> 0.2% of the sites account for 46% of emissions.

Sounds like "a handful" to me. In as much as a metaphorical measurement can be accurate..

I think the issue is with using "vast majority" to mean "46%".

Extremely disproportionate, but not a vast majority.

I think the situation is described with reasonable accuracy.

"If it's only 46%, then that's OK then?" Not that you're saying exactly that, but it's pretty close... The article gives 10%/2720 of the 272000 account for >50% of the emissions, that's still pretty bad.

The 0.2% is however good, in the sense that, it's probably easier/more efficient to make a few hundred huge changes instead of a hundred thousand small ones.

is your contention that 46% does not constitute a majority? I think the distribution is pareto enough that the headline is not so crazy.

To be a pedant it might be a plurality (biggest one), but not a majority (>50%)

if it has a pareto distribution, isn't that sort of tautological? If they eliminated all of those those sites, they'd reduce emissions by 46%, but of the remaining, wouldn't the top .2% still be producing roughly 50% of emissions?

It depends on how you define a "handful" (which is a terrible term in that context, we're not talking about hazelnuts..). But for sure 46% isn't "the vast majority" of anything.