digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at blog.wired.com

Scientists Unveil High-Res Map of the US Carbon Footprint

blog.wired.com — A team of scientists has completed a carbon dioxide emissions inventory of the United States plotted down to 100 square kilometer chunks.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mb3581, on 04/08/2008, -37/+15I would not thought California would be a lot higher, even with all the environmentalists and tree huggers out there.
    • Rotzooi, on 04/08/2008, -15/+3It must also surprise you that Utah and Montana aren't big polluters, eh? Douche.
    • Namakemono, on 04/08/2008, -3/+7One word - cars.
    • geoffg, on 04/08/2008, -8/+8Global Warmings is reeeal, it's warmer now then it was a month ago!
      • seomike, on 04/08/2008, -3/+1zomg we're all going to die by next month!
    • jeopardydd, on 04/08/2008, -3/+5California is in the bottom 5 states in carbon footprint per capita. There's just a lot of people in the state.

      • cranium, on 04/08/2008, -4/+3The environment doesn't give a ***** about "per capita".
    • heypetray, on 04/08/2008, -5/+1Considering that if California were it's own country it would be the 10th richest in the world, I'd consider our footprint to be quite reasonable.
      • seabass341, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6footprint should not be proportionate to wealth.
        • heypetray, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I hear what you're saying, Wealth shouldn't excuse Pollution. but I see that some geographical areas are going to be more prone to emissions, based on commerce and industry. Silicon Valley, The Bay area, and LA are going to have huge levels of emissions because they are highly productive areas, just as ***** Nevada wouldn't for the same reason. It's not that ***** is a more 'environmentally friendly' area, just that nothing is really happening there. I wouldn't demonize the red zones, because a lot of essential things happen there, even ones that are environmentally friendly.
        • youreh, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1i agree the map should also be divided by the number of people living in the area. i think the point is that no city in the US is environmentally friendly , even in CA. and if CA wants to be 'green', it shouldn't be comparing itself to US cities... that's like comparing a robbery of $3000 and saying it is so much better than a robbery of $5000.
      • ayeroxor, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1"Considering that if California were it's own country it would be the 10th richest in the world"

        Exactly. You remind me of this: http://tinyurl.com/m476
    • seomike, on 04/08/2008, -7/+4I like how all the liberal havens are bright red. Way to go ecotards...
      • heypetray, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Amish? No? Oh, so you might rely on some of the commerce and industry that is based out of those 'ecotard' locations. How nice to know you will be boycotting CA agriculture, technology, and entertainment for being so concerned about our footprint. Off your high-horse.

        You should probably get off digg.. It's based out of one of those 'ecotard' areas.
      • pharmakon, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2have you ever thought maybe people turn to environmentalism because of the pollution in their area? no, you probably couldnt figure that out.
    • nathannecro, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1***** you
  • Dysarthria, on 04/08/2008, -14/+260Shocker - the most is in big cities and along highways.

    Yawn.
    • GlassCalx, on 04/08/2008, -1/+40Agreed. I think a per capita carbon footprint would have been much more interesting.
      • rocktopotomus, on 04/08/2008, -1/+6my exact thought upon opening the image.
      • Arramol, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Even that measurement is somewhat limited in its usefulness since some regions do other areas' polluting "for" them, ie cities/states that export energy, major air traffic hubs (see the comment below about Atlanta), things of that nature.
    • tman84, on 04/08/2008, -14/+7Ironic that this story sits above a story titled "How We Are Manipulated" Somewhere somehow people were led to believe Carbon is some kind of poisonous bad gas.
      • dillonstars, on 04/08/2008, -2/+8I don't think anyone is suggesting that carbon is a gas, and just because it occurs naturally doesn't mean it's not poisonous. Try surviving for an hour in a room with nothing but carbon dioxide.

        It's the imbalance of gasses that is important...
        • tman84, on 04/08/2008, -8/+2I could make the same argument with Oxygen, try to survive in a room with only Nitrogen, this makes up most of our air already.
          What is "balanced" though. Over the past 4 billion years there have been thousands of different proportions of gasses in the air. Sometimes there is more oxygen and sometimes more CO2, Sometimes more Nitrogen.
          This whole "Carbon" thing is just a slogan, it's a marketing tool to rally anyone who needs to link themselves to the cause.
        • Brettus, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Tman84, are you just making ***** up as you go along?
        • gcauthon, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3What is happening to our science curriculum? Solid, liquid and gas are phases of matter. Carbon, oxygen and nitrogen are elements that can exist in any of those phases depending on temperature and pressure. Carbon dioxide is a compound made up of carbon and oxygen. Normally it is a gas, but it could exist as a liquid or even a solid if the temperate and pressure are within a certain range.
          • oneoverzero, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1CO2 is much more likely a solid than a liquid. Go having a triple point above stp.
        • culbeda, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Give it up, tman84. You spouted some ridiculous nonsense and now you're trying to sound like you have a clue. Diggers are merciless and unforgiving. They also have short attention spans and will forget that your comments by tomorrow. Use that fact to your advantage.
      • heypetray, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Here's a tip:

        1. See to it that there is no ventilation in your garage.
        2. Start your car.
        3. Relax and listen to some of your favorite music.
        4. ...
        5. If you are reading this, repeat steps 1-3

        *Fine Print*
        HeyPetray is not responsible for your death
        • Bradl3y, on 04/08/2008, -1/+1That would mostly consist of carbon monoxide and other harmful gases. That in no way proves carbon to be a bad thing. Carbon is not poisonous.
          • heypetray, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Pssshhh, I'm being silly. Death by poison and suffocation are two separate things!
        • rpiotro, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0Oops! hit the wrong button! Let's try again.

          One problem with that. If your car is of recent manufacture, you will probably starve to death before CO kills you.
        • OneLess, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Catalytic Converter sez: "you forgot about me!"
      • rpiotro, on 04/08/2008, -2/+0One problem with that. If your car is of recent manufacture, you will probably starve to death before CO kills you.
    • mhp963, on 04/08/2008, -6/+1Compare this map to the cancer mortality map of the US... http://www2.eastwestcenter.org/environment/spatial ...
    • defaultusername, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3While that is fairly obvious, per capita carbon footprint in cities is on average lower than suburbs. Shared heating costs, public transportation vs. single family homes with multiple automobiles show that cities are much "greener" than suburbs with sprawling green space.
      • cranium, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Actually, "green space" uses up carbon dioxide.
      • dareNmc, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0weighting of both! per capita, or per land area. neither is correct by it's self. Nature can't keep up with that density. e.g. LA is reproducing at a higher rate than NorthDokata, Therefore ND is a far more sustainable mentality. If our goal is the most people per land area, then City's work, if surrounded by open space, and not urban sprawl
    • seabass341, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1Stating the obvious.

      Yawn.
      • melonade, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2I don't think you understood the funniness of his comment.
    • tyywebb, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Go New Jersey!!!
      • burnin8r28, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2awwrriiight!
        were always in the deep red on these charts
    • BevansDesign, on 04/08/2008, -0/+9This could be a population density map and nobody would know the difference.
    • lukas88, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Yawning emits CO2 too, you jerk!
    • rentmitchum, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4New Jersey got it's smog in my Pennsylvania. :( That or we got our smog in their New Jersey.
    • Asianwaste, on 04/08/2008, -0/+10I would guess if this were a world wide map, Red China would have more than one meaning.
  • Flashtone, on 04/08/2008, -22/+3Was this map made on window 3.1 MSPaint?
    • mikephimikephi, on 04/08/2008, -0/+15I think you'll find that MSPaint in Windows 3.1 in uncannily similar to MSPaint in Windows Vista.
      I guess Microsoft figured if it aint broke, don't fix it.
      • Murdats, on 04/08/2008, -4/+1what would happen to all the professional MS Painters if they kept changing their tool of choice?
        however if you want a full fledged photo editing program, Paint.Net is very awesome.
    • darny, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4No, they probably used GIS.
      • MrSlumberjack, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Yes, they most likely did use geographical information systems to make this map. I'm not sure what the hell else they would use
    • ism70605, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1It was called Paint Brush in Windows 3.1. Windows 95 introduced MS Paint. Yes I am an MS Paint enthusiast.
  • WileyII, on 04/08/2008, -4/+26Hurray Nevada
  • xekko, on 04/08/2008, -8/+22Video explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJpj8UUMTaI
    • shondell, on 04/08/2008, -2/+7YAY! A RICKROLL!

      aww man
    • diggimator, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1That guy sounds like Donnie from You Suck at Photoshop
  • prabjot, on 04/08/2008, -15/+7man , East Coast is ***** up :(
    • crazyhorse13, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Well, we have coal and many large cities.
  • macweirdo42, on 04/08/2008, -1/+49I love how you can see major highway systems from their carbon footprints.
    • thanakar, on 04/08/2008, -3/+4Just wonder how they gathered this data in the first place. I do hope the vehicles they were in were carbon free.
    • JoshRulzzAtWork, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Not necessarily. Often towns are situated along freeways. While a concentration of vehicles no doubt contributes, there is also a lot of human activity along those corridors. For example, here is the famous NASA world-at-night image. If you zoom in to it (by clicking the image), you will see lights representing towns along the same routes in the same proportions.

      http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap001127.html
  • ejdunphy, on 04/08/2008, -4/+177Who would've thought theres more pollution where theres more population?!

    Genius!
    • Shadow82v, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1Brilliant!
    • floorman56, on 04/08/2008, -5/+2No wait ... people in New York are ALWAYS saying they are better and more Green because they have SUBWAYS.. and mass transit ...and don't own cars. how can this happen???
      • avihappy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+8Counting by *Per Person*, they are much greener. This is showing how much is released TOTAL, which makes New York high because they have 8 million people being accounted for.
        • floorman56, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1So then ....not really green.. does this map show the carbon footprint for all the big trucks that is required to feed a city as big as NY?
    • rentmitchum, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1Eureka! Breakthroughs have been made! Such strides are almost unheard of!

      I like at like.. the 'i' in Phillidelphia.. and it's not heavily populated here. Like 5000 people in my town... And yet we're covered in either red or orange :( Is it harmful to me or just the stupid 'environment'?
    • CalamariAce, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1Yeah. But the interesting thing is, compare this map with the map posted on dig a few days ago that shows colon cancer rates in the continental us: http://uploadingit.com/view/524186_obkwu
    • Intamin, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Science prooves the obvious!

      Anyone else read PopSci?
  • mikephimikephi, on 04/08/2008, -14/+4Dugg for listing Brooklyn on the map
  • xTYFIGHTERx, on 04/08/2008, -8/+0Well we are screwed
    • thcobbs, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2Then why don't you go lay down in the road. That way you'll stop exhaling all that pesky CO2 in short order.
  • aloser, on 04/08/2008, -4/+16Hey, I can see my house from here!
    • surKaz, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Oh, So THAT's the big red dot on the map..
    • HarryBauzonia, on 04/08/2008, -3/+42I can see Al Gore's house from here.
  • Dtopler, on 04/08/2008, -9/+10Is anyone even a little bit surprised by this?
    • theviceroy, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2no
    • chanop, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2no
    • MacEnvy, on 04/08/2008, -1/+8I found it interesting. I didn't know I was supposed to find it surprising. I guess I'll have to re-evaluate my digg now.
    • AYork, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3A few things stood out to me. Northern Alabama. Not a lot of people live there, and there's not a lot of industry, but the emissions are pretty high. Houston has a comparable to smaller footprint than DFW, but Houston is a major port, refinery center, and is notorious for traffic. Memphis, TN has a smaller footprint than the smaller Nashville, and Memphis has the largest freight airport in the world (Every FedEx package you send in the US goes through Memphis).
      That's just the stuff that jumped out at me, but on the whole, no. Not very surprising at all.
      • dhice, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1I can't speak for all of North Alabama, but at least around Huntsville we have the Marshall Space Flight Center, the Redstone Arsenal, and Cummings Research Park. Although I am not to sure what the ratio of the carbon footprint of lets say a car compared to that of a rocket engine being tested. This could be a possible explanation, along with the forty-two Fortune 500 companies with operations in and around Huntsville.
  • x0rcist, on 04/08/2008, -3/+20Wow, who would've thought that industrial cities would have higher carbon emissions?
    • rentmitchum, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Wow, who would have thought that you'd make a nearly identical comment to someone who made theirs an hour before you?
  • dunn, on 04/08/2008, -4/+174wow, not high-res at all
    • naner, on 04/08/2008, -1/+7I don't think they meant the picture itself was hi-res. The plot points (100 sq. km resolution) is hi-res, at least compared to previous data gathered.
      • CrudeDarkness, on 04/08/2008, -4/+3then they should have called it more detailed instead of high res.
        • aigulf, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7resolution == detail, what they said was correct, you just compared it to hi-res photos when it should be compared to other maps and surveys.
    • MrSlumberjack, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1There's no need for high resolution on a map like this anyways
      • migitalwarfare, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2there is if i want to see what the carbon emissions are like in my local area. which i do want to see. which i can't see on this map. because it's not "hi-res". Just because they have more plot points on the map doesn't make it more detailed if they're going to go ahead and compress the data anyway.
    • Quiwi, on 04/08/2008, -2/+26hi-res:
      http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/images/Vul ...
      • migitalwarfare, on 04/08/2008, -2/+4how THAT is hi-res.
      • culbeda, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6Hi-res: Relief map of Canada and Mexico, text (marginally)
        Low-res: Every piece of valuable information in the image.
    • Decoy84, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0hmmmmmmmmm, MS Paint?
  • goerg, on 04/08/2008, -0/+34where is hawaii? and alaska?
    • NeptuneBkc, on 04/08/2008, -9/+2Japan bought Hawaii and Canada bought Alaska back, you know since America's economy is failing and all.
      • MacEnvy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+16Um, Alaska was Russian. And Hawaii was rather independent.
      • tacojohn48, on 04/08/2008, -3/+1I wander what price we could get for Hawaii. No way we would sell Alaska, there is oil up there.
      • H0tKarl, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1I though Japan already owned Hawaii.
    • catachip, on 04/08/2008, -3/+23We don't care about the freak states.
    • cvindustries, on 04/08/2008, -1/+14Alaska went down to chill with Hawaii. California can come to. THE END

      (I know it's backwards from the real thing. Deal with it).
    • shondell, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6they're like the points from Whose Line is it Anyway
    • djdole, on 04/08/2008, -0/+17Apparently they're using a pre-1959 definition of the United States, and an 80's definition of "High Res" :-p
    • Leifdawg, on 04/08/2008, -1/+4Yeah. What the heck. I'm not looking at this map... they said it was the whole US. Alaska composes over half the size of the US, and I bet theres like NO carbon emissions up there! Alaska REPRESENT!

      Leif.
    • fonetikly, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Hawaii is in the mid-Pacific ocean. Alaska is North and hang a left at Canada... you can't miss it. :)
  • Prodigal86, on 04/08/2008, -32/+13It's too bad global warming is a giant hoax, or else maybe this map would have some sort of relevance to...let's say...anything at all.
    • meesho, on 04/08/2008, -5/+13Yeah, because cutting down forests that turn CO2 into O2 and continuing old traditions of burning fossil fuels, burning anything for that matter doesn't increase CO2 in the atmosphere...... Right.

      You're an ignorant, non-logical human being who doesn't accept or recognize gradual change.
      • m0rg0th, on 04/08/2008, -3/+6say youre right, and its a GLOBAl scam, 90% of the world scientists decided to play a hoax on the world ....
        STILL cutting down on co2 emissions, reducing polution, conserving water and energy and stopping deflorestation are still good ideas. yes?
        • AbsurdParadox, on 04/08/2008, -9/+390% huh? Where are you getting this number? All you alarmists just pull numbers out of your ass.
          • petrodollar, on 04/08/2008, -4/+5You're right. The proper number is 99.99%. That's why there hasn't been a single peer reviewed scientific study refuting the consensus view that 1) the earth is warming and 2) human activity is the cause. Depite all the oil money that's gone into this, and despite the best efforts of right wingers to refute to data, they've produced zero. zip. zilch.
          • AbsurdParadox, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Really? You think so? Cause I found some by simply GOOGLING.

            Some of you global-warming people have heavier blinders on than the uberchristians.
          • m0rg0th, on 04/09/2008, -1/+1the figure isnt important, why dont you answer my question instead of diverting atention to the 90%?
            do you agree or not that we should stop deflorestation and reduce polution?.. maybe u just want ur kids to get cancer at age 2... i dont
        • MrSlumberjack, on 04/08/2008, -3/+6"90 huh?" is right... more like 99.990%.
      • ch4os1337, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1"Yeah, because cutting down forests that turn CO2 into O2 and continuing old traditions of burning fossil fuels, burning anything for that matter doesn't increase CO2 in the atmosphere...... Right." I don't see him saying anything about co2? You must of .. somewhere... because if not, that would of been ignorant of you.
    • Kbennett, on 04/08/2008, -5/+2Hey, I can see the grassy knoll from here...and the sound stage where they faked the moon landing.
    • bentl1, on 04/08/2008, -5/+2One of the best comments I've seen on the "global warming" swindle .... the eco-lemmings I'm sure are on their knees praying to Mother Earth that this map can be "fixed" .... just get rid of all the people. These eco-fools are part of how I make my living, they're not the "sharpest knife in the drawer" or I'd have trouble making the payment on my 5th high performance sports car. If it hadn't been for the "global warming" scam, I'd never have been able to identify as many of these gullible folks. Thank Goodness for "global warming" .... and oh yeah, most importantly, buy carbon credits and save the earth!! After all, that F430 I ordered yesterday arrives in just six months and I need the money.
      • ahhell, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2No one believes your bull *****, asshat.
        • JJisKing, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2If this is the guy I read about, it's true. He's made millions and isn't shy about about saying he thinks only fools believe in gloabl warming. He has a huge home in Hawaii and Vail he bought with the money from his carbon credit company. I'll post his name when I find it.
      • BN2L, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1Are you old enough to drive cause you write like an undersexed teen?
  • Puisapres, on 04/08/2008, -8/+10The higher concentration of people, the more carbon emissions? O RLY?
  • LiquidIse, on 04/08/2008, -4/+3I miss the days when digg was great and this would already be top 10 over random de-motivational poster
    • SKick, on 04/08/2008, -0/+7At least you can look forward to someone always bitching about the good 'ole days of digg.
      • nbcaffeine, on 04/08/2008, -4/+1Yeah, the good ol days, when it was just nerdy krose fanboys and little content
  • Adenosine, on 04/08/2008, -2/+68That's not high res, I can see visual pixels. I wanted this to be on Google Earth so I could zoom in on my house and see my personal foot print
    • meesho, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Its broken into 100km squares.. I am quite unsure myself why they have labeled it as "High-Res."
  • XxtraLarGe, on 04/08/2008, -1/+24Seems to have an erie resemblance to the cancer map that was on here the other day.
    • ajayzav, on 04/08/2008, -1/+27So it has been cancer all along that has been causing this global warming....
    • craven005, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5The cancer map on here the other day was extreme misleading as it only took into account colon cancer.
      If you look up a cancer map taking into account all cancer types, it looks very different.
    • dunbone, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3I was thinking the exact same thing......
  • spunkz, on 04/08/2008, -2/+107Can I please see the map for China and India just for comparison purposes only?
    • johnnyzero, on 04/08/2008, -2/+4absolutely agree.
    • jeopardydd, on 04/08/2008, -8/+2China's carbon footprint is smaller than the US's AND that's despite having 3x-4x the population.

      • lansuggs, on 04/08/2008, -1/+8False - what's your source, or do you just make ***** up? China has recently surpassed the US, and is rising at an insane rate while the US is mostly steady in comparison. Now, carbon emissions per person, that's something else.
        • jeopardydd, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2Here's one from Reuters:
          http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06241352 ...

          2004 US 6,046 MtCO2, China 5,007 MtCO2.

          If you have anything more recent, I would certainly be interested in seeing it.

          Per capita, US 20.4 tCO2, China 3.8 tCO2

        • lansuggs, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3...From 2004. I did say "recently surpassed", and I suppose that's a relative term, but I meant in the last two or three years. Still, it was hardly 3-4x even in 2004. Hang on, I'll google something more recent!

          Here's one with pretty pictures too:
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/graphic/0,,2106700,00.ht ...

          But yeah, US still beating in per capita by far, though that gap is also decreasing.
          • jeopardydd, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the update, but notice how I said 3-4x the population, not 3-4x the total emissions
    • manoftheisland, on 04/11/2008, -0/+1betya china is twice the footprint at least
  • diggydougie, on 04/08/2008, -0/+17They don't say which scientists or what measurement techniques were used to generate the map. I'm not a debunker, but you have to cite your references with any claims.
    • warpsmith, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1"The Vulcan Project is a NASA/DOE funded effort under the North American Carbon Program (NACP)to quantify North American fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at space and time scales much finer than has been achieved in the past.
      ...
      Vulcan was led by an excellent team of researchers at Purdue University. Key collaborators on the project included investigators at Colorado State University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory."

      http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/index.php

      That was linked to right from the text. RTFA next time, eh?
  • slut, on 04/08/2008, -4/+8map looks quite similar to the cancer map dugg a few days back.... not surprising.
    • pillcounterd, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Interesting if true....
      • MacEnvy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+9Not really. It's also remarkably similar to a map of relative population density.
  • ryan83189, on 04/08/2008, -1/+94Sim City -> window -> maps -> show pollution
  • gnat74, on 04/08/2008, -5/+7What ***** ...Of course it's where people live...Dumb ass!!! I can have my 2 year old do this *****
    • SomeHobo, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1you should have said it earlier - it would have saved those scientists a whole lot of trouble!
  • sailadayaway, on 04/08/2008, -5/+4Some places have a negative footprint?
    • jonnyboy1544, on 04/08/2008, -0/+6That must be where carbon is sequestered.
    • catachip, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5These are places with a lot of agriculture, wilderness, and trees. In those cases, the amount of carbon dioxide produced by people and industry is less than that absorbed by plants (which release it as oxygen).
    • Coyote47, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Plants Eat carbon emissions
    • CaptainLando, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Short answer: no.
      Slightly longer answer: current air quality simulation models do not report negative values, though they do take vegetation, bodies of water, etc. into account, wait until the 4th generation models.
    • dave6, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0Read the article. It says the units are log(million metric tons/year/100 square km. So, anything under 1 million metric tons/year/100 square km shows up as negative.
  • JakieTreehorn, on 04/08/2008, -5/+3Wow... Atlanta is worse than I thought. Makes sense though. WE LOVE US SOME SUVs!!!
    • chuckerton, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Atlanta is definitely a disproportionate polluter. It's the ninth largest metropolitan area with roughly 5.25 million people. Compare it to Chicago, which has about 9.5 million. What the hell you doing, Atlanta?
      • tgelston, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Coal fired powerplants - read the article, mentions that the South East has lots. Also so ironic that a place like Atlanta has so many SUVs. . why? - bad winters down there in the south I guess ;)
        • catachip, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3White southerners drive pickups and SUVs. Period.
        • Chakat, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Got to be prepared. You never know when a 10000 ft mountain is going to pop up between you and the grocery store.
        • petrodollar, on 04/08/2008, -2/+3They need vehicles that can accomodate their enormous fat asses.
      • JointVenture, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Havings babies. But that carbon footprint isnt mines.
    • Arramol, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3Atlanta's also home to the world's busiest passenger airport. That can't help matters much.
    • andregriffin, on 04/08/2008, -0/+5Atlanta is what you call a commuter city. Everything is very spread out. I take MARTA (our public transit - trains and buses) everywhere, but it's actually pretty difficult and time consuming. Most people usually just drive everywhere, and it usually takes a good amount of it to get where you're going.
  • gta0012, on 04/08/2008, -1/+10Lets play guess where the cities are!!!
  • openj, on 04/08/2008, -1/+10Isn't the rapture going to take away all of the good guys before global warming kills anyone who matters? Why is this even an issue?

    Just pray about it.
  • glucoseboy, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2Those folks that say cars don't contribute that much should look at the size of Los Angeles.

    curious that Atlanta is so big.
    • crash331, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Atlanta has the worst traffic in the US, behind only LA and DC. Plus the worlds busiest airport. Plus the worst urban sprawl of any major city.
      • briantech, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Sprawl is by definition the opposite of urban.
    • lemcoe9, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Atlanta DOES have WAY bad trafific, I would know.
  • jonnyboy1544, on 04/08/2008, -2/+27It took a scientist to tell us that there is more carbon where there is more people? Did he get his PhD at ITT Tech?
    • tacojohn48, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3No, if it had been an itt tech graduate they could have made a better map.
    • Arramol, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2It clearly wasn't Westwood College, or they would've remembered to tighten up the graphics before they published.
  • darny, on 04/08/2008, -6/+4First of all, this isn't high-res by any stretch. 100km^2 blocks? Heh.

    Due to it's low resolution, big cities appear to have as high of a footprint as their suburban counterparts, which we know is untrue. Urbanites generally share more of their carbon-producing facilities resulting in less of a footprint than suburbanites. This map totally ignores/doesn't show this.
  • evo8ftw, on 04/08/2008, -8/+2Bah would the hippies give it up there is not faking global warming.
  • RadcliffeV, on 04/08/2008, -2/+2I just wanted everyone to know, that coming from the southeast, I didn't vote for any of the delegates that's been resisting climate control policy. Strangely enough, we have the perfect climate down here to grow bio-diesel, and I don't know why all the farmers aren't jumping on the market bandwagon.
    • diggydougie, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4Simple. It's not profitable. I don't know why it's not, but if there were money in it the farmers would grow foot fungus.
      • texpundit, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3Actually, it's government regulations and subsidies that have pushed the run on the travesty that is Ethanol. That's why *it's* so popular right now compared to biodiesel production.
    • petrodollar, on 04/08/2008, -6/+1Most famers "ain't so bright."
  • cesman, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3"That means that the NASA- and Department of Energy-funded scientists can detail emissions across all 9 million square kilometers that compose the United States." Yet, I don't see Alaska or Hawaii on the map. Nor mention of the word continental or contiguous. Hell, not even the "lower 48".
  • piper999, on 04/08/2008, -7/+9So, the story about how CO2 makes no difference to global climate gets deleted from the front page and this story appears in its place.

    So much for 'user driven content'. If the users digg the wrong things those stories just get deleted.
    • D14BL0, on 04/08/2008, -2/+8Ever hear of "bury"? It's one of those "user-driven" things.
    • petrodollar, on 04/08/2008, -1/+5Anyone can make a video of themselves saying some made up *****. Unless and until they publish their findings in a scholarly journal, they're just blowing smoke.
      • ch4os1337, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1Weather its in some journal or not doesn't mean its right or not. Scientists "blow smoke" all the time at each other.
        • petrodollar, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Research journals are refereed in order to prevent scientists from "blowing smoke" in that forum. Before a scientific paper is published, the methodology is scrutinized to ensure that the scientific method if rigorously applied. The study must done in such a way that other scientists can duplicate the work and get the same results.

          The same cannot be said of youtube videos.
    • cespee, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1link for the story piper999's referring to:
      http://digg.com/environment/Data_100_conclusive_CO ...
  • cr42yr1ch, on 04/08/2008, -1/+12It would be far more interesting if this showed emissions per capita...
  • thanakar, on 04/08/2008, -4/+8Its funny how the story right under this one is "How we are Manipulated".
  • Delta009, on 04/08/2008, -1/+12Some people should really learn the proper meaning of "high-res"...
  • visiblepulse, on 04/08/2008, -1/+9do China
  • dcmcderm, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1are "high res" pictures supposes to look all pixellated?
    • CaptainLando, on 04/08/2008, -0/+4By high res they mean that, instead of only having carbon dioxide information by state, they have it by a 100x100km grid. This is a higher resolution of data.
  • wiachy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1i see Reno, NV!! HIIII!!
  • D14BL0, on 04/08/2008, -2/+14800x618 does not a high-res image make.
    • CaptainLando, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2By high res they mean that, instead of only having carbon dioxide information by state, they have it by a 100x100km grid. This is a higher resolution of data.
      • djdole, on 04/08/2008, -1/+2So meaning 8bit NES Mario was hi res compared to a red pixel?
        Yeah maybe in the 80's but today "Higher-Res" is still not "High-Res".
        • tnoy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1The use of 'High" is relative to what has been possible before. The map is High-Res for what it provides. If you think of it as a visual representation of data, the it is high-res. If you think of it as a photo, then it is low-res.

          By your argument, I can say that a fancy new 22MP Digital SLR takes low-res photos if I compare it to some of those stiched gigapixel images.
    • dagnome1984, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3That was high res by 1993 standards.
    • pmolaughlin, on 04/08/2008, -0/+1Yeah but if it didn't have "High-Res" it wouldn't have made it to the front page.
    • h0ms4r, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Thanks, Yoda?
    • Salomas, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/images/Vul ...
      High enough for you?
  • aznwild0, on 04/08/2008, -1/+7It'd like to see carbon use per capita mapped also. That would be a show of efficiency, whereas is this is more of a population density map.

    And this is high resolution, for a carbon emission map. It's not like it's possible to to just have a satellite that can give you one-meter resolution like Google Maps. There are too many substances on the surface of the Earth to use spectrum analysis. They probably had to collect data from weather stations, weather balloons and other sources.
  • KiltedMile, on 04/08/2008, -3/+2Lame
  • Argy, on 04/08/2008, -0/+3For once I am glad to be in Idaho...
  • HarryBauzonia, on 04/08/2008, -1/+7You could change the text to read "Population Density" and the map would stay the same.
    It illustrates that city people are killing the planet. Yes, that includes that bastion of hippies, (a very red) San Francisco.
    • crash331, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Pretty sure country folk have the same impact, they are just more spread out.
    • jeopardydd, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1California has one of the lowest carbon footprints per capita of any state. Try again.
      • HarryBauzonia, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1That's because with the exception of San Francisco, L.A., and particular neighborhoods in San Diego, California is full of decent folks.
        San Francisco ≠ California
        Try again.
        • jeopardydd, on 04/08/2008, -2/+1no, the cities (especially the dense SF) are lower per capita than rural areas such as the central valley.
  • megaton, on 04/08/2008, -5/+16San Francisco's all like, "We're green, and *****!"

    LIAR!
    • biggerapple3am, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0and I was like, "Yea, whatevah!"
  • Black6x, on 04/08/2008, -0/+0I'd like to see China's
  • okcomputer1982, on 04/08/2008, -1/+3This is an educational image first and foremost and let me say a damn good visualization at that. Not everything is political, some things really are just facts to be used to improve, not salvos for a given side.

    I think it's a beutifully poetic image. Our country breathes everyday, just a people do and now, for the first time, we can see that breath just as easily as we see our own on a cold day. Call me crazy, but I think that's cool, regardles of your political party. Further more, it's USEFUL.
    • JointVenture, on 04/08/2008, -0/+2Yes! What was obvious is how much more of the country doesnt have a footprint than has one!

      Well said!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.