Talk:List of locations and entities by greenhouse gas emissions

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

What is this page supposed to represent? Companies that, themselves, actually emit GHG? Or companies that mine/extract GHG, and then sell it to others, who actually burn it and then emit the GHG? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this title is too vague. X1\ (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title vs Actual Information

The article title implies that these companies produce the most greenhouse gases. After reading the Guardian article, and looking at the list - the calculation method seems bogus. They're including the greenhouse gases from the consumption of all the petro products that they produce. I don't think that's what people would expect from a list like this. Jgscherber (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top car maker model emitters

@William M. Connolley:, why do you think this section doesn't belong? IPagelocation (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather outdated and only covers cars sold in the UK at one point or another. Very specific. Does someone have an article just covering the greenhouse gas emissions of various vehicle types more generally? Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 / Methane

This article has sections for CO2, and Methane. But the numbers for countries in the first section are in CO2e, so they include Methane, etc William M. Connolley (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions of recent (that is 27 June 2023)

I don't really have anything to say on the reversions, other than as is on my Talk page. I think I have given the reason for the "carbon" needing to be included, 11:08, this part of the article lets people see the connection, if there isn't any way to make that connection, creates a type of schizophrenic situation for a reader, when the only thing the reader has is a presumption, because there is no visual input in the article contents showing explicitly the fact of (something). Without this connection the two relevant factors carbon and carbon dioxide are kept implicitly separate. The making of a problem of schizo (separation not union) is that reality includes the connection carbon content of substances used as fuels, to, carbon dioxide made by use as fuel or energy source, but without including this connection readers exit the article not knowing this reality and then find they don't know reality elsewhere in life, allows readers to deviate from reality, especially if wikipedia is the only place they could find the evidence of this reality being proven and knowable. Perhaps they don't know carbon + oxygen is from combustion. Not including this info would be because it is deemed not relevant enough, so that it would be a deviation from the topic to include it, the topic being primarily contributors. Global warming potential is true of contributory factors, but william I think understands contributors as anthropogenic factors within the problem of climate change i.e. which of the oil and gas companies is the Top contributor of only oil and gas companies, only, not contributors as a choice of carbon fuels at all instead of eco-fuels as a contributory factor. I think it is interesting as it shows coal isn't the most contributory so this adds a position of thought of China (coal) being the most contributory, which is that the reason for China coal being the top is maybe because of the geographical factor - of china being a large nation, rather than the potency of the material coal, being greater than other fuel types. ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually as a relevant side-line of thought from my previous input here; the reason I mention schizophrenia is that Phrenic nerve "The nerve is important for breathing because it provides exclusive motor control of the diaphragm" is certainly obviously relevant (air pollution) and the fact of schizo [1] (separation) certainly indicated, for example, division, [2] as in cancerous division [3] - of which air pollution is a foremost cause, [4] [5] with tobacco smoking [6]. ClassisSIPadresse9ai8123Ge1Gia81V4a7iNd64i0i49i4f5anni123231IIIhorasIVminuta (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought to drop the "schizophrenia" stuff. As to the carbon-percentages of fuels, I think that is largely irrelevant and probably OR in the present form. What matters more is carbon-per-useful-calorific-content. Your it shows coal isn't the most contributory is wrong, for that reason William M. Connolley (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the title and scope of this article

I've started a discussion about the title and scope of this article on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#What_do_do_about_Top_contributors_to_climate_change? I started the discussion there, rather than here, in an effort to get wider inputs from editors who don't have this article on their watchlist. The current proposal is to change the article's name to List of locations and entities by greenhouse gas emissions and to merge carbon bomb into it. EMsmile (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no further discussions on this, I have moved the page now. EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]