There isn't much point including the chart all the way back to 1750 when only the last 100 years at most is significant. Notably India only became independent in 1947, the Chinese civil war only effectively ended in 1949, the EU only officially came into existence in 1993 (although the EEC started in 1957) so many of the quoted entities didn't even exist as a polity for most of this chart's timeline.
If you look at the per-capita emissions on Our World in Data, Qatar is by far the worst offender, followed by Kuwait, Brunei, Bahrain and similar mostly Gulf petrostates. Australia is 11th from the top, the US is 12th. Pretty shameful for us.
Every single time you point out that a country of 1412 million people uses vastly more power than a country with 28 million people, someone points out that they obviously aren't comparable without allowing for the massive difference in the population?
All else being equal, emissions should be proportional to population because consumption is proportional to population and emissions are proportional to consumption. Per capita shows where there is room for improvement, because the population is more wasteful/overconsuming and causing more than their fair share of emissions.
PS: An analogy: If a single person 'A' eats 5 sausages at a BBQ, and a family 'B' of five people eat 10 sausages between them, it's technically true that A ate less sausages than B. It's technically true that the family B has caused the sausages to run out faster than the single person A. But it is also true that the family only got 2 sausages per capita while the first one had 5 per capita - more than their fair share - and it's both easier and fairer for A to reduce their consumption than B.
Every single time you point out that a country of 1412 million people uses vastly more power than a country with 28 million people, someone points out that they obviously aren’t comparable without allowing for the massive difference in the population?
If a single person ‘A’ eats 5 sausages at a BBQ, and a family ‘B’ of five people eat 10 sausages between them, it’s technically true that A ate less sausages than B. It’s technically true that the family B has caused the sausages to run out faster than the single person A.
But it is also true that the family only got 2 sausages per capita while the first one had 5 per capita - more than their fair share - and it’s both easier and fairer for A to reduce their consumption than B.
PLANET DOESN’T CARE ABOUT PER CAPITA
The point isn't that the anthropomorphized "planet doesn't care", the point is that some people are emitting more and therefore have more room to cut back. Again, per capita shows where there is room for improvement, because the population is causing more than their fair share of emissions.
Family of 5 B ate more sausages than Family of 1 A. Who is best placed to reduce their sausage consumption?
Fossil CO2 emissions in India were 3,153,829,130 tons in 2024.
India Population: 1,476,625,576
Fossil CO2 emissions in China were 13,124,727,993 tons in 2024.
China Population: 1,412,914,089
Your analogy sucks on 10 different levels btw, I know how per capita works but you don't seem to understand why China shits out 33% of all emissions in the world with no sizable reduction in years
It's a very clumsy analogy, but it does have a fair point. CO2 is a proxy for standard of living, and some countries have a lot more room to cut fat than others.
While China emits almost 3x as much net CO2 as the USA, getting China to the global average emissions of 4.7 tons/person would only have ~1.5x the effect of getting everyone in the US to that level, while affecting over four times as many people.
As a hyperbolic example, getting everyone in the US to be vegetarian half-time with no other lifestyle changes would have roughly the same carbon savings as making the combined populations of Nigeria and Kenya (roughly equal to US population) completely carbon neutral, while also being way more economically feasible.
Worth pointing your that chart only goes up to 2024 so doesn't show tge fact that over the last year or so china's emissions have flattened out and are showing signs that they will begin to decline.
As the planet is now seriously beginning to kick us in the head we better hope so...
Built for backup, contracted to run: Chinaʼs coal support system risks crowding out clean power
August 2026
New coal power plants entering operation in China reached the highest first-half year level since 2016, with 10 GW entering operation for every 1 GW retired, despite a policy shift towards tighter control of new project approvals. China commissioned 30 GW of new coal power, up 43% from last year, while retiring only 2.7 GW. Another 25.4 GW started construction.
China went from 28% in 2020 to 37% renewables in 2025. If electricity consumption would have been stable, they would be at 50% renewables today. If they would have just added renewables and not cut fossil fuels they would be at 41%.
To be on the list, you need to add 19% in new renewables in 5years. So they could have done it, but only if they actually shut down some coal or other fossil fuels. It really shows how much some countries add, but get neglected, because China is such a massive country.
16 Comments
Cherry@piefed.social · 30 pts · 1d
If you want the snapshot
davetortoise@reddthat.com · 7 pts · 1d
Thanks 🙏
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 1d
Imagine if China decided to stop building new coal power plants for 5 minutes and maybe they could join the top 10 as well
budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net · 9 pts · 1d
There isn't much point including the chart all the way back to 1750 when only the last 100 years at most is significant. Notably India only became independent in 1947, the Chinese civil war only effectively ended in 1949, the EU only officially came into existence in 1993 (although the EEC started in 1957) so many of the quoted entities didn't even exist as a polity for most of this chart's timeline.
If you look at the per-capita emissions on Our World in Data, Qatar is by far the worst offender, followed by Kuwait, Brunei, Bahrain and similar mostly Gulf petrostates. Australia is 11th from the top, the US is 12th. Pretty shameful for us.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · -9 pts · 1d
Every single time I post a chart showing actual emissions someone comes along as says look at per capita
I need to put a disclaimer down the bottom: the earth does not care about per capita! shut up about per capita!
https://youtu.be/Z-1jU7j6OWw?t=14
budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net · 8 pts · 1d
Every single time you point out that a country of 1412 million people uses vastly more power than a country with 28 million people, someone points out that they obviously aren't comparable without allowing for the massive difference in the population?
All else being equal, emissions should be proportional to population because consumption is proportional to population and emissions are proportional to consumption. Per capita shows where there is room for improvement, because the population is more wasteful/overconsuming and causing more than their fair share of emissions.
PS: An analogy: If a single person 'A' eats 5 sausages at a BBQ, and a family 'B' of five people eat 10 sausages between them, it's technically true that A ate less sausages than B. It's technically true that the family B has caused the sausages to run out faster than the single person A. But it is also true that the family only got 2 sausages per capita while the first one had 5 per capita - more than their fair share - and it's both easier and fairer for A to reduce their consumption than B.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · -3 pts · 22h
YES
PLANET DOESN'T CARE ABOUT PER CAPITA
budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 13h
The point isn't that the anthropomorphized "planet doesn't care", the point is that some people are emitting more and therefore have more room to cut back. Again, per capita shows where there is room for improvement, because the population is causing more than their fair share of emissions.
Family of 5 B ate more sausages than Family of 1 A. Who is best placed to reduce their sausage consumption?
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · -1 pts · 13h
Fossil CO2 emissions in India were 3,153,829,130 tons in 2024.
India Population: 1,476,625,576
Fossil CO2 emissions in China were 13,124,727,993 tons in 2024.
China Population: 1,412,914,089
Your analogy sucks on 10 different levels btw, I know how per capita works but you don't seem to understand why China shits out 33% of all emissions in the world with no sizable reduction in years
noodles@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 8h
It's a very clumsy analogy, but it does have a fair point. CO2 is a proxy for standard of living, and some countries have a lot more room to cut fat than others.
While China emits almost 3x as much net CO2 as the USA, getting China to the global average emissions of 4.7 tons/person would only have ~1.5x the effect of getting everyone in the US to that level, while affecting over four times as many people.
As a hyperbolic example, getting everyone in the US to be vegetarian half-time with no other lifestyle changes would have roughly the same carbon savings as making the combined populations of Nigeria and Kenya (roughly equal to US population) completely carbon neutral, while also being way more economically feasible.
Egonallanon@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 1d
Worth pointing your that chart only goes up to 2024 so doesn't show tge fact that over the last year or so china's emissions have flattened out and are showing signs that they will begin to decline.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 1d
As the planet is now seriously beginning to kick us in the head we better hope so...
https://globalenergymonitor.org/sites/default/files/2026-08/CREA_GEM_China_Coal%20power_H1%202026.pdf
For reference:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/three-quarters-of-australias-coal-plants-will-close-by-2035-even-as-governments-step-in-with-new-subsidies/
They built more than our entire fleet of coal power plants literally this year
Question: We see Gertyl Humbug, just stop oil etc running around the streets, do they do these protests in China?
MrMakabar@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 1d
China went from 28% in 2020 to 37% renewables in 2025. If electricity consumption would have been stable, they would be at 50% renewables today. If they would have just added renewables and not cut fossil fuels they would be at 41%.
To be on the list, you need to add 19% in new renewables in 5years. So they could have done it, but only if they actually shut down some coal or other fossil fuels. It really shows how much some countries add, but get neglected, because China is such a massive country.
Source and some maths: https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix
oeuf@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 1d
Awesome, I'm so glad to see this being done 💪
In the last few years Russia and the US have shown the world how non-violence and renewable energy are interlinked.
It's great to see Hungary in particular turning away from fascism, and embracing renewables.