I'm a sucker for a good map, but this map of U.S. carbon emissions just looks an awful lot like a map of American population density. As such, it doesn't contain a ton of useful information as "let's get rid of all the people!" isn't much of a proposal for avoiding catastrophic climate change. I'd be much more interested in seeing something that normalized by population (or economic output) and thus gave us some sense of which parts of the country are efficient compared to the others.
« The Future of Real Estate | Main | Their Next Step »
Mapping Carbon
09 Apr 2008 01:11 pm
Comments (13)
It's true that they do correlate, but notice that despite similar sizes, Minneapolis has a wider area of impact than Seattle, as we rely on hydroelectric for our electricity. Milwaukee does worse than either, even though the population is much, much lower than either, though I don't know enough about the place to know why. But there's good data here. I'd like it better if it were done on a per capita basis.
It's not entirely related to population density. For example, you can see a line of red along the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. This area is not densely populated at all - it shows up on the map because the river is choked with chemical plants, oil refineries, and other mass-emitters of carbon. It's called Cancer Alley for a reason.
The map you describe wanting to see would be the inverse of the one you cite, i.e. the urban areas would generally be more efficient in terms of carbon output per person than the rural areas. In rural areas people are almost assured of living in free-standing single family dwellings, of having to drive everywhere they want to go, of having to drive long distances to get whereever they need to go, etc.
The map you describe wanting to see would be the inverse of the one you cite, i.e. the urban areas would generally be more efficient in terms of carbon output per person than the rural areas. In rural areas people are almost assured of living in free-standing single family dwellings, of having to drive everywhere they want to go, of having to drive long distances to get whereever they need to go, etc.
The map you describe wanting to see would be the inverse of the one you cite, i.e. the urban areas would generally be more efficient in terms of carbon output per person than the rural areas. In rural areas people are almost assured of living in free-standing single family dwellings, of having to drive everywhere they want to go, of having to drive long distances to get whereever they need to go, etc.
That data's available by county. Population data is available by county. Sounds interesting.
Gitai- Though it's hard to tell exactly, Milwaukee doesn't look that bad on the map. I think you may be mixing it up with Chicago, which has a huge carbon footprint, as well as a huge population and economy.
MY - As such, it doesn't contain a ton of useful information as "let's get rid of all the people!" isn't much of a proposal for avoiding catastrophic climate change. I'd be much more interested in seeing something that normalized by population (or economic output) and thus gave us some sense of which parts of the country are efficient compared to the others.
Seeing carbon emissions as a function of population is actually a good reminder that the number of humans is the main driver of carbon emissions, and all conservation does is make it look like less humans until high breeding rate populations drive net energy consumption and carbon emissions up again.
It is no accident that the Zero Pop Growth countries are the ones that came up with Kyoto. They know that wind and solar don't amount to piss, and that accepting immigrants and subsidizing high breeders quickly negates conservation.
If every American was forced to abandon incandescent bulbs, it would make up for the increased electric demand of 62,000 illegal Juans and Marias jumping into America.
A SanFran lawyer may feel good that she drives a hybrid and has this place that plants a tree everytime she jets off to ski in Switzerland - but since she didn't want her discarded SUV to have zero resale value, she sold it to Omar, an Egyptian refugee, so between her SUV now having another 12-15 years of happy motoring with this new immigrant AND she adds a Prius, the net carbon loading went up.
Ecologists finishing a global review for Scientific American stated the optimum world population is two billion, and if it is allowed to rise to 12-20 billion, many ecosystems that sustained many humans will be so damaged they will only be able to sustain a few and human population will be sustainable only at 500 million or so, PLUS there will be a mass extinction event where we lose 30-40% of the species in the tropics, subtropics, and in areas of temperate countries if overpopulation is allowed to ruin those ecosystems.
The map also correlates with two other factors: there appears to be a line everywhere there is an interstate highway, and there is a halo around cities known to have high levels of sprawl. Just saying.
I would like to see a map such as the one linked to with the location of coal burning power plants superimposed. I would be willing to bet that the vicinity of coal burning power plants would be dark red.
1. The first order of business is to agree that there is a problem. The current administration pays lip service to that notion but has no intention to do anything about it. Hopefully, the next administration will agree that there is a problem and move the issue to the front burner.
2. Once it is agreed that there is a problem, one can start looking for solutions. Clearly, conservation has to be part of the solution as it will reduce the demand for carbon producing fossil fuels. However, we are not going to conserve our way out of the mess we are headed for.
3. The next order of business must be to invest in research to find a way to eliminate coal burning power plants. This will shortly be the largest source of carbon, if it isn't already, particularly as China and India, with 1/3 of the worlds' population are industrializing and building coal burning power plants by the hundreds.
There is no magic bullet here. Alternatives such as nuclear power plants, wind farms, solar collectors will be part of the mix. However, the potentially biggest bang for the buck is to replace coal burning power plants by natural gas burning plants, which have a much lower carbon profile. This will mean a crash program to develop new sources of natural gas, including the possibility of extracting it from coal. The latter could be a promising source, particularly if the excess carbon can be left behind in solid form, rather then expelled as CO2.
4. The libertarian notion that the private sector can solve the problem with no involvement of government must be dispensed with. It will take megabillions of investment, at least equal to the money currently being wasted in the Iraq adventure. This will require higher taxes; the Rethuglican notion of a free lunch is piffle.
I may have posted this link previously on this blog. It is a presentation by Amory Lovins which claims that there are tremendous conservation approaches possible in the transportation area (would Mr. Ford believe 30 mpg Hummers?).
http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/view/id/47
Without Hawaii and Alaska, the map misses perhaps the mose anomalous detail: Prudhoe Bay, officially population of 5, ought to have the biggest carbon footprint in the 49th state because of the huge oil activity there.
Comments closed April 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's not entirely related to population density. For example, you can see a line of red along the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. This area is not densely populated at all - it shows up on the map because the river is choked with chemical plants, oil refineries, and other mass-emitters of carbon. It's called Cancer Alley for a reason.
Posted by alli | April 9, 2008 4:58 PM