Le traiettorie delle emissioni di carbonio sono modellate molto più dall’innovazione e dalla politica rispetto ai dati demografici

Of course, some countries have much higher emissions per capita.

Unfortunately, the third world will catch up to us, which is the side these graphs don’t show.

Anti-malthusianism my beloved 

It is also correlated with deindustrialization and exporting CO2 emissions to Asia.

Now put China, the US and Russia in the chart.

Cherry-picking the four examples that favor your hypothesis isn’t a great way to do research.

Also by shutting down industry and relocate it to other countries like China. I’d like to see how this plots you posted correlate with industrial output.

I don’t want to sound mean, but I think that could be the main factor and explain the trend better than “innovation”.

funny how the graph tries to link japans lowered emissions with nuclear shutdown, when nuclear energy is as clean as energy can get at the moment

I don’t think many people in Europe believe in this neo-malthusian bullshit.

Well, if it’s based on consumption, then it comes down more to regulations/policies and the consumer’s conscience, rather than the innovation itself.

And I keep seeing on reddit things “If you are making babies you are contributing to climate change”. This shows clearly that what matters more is technology not babies. Plus not something this chart shows but I have suspicion that most CO2 emissions are done by wealthiest 0.1% of population and such new born will not belong in it

The biggest reasons why fossil fuels haven’t been phased out by now are the political ones

I don´t think this article title is an accurate statement for many nations

Canada for example has a very high per capita release of CO2 and is bringing in millions of migrants.

You can see [here the total CO2 emmissions of Canada](https://www.statista.com/statistics/209619/canadian-co2-emissions/), they are basically the same in 2025 as in 1998. Now the population is roughly 33% larger now that it is circa 42m people.

Obviously this shows that innovation and CO2 reduction activities do work but also the CO2 emmissions of Canada would be greatly reduced if it´s demographics hadn´t changed so enormously.

Germany for example has shown how with it´s stable population of 80m in 1990 and 84m in 2025 it achieved a circa 33% reduction in CO2 emmissions.

The first thing you might say in response to my comment so far is “But what about France and the UK, their populations have grown and they´ve still achieved a comparable fall in CO2 emissions”

On the surface I would agree but demographics is also about age, 70-90yr olds likely don´t drive, drink, eat, or consume manufactured or high energy goods as much as 20 – 50yr olds. The UK and France have aged significantly since the 90s. Likewise Japan literally is dying of old age.

Saying that innovation and policy is far more important than demographics is a misleading and innaccurate statement in my opinion based on the information I see here and am aware of from outside of the graph.

(NB: Does this even account for the outsourcing of co2 intensive production to other countries that is caused in part by policy?)

I wonder how these graphs would be if they were created by emission by consumption