Wednesday, February 24, 2010

CO2 Emissions (The Breathing Earth Simulations)

Click to view live numbers of global CO2 emissions, birth and death rates, etc.

http://www.breathingearth.net/


The Breathing Earth simulation

Welcome to Breathing Earth. This real-time simulation displays the CO2 emissions of every country in the world, as well as their birth and death rates.

Please remember that this real time simulation is just that: a simulation. Although the CO2 emission, birth rate and death rate data used in Breathing Earth comes from reputable sources, data that measures things on such a massive scale can never be 100% accurate. Please note however that the CO2 emission levels shown here are much more likely to be too low than they are to be too high.


The Environment and Climate Change

Global warming (aka climate change) is probably the most important issue to face our generation, and quite possibly any generation in history. The worldwide scientific community is virtually unanimous in its agreement that global warming is happening, that that it's our fault. If we let it get out of our control, the consequences - which will already begin occuring in most of our lifetimes - will be catastrophic. Just some of the consequences that can be reasonably expected are rising sea levels, more frequent and more severe natural disasters, large-scale food shortages, plagues, massive species extinctions, unprecendented numbers of refugees, intensified ethnic and political tensions, and a global economic depression the likes of which no one has ever seen.

The situation is still within our grasp, but we must act now, we must act strongly, and we must act together. Individuals, companies, and governments across the globe must each do what they can to reverse climate change. We will never get a second chance.

What can I do?

The good news is that there are plenty of things that we can do to reduce our carbon footprint. The key word is reduce. We can greatly lessen our impact on climate change by using the planet's resources more responsibly. There are many things we can reduce, and many ways we can reduce them, but three of the major ones are: reduce the amount of animal products you consume (meat, dairy, eggs, leather, etc.), reduce the amount of fuel you use (car, air travel, etc.), and reduce the amount of electricity you use. If you're interested, there are plenty of good resources on the net. I encourage you to so your own research, though you might find some of the links below to be useful.

More climate change info?

Footprint Network footprint calculator - Figure out your own ecological footprint.

wecansolveit.org - Join a global movement determined to help solve climate change.

Fight Climate Change with Diet Change - Find out why the meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUVs, cars, trucks, planes, and ships in the world combined.


Where does the data come from?

All data used on Breathing Earth is the latest available, as of December 2008.

Birth and death rates: 2008 estimates, from the CIA World Factbook

Population: Data is based on July 2008 estimates from the CIA World Factbook. When Breathing Earth is started, it uses each country's birth and death rates to calculate how much its population has changed since July 2008, and adjusts its population figure accordingly. To calculate the total world population, Breathing Earth adds up the population figures of all countries. It continues adjusting the various population figures as you watch it, each time a person is born or a person dies.

CO2 emission rates: 2004 figures from the United Nations Statistics Division. These are the most up-to-date figures as of December 2008. Collating CO2 emissions data for every country on Earth, representing the same time period, is undoubtedly a massive and very complex task that relies on the availability of many other sets of data. This probably explains why the most recent CO2 emissions data available is from 2004.

CO2 emission rates from two years earlier: When Breathing Earth was first built, it used 2002 figures, also from the United Nations Statistics Division. When you hover your mouse over a country, Breathing Earth compares the 2002 and 2004 figures and indicates whether that country's CO2 emissions have increased or decreased in that time, using the red or green arrow that appears near the bottom-left.

There was an unavailability of a portion of the data for a few of the tinier countries (eg. Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Lesotho). In such cases, I made estimates based on their population, economy, and the data of their relevant neighbours. In all such cases, the figures were so low that even had my estimates been wildly inaccurate, the effect on the simulation would have been negligible.

CO2 emissions: per country or per capita?

Some people ask why Breathing Earth focuses on the CO2 emissions per country, rather than per capita. After all, wouldn't the per capita rates give a better indication of who is being most wasteful? For example, the citizens of Australia, Kuwait and Luxembourg are among the world's worst polluters, yet their CO2 emissions aren't very prominent on Breathing Earth because of those countries' relatively low populations.

The fact of the matter, however, is that what is most important is how many c02 emissions there are from the perspective of Planet Earth. Although some countries are clearly much worse polluters than others, the problem is ultimately a global one that humans of various nationalities have caused, and that humans of various nationalities must work together to solve.

One thing must surely be obvious though: The problem is largely a Western one. It is the Western countries who are leading the way in CO2 emissions, and when non-Western countries have high CO2 emission rates themselves, it's usually because they are adopting Western habits. Since we, the West, have been a leading cause of the CO2 emissions problem, surely it is we who must step up and be the leaders in the solution.

The truth about Apple products...

http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/itox.html

Apple products - sleek looks, amazing design, meticulous attention to detail. So what's with the toxic chemicals inside, short life spans and allowing their products to be dumped in Asia?

None of this fits with Apple's iLife image, and none of this is making Apple a successful company. So why hasn't Steve improved Apple's design?

Well it seems Apple just doesn't prioritize environmental concerns. Sure, they have a nice Environment section on their website. But it's not linked from the front page, and it's hard to find unless you know where to look. Of course it says how great Apple's policies are. But if you look under the hood, Apple's policies are as ugly as a beige box circa 1989.

Here's where we want Apple to be:

Toxic chemicals:

toxic chemicalsToxic chemicals in electronics are a big problem. More and more tech gadgets are produced and disposed of every year. This means more toxic pollution when they are produced and when they are thrown away.

That's the bad news. The good news is that alternatives do exist.

Apple can remove the worst chemicals from its products and production processes. But it's not even close to this goal.

What a good Apple looks like

Take the example of the toxic plastic Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC). Other companies have set a date to remove PVC from their products. Apple hasn't. Major new product lines like the iPod nano and MacBook still contain PVC.

We want all new Apple product ranges launched from 2007 onwards to be free of the worst toxic chemicals in the production process and products themselves. Now that would make us proud of Apple.

Product take back

Apple keyboardA basic environmental principle is that if you make and sell a product you should be responsible for that product when it is no longer wanted. This is also a basic rule for children: you clean up your own mess.

Dell and Hewlett Packard (HP) both support this principle, which goes by the very grown-up name of Individual Producer Responsibility.

Alt-Apple-Escape

Apple does have some take back programs. In Europe and Japan, it must offer this service by law. Under pressure from the computertakeback campaign in the U.S., Apple has recently made some piecemeal concessions on its take-back policy. But these only apply in the U.S. and fall far short of a comprehensive global take back policy.

This would be a big step to preventing most Apple products from ending up dumped in the e-waste yards of Asia.

Kid stuff, really

You'd think that a company with headquarters at '1 Infinite Loop,' would understand the concept of recycling. If Apple is really so proud of its well-made products there shouldn't be any problem promoting a global take-back program for all of its products.

Product life span

We get angry when our iPod breaks just after the one-year warranty expires. We get annoyed when Apple says it's cheaper to buy a new one than fix the old one. We hate it when we are reduced to selling our old broken PowerBook keyboard on eBay for five bucks. These are common consumer woes resulting from Apple designing products with short life spans. If Apple had to take back its old products, you can bet it would start designing longer lasting products that are easier to reuse and recycle.

Apple has good taste, and we want that flavor to last.

See the difference

Imagine if the next iPod launch was an upgrade to the iPod you already have, with a new component you could just swap out, instead of replacing the entire thing? That would save you money, extend the lifespan of your iPod, and save the resources and energy required to make a new iPod.

Campaign history:

10/03
Greenpeace contacts Apple for information on their chemicals policy.
02/04
Follow-up reminder on Greenpeace request to Apple.
04/04
Greenpeace Chemical Home database launched; Apple graded red on their chemical policy.
06/04
Samsung is the first major electronics company to commit to phasing out all BFRs and PVC.
08/04
First meeting between Greenpeace and Apple – no movement from Apple on chemicals policy.
11/04
Second meeting between Greenpeace and Apple – still no commitment from Apple on strengthening its chemical policy.
11/04
Nokia commits to phasing out all BFRs and PVC.
04/05
Sony and Sony Ericsson commit to phasing out all BFRs and PVC.
09/05
Third meeting between Greenpeace and Apple – still no change in Apple’s chemical policy. Greenpeace gives Apple advance notice that Greenpeace will be ranking it on their chemical policy as well as their waste policy in 2006.
09/05
LG Electronics commits to phasing out all BFRs and PVC.
03/06
HP commits to phase out BFRs and PVC.
04/06
Fourth meeting between Greenpeace and Apple called by Apple to update Greenpeace on obstacles to phasing out PVC and BFRs.
06/06
Dell commits to a plan to phase out a list of hazardous chemicals with priority on BFR and PVC by 2009. Dell also announces takeback scheme for any Dell product, in US from September 2006 and globally from November 2006.
06/06
Two calls between Greenpeace and Apple initiated by Apple to discuss Apple’s draft ranking on Guide to Greener Electronics. No policy change forth coming from Apple.
08/06
Guide to Greener Electronics launched: Apple gets 2.7/10 and finds itself fourth from the bottom of the ranking.
09/06
First analysis of an Apple laptop: Independant sampling revealed that MacBook Pro contained PVC and BFRs.
09/06
Green my Apple campaign launched. No official response from Apple to date.
12/06
Due to positive moves from other companies Apple is bottom of the second version of the Guide to Greener Electronics.
12/06
Two environmental resolutions by Social Responsible Investment funds filed for the 2007 Apple Annual General Meeting (AGM).
12/06
Apple makes its first official comment on the greenmyapple campaign claiming that their existing policy of no longer selling CRT monitors and the eliminating RoHS chemicals (which all other companies like Dell/HP and Lenovo have already eliminated) is the clear example of their environmental record.
01/07
The Steve Jobs keynote at Macworld passes without any mention of environmental improvements from Apple.
01/07
Dell CEO Michael Dell challenges the electronics industry to take responsibility for its waste on a global level.
02/07
Rumours spread of a potential environmental announcement from Apple following a meeting between one Social Responsible Investment fund and Steve Jobs.
04/07
Greenpeace and 70 other US NGOs request that Al Gore (Apple Board Director) supports the environmental resolutions filed for the Apple AGM.
04/07
The third version of the Greenpeace Guide for Greener Electronics released, Apple is the only company that made no movement since the first version of the guide (Aug 06) and remains in last position.
04/07
The Apple Board of Directors states that it unanimously rejects the two environmental shareholder resolutions.
05/07
Good news! Steve responds with an open letter about Apple's environment policy. Good progress from Apple but not the end. We hope Steve's next statement will mark out Apple as a green leader.

Really PVC free?

PVC - Poision PlasticsSure, Apple is proud to highlight that the iPod shuffle External Battery Pack and other minor accessories are PVC free, but that's not exactly a major high-volume product line is it?

Fringe Benefits

Many of the changes Apple takes environmental credit for (Flat screens replacing CRT monitors, wireless reducing cables, banning certain chemicals) are just side-effects of changes made for design considerations or required by new laws.

"Power has never been this much fun"

Back in April 2005, Steve Jobs publicly called environmentalists' concerns about Apple "bullshit". Come on Steve, we'd expect that kind of reaction from fat corporate CEOs who dump polychlorinated biphenyls into rivers, not from a cool, potentially eco-friendly titan of the information age.

recycle