File talk:GHG per capita 2000.svg
 | Weather File‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Why is discussion of greenhouse gas emissions not also linked on individual pages? I would like to know for example why Guyana, Eritrea, and Malaysia seem to look so bad. -- 99.231.208.23 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Probably because of land use change.
Poor map design edit
This style of map is incredibly misleading, as perception of the coloration of countries is influenced by the area of the country e/g; UAE escapes notice. Properly, this should be a population cartogram, colored by per capita emissions. If one fears the laity cannot handle said cartogram, one might animate a political map morphing into the cartogram, which is then color coded to show emissions. --Belg4mit (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Are these figures based on a country's own submissions? I find it hard to believe that China is one of the greenest nations on Earth.
70.70.176.72 (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Well China does have many citizens so the capita gets lowered. Ameki (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Misleading Data edit
It is hard to believe the data in this map. According to it, European countries are in general a lot greener than South-American countries. Two shocking examples are Bolivia and Venezuela, who produce lots of gas and oil but export most of it. Maybe they count the emissions for the countries that produce fossil fuels rather than the ones that consume it, which is clearly nonsense but would explain most of the shocking data we see in it. Like the huge Gulf countries emissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.89.172 (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
