Visualizations : CO2 Emissions in 2003 (kt) : Can you put Euro in one...

The US is #1. Can you guess #2?

Emissions per capita would be more interesting.

Wonder how this compares to energy use, population, average income? Maybe per capita energy use vs. average income? Or per capita oil use vs. income? Per capita CO2 emissions vs. per capita protein intake? Point being: is there a correlation between standard of living and energy use? Purpose: demonstrate that increasing energy availability (preferably non-CO2-based) increases standard of living, if true.

and why do I believe this is true? its not like there is a CO2 monitor above the earth, logging the emmissions. THis all depends on the politics behind the author and to what gain/loss they want to derive.

Is the large scale burning of forests considered in this graph? I think: no. Contributions of brazil and indonesia would look much different.

If one switches to a bubble view based on CO2/area then the political division issue of EU vs countries disappears. It certainly is a very different view. I think per capita and per GDP would also be very interesting. Of course one needs to remember that issues like which countries are blessed with lots of hydro or which are willing to accept nuclear also make a big difference.

What about following the flow of international trade? If a country produces goods, services, food, metals, etc for export how would this look if the CO2 used to produce these things was attached to the country consuming rather than producing the product. For instance, American agriculture produces a lot of CO2, but a lot of the food is sent overseas.

I suppose all of this is touching upon some of the numerous reasons that coming up with a global system of CO2 reduction that is perceived as “fair” is so difficult.