Some interesting points about this clip. The Kyoto Protocol did not even enter into force until 2005 although it was open to signing since 1997.

The data in this article only goes up to 2004.

"Rate" is one way to show a statistic. Rate will generally make the number look smaller for those whose numbers were big to begin with.

In the data Maldives emissions show up as "0" for every year of the data (so how do they come up with rising 252%). Luxemburg's emissions actually show no growth if you go back to data from 1980.

By any measure however Chinas overall emission number and growth rate is high. The U.S. emitted 99 million metric tons more greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 than it did in...

Some interesting points about this clip. The Kyoto Protocol did not even enter into force until 2005 although it was open to signing since 1997.

The data in this article only goes up to 2004.

"Rate" is one way to show a statistic. Rate will generally make the number look smaller for those whose numbers were big to begin with.

In the data Maldives emissions show up as "0" for every year of the data (so how do they come up with rising 252%). Luxemburg's emissions actually show no growth if you go back to data from 1980.

By any measure however Chinas overall emission number and growth rate is high. The U.S. emitted 99 million metric tons more greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 than it did in 1997.

I would say this survey would be more useful using data after the date that the Kyoto Protocol went into effect (post 2005 data).