass and are calculated using default CO2 emission factors recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CO2 emissions from underground coal fires in China and elsewhere are not included either. The magnitude of these sources is very uncertain; according to recent research CO2 emissions from coal fires are estimated at 150-450 megatonne CO2 annually in China.

The implication of this is that the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by China may be significantly greater than already stated. This makes it even more likely that China was the biggest emitter in 2006. If you think about the lack of environmental regulation in China compared with the USA, its quite likely that China would be highly likely to emit in ways that either occur on a much lesser scale or not all in the USA. Additionally if you look here [6] Greenpeace accepts this data prima facie - this adds to the argument that it is reasonable to do so. I should also note that at least 13 reliable secondary sources also accept it to be good enough - despite its assertions of being incomplete. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 10:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that those figures haven't been estimated and included in the report. Which is incorrect - read the press-release again (and check the raw data linked in it). If the estimated numbers for cement etc. aren't added - then China is still below the US. Note also that these figures are equally uncertain for the US figures. Greenpeace is irrelevant - they are an advocacy group. --Kim D. Petersen 12:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accuracy":

    Energy statistics for fast changing economies such as China are less accurate than those of traditional industrialized countries within the OECD.

So what are you referring to? And again - discuss it at one place, instead of spreading it all over the place? (here) --Kim D. Petersen 06:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Validating the Data

From Sci-Tech Today: China Overtakes U.S. as No. 1 Emitter of Carbon Dioxide

"John Christensen, head of the U.N. Environment Program's Center on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development in Denmark, said the figures did not come as a surprise.

"The Dutch agency referred to BP statistics, which is the standard reference tool. We have no reason to doubt that the numbers are right. We have no reason to doubt the methodology," Christensen said. "It's been stated many times that China will overtake the U.S. in emissions." "

"Fatih Birol, chief economist of the Paris-based International Energy Agency also said the findings were not surprising, given China's economic growth of more than 9 percent annually over the past 25 years."

Here is the head of the U.N. Environment Program's Center accepting these numbers. This a very strong augment for their inclusion.

From BBC News: China building more power plants

"China is now building about two power stations every week, the top climate change official at the UK Foreign Office, John Ashton, has said."

Again these numbers are accepted by an expert on the subject. Again this is a secondary source - in line with Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia:No original research Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't inflate Christensen's importance - Ok? Who is John Christensen? Is he the head of UNEP (UN Environment Program)? No [7]. Is he a regional head? No [8]. His title sounds impressive - but he is but the head of one of many international research centers under the UNEP agency.
His words are interesting - but they are merely stating what is already obvious: The data is quite likely valid. But it still has the same caveats as it has had the whole time. A preliminary trend-analysis based on incomplete data. --Kim D. Petersen 11:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would be a more productive issue, is to find more complete and up to date data for the page. Which is the validated complete figures. The UN source (referenced on the page) goes up to 2003 - we currently only show the data to 2002. Other agencies have more complete data (iirc) for instance the CDIAC and the UNFCCC - could we work to get these online instead? --Kim D. Petersen 12:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are conducting original research which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The reliable secondary sources validate the claim. It should be included. See Wikipedia:No original research Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 12:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Custodiet - i'm not conducting WP:OR in any weight or form. I'm focusing on the report and what it says and nothing more. You are putting too much weight on this new study - which is (to use your own words) not acceptable on Wikipedia.
The current compromize by User:Bendzh is reasonable - except for the section on Christensen, which gives it too much weight. As said earlier - we should focus on updating the numbers instead. I've so far downloaded the table - and will try to update it. The wikipedia table stuff is horrible btw. --Kim D. Petersen 12:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, I understand that you would like some figures in the future. If and when they become available it would be great to include them. If they contradict this study I would be the first to take action. The so called 'weight' I have attached to these figures is actually quite limited. If you look back through my edits I have worded the claim such that it says who produced the data and explained that it was preliminary. I am not claiming it as certain scientific fact verified by many studies. I am not claiming it as a 100% certain fact without any question. I am merely quoting the results of a study that many secondary sources quote. The UK government has accepted the findings [9]as have a senior UN scientist [10]. A senior environmental specialist with the World Bank thought there was a good chance it was correct [11]. Greenpeace takes the claim seriously [12]. I hardly think that detailing this claim is giving it undue weight given what I have just shown. WP:Undue_weight validates the notion of looking at the numbers of secondary sources who quote the idea as well as the numbers of experts who have accept it or give it validity.
I also have objected to the claim in earlier versions of the article that: "The United States is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases." There is good reason to believe that this is no longer true. Thus I removed this line. Why you put it back afterwards is something that I do not understand. Even if you do not want to quote this study, at least you should agree that the above statement is no longer obviously true and thus should be removed.
As to the big picture. All I am trying to do, is to reasonably represent what secondary sources have said about this data. I am acting in good faith trying my best to keep an article up to date. Ironically I am reminded of global warming skeptics who want to question and obsess over every last detail in their quest of denial. Indeed if there is any unfair weight being given, it is to the Chinese denial. They have not even given any data on which to base it yet. But there it is in the article. Yes, we do need more studies and more data. To eliminate this study from a Wikipedia article is totally inappropriate. If this is not enough of an explanation I am not sure that any will do. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 13:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes all of them accept that the study may be correct - nothing more than that. Which is btw. the exact same thing that is being said all of the time. The WP:Undue weight is that this study - which isn't more than a preliminary study - is being elevated to fact-height. The articles premise is stated right at the top: "based on numbers from 2002" - why is it then essentially important to focus on a preliminary study that says that the US is likely to have been overtaken by China in 2006? This now fills more than 1/3 of the lead.... Please explain how this change of Bendzh's version (which imho was quite acceptable) [13] isn't providing WP:Undue weight? --Kim D. Petersen 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The words "preliminary data" tell the reader that more data later on is needed. Additionally there is a Chinese rebuttal. Quite to the contrary of what you said - the way the page is right now actually underweights the value of the figures. It is disingenuous to say the data may be correct. It may rain tommorow. It may be sunny. The experts on this subject have said that it is likely that the data is correct. That is more than just "may" be correct. The question of something being true or not requires secondary sources. If there are serious questions about the data you need to provide secondary sources showing that. If for example you showed various secondary sources doubting the validity of the data then you would be within your rights to modify the claim made in the article. In the absence of that we are left with secondary sources that uphold the value of the data and this according to Wikipedia policy, we should leave the data as is. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Custodiet - you don't get it do you? The NMP (the publisher of the report) is the source that i am using (and everyone else) - they are the ones who are saying this is preliminary - they are the ones who are saying that the data is incomplete. Everyone else is commenting on the data and press-release from the NMP. All you can conclude is that everyone agree's that NMP has done a good job within the constraints of the trend-analysis of incomplete data. It doesn't make the data less incomplete - it doesn't make the data less preliminary - nor does it make the report more factual. --Kim D. Petersen 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kim - you claim that the data is not good enough. That is your opinion. Other people disagree with you (including myself) and consider the paper to be complete enough to be included in a Wikipedia article. Part of the reason that I believe that the data is good enough is that there are experts reported in reliable sources who are quite content with the study and believe its central thesis to be well shown by the evidence. Another reason I believe that this report is valid is the tremendous number of secondary sources who quote it and who accept its central proposition. Wikipedia's own policy is to emphasize secondary sources. Thirdly there is no significant rebuttal yet. It is not as though some secondary source is quoting some scientist who has doubts over the data. The differing levels of approval of the data both in secondary sources and by experts helps to validate it. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try again. No, i'm not claiming that the data isn't good enough. I may have explained that part weakly. The data is fine, it has some caveats that make it unsuitable to use as if its fact. When and if it stands the test of time - it will be usefull, and should be mentioned as solid - but since its based on incomplete data, it should never be referred to as if its fact.
Lets assume that it is still not disputed (or is enforced with other studies showing the same (ie. validation)) within a month or two - then it should be referred to with something like "Preliminary data indicates that China passed the US in 2006 as the worlds top-emitter" - but never as "China is the worlds top emitter". Can you see the difference? The latter is unfortunatly the path chosen by some. It's a question of validation. The experts that have commented on the report, haven't validated it. All they have said is that they have no reason to believe that it may be wrong. (i haven't either). But any statistical or propability analysis has the posibility of being wrong - without anyone deliberetly faking things (faking would in fact would be unlikely). Hope that clears things abit. --Kim D. Petersen 21:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well the current version reads "However according to a preliminary estimate by The Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency using preliminary data from British Petroleum, China has been the chief emitter since 2006." I see the word preliminary twice in there. So I hope that would be ok with you. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 00:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim it is you that deosn't get it. Who is questioning the report in the media? No one. Which scientific organisations are questioning the conclusions. None. It is only you.Prester John 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes John, they are all agreeing to the report - and the report states that its a preliminary estimate based on trend analysis of incomplete data.... Read the report please. --Kim D. Petersen 16:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone in the real world questioning the conclusions of the report?Prester John 16:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They know to pay little attention to it either way. This is apparent from the fact that the academic world isn't using it. They're third-hand conclusions that bear little weight. We've more than duly represented it now in the article space, so let's all move on. Bendž|Ť 16:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the conclusion of the study, which has been reported by every major news organisation in the world, has not been objected to by anyone. Prester John 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't pretend to be what it isn't. The media always print headlines that aren't strictly true to the content, it's paparazzic license. We have a responsibility to see through it when sourcing articles to the papers. Bendž|Ť 13:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note that the Chinese rebuttal has been given equal prominence, especially when they have not even gathered the data for the rebuttal. So it is somehow problematic to print the results of a scientific study but it is ok to print a totally unscientific Chinese statement of denial. Interesting indeed. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 12:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to 2003

Updated with the latest verified figures, which are the 2003 figures. If someone can find newer numbers - please indicate them. --Kim D. Petersen 17:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

________________________________________

I'd suggest that this be changed to CO2-e or Carbon Dioxide Equivalents. This would then include most greenhouse gases. This would mean that the figures are familiar to those familiar with their country's emissions. For me, in Australia - I would expect to see 28 tonnes CO2-e for total per capita emissions. The Australian Greenhouse Office has this data online.

Annora1 07:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you know where to find global and national figures for every country, let us know. Bendž|Ť 10:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland?????

Scotland isn't an independant country, neither has it even got depending territory status so why is it at 55? Also, it makes the UK's results invalaid for they're likely to be included there as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.254.203 (talk) 13:42, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

2004 data

2004 CDIAC data are available at unstats. I started updating it at User:Jklamo/List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions. Anyone can help me (please use Template:Inuse to avoid doubleworking). If you are unfamiliar with data format on unstats, i also exported it to Google Docs [14] --Jklamo 01:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources of green house effect

Is the carbon dioxide emitted by forests destruction considered in "man-made carbon dioxide emission"? I don't think so, because otherwise Brazil wouldn't be in such a low position. If anyone finds any data anywhere that takes this into account, I think it would be nice to add it here. (I was searching for this info when I found this page).
And what about other gases that also cause global warming? I've once heard that 20% of the green house effect is caused by CH4 - another thing that Brazil emits a lot, due to its large cattle. Is there any page in wikipedia that has this info? If so, wouldn't it be good to link it from here?
Regards,
--Caveden 21:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita --Jklamo 21:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need a list of carbon emissions and other greenhouse gases per country not just per capita. That would include carbon dioxide, methane gases, deforestation etc. I am going to try to start working on that. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 22:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China again again (sigh)

I've removed this:

Maximilian Auffhammer of the University of California, Berkeley has calculated that China overtook the United States as the leading emitter of carbon dioxide in 2007.[2][3][4]

We already have information in the lead that mentions that China may have become the largest contributor in 2006. Why is it necessary with more on this? Affhammer's data is also still preliminary, and until we have real data on the subject, so that the table can be updated, its nothing but more fluff. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about China being "chief emitter" since 2006

The particular wording has the misleading meaning that China has been producing more than 50% of all emission since 2006.

Second, omitting the fact that China has significantly larger population in this page gives the misleading perception that China is more problematic. Although such data can be found on the separate per capita page, the first impression can be strong on people and not all people will check that page. It is not too tedious here to avoid such misunderstandings, I think it is necessary and worthwhile to state China's per capita data here. --xiaoyanggu

I have no problem with replacement of word chief with top, but i have strong problem with adding "although the per capita emissions of China is only 1/4 of that of the United States.". This article is justing listing countries by carbon dioxide emissions, there is no place to placing kind of justification for these numbers (because it is possible to "justify" all 207 figures. So i am deleting that statement, until consensus about adding it is made. --Jklamo (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, per capita, according to this article, some countries are worst than the US. So there is no particular reason to add this phrase, rather than "although the per capita emissions of China is only 1/15 of that of Qatar". --Raminagrobis fr (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree and hold my earlier position. The western countries have been attacking China by presenting data in misleading ways. The cost for making the issue clearer is tiny, while the impact of it can be and is large. I think, in order to keep wikipedia politically unbiased. It is necessary to present both honest content and in a way that reduces the possibility that it can be misread. Especially, when the cost for clarity is small.

Otherwise, I can agree on completely removing the paragraph that contains the part that singles out China, since it is a list after all. Can let the reader read the list and draw their own summaries. And as for the up-to-date-ness of the data, you can update the entire list using latest data that reflect China's new status. By singling China out, wikipedia is taking on a position. --xiaoyanggu

xiaoyanggu, sorry but there may be people who want to single China out - but the reality is that the US was singled out in exactly the same way before this information became available, so the "singling out" is rather evenhanded. I btw. agree that other measures than country specific emissions are more important (taking demographic, economic and/or size into account). But this article is about country emissions, there are others about per capita and per gdp. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nb. as far as i know there is no up-to-date data yet. Which is why its presented with the caveat of preliminary estimations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kim. Yes, US was probably singled out for the same reason. If it is necessary to single out China on this issue in wikipedia, the right way to do it is NOT saying it is top emitter without saying the per capita emission is 1/4 of that of US, which, as we all know, is misleading. China does lag on energy efficiency. And if any people objected what I edited in this page, I don't mind them singling out China for emissions per GDP. Also, there has been no contest for including a small diagram about the per capita data in the page for quite a while. I cannot agree with Jklamo about removing, for the reason of irrelevance, the statement about comparison about China and US's per capita data. I personally feel that per capita and per GDP measures about emissions should all be merged into this article to give accurate and complete picture and the issues. Especially, merging the 3 articles mostly will lead to a table with a few more columns that will not become messy to fit in one page. I can see only positive effect by merging them.(well, in terms of truth and complete truth, not in terms of views of people with certain political biases and/or intention) --xiaoyanggu XG (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xiaoyanggu, but they are the top emitter as a country (or with reasonable probability) will be. Your objection seems to be against the list in general, that can't be helped, since its the facts on this particular metric. You can propose a merge though - check WP:MERGE. It would make some sense to have the 3 tables side by side (ie. one big table with Emissions, Emissions/capita, Emissions/gdp). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't objected to the factualness of China as being top emitter throughout and actually it is my word (edited while I was out of town), since earlier, China was named as "chief" emitter, which is misleading at least. I am not against the list. However, I do think combining the lists is a more faithful way of telling the facts. I do object to the way China was singled out. I do think if China is singled out, the statement about the per capita data should be included. I am against singling out China. If the list itself is sufficient, then why would it be necessary to separately write about China being the top. I am ok with editing the list with new data and removing the comments above the list altogether. If we can reach a reasonable consensus on letting the list tell the story, I or whoever is willing, can remove the comments above the list altogether. Personally, I do think carbon emission is a issue and am very concerned about its impact. I am not saying China is doing a good job on this. But making China look bad is not going to help. Letting the most developed industrialized countries like US hiding behind China on this issue has the potential of making it worse, especially considering the fact that the per person impact on this is much worse in the US and countries with similar economic power (per person) plus the fact that a lot of China's emission is caused by consumption in these countries. I do think China should be criticized over the issue of energy efficiency and since it has a high population, improving efficiency is a place where most improvement can be made. Singling out China as top emitter without saying the relatively lower per capita emission is only going to give a fake image that the US and similar countries are now not the worst. I can only understand that as using wikipedia to attack China instead of stating fact in good faith. If it takes 5 lines to make the situation clear, I wouldn't have insisted on that. But it only takes half a sentence. Kim, Thank you for suggesting the merge link. I have no idea of how wiki works. --xiaoyanggu XG (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also refer to Lies, damned lies, and statistics and [15] to see facts can be lying. --XG (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also refer to Emissions by population section of this page. XG (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the democracy promoting countries and their supporters do indeed think everybody is equal and do not think they as individual world citizens deserve more resources than others. I have no intention to make this page unstable. However, if that has to be the case, then there's nothing I can do to prevent it. At least Jklamo can come here and offer some more arguments to enlighten us rather than to simply take summary actions. If truth cannot be told on wikipedia in honest and complete manner with reasonable effort in good faith, then the spirit of wikipedia is in vain. XG (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan ?

Where's Taiwan ? -- Eiland (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question: inside China. I've altered the table to list Taiwan with China. -- Eiland (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another edit-war about China *sigh*

Yes, we all know, and the article specifies that China may have become the chief emitter in 2005±1. But all those estimates are preliminary - including the new one. Can we please leave this in peace? When the official numbers come out it will go in. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pushing a POV to state that there is new resaerch indicating that China is the number one emitter. It might though be one to supress that information. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since that is already stated in the list, with several references. I can't see what we're suppressing. This is not a regular article, but a list - the introduction text is supposed to be small. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a consistent effort to suppress any discussion on this page of China being the current number one emitter. Wikipedia is not censored. Given the very fast growth of Asia Pacific in the last few years this page gives an impression that is quite dated. It is therefore appropriate to note this. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 16:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No WP is not censored, and WP is not a political organ either. This is not a general article, what we show here is the official figures. Once the official figures get updated, the table will be updated as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This information is no longer preliminary. As stated here [16] there are now three studies showing China to be the number one emitter.Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 16:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are all three preliminary. They are all based on extrapolation - each in different ways. I suggest that you actually read the paper, that you've linked. It gives the methodology and figures that are used to extrapolate the figures. (they calculate quite a bit further into the future btw.). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a POV that China is currently the number one simply because China has more people. It is also not a POV that China is currently the number one also because first world countries have moved many of their carbon consumption to China by moving manufacture. It seems to me that some people really want to highlight one fact and hide other important fact that are completely relevant. This is really turning wikipedia into CNN. Please don't be so CNN on wikipedia. I don't see any reason why wikipedia should not be censored in China if wikipedia tells facts in ways that distorts understanding of facts. XG (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaoyanggu, This is not a general article, here we present data, not opinion or interpretation (no matter how well sourced). There are general articles that cover the information that you are objecting/commenting on, and those articles, are where you should take it. (see for example "what links here" on the left, which on the main page will show you all pages that reference this one). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 data

In my userpage namespace User:Jklamo/List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions i am updating the list with 2005 data from UNFCC and EIA. These two sources are not fully comparable, but i think that its differencies are not enough big to avoid combine them together. UNFCC data are without doubt the best source, but they do not cover all countries. Help with update is welcomed. --Jklamo (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If its the two datasets that you are pointing at on your subpage - then they are definitively so different that they aren't compatible. The difference for the EU and the US between the sets is huge.... What is the description of the EIA dataset? (you only point to the raw data). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Raupach, M.R., G. Marland, P. Ciais, C. Le Quéré, J.G. Canadell, G. Klepper & C.B. Field. (2007). "Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions". Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104 (24): 10288–93. doi:10.1073/pnas.0700609104.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Template:Cite news¶
  3. ^ Template:Cite news¶
  4. ^ Template:Cite news¶
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions&oldid=221420537"