America’s Carbon Footprint
Take a look at the map included in this post. The Vulcan Project, a team at Purdue University, has plotted where in America carbon dioxide emissions are the greatest. At first glance, the map looks very pretty — and very predictable. But it isn’t. Darker colors — the greens, reds and browns — correspond to higher concentrations of CO2, and they appear to be darkest where the population density is greatest. (Note how cities come out dark, including the entire northeast corridor from Boston to New York to Washington.) But the scientists, who say they’ve worked to figure out where carbon amounts are raised or lowered by the presence of natural "sinks," such as forests and water, that absorb carbon dioxide, say they got some surprises when they plotted this high-res map. See how much beige you find in the southeast, and in Midwestern states such as Indiana and Ohio? That, they say, is best explained by coal-fired power plants and cement plants. There’s a lot more information HERE, and from the U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Program HERE. You can click on the map, or HERE, to enlarge. There’s a video as well, HERE. The Vulcan Project, which gets funding from NASA and the Department of Energy, will be succeeded by one called Hestia, which will try to plot carbon dioxide emissions for the whole planet. It will get help from a new satellite, the Orbital Carbon Observatory. The data for the map above dates from 2002. How precise is it? Take a look at the green line crossing northern Nevada. That turns out to be Interstate 80, wending its way from San Francisco to New York, heavy on truck traffic in an otherwise very open part of the country.
Email
Space Station Flies Over Eastern U.S. at Night 




RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I like the map so much that I will use it as wallpaper. Nice article Ned.
Posted by: Quietman | April 8, 2008, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm
Now I know where not to move to when I get sick breathing this polluted air. Thanks, Ned…
Posted by: Dave | April 8, 2008, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm
The problem is NOT carbon dioxide (CO2) It’s carbon monoxide!!! Regulating CO2 will do noting to help “save the planet.” How can cap and trade carbon taxes help our economy? (While at the same time allowing corporations to buy “carbon offsetts”, as in re-buying the right to pollute!) Why would we give our competitors (China, India, and the rest of the developing world) yet ANOTHER unfair advantage to go with our already micromanaged “free trade” deals, that allow those countries to make money and record profits, while we’re closing factories, losing jobs, and coming up with new and more interesting regulations and taxes along the way to keep it that way. This propaganda is set out to destroy our economy and our industrial base to the point where we are wholly dependent on foriegn trade and so-called “non-governmential organizations” to tell us what we can and cannot do with OUR OWN LAND! If you want a foriegn corporate enitity to tell you how you can live your life be it what job you have, kind of car you can drive, and what products you are allowed to use; By all means support this pathetic corporate power grab. But if you care for your neighborhood, family, and quality of life for your children and their children, you will dig a little deeper than the surface and wake up to this manipulate farce of a politcal agenda. Don’t believe me, look up Agenda 21, UN Global Biodiversity Assesment. And you will see where this road leads. Don’t be afraid, be INFORMED!!! The truth will set you free..
Posted by: ha! | April 8, 2008, 1:32 pm 1:32 pm
I’m confused thou are we still calling it global warmming or is it climate change. I don’t know what the term is for this month.
Posted by: bob | April 8, 2008, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
Live simpler. Consumer less. Drive less. Have few or no children. The problem is that every wants everything they can get NOW, forget the future. People erroneously blame the government for not having enough regulations in place, when it’s really their own lives that are doing this. Just cut back for cripes sake….
Posted by: Ken | April 8, 2008, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
I guess I am struck by the similarity between this map and the “light” map of the US at night. I know logic dictates that I should expect this to be the case. I guess the Census maps are similar too and so to cure the carbon dioxide problem we must remove the human element? This should answer the question as to whether or not the problem is caused by man.
P.S. Can I take my tongue out of my cheek now?
Posted by: Andy Clark | April 8, 2008, 3:35 pm 3:35 pm
No wonder it is still cold in Montana! Actually, the CO2 spreads out and becomes homgeneous in the atmosphere fairly quickly, although emissions in the northern hemisphere are fast enough to maintain a slight difference in CO2 concentrations between Hawaii and Antarctica.
Posted by: jock59801 | April 8, 2008, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
Cool, or should I say warm(ing). I cannot believe we actually spend tons of money on such garbage. This has basically no value except to the whiney people showing how bad we all are. How does this get us off of fossil fuel? How does this prevent anything? Wouldn’t our money be better spent on researching alternatives? I could have drawn something fairly close to this with my colored markers and a census map(thanks Andy Clark). Let’s get to doing something instead of making pretty maps.
Posted by: boulderhippie2 | April 8, 2008, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm
Notice how the pollution is worse where the population density is highest? That should tell us something. People pollute. More people = more pollution. Fewer people = less pollution. That concept might not make me richer of get me a Nobel Prize, but it’s fact. Think about it next time you see a family with 17 kids. Each on of them will grow up, buy a gas burning car, use electricity, create pollution and have 17 more kids to do the same thing.
As long as population continues to grow there is no way to control pollution levels or decrease use of resources. Can’t be done, sorry, no way, ain’t happenin.
Posted by: jijalagi | April 8, 2008, 3:59 pm 3:59 pm
I’m not supposed to believe that the Global Warming movement is directed solely at the United States. When the activists say “humans”, they mean ALL humans and not Americans.
I find it very interesting how I don’t see a map of China or India, and these two countries have the highest CO2 emissions in the world.
Well, you’re going to have a hard time convincing ME the Global Warming activists are not anti-America with maps like this one.
Posted by: jfm125 | April 8, 2008, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm
Ok, so now we know more people live on the coasts than in the middle of the country. What did you expect? I hope you didn’t spend any of my tax monies on this. Glad to see that the holier than thou West Coast is just as bad a we are in in Miami! Also, where is the map comparing us to the rest of the world (i.e. CHINA)?
Posted by: Rochelle | April 8, 2008, 4:12 pm 4:12 pm
Anyone else notice Little Rock Arkansas was labeled ‘Memphis’? To get the trust and support of the masses, proof the material before you publish…
Posted by: leahlynell | April 8, 2008, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
For all those who think having fewer or no children is the answer, how will we then have a future workforce to support all those social program? how will we care for our senior citizens? Remember, before the industrial revolution, people needed to have as many children as they could to farm their land just to feed themselves. Technology and industrialization have freed us to have fewer children.
Posted by: mp | April 8, 2008, 4:55 pm 4:55 pm
i miss my clean montana air
Posted by: dawson | April 8, 2008, 5:10 pm 5:10 pm
we used to be such a smart nation. We’ve become a nation of idiots. We’ve become a nation of suckers that P.T. Barnum used to laugh at. Carbon Footprint? Who cares? It’s truly all junk talk.
Posted by: Chas | April 8, 2008, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm
Why are there two Phoenix’s? I did notice that about Memphis. LOL, this is such a waste of time and money.
Posted by: Sara | April 8, 2008, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm
The Memphis label is actually correct. It is in the same position relative to the city as Rochester, New York. The only error I see is the two Phoenix labels, and that hardly seems enough to condemn the whole project.
Posted by: jock59801 | April 8, 2008, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm
bob
That depends on how honest you are.
Posted by: Quietman | April 8, 2008, 7:09 pm 7:09 pm
Andy Clark
It makes it easier to talk if you do.
Posted by: Quietman | April 8, 2008, 7:12 pm 7:12 pm
jfm125
Thats why EU is talking embargo.
Posted by: Quietman | April 8, 2008, 7:17 pm 7:17 pm
Rochelle
National Geographic – map section
Posted by: Quietman | April 8, 2008, 7:19 pm 7:19 pm
Andy Clark
Reminds me more of a topographic map.
Posted by: Quietman | April 8, 2008, 7:23 pm 7:23 pm
mp — Cut social programs, save your money, and be a little more self sufficient. The only reason to have large families is self glorification.
Posted by: jijalagi | April 8, 2008, 11:02 pm 11:02 pm
Well, now you know every politician with no backbone and beholden to the enviros will be using that map to justify some sort of carbon tax for their sheep constituents. All to address a problem that doesn’t exist. Hey, by the way, what ever happended to the scurge of acid rain? Yea, that fell by the wayside with Y2K, global cooling, Alar scare, Love Canal, and every other pathetic environmental or social “disaster” heading our way. Wake up folks.
Posted by: stop2think | April 9, 2008, 7:48 am 7:48 am
Yea, nothing new here. But I’m still unconvinced of Global Warming caused solely by humans. I believed it about 6 months ago though. Earth has natural cooling and warming cycles folks. That doesn’t mean we can keep crapping on the planet though. We’ve been horrid stewards of this world. Change is needed. If the whole Global Warming scare works, I’m all for it.
Posted by: Lawrence | April 9, 2008, 8:38 am 8:38 am
The fact is that the Earth’s average temperature has cooled by ONE degree in just one year. This of course reverses a century of a warming trend. Just proof that scientists are UNSURE about the way global climate really works. Global Warming is a religion-not a scientific theory. Once it proves to be false, supporters will actually be mad—because they want something to believe in and to rally AGAINST.
Posted by: Southernfarmer | April 9, 2008, 10:50 am 10:50 am
Southernfarmer – A one-year change cannot reverse a century-long trend. It doesn’t work that way, by definition. The only way to predict the future is through models, and we have every reason to believe that the temperature will continue upward. I hope it doesn’t, though.
Posted by: jock59801 | April 9, 2008, 11:44 am 11:44 am
Gore created many more skeptics than he did alarmists by overselling AGW. Just think, he was almost President.
Posted by: Quietman | April 10, 2008, 3:45 pm 3:45 pm
Ed – Gore raised the awareness of an entire planet. I’m glad he’s not president – he’s got more important business to tend to.
Posted by: cturple | April 10, 2008, 4:22 pm 4:22 pm
cturple
Yes he did but he did so in a manner that caused a lack of confidence in science, as point after point was disproved. Had he stuck to the facts he would have accomplished his mission without causing the skepticism. Alarmism has never succeeded in convincing an intelligent populace but rather invites ridicule and skepticism.
Posted by: Quietman | April 10, 2008, 7:29 pm 7:29 pm
So the Blue States are again the cause of the problem with their highest amounts. The Red States seem to be much much cleaner. Imagine that.
So then these hypocrites want me to worry when in my section of the map is nothing. Clean up your own backyard before you worry about mine.
Posted by: Double B | April 11, 2008, 9:04 am 9:04 am
Double B
Take a closer look at the legend, you got it backwards.
Posted by: Quietman | April 11, 2008, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm