Video: What does NYC's carbon footprint "look" like?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


New York City is well on its way to meeting a citywide goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2017. This goal was adopted in 2007 as a part of PlaNYC 2030 to "build a greener, greater New York" and has catalyzed new parkland, housing improvement, and public transportation projects throughout the city. According to updates, the city had already reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 12% compared to the 2005 baseline by the end of 2010.

But, even with this reduction, New York City emitted about 54 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere in 2010. That's just under 2 tons of CO2 per second. Every second. All year long.

Carbon Visuals, in partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund recently published a video that aims to give the viewer a sense of what 2 tons of CO2 per second means. Quite interesting, given that CO2 is a colorless gas, which can make it difficult to visualize.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In the video, carbon dioxide is represented using blue spheres that are 33 feet across. This sphere has the volume of 1 ton of CO2, assuming standard temperature (59 deg. F) and atmospheric pressure (1.87 kg per cubic meter).

Interestingly, these carbon dioxide emissions are not primarily the result of the New York City transportation network. (Though, the city's efforts to increase its taxi fleet's fuel economy could certainly have a significant impact on total emissions levels.) It turns out that approximately 75% of NYC's greenhouse gas footprint comes from buildings.

H/T to Jake Whitcomb for sharing this video.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe