chart planet
graphic insights about the world we live in
It’s true! And some crops are even grown for feeding the cattle, so, this division between land used to feed humans and land used to feed animals which are used to feed humans is even bigger than it seems from the first glimpse. But would we really save energy and resources if we all turn vegan?
What: Comparative shares of land area used as cropland and meadows & pastures.
When: 2017
Where: The world
Source: FAO
I was sure, that we have lots of buildings, but in reality, we have less than 0,7% of the land area covered with them. However, combining buildings and cropland, we changed almost 22% of the land area. Is that a lot? Subjective question!
The real percentage might be higher because I did not count grasslands used as pastures (which might have been forests before becoming grasslands), changing inland waters (shrinking Sea of Azov for example), growing deserts or barren land due to human activities. Let’s say, that those 22 percent is an obvious change even an alien would immediately identify with humans.
What: Land Cover according to European Spatial Agency Climate Change Initiative annual land cover maps, which were produced by the Université catholique de Louvain.
When: 2015
Where: Land area of the whole planet including inland water.
Source: FAO
After debunking “America is the country of freedom” myth, I tried to debunk “Thailand is the country of smiles” myth. As it happens, Gallup, while doing research for their emotional indices asked people did they smile or laugh yesterday. And this data reveals that Thailand indeed could be called the country of smiles – its result is among the best in the world, however, its poorer brother Laos does better on this list.
But the whole Southeast Asia is indeed the region of smiles!
By the way, where is the secret of Nigeria? Is it Nollywood?
What: Percentage of people who replied that they smiled or laughed yesterday on an interview on emotions.
When: 2018
Where: 143 countries of the world
Source: Gallup
I have put countries into four categories:
– those which have the most positive emotions (big circle – excited)
– those which have the least positive emotions (small circle – bored)
– those which have the most negative emotions (big square – sad)
– those which have the least negative emotions (small square – chill)
Then I ranked them according to the World Happiness Report. I did not see any serious contradictions between these two data sets, except one country – Lithuania is quite high on happiness score, but very low on positive experiences, so it is the most bored happy country in the world.
What: Positive and Negative emotions indices based on interviews and Happiness index also based on interviews.
When: 2018
Where: 43 countries of the world
Source: Gallup for emotions and WHR for happiness
This time I am talking about daily positive or negative emotions, not the long-term reflection on life. This map shows top and bottom countries according to Positive Emotions index (circle) and Negative Emotions index (rectangle). Most of positive emotions (big circles) are in Latin America – they’re so happy and excited. Most of negative emotions (big squares) are in Africa – they’re so sad and depressed. Countries with low negative emotions (small squares) are spread across Eurasia – those people are chillin’. Countries with low positive emotions (small circles) are spread from Central Europe through the Middle East to South Asia. Those people are bored. Chad happens to be both high on negative emotions and low on positive, probably it’s the unhappiest place on the world.
What: Positive and Negative emotions indices based on more than 151,000 interviews with adults in more than 140 countries.
When: 2018
Where: 44 countries of the world.
Source: Gallup, The 2019 Global Emotions Report
Seems like kind of yes, they do. Some regions rely on polluting industries like the Middle East, some struggle to find their direction like South Asia, but most regions do reduce. Good news for future us.
What: CO2 emissions (kg per 2010 US$ of GDP) and GDP per capita.
When: 1970-2014
Where: World regions according to WB
Source: WB
As expected – no, there is a nice easily visible downward trend. It’s not the inefficiency of the USA making it one of the biggest polluters, it’s just the amount of production, while China has plenty of space to improve. There are many outliers above the general trend, and they’re mostly Middle East countries with oil plus one pink Brunei, also with oil and Estonia (probably with oil shale?) just beside Saudi Arabia.
What: CO2 emissions (kg per 2010 US$ of GDP) and GDP per capita. Colours mean regions by WB.
When: 2014 for emissions, and 2018 for GDP. I did not match the time this time 🙁
Where: 187 countries of the world
Source: WB
It’s a weird graph where poor African countries go together with rich European countries – Chad and Switzerland, Rwanda and France. It tells us, that some countries switched to less energy-consuming more intellect-consuming businesses, so they can reduce emissions, but others have not yet arrived at the stage where smoking chimneys power the growth. Will they manage jump over that stage? Will they manage skip factories and dive directly into developing apps or life-coaching blogs?
What: CO2 emissions (kg per 2010 US$ of GDP) – I don’t really get is it GDP in 2010 USD, or is it just 2010 GDP everywhere. But I hope it’s the former.
When: 2014
Where: 25 countries of the world with the lowest value.
Source: WB
Since the forest is a net CO2 consumer, maybe there are whole countries covered in forests consuming CO2? Apparently, there are such countries, but they are tiny idyllic worlds mostly spread in the Pacific Ocean with happy exceptions of Bhutan (just beside the world’s largest polluter China) and US Virgin Islands (just beside the world’s second-largest polluter the USA).
What: Emissions of various greenhouse gasses (CO2, CH4, PFCs and so on) expressed in the equivalent of tons of CO2 emissions.
When: 2010
Where: The only nine countries with negative emissions at that time.
Source: FAO
I know, the data is old, but back in 2010 energy production was the main source of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. Transport had the potential to overtake the land use and I bet despite all those electromobiles everywhere it did.
And the beautiful thing is – the forest is a net absorber of greenhouse gas! I knew it all along, but it is nice to see it on the graph. And it’s depressing at the same time because its absorption is tiny compared to our emissions.
What: Emissions of various greenhouse gasses (CO2, CH4, PFCs and so on) expressed in the equivalent of CO2 emissions. May not the question mislead – initially I asked about CO2, but then I found stats for all greenhouse gases. “Land use” is emissions by cropland and grassland and is not included in agriculture. “Residential, com., inst.” is emissions by residential, commercial and institutional activities. I believe the weird shape for the forest is due to inconsistency in data rather than actual changes.
When: From 1990 to 2010
Where: World aggregate
Source: FAO
I was sure that I will get the obvious result again – more development will mean more safety. However, after cherrypicking some regions and drawing a trend line for each, I got the opposite result. Central Asia seems to follow exactly the opposite trend, and Latin America with Sub-Saharan Africa seems to be quite chaotic.
What: Law and Order (L&O) Index compared to Human Development Index (HDI)
When: 2019 for L&O and 2017 for HDI
Where: 63 countries from Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America & Carribean, which have both indices.
Source: Gallup for L&O and UNDP for HDI
After seeing Tajikistan and Azerbaijan among the safest countries I expected to see a U shaped distribution where both free countries and suppressed countries enjoy order and stability. However there is a clear line where freedom increases together with law and order, and many exceptions from the trend scattered around.
Also, many regional patterns are visible – blue Europe being at the top left corner, orange Africa and Middle East leaning towards bottom right, and green Latin America – towards bottom left.
What: Law & Order (L&O) Index compared to Human Freedom Index (HFI)
When: L&O is 2019 and HFI is 2016, both are most recent indices available at the moment of making the graph
Where: 135 countries of the world, that have both indices. For example, there is no Afghanistan on this graph because it does not have an HFI index calculated.
Source: Gallup for L&O and “The Human Freedom Index 2018: A Global Measurement of Personal, Civil, and Economic Freedom”
But of course it’s Northern and Western Europe! What surprises me in this graph, it’s that Central Asian countries are relatively safe, Tajikistan being among the safest!
And the least safe is Latin America – or maybe it’s just a low number of Venezuela dragging all of them down.
What: Law & Order Index, which was calculated after telephone and face to face interviews, asking questions like “Do you feel safe walking alone at night in the city or area where you live?” and similar.
When: 2019
Where: 141 countries of the world
Source: Gallup
The answer to whether economic opportunities cause society to diverge into “the rich” and “the poor” or to converge into a “strong middle class” remains unanswered, because only a slight negative trend is visible. If there is any effect of economic freedom on the distribution of income in a society, measurable by the GINI coefficient, then it is weak, and easily countered by various other effects.
What: GINI coefficient – the larger it is, the more equally is the income distributed, everyone having the same amount at 100, the smaller it is the more income is concentrated in hands of the few, only one person having all the wealth at 0. And Economic Freedom Index.
When: The date of GINI is different for each country, the modal year being 2015. Economic Freedom Index is of 2017.
Where: 138 countries of the world
Source: WB for GINI and The Heritage Foundation for Economic Freedom Index.
Pardon me for asking the obvious. But if less democratic countries manage to maintain high levels of HDI, maybe less economically free countries manage to reach high levels of GDP per capita? The answer is no, the relationship is clear and exponential – free economy is best. That might surprise, but even the United Arab Emirates are economically free, they rank the 9th in the world by economic freedom.
What: Average GDP per capita in USD in a given Economic Freedom Index range. The red area represents the standard deviation – with higher Index values, the GDP becomes more volatile.
When: I’d say the whole graph is 2018 because Economic Freedom Index represents previous years.
Where: 175 countries of the world.
Source: The Heritage Foundation and WB
