The World's Top Gas Guzzlers

Tue, 2008-05-13 10:07Emily Murgatroyd
Emily Murgatroyd's picture

The World's Top Gas Guzzlers

Any guess who the largest gas guzzler is in the world?

According to the World Resources Institute, here are the world's top consumers of motor gasoline per capita broken down by region.

All units are in liters per person.

Asia (excluding Middle East):

Brunei Darussalam - 717.7

Japan - 452.1

Malaysia - 364.9

Central America & Caribbean:

Netherlands Antilles - 884.5

Trinidad and Tobago - 339.2

Mexico - 312.5

Europe (excluding Luxembourg and Gibraltar)

Switzerland - 656.2

Iceland - 651

Sweden - 593.9

Middle East and North Africa

Qatar - 1,030

United Arab Emirates - 998.6

Kuwait - 967.2

North America

United States - 1,635.2

Canada - 1,203.7

South America

Venezuela - 508.7

Ecuador - 177.4

Chile - 169.4

All data is based on 2003 country profiles, check out the World Research Institute's research database here.






We just lost out by a small margin to the US.
I am doning my part however. Mayby next year we can take to spot.

As long as I am paying for it, I'll burn it without ANY guilt.

. . . we'll ALL pay for it!

Fern Mackenzie

You really believe that don't you?

I respect you right to believe what you want.
To date I have seen no convincing argument or evidence that would make me agree with you, but hey, for the moment..... it's a free country.
for the moment.

I DO see convincing evidence. I see connections between things, and a Big Picture that scares the hell out of me. It's about how a declining polar bear population can have an impact on how many seals there are out there, and if you thought that the fisheries had problems before, wait till they start competing with a population of seals whose primary natural predator is on the ropes. Extract a link from the chain, and it starts to fall apart. Huge populations depend on fish and rice. We've just had a rousing wake-up call about what can happen if rice paddies are exposed to the fury of cyclonic activity, never mind the HUMAN tragedy in Burma. How many people were depending on those crops for their day-to-day existence?

It's all connected, Gary. I can say "I'm alright, Jack" and carry on, but if I continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere in the face of all of the evidence that it is doing harm to humanity, when we might have done something positive -- what does that say to the future?

Fern Mackenzie

"... all of the evidence that it is doing harm to humanity..."

Fern, the trouble is that there is no acceptable empirical evidence - zero, zip, zilch, nada. You folks remind me of primative tribesmen that I met while doing field work in New Guinea. They had human cause and effect relationships for almost everything bad that happened or might happen, and so there were taboos which they took very seriously. Anyone who broke a taboo was in trouble for putting the well-being of the community at risk.

If you want to believe the witch doctors who tell you that human activity is causing heat waves, blizzards, cyclones or epidemics of marital infidelity well, to each her/his own, I guess.

Fern. I respect your position. I really do.
I also see problems and issues that need addressing.
What I don't see is the link between Man Made CO2 and all those problems.
BTW: Polar Bear populations are growing and have been for several decades.

ANYway. What I see is enormous resources being diverted to completely ineffective CO2 reduction programs instead of into solving real problems.

The issues in not and never was, what is happeining.
The issue is, are we causing it?

No convincing arguments or evidence exists that can show this connection.
There is only conjecture and computer simulations.
And most of the recent peer reviewed studies, show the actual causes of GW were nearly all natural.
And then there is the Inconvienient Truth that GW stopped years ago and is projected to remain so for at least another decade.
Beyong that? Really who can honestly say?
GCM can't project six months out let alone ten years.

There are just too many holes in the loose AGW argument.

However: having said all that.

I have no problem with your intentions or motivations. Just your conclusions.

Your initial remark, Gary, tells me you're not trying very hard to find a convincing argument/evidence, or, you're trying your damndest not to understand it.

I began my search as a mild skeptic.
Open to argument and evidence.
The more I read and learned about the actual science and history of the movement, the more skeptical I became.
I am no longer a skeptic.
I now don't believe in AGW at all.
To me it is clear.
It is a political agenda, nothing more.

The polar bear issue is a good example.
The bear population has been growing for more than forty years, yet because of "computer models" that show what the programmer wants them to show, they get listed as endangered.
Pure Politics.
AGW is a greenie movement, not science.

What you're "paying" includes the same amount for water (eg fracing oil wells) and air as you do for this forum we provide you... sfa

"I DO see convincing evidence. I see connections between things, and a Big Picture that scares the hell out of me."

So that's your argument? Are you suggesting that your irrational fears or paranoid fantasies are a legitimate basis for circumscribing the freedoms and actions of the rest of society?

When I was very small, I was utterly convinced that Frankenstein's monster was hiding in my closet. Fortunately, I outgrew that -- at least two weeks ago.

Perhaps it would be instructive for you to ponder the historical case of the 1939 radio broadcast of Orson Welles' production of War Of The Worlds:

"Many people missed or ignored the opening credits of the program, and in the atmosphere of growing tension and anxiety in the days leading up to World War II, took it to be a news broadcast. Contemporary newspapers reported that panic ensued, with people fleeing the area, and others thinking they could smell the poison gas or could see the flashes of the lightning in the distance."


The parallels with today's situation are almost too obvious to point out. Showmen like Al Gore are the latter-day Orson Welleses -- he certainly has the build for it. And as their fellow-showman, P.T. Barnum, once observed -- "there's a sucker born every minute"; usually one that's all too ready to "have the hell scared out of them".

"Einstein said he was scared/And if Einstein's scared/I'M SCARED" (Talking Atom Blues)

If you think this equates to monsters in the closet, Rob, there's just no point . . .

Fern Mackenzie

Fern, you should know by now that with Rob there is no point. Given that Rob is consistently a contrarian, even hostile, to those who consider the science on global warming to be sufficiently conclusive, he is clearly an ideologue. He's probably paid to be a rock in the shoe. Otherwise, why would he persist hanging around here? When you come across a publication like the "National Post," or a blog like Climate Resistance, or a television station like Fox News that are clearly of a hostile ideology, you don't bother going there because you know all you will get is bile. So knowing Rob's dogma, why would he persist here if he weren't a paid provocateur?

""Einstein said he was scared/And if Einstein's scared/I'M SCARED" (Talking Atom Blues)
If you think this equates to monsters in the closet, Rob, there's just no point . . "

Thanks for your response, Fern. I think that pretty much illustrates my point, which was that your position is not rational. As such, you aren't able to rationally defend it, as you've shown.

For those who believe AGW is due to human activity such as burning coal and gasoline; and for those who don't:

The question becomes moot if everyone simply reduces their energy consumption, whatever the source or type.

We don't need a 20,000 page federal regulation to tell us how to do this, or that mandates specific solutions such as stupidly converting food (corn) into fuel (ethanol), thereby raising the price of corn, animal feed, non-sugar sweeteners, beef, pork, turkey, chicken -- you name it for everyone in the world!

I've joined a vanpool to commute to work. I've thus reduced my driving mileage by about 60%. Saved a lot of money in the process. Now my car will last longer --- saves even more money.

I've raised the temperature setting for air conditioning (it gets unbearably hot in Houston, TX) to 79-80 on my programmable thermostat. My electric bill has dropped by about 50% by using 50% fewer KWH. And, when I'm at work, that thermostat automatically goes to 83-84, minimizing operation during the hottest part of the day, when peaking power plants (that are quite inefficient) must run to handle peak loads. More money in my pocket and not in the utility company's.

I've begun installing CFL bulbs in my house. Savings from that as well --- energy and $.

And, I've added some insulation in my attic.

Come on people and realize a fact no one can dispute --- the cheapest molecule of CO2 to capture and store is the one we don't produce in the first place.

I know some people need their cars to do their jobs and make a living. Others have kids in day care and might not be able to ride a bus or carpool. But each of us needs to get with the program --- use less energy to the extent each of our personal situations allows.

Before someone says "you guys in Houston need wind or solar power,” I offer the following scientific facts.

1. Wind velocity in southeast Texas is not consistent enough to allow even the best wind turbine systems to operate efficiently. Even proponents of wind power such as the California Energy Commission agree that wind velocity must be consistent and high, which is why wind does work in the high deserts of CA and AZ. This is not the case in the Houston area, or anywhere in Texas except within about 50 miles of the New Mexico border.

2. The Houston area and all of southeast TX is known for its spectacular thunderstorms between April and November. They can roll in off the Gulf of Mexico almost at any time. Solar power thus cannot function here, but again, it might be more feasible in the more consistently sunny wind area.

3. Wind farms indeed are being built in West Texas, but the wind blows best at night in this area. Power consumption also drops at night, and there is no power transmission grid to get the energy produced to the Houston area --- and I’m not willing to pay for it unless the power output is consistent.

4. Solar could work --- for distributed generation schemes such as smaller installations, but not for a large metropolitan grid like Houston. It might work well for a resort, a big box store, etc. But even if a massive solar panel array were built in West TX, the transmission problem still is a big obstacle.

Chuck, what if every building in Houston had solar panels covering all their roofs. Incrementally, wouldn't this amount to something significant if they all fed into the grid?


I agree! Solar panels on mercedes parts sure is a great idea as an alternative to using gasoline. Plus we can also help save our environment because there will be less CO2 emissions.

The real reason most people drive solo is that if they were a carpool driver and got in a wreck and if the passengers are seriously injured or killed and if ICBC assign some blame to them for the accident, the injured passenger will sue for those damages not covered by third party liabilty. That is why I would never participate in a car pool.

How much third party liability insurance are you carring?
If you have three passengers, you better have 4-5 million!
If one of your passengers was the bread winner, was killed and had little or no life insurance, you and the other driver involved in the accident would be sued for millions.

In any accident ICBC can always charge you with "not paying due care and attention" even if a drunk runs a red light. That is why I wait for all cross traffic to come to a full and complete stop, before entering an intersection when I get the green light. This really ticks off the drivers behind me.

Forget car pooling unless you want end up in the poor house! If it can happen, it will happen.

Harold, my passengers always ride in the trunk. They never sue.

Believe me.

On behalf of Frankie the dog and Fern the cat, PETA is suing Rob, who not paying due care and attention, was involved in a car crash that resulted in serious injury to Frankie and Fern.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

Sorry -- you lost me. Your point is . . .?

Fern Mackenzie

Harold's comments can perhaps be summed up as "irrelevant nonsense".
He's been at a number of the other blogs and that was one of the kinder comments directed his way...

Hello Tom!

That was one joke I just couldn't pass up. The only passengers one might put in a trunk is a dog and cat.
Don't you think Frank and Fern would make a good couple?

BTW, Do you ever see me bad-mouthing people, calling them nasty names, and putting them down? Nope! I never do that.
I don't have to. The lurkers know who are the smart good guys, and who are jerks!

You just did.
By calling Frank and Fern a dog and cat, and then by even considering putting a dog or cat in the trunk of a car.
Ever hear of heat stroke?
You really are "dumb".

In today’s era, poverty and famine seems to be a common cause of deprivation but you can make a difference. Everyone is so busy with their work, careers, study, business and others. Transportation is a great requirement of modern living.  However, just because you need it doesn’t mean you have to let GM or any one else’s marketing department tells you how to do it. If you let them tell you how to do everything, you will need cash advance loans just to be able to get to work every day.  For instance, you could carpool.  Lots of people do it and have done so for a long time.  Also, if you live close enough to work, you can start riding a bike.  No gas and you get in better shape.  (Win – win.)  There’s also public transport, and all of these are cheaper modes of  transportation.