Natural disasters seem to be quite concentrated, more than half of all deaths during 1980-2017 have occurred in the same five countries and four of those five are in Asia. It is not possible to differentiate to smaller regions (like S.E. Asia, East Asia etc.) because a single tsunami or earthquake affects several regions at once.
The earthquake in Haiti seem to be the most deadly disaster for a single country, which makes up more than half of total deaths in Americas.
What: Deaths due to natural disasters When: 1980-2017 Where: 194 countries and regions Source: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation
We knew what to expect here, but it’s interesting to see it. The only thing unexpected to me is that South Korea has significantly more people. I thought it’s only a bit more.
What: 4 different indicators indicated on the infographic. HDI for North Korea was adjusted because the methodology has changed since its HDI was last published. When: Most indicators are for 2018, but the scarcity of data for North Korea forced me to use varying years for HDI and GDP. Where: The 2 Koreas Source: CIA, UNDP, UESCAP, W, WB, EIU and https://countryeconomy.com
Seems like kind of yes, they do. Some regions rely on polluting industries like the Middle East, some struggle to find their direction like South Asia, but most regions do reduce. Good news for future us.
What: CO2 emissions (kg per 2010 US$ of GDP) and GDP per capita. When: 1970-2014 Where: World regions according to WB Source: WB
I know, the data is old, but back in 2010 energy production was the main source of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Transport had the potential to overtake the land use and I bet despite all those electromobiles everywhere it did.
And the beautiful thing is – the forest is a net absorber of greenhouse gas! I knew it all along, but it is nice to see it on the graph. And it’s depressing at the same time because its absorption is tiny compared to our emissions.
What: Emissions of various greenhouse gasses (CO2, CH4, PFCs and so on) expressed in the equivalent of CO2 emissions. May not the question mislead – initially I asked about CO2, but then I found stats for all greenhouse gases. “Land use” is emissions by cropland and grassland and is not included in agriculture. “Residential, com., inst.” is emissions by residential, commercial and institutional activities. I believe the weird shape for the forest is due to inconsistency in data rather than actual changes. When: From 1990 to 2010 Where: World aggregate Source: FAO
At the first year seemed that inflation was higher with euro, this was the case for 5 countries out of 7, but after 3 years have passed – only 3 out of 7 had bigger price increase with euro during the whole period. Seems that inflation rise due to euro was a temporary one-time effect which later leveled out for at least half of the countries. In short, I’d say that Euro does not cause inflation in a significant way.
What: Consumer price growth in one, two and three years before the adoption of euro subtracted from consumer price growth in one, two and three years after the adoption of euro. The number on the graph shows how much faster prices grew with Euro than without. When: Years are different for each country depending on its date of joining the Eurozone. Where: Countries which joined the Eurozone later, not with the initial group Source: ES