http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Metadata.aspx?IndicatorId=28&...
as @nkurz suggests, then you will come to a page with two 'per capita' data charts on it. Click either, and under the 'Series Detail' section of the resultant page you will see something like the following:
Series Name: Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (UNFCCC)
Goal: Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainability
Target: Target 7.A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reverse the loss of environmental resources
----HERE---->> Indicator: Indicator 7.2 Carbon dioxide emissions, total, per capita and per $1 GDP (PPP) <<<----HERE----
As you can see it is per capita per $1 GDP (PPP). By the way, the (PPP), Purchasing Power Parity, makes this data even less useful. But I didn't want to get into ALL of the things that are wrong with this dataset.
Alternatively, here is a direct link to:
Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (UNFCCC)
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=752
Again, check under 'Series Detail' and you will see the above dataset description.
They appear to be listing the various data elements compiled. As in:
* Total carbon dioxide emissions * Per Capita carbon dioxide emissions * per $1 GDP carbon dioxide emissions
I guessed that this might be the case, but did not pre-conclude it. Instead I downloaded all of their actual data sets and compared the numbers in the charts, and indeed, the numbers for per-capita carbon dioxide emissions, which include no mention of per-GDP calculations, support Wikipedia's numbers to the same effect.
i.e., Australia in 2006 was showing 19 metric tons of CO2 emissions per capita to the United States' 19.7, etc.
(And I swore I was never again going to get involved in a climate "discussion" on HN.)
My point being that the material point stands in either case. That is, even if we were to all agree to your interpretation of the data, nations like China are still not the problem. Why then, is all of the negative attention on China and the US? Clearly there are other emitters just as profligate. In fact, in the case of China, most of the other nations are far more profligate per capita.
I maintain that the negative attention given to China and the US is due to the fact that being anti US and anti China is the height of political fashion. Clearly, the people denigrating China don't take Australia to task for what we have both established as demonstrably far more egregious behavior.
Come on now, you're having a hard enough time reading the legend, there isn't much interpretation going on.
1) Unlike China, Australia was a signatory to Kyoto (actually, I'm not 100% sure if China was a signatory or not, but at any rate they didn't have binding targets).
2) Unlike the US, Australia actually met its Kyoto targets.
3) Everyone knows that most of Australia's economic activity is geared towards exports of primary produce to the rest of the world - as already noted, Australia's own population is small, certainly not big enough to consume even a tenth of what is being produced. As such, at Kyoto it was agreed to not heavily limit Australian emissions, as these emissions would more fairly be placed on the books of the consumer countries.
4) Australia was willing and able to play ball in Copenhagen, unlike the Chinese.
5) Australia does not have very much diplomatic clout, so it is not being held accountable for the failure of diplomacy, as the US is.
6) And, finally, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what Australia does per capita, as its population is simply too small to make a difference on a global scale - even if we accept the dodgy figure of Australia emitting 11 times more per capita than the Chinese, that still means that China is emmitting more than 5 times more than Australia. Using more realistic figures, China is emitting about 10 times more than Australia, and the US is emitting nearly 20 times more. And that is why no-one is pointing the finger at Australia.