manchild wrote:I don't get colors. Just compare eastern edges of Siberia with western edges of Alaska. It just can't be like that... pollution doesn't stops at international borders.
Of course it doesn't! But energy policies do.
The area of each country is proportional to the CO2 emissions (or population in the second map), that's all. Alaska is "inflated" because is part of USA.
flynfrog, you are right about ethanol adsorbing water. This is a problem in poliducts, but not so great in dedicated "etha-ducts" (look Ma! I invented a new word!).
Actually, this is a problem the first time you put gasoline with ethanol in your car: you better clean the fuel tank first or all the water and dirt in it (not to mention all the gum deposits in the piping) will end in your cylinders.
Hoping not to kill this thread, I take the opportunity
to give a long complement to MC doubts about CO2 emissions in Siberia (!), I can add that it depends on many factors, for example:
Climate
Level of industrial development
Energy taxes
How electricity is generated
Many people are aware that the USA is the world's largest producer of CO2. This is, in part, because it has the highest income in the world, total and per capita. It also has a extreme continental climate. Gasoline is very cheap (for EU standards!), and many American cities are widely spread out.
There is a clear relationship between city density and transportation energy per capita (ehem... did I mention my new book, in spanish, written with my father, right now in the printing press: "Urbanism and construction manual"? Buy it before it is totally sold!
). The classic data (1989 info) is this, to fully answer flynfrog innocent question:
For example, Canada has a much lower CO2 output per capita than USA, being colder. However, they have lower summer temperatures, generate more hydroelectricity, pay higher taxes on petrol and have high insulation standards on new buildings. See? You can do something.
After the USA, you have Australia and Norway as the worst per capita polluters. Australia is particularly hot, much of its electricity comes from cheap opencast coal. Norway is contrastingly cold, but also once had an extensive coal industry.
Finally, as food for thought, I post another figure I made (that I extrapolated from UN Population Office data on world population growth up to 2003) about
world population reaching a maximum in 2075 and declining afterwards. We should start doing some numbers about how are we going to shelter, feed, clothe and transport 10 billion people,
no more. This is another ray of hope for me, even if I have to wait until I am 116 years old
:
Anyway, most of the population growth will come from thirld world countries. Here you have the probable centers of pollution in 2015 (taken from my book also, adapted from a BBC article):
Cities with more than 5.000.000 persons in 1955:
Cities with more than 5.000.000 persons in 2015:
I strongly believe that this means doing something about transportation in the thirld world cities, where most of the people of the world lives, not only about USA. It is there, in the poor cities, where the new policies about transit and urban development can have some (or perhaps, severe) impact. Don't worry, not everybody is expecting Mr. Bush to develop the policies for us (some of us are praying for him not to!
), nor blaming him for the future african droughts. Besides, it is a problem much more interesting than developing a 25.000 rpm engine... for me.
Think globally, act locally.
Oh, and motivate your posts!
