Would be interesting to see the actual supposed data and study or source behind this graphic. Pollution is not synonymous with carbon, one regional wildfire (whether natural or man influenced) can instantly change these numbers for carbon emissions if they were truly tracking every carbon emission as well as there shouldn’t be any “carbon credits” figured into these statistics. Just my observation from college statistics class is that there isn’t enough quantitative data to base an informed analysis from a USA Today ambiguous graphic nor has the ability to convey any unbiased message from the source that designed it.