So, not in the top-10 even, exactly as the parent noted.
And even if they were in, say, fifth place, such a ranking would tell us nothing about their impact, without knowing the distribution. In a top-heavy distribution, for example, if the top 1 makes 10,000 tons and top 5 makes 100 tons for example, it would still be as if the fifth largest produce doesn't matter at all, impact-wise.
>and outside the Middle East the 1st per capita.
Why would "per capita" production have any relevance at all?
It's incredibly relevant.
First, without it you have no good measuring stick. It just all depends on the unit (state, member state, country, nation, union, OPEC) you choose for measurement.
Second, and more significantly, changes are more feasible with smaller populations. It's easier for Dublin to make a change than Ireland, and easier for Ireland, than the EU, and easier for the EU than the world.
To answer your earlier point, Norway is ~2.5% of global production. Texas is ~2%.
When it comes to climate change impact the measuring stick is "barrels of oil produced".
Per capita doesn't come into play at all.
Sure it's the 13th biggest oil producer, sure its wealth comes from Oil and Gas but it does try to reduce the impact by trying to reduce the long term global Oil consumption. Do they maybe sometimes also follow other interest, maybe? But does it nullify the point that it tries to long term reduce global Oil consumption? Not really.
Furthermore and most important Norway stopping Oil and Gas production would not help. You need to reduce the demand first, or else, with rising prices Oil production in likely more problematic countries with likely more environmental damage would largely increase. Leading to a situation where maybe we short term have slightly less Oil usage due to higher prices, but in total a higher climate and environmental damage in the long term.
It also would make Western countries more dependent on non Western countries, which is not a climate aspect but still not grate.
The same with expecting the low-per capita producers to change first.
That the point, that's why Norway reducing Oil production will make no difference.
> The same with expecting the low-per capita producers to change first.
But what matters is not Oil production (as we can't expect major improvements here due to the point above) but consumption and Norway does invest a lot into improving this internally and externally. And while I don't have any stats I would not be surprised if the per-capita Oil consumption is pretty good on a global ranking.
I mean the fact that Norway not only internally but also externally tries to improve the situation around Oil consumption show that they are not Hypocritical but instead try to balance differently problems in a reasonable way. Sure maybe not perfect, but nothing is really perfect.
If you were looking for changes from the first world, you'd start there.
I agree that non-first world countries are the where you'll see the most growth in oil consumption.