This way shows where the biggest impact can be made. If you’re deciding where to spend money to address the issue, your money is better spent in the top four no matter what the per capita numbers are.
It depends how you spend your money but it probably goes further if there’s less people. Your money’s better spent where the ratio of waste to people is highest.
Data is fugly. Should be order by the per capita number , unless the intent was to mislead
Per capita with total as tiebreaker:
Brazil 94kg
Germany 78kg - 17% less than Brazil
China 76kg - 2.6% less than Germany
UK 76kg - 2.6% less than Germany
USA 73kg - 3.9% less than UK/China
France 61kg - 16% less than USA
India 55kg - 10% less than France
Russia 33kg - 40% less than India
Totally. There’s really no point in using anything /except/ per capita!
I’m a person, not capita!
Not necessarily.
This way shows where the biggest impact can be made. If you’re deciding where to spend money to address the issue, your money is better spent in the top four no matter what the per capita numbers are.
That’s not true.
It totally depends on the problem and the solution. If there is no economy of scale at force for the solution, it won’t make a difference.
Both numbers are valuable, but the visualization is bad. Per capita is very nearly not visualized at all.
It depends how you spend your money but it probably goes further if there’s less people. Your money’s better spent where the ratio of waste to people is highest.