this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
63 points (83.2% liked)

Map Enthusiasts

3600 readers
200 users here now

For the map enthused!

Rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Skua@kbin.earth 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is obivously not the actual point of the map, but why have a bunch of countries in Central Africa merged? It looks like Angola, both Congos, Gabon, and Equatorial Guinea

[–] RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.cafe 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I didn't notice, good catch. I wonder if it is an aliasing/resolution issue.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

They are actually there in the report... but barely. They're much lighter than every other border. It doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere so I assume it was just a mistake

[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Talking about "planet wreckers" but leaving out coal is either incredibly stupid or deceitful. Nevermind that consumption is where the blame should be laid, not production.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This map, but for coal, tells a far worse story.

[–] RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.cafe 6 points 5 months ago

This map is about future oil and gas expansion. You can see the list of countries by past and present coal production here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

This is so niche... Not current production, not future production, not emissions, just the difference between production now and production later seemingly designed to give the middle east and Venezuela a pass because they're already producing a crazy amount

[–] RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.cafe 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Let's not pretend Guyana are as bad as Mexico, Nigeria and Kazakhstan though

[–] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

It's essentially a map of big countries (population, territory, population density...)

This map would be way more interesting if it was normalized per capita or some other meaningful denominator. Only then does it make sense to point fingers.

[–] Specal@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

UK has a higher population than Canada but had a lower rating on this scale. So that's not strictly true.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not to mention India and China vs. the US

Total emissions would tell a different story but population is not the only factor here

[–] Specal@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

A few of the dimwits I work with use china alot as a reason to not do anything about climate change because they keep building coal plants but... The coal plants they build are more efficient.

According to this chart the UK is doing well but we can still do better and we should keep doing more.

[–] benjhm@sopuli.xyz 2 points 5 months ago

It's about future oil and gas expansion (FOGE), what matters to the atmosphere is the total - identifying potential threat. Effectively multiplying FOGE by area (as shown) doesn't make sense, but neither does FOGE per capita (as most is exported, not consumed locally). I'd suggest just a sized blob for each country - then can show some other dimension with the color.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

China and India have 5 times the population of the USA, and yet are 1 order of magnitude or more below the USA. You're not making sense here

[–] card797@champserver.net -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

So the consumers of oil are good. Just the producers are bad. This is the boogeyman in map form.

[–] RadioFreeArabia@lemmy.cafe 4 points 5 months ago

The US is also the biggest consumer ahead of China.

[–] doubtingtammy@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 months ago

The Exxon defender has logged on