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

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

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

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?

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

@@winstonchurchill5516 800*

Sun and wind : huh kid😏

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

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

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.

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.

What.

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

Uranus by Holst.

Not fair when some nations are placed in cold climate

I need the same info. Where are the sources ?

You can find the data on ourworldindata.com

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

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

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

Maybe they dont know that Poland dont exist on that time

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@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.

*vibing real hard on the music

Glad you enjoy!

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

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

Is Belgian Congo and African mining count for emissions?

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

Thinking about per capita 😂

Correct

@@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

@@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

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.

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

actually there is no desinformation bro xd

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

Both the Caust and German exploit of Polish soil

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

Uranus by Holst

@@RankingCharts thank you

@@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?

​@@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.

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.

@@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.

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.

US will be on the top

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... -_-

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

Lol USA is more polluted than India

Polluted doesn't mean most pollution causing

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

China producing 5 times more than that of India

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.

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

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

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

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

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%

Invest in nuclear power plants that's the answer.

Yes it is. It warms the environment.

Per capita they are very low

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

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

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

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.

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.

@@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"

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?

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

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

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

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

I've thought the same thing myself.

@@erickrobertson7089 You might enjoy this one: Fritz Vahrenholt - Energiewende zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit (Energy transition between wishful thinking and reality) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GTSbAPv51XI.html automatic translation by YT available.

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.