Top 10 Polluting Countries by CO2 Emissions (1840-2021)

Which countries contribute the most to global warming and carbon emissions? This animation video will compare the top 10 countries by CO2 emissions from 1840 to 2021. As the Industrial Revolution raged starting in the 17th century, countries have been emitting more CO2 as factories replaced farms. Global temperatures are projected to rise between 2 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit.
Sources: Our World In Data, climate.gov, and many other articles
Music: Uranus by Holst

[@user-yx4yc2vk8k]

I knew you wouldn't disappoint me, you are really a legend, keep it up and I'm the first to support you

[@jackiepaper101]

If you look at per capita numbers you get a much different story. China drops way down the list, Canada is in the top 10.

[@winstonchurchill5516]

Canada had like four million people in 1890 but was in the top 10 like wtf.

[@mattmatt9733]

Exactly it would be so much more relevant to show it per capita and reveal that the most developped countries are the most polluting ones

[@corrupt1user]

Per capita the US isn't in the top 10. Luxemburg is more than 2x as much as the US per capita, along with a bunch of Caribbean and Gulf states. It's not a great comparison though, for the simple reason that the US and Europe's pollution is itself masked by outsourcing all the heavy, dirty industries to India and China (and performing them in the cheapest way possible, AND shipping them 10,000 miles using the filthiest fuels known to man). Really, the absolute best way to reduce pollution is to eat locally grown foods and to design products to last as long as possible. I mean, it's astounding just how much TVs have advanced, but is it really necessary to get a new TV every 5 years?

[@MichaelSchmack]

Negative - it's about total pollution not by person.

[@belkYT]

@@winstonchurchill5516 800*

[@captaindata452]

It's amazing how this channel inspires me on a regular to work harder on my statistics channel. Watching channels like this gives me a massive internal drive to produce as good charts as this one. Thank you for igniting💥 my journey and stay blessed❤

[@lucaswallo8127]

What.

[@ozone2031]

*Everyone: How reduce our CO2 emission ? *Uranium: allow me to introduce myself

[@Stellar_Insights_]

Sun and wind : huh kid😏

[@jarskil8862]

@@Stellar_Insights_ Sun and Wind cannot guarantee stable production. Sun and wind will always be only a help for Fossil fuels or Nuclear power.

[@Stellar_Insights_]

@@jarskil8862 nuclear power plants can literally ruin a city if destroyed

[@erickrobertson7089]

Nuclear power is the fastest route to achieve near zero or zero CO2 emissions from power production. Also, it will provide a steady, regular supply of power to electrical grids already overtaxed due to decarbonization and increased electrical vehicle use. If your willing to deal with the waste honestly and effectively it really is the way to go for now.

[@hootowl6354]

I like nuclear but nuclear is EXPENSIVE. And we sure as hell need some safer designs. There are also lots of places where solar, wind, tide, etc. makes a lot of sense. There's no need to rely on any one source.

[@leszekandzel]

I would like to ask - Poland was not officially existing in 1864, nor 1900, so why do you place it on your chart? How did you calculate the borders of Poland in 1915?

[@52flyingbicycles]

You can tell when a country enters recession when their emissions go down quickly. The most dramatic examples were WW2 and the Great Leap Forward

[@johnkingsize]

Transition from fossil fuel to nuclear also translates into stark drops although there are signs of good economy.

[@TheGreenSweater]

@RankingCharts, could you look at the interaction between CO2 emissions and GDP in the top 10 GDP countries?

[@lennysmom]

I enjoy looking at these, but I’d like know the music that accompanies..this is from The Planets?

[@RankingCharts]

Uranus by Holst.

[@BeeStats]

Nice

[@sarchmaster5779]

It would be interesting to see the total volume over time, not just the per year volume. Both are interesting though.

[@djheidi-beate4838]

It would be interesting if you also linked the co2 balance to size per %

[@hanslund308]

Not fair when some nations are placed in cold climate

[@meghraj28]

Could you please make a video on CO2 emissions per capita or energy consumption per capita?

[@doggo2995]

Should of added world total column. Still great video I see decreases starting!!

[@baxter6574]

As always and great chart, very useful and educational. I’m curious how the pre-1950 numbers are calculated or their sources? I guess they are from studies compiled over the years.

[@Coconut31]

I need the same info. Where are the sources ?

[@RankingCharts]

You can find the data on ourworldindata.com

[@karthikrox6310]

most likely coal + other petroleum fuels utilisation / mined data was used to estimate

[@MB-hs2yc]

I'm wondering how they measured CO2 emission in mid 19th century?

[@METIXPLAY]

@@MB-hs2yc maybe by counting temperature over the world for this years, like more emissions the higher temperature

[@Broekmanium]

Really curious for some data on how much of this is actually for products used in own country. E.g. China is top rank for sure, but a lot of that is also for export. That would be quite a hard to aquire dataset though, and would require looking at full import/export stats for countries.

[@Jake-rs9nq]

It's not as much as you think. Only about 20% of emissions are related to producing exports. Most is for electricity production.

[@hovera7946]

@@Jake-rs9nq who told u that? cnn?

[@skyisreallyhigh3333]

@@Jake-rs9nq Lots of that electricity is used to produce junk for the world

[@Jake-rs9nq]

@@hovera7946 No, China releases data on their energy consumption. Independent studies also back this up. Look it up instead of crying about CNN.

[@Jake-rs9nq]

@@skyisreallyhigh3333 Nowhere near the majority. It's mostly for domestic heating, appliances, lighting, etc. There's over a billion people in China after all. And their standard of living has risen exponentially in the past few decades.

[@user-ch9my3to6j]

great video, however i wonder how were the older data based on, such as for example that poland does not exist before 1918, so was their emission calculated out of prussian territories? russian ones? austrian? combined? then that would mean such that the german emission would be calculated without accounting in their emission in their former territories that is now poland? that is rather rather confusing for thos who is willing to think a step further

[@plarteey1316]

Yeah I was wondering the same thing although I could see him refer to krakow but that was annexed by Austria in 1846 so I’m just hoping he updates the list in the future

[@theinfotainer3451]

Hi, its been a long while since i have been on your channel, how are you? You channel's looking good!

[@theinfotainer3451]

*vibing real hard on the music

[@RankingCharts]

Glad you enjoy!

[@ulysseschang129]

What about per-capita?

[@rpe7884]

Wo haben sie die Statistik CO2 Ausstoss im 19. Jahrhundert her ? Errechnet ?

[@nikolaysokolnikov2677]

Proland produced more co2 emitions in 1850s then Spain and Austria despite not being a country at the time?

[@nphzjk3746]

Maybe they dont know that Poland dont exist on that time

[@maggotfeast]

Factories inside the current Polish border existed, which at the time would be in Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungary.

[@gorgilovesbasketball8251]

It’s based off modern day borders it’s very dumb

[@robertkowalski7932]

@@gorgilovesbasketball8251 Nonsense. What borders of Poland before 1918, what in 1920, what 1921-1939, what 1939-1945?

[@blcheah2672]

I don't think this is unfair, even though Poland was not independent. They were pretty industrialized at that time. If not for all the wars being fought on their soil, Poland would almost certainly be rich and have lots of cars and Co2 emissions.

[@erdc22ssjjjsjjsj]

please make a video on number of unicorns chart

[@G0TIMAN]

What do you mean by "poland" in 1840? A polish kingdom as a part of russia? Emission of co 2 on teritory of future Second Polish Republic? Or current Third one?

[@user-lz9po8xi4n]

Польша не только была в составе России , но и в составе Германии и Австро-Венгрии.

[@crucesignatidlr]

Awesome work, China. Catching up on that Anglo-Saxon dominance.

[@Lin-fp2yf]

Thinking about per capita 😂

[@glennmitchel7139]

How the hell do you find Swedens CO2 emmision data from 1840?

[@TG-cj5yq]

The US China numbers are funny in the 2000s. I bet you could rank the amount of jobs being outsourced to China and it would be similar

[@billrich9722]

Okay... How did they measure emissions from 1840?

[@pralkatv3485]

The question, what is doing Poland in statistis in the years of not exististing in maps?

[@samatha1994]

Interesting, though more interesting would be per person within a country.

[@xjsnjkil2070]

you should do it per capita.

[@sticktwiddler9028]

Maybe members of Extinction Rebellion should be made to watch this before the plan their next demonstration in the UK.

[@johnchen7541]

Make a video of add up CO2 1840 to 2022

[@frozen1762]

Poland didn't exist in 19c as an independent nation. If you count this by present day borders the stat is useless.

[@TweekLudwig]

The US lowered in emissions during 2020 because of lockdown, I assume?

[@r6nr373]

Correct

[@jarskil8862]

@@r6nr373 Also because USA started driving down coal powerplants during Trump. There was in news how USA "accidently" lowered more emissions than my country pollutes in total :D

[@TweekLudwig]

@@jarskil8862 Well if that's true (which anybody can research, I just woke up and have to go into work), that's the other answer I was expecting that we actually did something to switch power sources, so good on the US, I suppose

[@erickrobertson7089]

Between 2010 and 2019, 290 coal fired power plants have been closed in the US. As of 2019, 241 plants were still online. This amounts to a shuttering of roughly 40% of coal fired power capacity. Conversion to natural gas due to the fracking boom and the lower cost of renewable power as well as the Obama administrations executive order dated the 19th of March, 2015, all contributed to this. Of course, if your legacy lives by "executive" order, it will die in the same way. The share of coal-fired electricity in the United States is now about the same as nuclear and renewable power and falling. Many of these remaining coal power plants are only operated seasonally or at peak demand times. A city to the north of me (Duluth) had a coal power plant operated by Minnesota Power, equipped with the latest scrubbing technology, won awards from the states pollution control agency as a model plant for reducing emissions. It's now closed I think but oddly enough at the same time high sulfur content in the snow during winter was evident, the level was not falling. A expert was quoted as saying it came from China.

[@alimurtaza6318]

Or maybe people just stopped breathing in 2020...... Oh that got dark really fast

[@RL_Twelve]

I just hope people also thinking in the population before seeing the numbers. Totally understable China, USA and India on the top, we can expect China emiting the same than the Vatican + knowing China is producing most of the goods in the world. And I'm not a fanboy or random chinese defensor its just common sense xD there is so much desinformation about this

[@MrNeuroMind]

actually there is no desinformation bro xd

[@eyeswydeshut359]

As the US population increases, our emissions drastically decrease. China's emissions increase no matter what because they don't care.

[@GuyFromTheSouth]

*Sends all polluting factories to China* "We are gonna stop gIobal warming. Look at how much CO2 emissions have gone down in our country!" *China laughing all the way to the bank*

[@wachtwoorden2]

Noone gonna mention how long Belgium was in top 10 for so long??

[@ozone2031]

Belgium was in the core of the Industrial Revolution with very rich coal and iron deposit

[@wachtwoorden2]

@@ozone2031 It's still amazing they were able to keep a head as long as they did though?

[@Vivi-mf3fh]

Is Belgian Congo and African mining count for emissions?

[@wachtwoorden2]

I don't think so, even so it wouldn't make a significant difference

[@WeeDsansita]

This Graph is wrong. You should have emision per person.

[@paco2835]

Why no one said per capita

[@tamulemon]

Per capita, per capita, per capita! The graph is so flawed without per capita data

[@diomedesx2535]

Russia had by far the largest population in Europe during the 19th century yet for most of it they aren't even cracking the top 10....gives you a pretty good insight into the nature what passed for an economy in that country.

[@1337Skrjabinn]

Russia had not industrialized until 1930-s, yes. For most of 19th century it didn't have an urge to reform and industrialize because it had a lot of natural resources and agricultural exports. And it lost 10+ years in 20th century due to ww1 and commies. It would not be fair to compare Russia to early industrialized european countries like UK, Belgium, France, Germany. Those countries lived in a world of rough competition between each other that urged them to innovate. Meanwhile Russia didn't have any rivals that could threaten it's existence so it lagged behind in terms of innovation because innovation was not crucial for russia's existence like it was to countries in western europe.

[@diomedesx2535]

@@1337Skrjabinn Russia also had a very different socio-political climate where serfdom existed across a huge percentage of the population deep into the 1800's - 4+ centuries after it had largely vanished from Western Europe. It was still a medieval society and their economic set up reflected that.

[@Codex7777]

Russia had a large and rapidly growing industrial economy well before ww1. The problem was that large areas of the country weren't industrialised and the majority of the population was still agrarian. ww1 actually stimulated industrialisation but they still struggled to supply their vast army. They hadn't had an agricultural revolution either and the war further disrupted supply, causing worse food shortages than normal. The war, revolution, civil war and economic embargo and invasion by the major capitalist powers all made things even worse. Once the civil war had been won and the invasions beaten back, communist Russia actually industrialised and urbanised extremely rapidly. Agricultural production too, after initial disastrous mistakes, increased rapidly due to modernisation. It was doing pretty well until ww2 devastated the country on an unimaginable scale and received no outside aid afterwards... Russia was much more industrially productive before ww1 than people think. Not as much as NW Europe or North America but it was getting there and was still ahead of the rest of the World. As for post-revolution Russia, for all it's many flaws in it's system, it industrialised and modernised incredibly quickly, despite incredible obstacles to such progress, much faster than was happening pre ww1. Stalinism was bloody awful but you can't pretend that it didn't achieve some amazing things at the same time. Any military dictatorship is doomed to failure in the long term. Even Gorbachev's reforms 'could' have worked, if they'd been brought in slowly... and had begun 15 or 20 years earlier, lol.

[@sungsooonfire2813]

south korea very proud of it!!!

[@anon-san2830]

GOD DAMN USA YOU HAVEN'T LET ME READ ANY GRAPHS FOR THE LAST ONE HUNDRED YEARS!

[@robertkowalski7932]

Nonsense. How was Poland's emission calculated before 1918, like 1939 - 1945, within what limits, when there were no Polish borders?

[@hootowl6354]

Add up all those years and that's one whopping amount of CO2. Can you spin CO2 into gold?

[@user-zn4pw5nk2v]

Yes(maybe, definitely something near gold or you need other stuff( hydrogen, deuterium, tritium ) to math it out), but it produces >2(000) times more CO2 than gold, or you need a fusion powerplant or f-bomb(also works), ~3 CO2 + a billion atmospheres of pressure -> gold , in the TWh energy range per atom, error bars factor of 1000 on all the big numbers. Just need to force the atoms close enough to kiss(fuse). So you can do it, when electricity becomes 0 cents/KWh

[@oommcc]

This chart could also be titles: Top 10 countries who love their children less. Or Top 10 countries with worse parents.

[@shubhamsingh6774]

US will be on the top

[@JFJ12]

Belgium was there because of the steel industry I guess. Learned from another graph it has been of the top players in steel production. But it had other heavy industries as well. I remember in the sixties when driving from Antwerp to Brussels, when crossing the Rupel river we quickly turned up the side windows of the car because of the horrible smell of the factories. I also remember going to London in the nineties for a couple of days and their was an all pervasive coal smell in the air, that once I got home stayed in my cloths for weeks.

[@robertkowalski7932]

The countries of Europe and North America have reduced harmful emissions - they are moving production to Asia and Africa.

[@cringechannel01]

czechoslovakia and hungary were a part of austria

[@hannahgarstang5715]

I feel like looking at the total CO2 emissions per country is almost inane (unless you're maybe correlating it to population growth in conjunction with development). The CO2 emissions of a country per capita is more useful if you're looking at this from an environmental studies and policy perspective.

[@Nasgaaroth]

So why UE is pushing Poland so much to close all coal mines and industry? Push Germans maybe?

[@jarskil8862]

Germany has zero right to do Green moralizing. Largest coal plant in Germany pollutes more than my whole country. Still Germans are just building more coal power to replace the nuclear power they are driving down... -_-

[@Nasgaaroth]

@@jarskil8862 this is what we see from the end of graph. Germany is on the top from UE.

[@CharlesDarwintheThird]

It should be the top 10 countries have to roll-out all this clean energy business.

[@PushyPawn]

Watching at x2 is not fast enough.

[@user-vc5bu4ol9u]

🌍

[@bozenab1111]

A Niemcy mają wieczne pretensje do Polski...

[@solisdaniel6517]

We are number one now

[@llarmstrong783]

When William Henry Harrison died in 1841, that's when this whole climate change mess started

[@cheesechicken39]

That chinese poluted dust visits korea

[@marekszydro5456]

How is Poland on the map here if there was no Poland back then in 1895 - 1918? The country was split between Germany, Russia and Austria and officially didn't exist.

[@donderstorm1845]

mind sharing the name of the music piece? @RankingCharts

[@RankingCharts]

Uranus by Holst

[@donderstorm1845]

@@RankingCharts thank you

[@justinwhy6550]

@@donderstorm1845 Would it have been better for india to be balkanised? Beacause i saw that kraut india vs china you suggested and realised the main problem is that india does not have a strong central state like china since we were less politically united through history unlike china. This is why everything in india is inefficient. This could be prevented by forming smaller countries but i think regardless of that india is still constantly developing. Although would it have been better for it to not be a single country?

[@donderstorm1845]

​@@justinwhy6550 no idea, can't know alternate history. but if you look at india today, some states are doing better than others. so the same would probably happen if they were countries. some south asian countries more developed/richer than others. you are right that india is still developing. but i would say don't compare yourselves to china too much. globally china is unique with its development. out of the top 25 largest economies today, india was the 3rd fastest growing from 1990-2020. growing its economy by 703%. that's an accomplishment by itself. indonesia was 4th with 665%, poland 2nd with 857%, and china 1st with 3593%. every major economy below indonesia grew under 500%. so you see if you compare india to the whole world, objectively speaking india developed very fast. at the same time we shouldn't be overly optimistic either because it's easier to grow when you're at the bottom (india and china were very very poor in 1990). india is growing fast but this growth is not guaranteed to last forever. if india reaches middle income status, will it keep growing or will it be like brazil, which used to grow fast too but has had a stagnant economy for over a decade now? india is also very vulnerable to climate change. india's near term future is looking bright, but long term it's uncertain.

[@cubesclark7564]

It is true that China and India have topped the list in recent years, but together they have well over a quarter of the world's population, and they are also large countries. Is that still high on a per capita basis? Isn't there a lot of pressure on these two countries to feed so many people? Second, Since 2012, China has been promoting the "battle against pollution". The whole country has also been promoting the protection of the earth's ecology and the maintenance of biodiversity, and has made remarkable achievements. It is extremely misleading to look at total co2 emissions alone.

[@mutedandplay8423]

@@hits_different pls count USA’s percentage, and it will surprise u

[@jirachi-wishmaker9242]

China producing 5 times more than that of India

[@YYUTESARK_CLAN]

trades at any cost!

[@garysmith4562]

Co2 isn’t a pollutant. Period. this chart should be about the most productive nations.

[@shri_rand_official]

India needs to be in the 2nd bcuz india is also freaking polluted

[@politecat4412]

Lol USA is more polluted than India

[@hmmmmmmm8412]

Polluted doesn't mean most pollution causing

[@poojashaw3953]

Imagine how much China manufacturers

[@MsPaintMr]

Poland's emissions rose during the 40s. When you realise 💀

[@Tutel9528]

Both the Caust and German exploit of Polish soil

[@channelofstuff6662]

no way India is lower than the USA. almost as many people as china and all running old crappy leaded gas vehicles

[@erickrobertson7089]

We're dependent on official government sources for data. Maybe it's just the way it is but it never made sense to me to let the foxes guard the henhouse.

[@GagandeepSingh-zp5ss]

I think data is rigged. Delhi + Ludhiyana + Mumbai probably has more C02 than US whole.

[@hiteshadhikari]

@@GagandeepSingh-zp5ss nope, the data is pretty accurate, what people fail to account is wind flows

[@shubhamsingh6774]

Due to location India and China are more polluted but US is the one who polluted the world from decades.

[@hmmmmmmm8412]

Us has far more manufacturing industries than India so ofcourse it's going to be on top

[@mikebronicki8264]

Russia, number 11 economy and number 4 in pollution.

[@britasha1194]

Will Zoomers abandon the internet?

[@suzukik9833]

대략 제조산업 강국 순위라고 보면 되겠군

[@garysmith4562]

We, the United States should shoot for a much larger carbon footprint!

[@eaglestar2962]

Carbon emitters and polluters have to be measured per capita. Every individual should be treated fairly for carbon emitters. Otherwise, it does not make sense and totally unfair.

[@johnnyboy2459]

in 2008 onwards we started making EVs and obviously we offset our emissions into GREEN ONES! LOOOOL

[@pauloterenzi]

I feel stupid to report that volcanoes don't respect environmental laws but my car still has to pass the smog test. And you there thinking you'll save the world if you fart less, while you make Elon Musk richer.

[@attiepollard7847]

True. I just wish the Green Peace nut job so stop being so afraid with nuclear technology I mean I can reduce greenhouse emissions by 40%

[@pareshbagada13]

You're right

[@jimtim6206]

You can always reduce the problem by one if climate change is such an issue

[@attiepollard7847]

Invest in nuclear power plants that's the answer.

[@Oschahest]

And people still insist the problem is in Brazil w the Amazonia 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@chris666]

USA USA 🇺🇸 🇺🇸

[@Pavel_Isaev]

Рейтинг явно составлял кто-то, кто мечтает, чтобы все люди умерли, и перестали загрязнять атмосферу.

[@anyaellia7460]

Poland became independent from Russia in November 2018. Before that, the two should be combined as Russian Empire for fair comparison.

[@CrazyInWeston]

I would think that Poland existed before 2018, dont you mean 1918?

[@robertkowalski7932]

Poland's CO2 emissions before 1918 should be divided between Russia, Germany and Austria. And in the years 1939-1945 it belongs to Germany

[@GeronimoPlaz]

C02 isn't pollution. Wtf lol

[@Shaquillyonilly]

Yes it is. It warms the environment.

[@belbrighton6479]

Bloody hell! Here in Britain we led the climate crisis.

[@cedricdavis513]

yet we still don't punish China for all this

[@hmmmmmmm8412]

Per capita they are very low

[@pareshbagada13]

In 2022, Taylor Swift was the world's most carbon polluting celebrity, followed by Floyd Mayweather and Jay-Z. According to a 2024 study by Yard, the average celebrity emits 3,376.64 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, which is 482.37 times more than the average person's annual emissions of 7 tons. Private jets are the most carbon-intensive form of transportation, and passengers on private jets emit about 45 times more than commercial passengers flying the same route.

[@ssnarashi]

Can we ask reparations for the climate change from these counties?

[@simonn5651]

murica : YOU LOT NEED TO REDUCE YOUR CARBON EMISSIONS! , don't worry though we'll make up for what you don't produce!

[@thinker4worldpeace]

The Chart should be pollution per person or per capita. The more person, the more pollution the country will produce. But we can calculate average pollution per person for each country to make more sense. This is totally meaningless.

[@pareshbagada13]

In 2022, Taylor Swift was the world's most carbon polluting celebrity, followed by Floyd Mayweather and Jay-Z. According to a 2024 study by Yard, the average celebrity emits 3,376.64 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, which is 482.37 times more than the average person's annual emissions of 7 tons. Private jets are the most carbon-intensive form of transportation, and passengers on private jets emit about 45 times more than commercial passengers flying the same route.

[@BBBB-nd8pl]

We expel carbon when we breathe. This is stupid to think we have to get 0. Lol

[@Nassii212]

Pour une fois que la France n'est pas dans le classement XE

[@jbrown8601]

USA!USA!

[@d1208cool]

this was depressing to watch.

[@8ofwands300]

Ugh! 😵 This is one comparison I wish the USA was not ahead in...but no surprise. USA was industrial powerhouse for 100 years. Now China is taking this dubious prize. India will likely overtake USA soon too.

[@attiepollard7847]

I mean we can reduce our greenhouse emissions by 40% if we invest in nuclear power plants.

[@justineheather2924]

Hm... Aroganccy of countries from places 1-3 is anormous... All world has to pay taxes bc they make them 100x more then the rest world... And you name it ecollogy xD green house effect... Omg...

[@user-lz9po8xi4n]

До 1917 года Польши не было.

[@caldreamin4250]

Darnit coal :( thanks china :/

[@Do-not-be-sheep]

Climate change will end and be reversed long before the western democracies build out the infrastructure to support electrical vehicles. 1. Carbon emissions are directly proportional to population. The population collapse has already started in Europe, Japan, Russia, and China. By 2035 the world's industrial population will be cut in half and carbon emissions with it. 2. All of the western democracies, have not only flatlined their carbon emissions for 10 years but most have made significant reductions. But despite the above China is now the largest producer of atmospheric carbon and they are building coal fired electrical plants to produce the electricity for their electrical vehicles. China now produces 13,000 million metric tonnes of Carbon each year and increasing exponentially - compare that to the no. 2 producer USA which produces 5,000 metric tonnes and is flatlined Why are we bankrupting Canada to make room for China to produce more Carbon. There is nothing we do as Canada that can impact Climate change when you have countries like China. If we really want to impact climate change then Europe, Canada and the USA need to introduce massive trade sanctions against China until China demonstrates that it is part of the worldwide community.

[@OLBarbok]

Meanwhile in Germany the zoomers still think we can change it on our own while China is still chilling.

[@jarskil8862]

German *Fkers* are building more coal power while driving down nuclear power so they still need to fix their things. Finland soon produces 80% of energy with Uranium. While Germany is decreasing that number

[@mira-rara]

If you count it by per capita, Germany is producing more CO2 per capita when compared to China. Also, India actually is extremely low in terms of CO2 per capita (10% of Germany and America), they just have too many peoples.

[@donderstorm1845]

germany's co2 per capita is higher than china's. also i wouldn't say china is doing nothing, since they're the largest investor in renewable energy by far. it's true that the biggest countries will have the biggest impact, but that's not an excuse for smaller countries to do nothing. if smaller countries did nothing, people in bigger countries would just see that as a reason to do nothing as well, even though climate change affects us all.

[@jarskil8862]

@@mira-rara Per Capita does not matter. The amount of carbon country pushes in atmosphere matters. They always use If thinking... "If high populated countries polluted like alot of polluting low population countries, we would need 10 Earths" To that I always reply, "If all countries bred like alot polluting Finland, there would only be billion people on Earth who could pollute 3x more"

[@erickrobertson7089]

I often wonder that if... 1.) Pollution control devices for industry and transportation have been used widely in the West for some time, especially in the United States (in particular California standards which many American states adopt). 2.) Many components for vehicle emissions are made in China and developing economies. Alibaba itself lists 3,093 catalytic converters and related parts. If these are true, how widely and rapidly would emissions fall on a planetary scale if nations adopted a Western pollution standard and efficiency standards. I mean alot of the technology and hardware is manufactured outside of the West. Why not adopt some standards of the West?

[@FlugSim]

Und Deutschland will die Welt retten

[@randomyoutubechannel4794]

It's kinda misleading, because it says "CO2 Emissions" but sometimes they are going down. There is no technology yet that can "turn back CO2-Emissions" in that way that's shown. It looks more like "Co2 Permisions per *timeperiod*". Also you should make a relation to the amount of people living there. Something like Polution per Citizen (per *timeperiod*).

[@attiepollard7847]

I mean we can start off with nuclear power plants that can reduce our greenhouse emissions by 40% in United States. Plus down the line we're going to have to invest in Brazilian sugar that can be added to our alternative energy until we can master the battery power operated cars

[@robertkowalski7932]

@@attiepollard7847 What damage to the ecosystem is caused by the extraction of elements needed to produce batteries for electric cars?

[@attiepollard7847]

@@robertkowalski7932 very little. If the people do not want oil then we're going to have to search for a realistic alternatives.

[@user-jp1gh3ot6r]

first🇷🇺

[@attiepollard7847]

Yes the United States is the leading polluter when it comes to greenhouse emissions but at the same time we can fix that by investing in nuclear power plants to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 40%. But even when we do that India and China are not going to do the same unless you place major sanctions on them and the question is do you want to go to war over greenhouse admissions if they don't comply?

[@shubhamsingh6774]

You become developed by polluting the world for decades and when other countries do that they are wrong. Hypocrite. Now I can see the reason why US is declining so fast.

[@Manorainjan]

If You ever think, CO2 is a problem for anything, which it is not, than plot the CO2 emissions of a country or region against their "Gross domestic product"! Then You see who knows how to produce the goods which we need to survive in an efficient style. If You shift any production from an European country to India, the CO2-emissions for the same amount of production will triple, the quality of the good will go down, the workers will be less healthy and less protected.

[@erickrobertson7089]

I've thought the same thing myself.

[@Manorainjan]

@@erickrobertson7089 You might enjoy this one: Fritz Vahrenholt - Energiewende zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit (Energy transition between wishful thinking and reality) kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYW2k3SGq5pkjqs automatic translation by YT available.