Top CO2 polluters and highest per capita

The biggest absolute emissions of CO2 come from China and the United States.

top-co2-producers

Source: World in Data

annual-co2-emissions-per-country

In recent years, China has accelerated past the United States and is the biggest polluter in absolute terms, (which is unsurprising given China’s population and fast economic growth. India is also catching up.)

Biggest CO2 Polluters per capita (2024)

1Qatar48.2
2Bahrain23.7
3Kuwait23.0
4Brunei21.2
5Trinidad and Tobago19.9
6UAE19.6
7Saudi Arabia18.5
8Oman18.4
9Russian Fed14.4
10Canada14.3
11Australia14.0
12USA13.9
13Kazakhstan11.8
14Korea, Rep.11.1
15Luxembourg10.5
16Singapore9.6
17China9.4
18Turkmenistan9.0
19Iran, Islamic Rep.8.6
20Libya8.4
21Estonia8.3
22Czechia8.3
23Mongolia8.1
24Malaysia8.1
25Norway8.0
26Iceland7.8
27Poland7.8
28Japan7.6
29Belgium7.2
30Germany6.9
31Bosnia and Herzegovina6.9
32Netherlands6.9
33New Zealand6.8
34Austria6.4
35Slovak Republic6.4
36South Africa6.3
37Central Europe and the Baltics6.3
38Israel6.2
39Bulgaria6.2
40Ireland6.1
41Belarus5.9
42Finland5.8
43Slovenia5.7
44European Union5.6
45Maldives5.5
46Bermuda5.4
47Cyprus5.3
48Italy5.2
49Turkiye5.1
50Greece5.0
51Cayman Islands4.9
52North Macedonia4.8
53Hong Kong SAR, China4.6
54Hungary4.6
55Lithuania4.6
56Croatia4.5
57Denmark4.5
58Spain4.5
59United Kingdom4.4
60Puerto Rico (US)4.3
61Iraq4.3
62Chile4.3
63Bahamas, The4.2
64Azerbaijan4.2
65Suriname4.2
66France4.1
67Moldova4.0
68Argentina4.0
69Guyana4.0
70Algeria3.9
71Uzbekistan3.9
72IDA & IBRD total3.9
73Switzerland3.9
74Thailand3.8
75Mexico3.8
76Viet Nam3.7
77Romania3.7
78Ukraine3.6
79Latvia3.5
80Antigua and Barbuda3.5
81Georgia3.5
82Portugal3.4
83Lao PDR3.4
84Sweden3.4
85Mauritius3.3
86Panama3.3
87Malta3.0
88Lebanon3.0
89Botswana3.0
90Venezuela, RB3.0
91Barbados2.8
92Dominican Republic2.8
93Armenia2.6
94Uruguay2.6
95Tunisia2.6
96Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan (IDA & IBRD)2.6
97Bhutan2.5
98Ecuador2.5
99Korea, Dem. People’s Rep.2.4
100Jamaica2.4
101Indonesia2.4
102Fiji2.4
103Brazil2.3
104Turks and Caicos Islands2.2
105Egypt, Arab Rep.2.2
106Samoa2.2
107Tonga2.1
108Jordan2.1
109India2.1
110Equatorial Guinea2.0
111Cuba2.0

This measures the level of CO2 per person. Thus China with the highest CO2 in absolute terms is ranked considerably lower down.

highest-co2-polluters-per-capitaThe highest CO2 Polluters per capita are dominated by oil producing countries who refine oil and emit CO2 in the oil extraction and refining process.

Consumption-based emissions (trade adjusted)

It is worth bearing in mind that this data shows CO2 production in a country. CO2 by consumption would look different. For example, the UK is a net importer of CO2. In recent decades, the UK has reduced CO2 emissions per capita because manufacturing has declined and we import goods from other countries. In other words, CO2 emissions are produced elsewhere but the UK enjoy the goods.

us-co2-emissions

US is a net importer of CO2. Adjusted for consumption, the US total would be 7.7% higher.

china-co2-consumptionSource: Our World in Data

China is a net exporter of CO2. Adjusted for consumption, the Chinese total would be 14% lower.

 

Selected countries CO2 emissions per capita

co2-emissions-per-capita

Source: World Bank

What explains variation in CO2 emissions per capita?

  • Levels of GDP. Countries with higher real incomes can afford to use more petrol and industrial production which causes pollution. By comparison, the lowest income countries have very limited industrial production and consumption of oil.
  • Focus of the economy. Economies based on oil  (like Qatar, Russia have the highest levels of CO2 per capita. Qatar has a rate of 45.4 (off the chart) – small population but production based on oil exploration and oil refining. Some richer countries have reduced CO2 emissions, but are contributing to CO2 because they are importing goods from other countries, where the CO2 is produced.
  • Transport policy. Levels of petrol tax and balance of transport modes can influence CO2 emissions. Countries with the highest levels of car use lead to more CO2 emissions. (See: relative petrol prices around the world, e.g. compare US with western Europe)
  • Policies to reduce CO2 emissions. To meet global warming targets countries have adopted policies, such as carbon tax and regulation to reduce pollution.
  • Modes of Power generation. The burning of fossil fuels (e.g. coal-powered electricity stations) is one of biggest causes of CO2 emissions. Countries which gain energy from renewables have lower CO2 emissions per capita.

Changes in CO2 emissions per capita

co2-emission-over-time

  • China’s CO2 emissions per capita have more than tripled in past 15 years.

Why the UK has a decline in CO2 emissions?

The UK has reduced its level of CO2 emissions due to

  • Significant decline in number of coal-burning power stations.
  • Growth in renewable energy (wind/solar)
  • Decline in manufacturing – push CO2 emissions offshore.
  • More fuel efficient engines.
  • Greater population density tends to reduce per capita emissions as greater population density encourages more efficient living (more public transport/cycling)

global-co2-emissions

There was a temporary fall in CO2 emissions in the middle of 2020 due to the Covid induced economic shutdown, however these falls tend to be only temporary. For example, in the financial crisis of 2008, economic downturn led to lower Co2 Emissions, however, this was a minor blip.

 

Source: World Bank

Lowest CO2 emissions per Capita

lowest-co2-emissions-per-capita

By comparison, some of the poorest countries produce practically zero CO2 emissions per capita.


Readers Question: Why don’t countries use the carbon tax?

  • Taxes are generally politically unpopular. A tax on carbon emissions will affect the living costs of many people. This can make the government reluctant to impose the tax.
  • There is also the free rider problem. A small country may think – what is the point in introducing carbon tax when their CO2 emissions are dwarfed by other countries like China and the US? Especially, when these bigger countries don’t seem inclined to do too much about the issue.
  • There are also differing opinions about the potential cost of CO2 emissions to the environment. In the US, there is a strong lobby which argues global warming is not scientifically proven. Therefore, there is a resistance to impeded CO2 emissions.
  • Another factor is that there are significant vested interests in the oil industry / other industries which pollute. They fear CO2 tax will reduce their profitability so they are willing to fight against moves to introduce taxes.
  • Another argument used is that a Carbon tax will harm jobs.

Co2 Emissions and global warming

global-temperature-rise

CO2 emissions are widely considered to play a significant role in contributing to global warming.

Global CO2 source: wiki commons
  • Over the past few decades, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere have continued to rise. Scientists say this increase in CO2 has contributed to global warming.
  • Global warming has potentially damaging economic consequences with increased weather variability and loss of biodiversity.
  • At Kyoto, countries made commitments to target lower CO2 emissions, but these targets have rarely been met. At negotiations, countries collectively agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (which includes Carbon dioxide) by 5.2% on average for the period 2008-2012.

Change in CO2 Emissions per Capita in the past two decades

change-co2-emissions

The biggest challenge to limit carbon dioxide is faced by developing economies with rapid economic growth. Due to rapid growth, there is a tendency to see quicker increases in CO2 use, e.g. as people can afford cars and production increases.

Related

About The Author

45 thoughts on “Top CO2 polluters and highest per capita”

  1. Solar and wind CAN provide base load power for all of the country through pumped hydro storage. When there is an excess of energy (eg solar on a clear day), water can be pumped from one reservoir to another at a higher elevation. It can then be stored until required, when the water from the upper reservoir falls back to the lower reservoir, turning a turbine producing electricity (as in conventional Hydro).

    This reservoir system does not have the large scale impact of flooding whole valleys as conventional hydro did. The upper reservoir only needs to be large enough to store the energy required for that location. Abandoned mine sites are being considered for this purpose.

    Two major developments occur in the Snowy Hydro and in Tasmania. Snowy 2.0 is a 2000MW system that has capacity for over a week.

    A second large capacity cable linking Tasmania to the mainland will soon be installed to capitalise on existing hydro and future pumped hydro opportunities in Tasmania. This describes Tasmania as the ‘Battery of the Nation’, capable of storing even larger amounts of renewable energy, ready to be released into the grid in minutes.

    Of course they are very, very expensive but there are enough suitable locations to store all of Australia’s energy needs. The reservoir systems do not need a water supply, though loses will occur due to evaporation.

    Disagree with coal/oil/gas for any use. If we must, gas has about double the efficiency of coal (combined cycle).

    Hydrogen should be seen only as a form of energy storage. It needs to be created through energy input so the only method not involving fossil fuels is power hungry electrolysis. Excess renewables could be used to produce H2 from water.

    Just because we are a small country doesn’t give us any excuse to not abide by the principles adhered to by most of the rest of the world. Australia is seen as a total joke by the rest of the world and our PM has similar environmental views as his man crush hero Trump.

    Agree that nuclear is a great choice, wish it was considered 20 years ago.

    Agree with those

    Reply
  2. The USA has the second highest CO2 emissions level per capita. While at the same time the US researchers and scientists are doing amazing lab reports and saving a huge amount of time for the protection of the planet’s ozone layer. Saudi Arabia is the biggest polluter in 2019. The thesis on one of the companies explained how they work: Chevron, Coal India, and ExxonMobil.

    Reply
  3. If all coal power stations were converted to nuclear, CO2 would drop by a third, that’s a fact. But, it will never happen, solar and wind are too intermittent to provide base load power. Gas has half CO2 compared to coal, use with carbon collection, no CO2 from power. Coal can produce hydrogen, new tech, low CO2. Cars much cleaner. All means nothing as Australia emits only 1.3% CO2 globally, while global emissions increase at a much higher rate. World going backwards, makes no deference what Australia does.

    Reply
    • If you look at the countries that individually produce 2% or less of the world’s CO2, and add their outputs up you get to around 40% of total output. So, how are we going to reduce CO2 production if these countries all say, “don’t look at me, we hardly make a difference.”?

      Target the big producers? India’s per capita output is about 1/9th of Australia’s, China’s less than half… So why should they cut emissions as we cruise along as one of the world’s highest producers of CO2?

      Renewables are quite capable of providing “base load” power. See: http://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf

      Reply
      • Charles both of the above reduction in emissions need to occur. The 40% and also the larger volume output countries. China is rising quickly and are building more and more coal fired power stations at a rate three times faster than the world combined.

        Reply
    • I’ve seen that argument used by a USA citizen who argued that the USA produces only 15% of global emissions and that as a bit such a player it did not need to do anything. How can we expect others to their bit when we refuse to do ours?

      Reply
  4. If we wish to convert from fossil fuels for energy to renewables there are certain necessities we must have in place. Hydro, wind and solar must replace thermal sources. If , as is happening locally, electricity is rising in cost far faster than fossil fuels and in addition we tax all existing transportation far more, reducing the ability of consumers to convert as they would prefer, how can we say we are encouraging the broad populace to reduce their individual carbon output? Carbon taxes leaving less disposable income do not enhance the individual’s ability to convert, but rather impede their ability to do so. China has a far better plan which is at present working far better than imposing carbon taxes.

    Reply

Leave a comment


Item added to cart.
0 items - £0.00