More

Top 10 Most Polluting Countries: Who Emits The Most CO2? (PHOTOS)

Top 10 Polluting Countries

The Huffington Post Canada   First Posted: 02/21/2012 4:54 pm Updated: 02/21/2012 7:09 pm

Amazing
 Inspiring
 Funny
 Scary
 Hot
 Crazy
 Important
 Weird

Which country emits the most carbon dioxide? With climate change a massive political, environmental and business issue it's worth taking a look at who emits the most CO2 in the world.

See our big news page for complete coverage of climate change issues.

The following slideshow looks at the world's biggest polluters. The data, preliminary numbers from 2010, is taken from the U.S. government's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre.

Not surprisingly, the world's largest economies, those in the G8, figure prominently in the list. See the slideshow below:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

Which country emits the most carbon dioxide? With climate change a massive political, environmental and business issue it's worth taking a look at who emits the most CO2 in the world. See our big ...
Which country emits the most carbon dioxide? With climate change a massive political, environmental and business issue it's worth taking a look at who emits the most CO2 in the world. See our big ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 51
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
RecoilArms
25 Fans
10:22 AM on 10/09/2012
While America may be second on the list, how about they make a list of "bottom ten countries to actually care about the environment and have regulations to keep nature clean." America would be at the opposite side of that spectrum; being one of the most eco friendly countries on earth. Take a look at the third world countries... no emission standards, to environmental considerations. If you re-do this top ten list with that in mind you'll have an entirely new list... in other words you'll have to find someone else to replace America and shift 3rd - 10th place up one.
Permalink  |
fisch123
For those of you who don't know 1T = 1000B.
1160 Fans
11:44 PM on 02/23/2012
If you take those same countries by population the picture is a little different:

per capita
inda 1.7
china 6.1
iran 7.55
japan 8.96
germany 9.4
korea 11.5
russia 11.8
canada 15.7
us 17.5
SaudiaArabia 18.2

Suddenly China and india don't look so bad. Considering that over 20% of canadian emissions are from oil and gas production, the rapid expansion of the oil sands could soon have us topping the list per capita(of the major producers). Wahoo!
Permalink  |
SouthernPhilosopher
9 Fans
11:41 AM on 06/30/2012
Thanks for that breakdown. I was just wondering about the breakdown of those numbers. I wonder what percentage of the US's pollution is from gas and oil production?
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Liban CZ
325 Fans
08:11 PM on 02/22/2012
That would be Rick Mercer.
Lots of CO2 emissions, every time he is on stage.
Permalink  |
photo
SimonBao
373 Fans
07:08 PM on 02/22/2012
That's a bit of a low-grade analysis. And a low-grade sloppy headline.

Such analyses are always more informative when they are presented as CO2 emissions per capita, CO2 emissions per GNP or GDP, other formats that provide useful information.

And this is NOT a slideshow or listing of top "polluters," as "polluters" can refer to countless pollutants.

HuffPost, will you NEVER aspire to do better with headlines and accuracy????
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kwaut lizard
Reductio ad Absurdum
623 Fans
09:32 AM on 02/23/2012
Some more comprehensive journalistic coverage would not go astray. It's not like a lot of research is needed or that the competition has the edge on them. LOL!
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mhh310351
Roosevelt Democrat
162 Fans
04:07 PM on 02/22/2012
I was surprised - I was looking at energy consumption per capita and the U.S. was #10!

Behind nations like Luxembourg, Iceland, and Canada.
Permalink  |
jel3800
58 Fans
05:27 PM on 02/23/2012
that would have not been worth reporting here
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mhh310351
Roosevelt Democrat
162 Fans
02:27 PM on 02/22/2012
See burning 49% of all the coal consumed on the planet will move you up the list quick!
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
AmericanItalian
126 Fans
01:57 PM on 02/22/2012
Forests are natures CO2 scrubbers. Although CO2 is not an actual pollutant it is a greenhouse gas. And we all know the story behind greenhouse gas. So why not stop cutting down all the rain forests and woodlands simpoly to build more homes that we do not need! Allow the planet to do it's job and the concern about CO2 would not be as large.

If we decided to follow the Kyoto protocol the US alone would spend trillions of dollars only to reduce the earth's temperature by fractions of a degree within the next century. Now is that money well spent?
Permalink  |
photo
lkgilles
133 Fans
10:07 AM on 02/23/2012
We dont need more homes? Where are people going to live?
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
AmericanItalian
126 Fans
12:30 PM on 02/23/2012
We have so many homes. The problem is people want more than just a home, they want a 5 bedroom home with acres of land. Don't get me wrong I want the same which makes it tough.
But I see so many vacant homes in good parts of the city simply because people want to move out into the suburbs for bigger homes. I grew up in the country and now when I go back to my parents house, which had a backyard view of fields and mountains, I see homes as far as the eye can see. I see new plazas being built in the country so people don't have to come to the city to shop. Yet in the city I see perfectly good Vacant Plazas. So I only ask when is it too much?
Permalink  |
jel3800
58 Fans
05:51 PM on 02/23/2012
Almost all construction umber, and paper for thast matter, come from tree farms - at least in US, Canada, Europe and much of South and Centraol America. These farms are harvested every 30-90 years depending on climat and replenished with more trees than were harvested. Trees are harvested sfter they become mature and slow down growth - this is after their prime CO2 scrubbing cycle has completed and the new trees willl then go into their prime. Evan at that lumber that is used for building the houses you speak of still holds the carbon out of the environment as long as the building stands and the wood does not rot or burn.
Rain forests are falling mostly to farm land and much of the wood wasted by burning or rotting, thus returning the carbon to the environment. Of course the farm land is needed to grow food for an ever growing population. Farm products do capture carbon as well but usually return it within a year.
Your comments about forrests and woodlands being natures scrubbers are accurate and well taken - we need more trees.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
rxspence
45 Fans
12:00 PM on 02/22/2012
don't people realize that they sell co2 generators for greenhouses to increase plant growth?
this rediculous!!!
Permalink  |
smileaway03
11 Fans
01:56 PM on 02/22/2012
Do you realize that plants need carbon to grow? Hence photosynthesis. And since they are inside a large plastic incubator, they probably can't get as much co2 from the outside air as they could if they were planted in a field. Now many places do not have the climate where they can grow plants and food all year round. I know for myself, I would much rather buy my produce from a local farmer all year round who uses a co2 generator than, drive (adding co2 to the atmosphere), get to the grocery store (which is adding co2 to the atmosphere through energy consumption), buy produce that has been trucked across the country (adding co2 to the atmosphere), produce that has been grown in mass with tractors, fertilizers and factories (all which are adding co2 to the atmosphere) and then drive home (more co2 into the atmosphere). I highly suggest you google the term 'carbon footprint'.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kwaut lizard
Reductio ad Absurdum
623 Fans
09:33 AM on 02/23/2012
That would require some lateral thinking ... don't hold your breathe. BTW nice comment.
Permalink  |
jel3800
58 Fans
06:03 PM on 02/23/2012
Well put. I too prefer local produce for many reasons but have also seen studies that say large (read corporate) farms are so much more efficient that even with refridgeeration and transportation they have smaller carbon footprint/impact than the cumlitive effect if the neccessaty number of small farms - even so I hate the passing of the family farm
Permalink  |
jel3800
58 Fans
05:57 PM on 02/23/2012
Dont really think the greenhouse generators impact the environment very much, especially after the plants growing there consume (hopefully) most of it.
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
rxspence
45 Fans
11:32 AM on 02/22/2012
per capita the u.s. is by far the worst polluter and our demand for unnecessary consumables is the reason for much of other countries pollution. Yet we cry the most about the need for change!
Where else do single families live in 3000 sq.ft. houses, own 3 or 4 gas guzzlers, and have mini storages for all the worthless junk they will never use?
Physician, heal thyself.
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tonyg10
90 Fans
10:12 PM on 02/26/2012
Why does the name Al Gore come to mind after reading your and other responses?
Permalink  |
photo
kazazajua
81 Fans
09:09 AM on 02/22/2012
But, on the good side, Canada would drop down to the mid 30's if we could shut down mayor Rob Ford and Minister Vic Toews.
Permalink  |
photo
sunsetter
605 Fans
08:05 AM on 02/22/2012
It's called the industrialized world and I vehemently object to calling CO2 a pollutant. Under a new Administration, some sanity will be brought back to the EPA.

Anyone figure out yet what we get from these countries? This is a hard one folks. Look around your house, your community, your city, your country - Yeah, that's right, we get all of the trappings of civilization.

Only people who believe man is a parasite lap these kind of stories up.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wanderland
Generic white guy
1645 Fans
10:27 AM on 02/22/2012
Why isn't CO2 a pollutant?
Permalink  |
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
rxspence
45 Fans
11:18 AM on 02/22/2012
people exhale co2
plants inhale co2 and produce oxygen
industries manufacture co2 to put in your food and drinks
co2 consists of carbon and oxygen which are not pollutants
Permalink  |
smileaway03
11 Fans
11:20 AM on 02/22/2012
co2 is being called a pollutant only because there is now so much of it. We humans expell co2 yes. Plants and trees then take it in and through photosynthesis will use the carbon atoms to grow and release fresh oxygen. Today there is so much co2 being pumped into the atmoshere from factories, vehicles, humans and animals that plant life can't keep up to filter it all.

There was a famous experiment done a long time ago (can't remember the scientist or date), a scientist put mouse #1 in a bell jar with no plant and mouse #2 in another bell jar along with a plant. Mouse #2 survived while mouse #1 did not. This is what is happening in the environment and why co2 is considered a pollutant. Too much of it and we will suffocate, just like mouse #1.
Permalink  |
jel3800
58 Fans
06:12 PM on 02/23/2012
There have times in the past that have seen higher levls f CO2 and there will be in the future - it iss cyclical. The earth will correct it and lower CO2 concentrations when they get too high - guaranteed!!!
What is not guaranteed is weather mankind will live through it.
The earth will survive - we may not
Permalink  |
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tonyg10
90 Fans
10:16 PM on 02/26/2012
Hey rocket scientist, too much of just about anything will kill you. Too much water, too much food, too much oxygen, Just like mouse #1.
Permalink  |
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
808 Fans
01:29 AM on 02/22/2012
China, then the US.

We used to have a lock on it, but then the Chinese embarked on a program of building one new coal plant every week.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sean Connolly
35 Fans
10:13 PM on 02/21/2012
USA is by far the most polluting in terms of CO2. almost as Much as China, but with a bit more than 1/4 of China's population.

Coal power in China accounts for most of China's emissions. The US should have been working to get off coal for the past 50 years... and still isn't. China will wean itself off coal before America does.
Permalink  |
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
808 Fans
01:29 AM on 02/22/2012
Let's hope not.
Permalink  |
photo
Gregg-O
121 Fans
03:16 AM on 02/22/2012
Evidently you failed to read the captions, or you just like to bash the U.S. even if you have to lie to do it.

US - Estimated CO2 Emissions in 2010 (in thousands of metric tonnes): 5,492,170

China - Estimated CO2 Emissions in 2010 (in thousands of metric tonnes): 8,240,958
Permalink  |
vakh
42 Fans
09:23 AM on 02/22/2012
Americans are easier to lead around by the nose than the chinese.
Permalink  |
slackey
2 Fans
09:43 AM on 02/22/2012
I'm not bashing the US, but their per capita output of CO2 is much higher than China's. Not to mention a lot of China's output comes from manufacturing consumer goods that are for other countries. This list is really a poor indication of who pollutes the most.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PotomacOracle
The Solution:debt free credit clearing systems
822 Fans
 
09:33 PM on 02/21/2012
I wonder how much methane was released with the BP disaster? Being 25 times more dangerous than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, it could contribute significantly to weather "anamolies."

Then there's the Arctic albedo effect warming the oceans and permafrost, which may cause billions of cubic yards of methane hydrates to dissociate.

Just wondering why the methane-methane hydrate phenomenon is so seldom mentioned by academics, MSM, etc.. Maybe because the oil industry has a clamp on these so called scientists who are supposed to inform us of very dangerous gases. The indusry created methane hydrates when it pumps fresh water into the earth where it combines with natural carbon to form the hydrate (which can only be formed with fresh water, not salt water.)

Methane hydrate needs to stay in its stability zone--high pressure and extreme cold after it forms. When it's forced out of that zone because of too much heat or low pressure, it dissociates, explodes upward. Often up the shafts in wells, and now along the Arctic shelf where the albedo effect has really warmed the oceans. Shell Oil found out recently when out of no where an explosion blew up its rig.

Just wondering.
Permalink  |
photo
trumphent
116 Fans
06:39 AM on 02/22/2012
I don't think that much of the methane from Deepwater Horizon made it into the atmosphere. It was a mile below the surface. It was icing up the first tophat attempt. Bacteria got to work on it, using up the available oxygen. CO2 is the result. You are correct in describing the clathrates in shallow water and in permafrost on land. And no, the scientists are aware of and reporting the methane situation. It's not yet as menacing as CO2 is today. There is no clamp, yet.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Milks
Ecologist
1554 Fans
11:27 AM on 02/22/2012
Methane hydrates are acknowledged as a potential problem in the academic literature. The word "potential" is the key, as methane hydrates won't be a problem if (and that's looking like a big "if") we get our CO2 emissions under control.
Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Fanney
Scribbler
2265 Fans
 
08:13 PM on 02/21/2012
Yep. 600 gigawatts worth of coal plants means China is the worst of the worst. Passed us about four years ago...
Permalink  |