Carbon dioxide levels grew at record pace in 2016, U.N. says

Reuters reports this morning that global CO2 levels are rising at a record pace  "potentially fuelling a 20-metre rise in sea levels and adding 3 degrees to temperatures, the United Nations said on Monday." This news comes as, of course, the U.S. President and much of Congress pretend to be ostriches when it comes to climate change. In fact, "Since 1990, the global warming effect of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases has risen by 40 percent. The two other main gases - methane and nitrous oxide - also grew to record concentrations last year, although at a slower rate of increase than carbon dioxide."

Of course, while the rate of growth is now at record highs, the total CO2 concentration is also at an all-time high of about 410 parts per million (ppm), well above the preindustrial level of 275 ppm.

So, to summarize, the gas that is warming the planet is at record levels, is rising faster than ever, and this despite electric cars, solar panels, and the Paris Climate Agreement. We are going to have to do much more, and soon, if we are to slow this process. Sadly, neither the U.S. or Glendale are yet on track to solve this problem.

The Concept of Face: Cultural Differences in Protocol in Asia

The Washington Post ran a good cultural geography story today, Protocol for Trump in Asia means no insults, no surprises. The author notes that in Asia there is a general cultural assumption that obvious and public conflict should be avoided at all times, 

"Among the challenges Trump faces as he heads to Asia are the complexities of the “Asian face,” a concept that’s foreign to many Americans but lies at the foundation of societies across the region. Generally, it means making sure behavior, posture, gestures, remarks and more do not spark strong negative emotions in others, or oneself."

This is not at all how our current president generally operates. As he heads to Asia for a 10-day trip, it should be entertaining to see if he can control himself at all and act diplomatically. My guess is no, but we'll see. Here's how he greeted Abe the first time:

Living a quiet and modest life

 “A quiet and modest life brings more joy than a pursuit of success bound with constant unrest.”
--Albert Einstein

Ironically, this note scribbled on a piece of paper by the famous scientist fetched $1.5 million dollars at an auction this month. Studies show that he's correct.

What worries me is that Americans continue to move in the opposite direction. More and more young people seem to want to be famous. Our television shows are still about the lies of wealthy people - opulent houses and fast cars. And yet consistently the places on Earth that report the most life satisfaction are almost entirely in Scandinavia and western Europe, where the social safety net is strongest and people, in general, have less to worry about and can just get on with the real business of life - meaningful relationships, play and exercise, artistic endeavors, and family. They work hard too, of course. But at all times they know that if they fail or fall their peers (in the form of the state) will pick them up, dust them off, and put them back on their feet.

All the while, Americans, and particularly American young people, are plagued by anxiety.

Collectively we must try less to buy the things we believe will make us happy, and that includes million dollar Einstein quotations, and instead strive to live quiet and modest lives. It seems to me there's a way to be ambitious and still be modest. To have time with your children, a small house or apartment, and an emotionally-rewarding career is not the American Dream, but maybe it should be.

Sad Similarities Between Post-Apartheid South Africa and Post-Segregation United States

The New York Times had a fantastic article this week about the economic and residential segregation that persists in South Africa, End of Apartheid in South Africa? Not in Economic Terms. Sadly there are real similarities between the situation of blacks in South Africa and blacks in the United States. In both cases, large swathes of the population were barred from owning property or acquiring any wealth for generations. The net result is that now, even though they are technically free to engage in the economy, they don't have any capital to invest in businesses or property or any collateral to use to secure loans, let alone the social capital necessary to land the best jobs.

In  the article we learn about one family's attempts to start a business. They have ambition, but:

"when they applied for loans, the banks turned them away. They had no collateral.
They were in crowded company. Ten percent of all South Africans — the majority white — owns more than 90 percent of national wealth, according to a 2016 research paper by Anna Orthofer, a graduate student at Stellenbosch University. Some 80 percent of the population — overwhelmingly black — owns nothing at all."

In the U.S. we also find that capitalism works well, but it works best for those who already have sufficient capital, both financial and social (education, access to networks of wealth, speech and diction, exposure to elite culture). As a result, we continue to have shockingly high rates of poverty for many black Americans and great deal of racial segregation by residential neighborhood.

Government policies played a large role in the problem in both countries. In South Africa, these policies kept the vast majority of land in white hands, despite talk of freedom for South African blacks. In the U.S. the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) openly rated neighborhoods with non-whites as the highest risk for banks well into the 1960s, thereby making in almost impossible to get mortgage loans in such neighborhoods. This greatly contributed to the overwhelming whiteness of early sub-urbanization. If a black person moved to your suburb, it was going to instantly become almost impossible to sell your house. And this was because of a government-sanctioned policy!

To see how this plays out today, take a look at the amazing Racial Dot Map from the University of Virginia. Every single person counted in the U.S. by the 2010 census is on this map as a dot that is color-coded to race or ethnicity. As you scroll about the country and zoom in and out, you will see that we generally don't live near people who are racially or ethnically different than us, despite all of the political rhetoric to the contrary. It's particularly shocking to take a look at Los Angeles, one of the "most diverse" cities in the country. But it's primarily diverse only in aggregate. On the neighborhood level, there is a great deal of uniformity. Click on the map below to have a look.

https://demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/index.html

The Geography of Gun Deaths

Richard Florida's 2011 statistical analysis of which states have the most gun deaths seems particularly relevant (and sad) this week: The Geography of Gun Deaths - The Atlantic. In it you get careful correlation analysis of gun deaths by state versus poverty, immigration, gun laws, etc.

Also relevant for geographers is the situation in other wealthy countries, of course. Here's a sample of that data (click image for larger view).  Notice that we stand out, but are by no means the most prone to homicide. For the full article on this see: http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-homicide-rates-chart-2015-6

Business Insider/Andy Kiersz, data from UNODC

On the other hand, when you look at just gun homicides, we really do get to see American exceptionalism at work:

This comes from the New York Times. Here's the full, brief, but fascinating article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

Finally, we really could learn something from the Australian experience: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/

For those of you who don't know the basics, let me quickly summarize. In 1996, in Tasmania, Australians experienced their worst ever mass shooting. Within months their political leaders had passed new guns restrictions and started a mandatory buy back program for most guns. It was controversial at the time, but it worked. Australians are no longer likely to experience gun violence these days and the majority of Australians are now fully supportive of the laws. And, by the way, they are still live in a very free society. I would argue they are more free - free to not have to live in fear of summary, violent death by gun.

The Geography of Innovation - Cities, Patents, and Suburbs

The Geography of Innovation

1. RICHARD FLORIDA

 AUG 3, 2017

https://www.citylab.com/life/2017/08/the-geography-of-innovation/530349/

In this fascinating article by famed author Richard Florida, I learned that while it is true that urban areas produce much of U.S. innovation, it is not true that the densest urban areas dominate. You can see on the map below that there is a clear relationship between urbanity and patents. However, it turns out that the suburbs, those middling density places surrounding our great cities, produce the largest number of new inventions. Even more interesting, is the observation he makes that the truly most disruptive and creative innovations are concentrated in our cities, after all. And this is right in line with what I try to convey to my students about the role cities have played in our cultural history because they cause the intersection of so many different types of people, as well as transportation routes, educational institutions, artistic endeavors, and diverse ideological positions.

He's a good writer. Follow the link above for a more thorough discussion of the data.

Rates of innovation by county subdivision across the U.S. (Berkes & Gaetani)

Really Good News for a Change: The short history of global living conditions and why it matters that we know it - by Max Roser

The short history of global living conditions and why it matters that we know it
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts/

These graphs speak for themselves. Analyze them carefully. The one thing I would add to this, however, is that if I were to show you graphs on the health of ecosystems and ecosystem services you would get a much more negative impression of the trajectory of history. So, essentially, what we are facing now is ever improving human welfare and systematic destruction of natural systems. We must find a way to continue these improvements while protecting resources (and wild beauty) for future generations. The whole article is well worth a short read.