Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:26 pm

What the next generation of maps is telling us that we don’t want to hear

As I think I’ve mentioned a time or three, I’m a map geek. Old, new, paper, digital, real, fictional, silent or talkative, I love ’em. (I do mute the talkative ones sometimes, but still.)

So I was tickled that James Fallows at The Atlantic did a Q&A with Michael Jones of Google, one of the people who helped create Google Earth (now installed on a billion computers worldwide). And he talked about how mapping apps on smartphones are becoming even more personal because they can use info the phone already has gathered about your locations, likes, and so on to craft maps that not only show how to get from here to there but also tell you potentially interesting things about some of the places you’ll pass along the way, or the places around where you are right now. (One manifestation is Google’s new Android app, Field Trip, coming soon for iOS as well.

Then Fallows asks what I think is both a creative and perceptive question. He points out that some of the first photos of the Earth from space, such as the iconic Christmas Eve 1968 photo shot by Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders, “created a different kind of environmental consciousness.” (The American nature photographer Galen Rowell has described this image as “the most influential environmental photograph ever taken.” I was in the third grade at the time, and even now I can recall what that “different kind of environmental consciousness” meant: We — all of us — share one single planet, a planet that amounts to a speck in the vastness of space, and it’s the only planet we’re going to get. I think the first Earth Day and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, among other developments, are attributable in significant part to that photo.)

Could the current mapping revolution, Fallows asks Jones, have the same effect? Jones’s answer was both hopeful and heartbreaking:

My father is in his 80s. He wanted to know more about what I do, so I recently showed him Google’s underwater Street View. [This is an aspect of Google Earth that shows reefs, seamounts, and other underwater features in the oceans.] We dove in the water and we were basically swimming along. We stopped and zoomed in, looked at turtles, looked at fish. We went down under a big reef and we could see a tunnel in there, and there were fish resting in the tunnel.

After a while he said, “Son, this is so beautiful.” He’s never been scuba diving, but he said, “This is so beautiful. I just can’t believe how beautiful this is.” And I said, “Well, Dad, we chose beautiful places because most of the corals near islands around the world are already dead. They look like old concrete. No fish, just dead.”

He almost cried. He stared at me with a “What has the world come to?” kind of look, and we talked for a while about that. And so he was brought to an awareness of the grotesque damage that’s happening worldwide due to the ocean acidification that follows from the externalities of the way we live as a human race right now. It was powerful for him because he could personally experience the ocean in a way that, with his mobility challenges, he’s never going to see by scuba diving. Yet he felt what people who have experienced the sea know to be true and care about.

I believe that only this kind of understanding leads to activism, whether it’s a passive activism of a vote or an active activism of changing your lifestyle to protect the world.

The problem is that although this kind of activism is, as Jones observes, necessary, it is not sufficient. At current prices, there is something like $27 trillion worth of combustible carbon — coal, oil, gas and fuel wood — still in the ground. The industries that extract those resources will not willingly relinquish the opportunity to do so, and they have largely achieved a stranglehold on any other force that could force them to do so.

The way we live is killing the only planet we’ve got. The process has been proceeding even faster than we thought, so fast that my children, now adolescents, may well live to see global disruption and human suffering on a scale worse than that of World War II, with no country, no matter how geographically isolated or politically nonaligned, left unaffected.

No map, no matter how cool, is going to stop that. In fact, I don’t know that anything will.


  1. Thou sayest: “The industries that extract those resources will not willingly relinquish the opportunity to do so, and they have largely achieved a stranglehold on any other force that could force them to do so.”

    Well… except that’s the wrong meme/trope-thingie. My job moved 45 minutes from my house. Shall I quit (it’s a decent job) so I don’t have to commute? Also, I ordered a Nest smart thermostat for my house. It’s made of dirt that was dug from the ground with heavy equipment and heated to unbelievable temperatures in order to extract impurities (smelting) and re-inject other impurities (solid-state electronics manufacture), put together in China and shipped to my house, so I can save the environment when I’m not home and still be comfortable when I AM home. Also also, I got some shoes from Zappos (free return shipping!), also from a foreign land.

    The problem isn’t the evil large institutions we love to hate, it’s us. And not just us decadent Westerners. Everybody in China wants a car and a washing machine.

    As long as we aim at the wrong target, we’ll accomplish (possibly less than) nothing.

    Pictures of beautiful underwater scenes probably won’t help, but pictures of dead coral everywhere in the world might. They should make a game of it: find the last living reef.

    Comment by John L — Friday, January 4, 2013 9:43 am @ 9:43 am

  2. John, as you no doubt know, the largest source of carbon emissions is industry — coal-, oil- and gas-fired electrical plants in particular. Automotive emissions, although significant, aren’t the biggest problem, and the other items you mention pale in comparison to those two.

    Speaking of aiming at the wrong target.

    In point of fact, the long-term solution is, indeed, changing human behavior. I agree with you on that point. But “long term” is relative, and as I point out above, things could go completely south before my kids exhaust their current life expectancies. I think it’s both more realistic and more urgent to focus on the technology first. And I think it’s more realistic to make this happen via government mandate than by waiting around for the free market to get to it on its own, as we recall that the free market has about 27 trillion reasons not to bother.

    We’ve got, at best, 20 to 30 years, if we start right now and move aggressively, to level off carbon emissions at a subcatastrophic level and then begin to reduce them.

    Comment by Lex — Saturday, January 5, 2013 5:26 pm @ 5:26 pm

  3. Never got the notification that you had responded. Bad technology, no biscuit.

    My point was that focusing on oil, coal, and gas companies as evil while ignoring that they’re satisfying our demands is erroneous. I do believe in gov’t intervention, but it’s useless to focus on evil oil companies while allowing us to continue our urban sprawl. I support a carbon tax (AND it should be passed on to us consumers), but ignoring consumers (as implied by your original phrasing “The industries that extract those resources will not willingly relinquish the opportunity to do so”) won’t help.

    I’m repeating myself, but what the heck. Ya know what I mean?

    Comment by John L — Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:34 pm @ 10:34 pm

  4. Your straw men are starting to add up.

    I’m saying focus on the technology and the emissions FIRST because the benefits are direct but will take decades to manifest — decades we may not have. And I’m also pointing out that the various economic forces behind some of these other issues (What is “urban sprawl,” exactly? Do you mean “suburban sprawl,” and if so, are you aware of the extent to which urban infill is beginning to counteract suburban sprawl, and what the ramifications of that phenomenon might be for the economy and climate?), although nontrivial, pale in comparison to the extraction industries in their influence on the executive and legislative branches, if not the judicial.

    I’m not ruling out a more comprehensive approach, nor have I ever.

    Comment by Lex — Friday, January 18, 2013 11:34 am @ 11:34 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: