Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 14 November 2007 |
Nature
450,
327
(2007)
| doi:10.1038/450327a
Corrected online: 16 November 2007
News in Brief: Graphic Detail
Countries with highest CO2-emitting power sectors (tonnes per year)
World's most CO2-emitting power stations revealed.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
In your figure, South Korea is pointing to the Southern China provinces instead.
Would you guys please have a little bit of common sense of geography? As a top scientific journal in the world, you guy don't even know where is South Korea, shame on you.
It is an unfortune that a journal like "nature" making such stupid mistakes: South Korea is pointing to south China instead. it is a huge joke
Oh my god! Do you guys know where is the South Korea and where is the China?
Should we trust an ariticle/journal that makes 5th grade mistake about the location of the countries? This is bad and disppointing. Hope the editors would double check the figures before you publish it in the future.
Retract the ignorant news!!
As a resident of Taichung, I do appreciate this piece of information, discomforting as it is to me personally. But I also believe someone owes the Koreans an apology.
Don't care about that. It maybe a minor mistake.
Don't care about that. It maybe a minor mistake.
in the democratic way, US should go slowly and make less CO2 output to let Asia to go fast.
As an Australian I am ashamed to read that we have the highest level of CO2 emissions per capita. Not surprised perhaps, but certainly ashamed. If Iceland can lead the way with harnessing geothermal forms of energy, Norway with water, and Denmark with wind, then wouldn't you think that the great brown, almost burned to a crisp, land down under could lead the way in solar? Under the current leadership we are aiming to be the great black land, leading the way in 'clean coal' technologies. From this report it looks like we have a long way to go...
I could see the first 11 comments (from Yin to Wickson, one duplicated). Interestingly all the comments regarding the wrong positioning of S. Korea on the map have come from Korean readers (or perhaps Chinese also). It seems no reader from the west has noticed the mistake or cared for a comment. Does this mean that people in west have little interest in knowing where the third-world contries are precisely located on the map? -- Y.P. Joshi, 15 November
Woah, dear Joshi, this is the 1st time I hear someone call South Korea a 3rd World country. As for the comments, may be westerners, as the name suggest, were still sleeping when the Koreans were reading? The error is blatant in the large picture, although the thumbnail is undecipherable.
The one bit of information in this report that I found quite useless is the report on individual power plants - CO2 emission by electrical power output wold have been a more meaningful value. PS: It seems to me that all the people posting about the wrong position of South Korea so far have Chinese names.
Small journals may make apparent mistakes to atract eyes. Then they can correct the mistakes with a possibly big increase of numbers of readers. I don't really understand why Nature does this...
The author of this article (maybe the image author)should learn some basic geography knowledge. Korea is not a province in China.
what a big mistake please go back and learn more about geography so shanme on you should we trust on those journals?(e.g nature) you owes China a big apology
We can not believe that NATURE made this kind of STUPID mistake again! Last time you separated Taiwan from China, and this time you gave south part of China to South Korea. We do believe that one apoloy is not enough for this. Jiangxin Wang, Zhigang Zhou*
The image of this news is not correct in labeling Chinese territory and Korean territory. Being a chinese, I felt very astonish to see Nature, such a top journal, made such a big mistake. And I felt hurt by such kind of mistake. I hope to see it corrected as soon as possible; I also wait for the apology from the author if possible. Thank you.
Please,you have a reputation to maintain,so correct your ignorant mistakes already! First: South Korea is NOT inside China! Second: Taiwan is part of China, not a country! Don't you proof-read your article? So many comments since yesterday and you haven't seen a single one of them?
... graduated from high school? double check your figure man ...
u made a stupid and big mistake!!!
There is a funning mistake in the location of south korea.
So can I think the data in the figure are also funny mistakes?
poor man, what a ridiculous mistake you made !
Well, in my humble opinion as a scientist, Taiwan/China is a political issue, not belonging in Nature. China/South Korea is a matter of geographic accuracy which does. I hope and believe it's an honest mistake by someone (in the West) not familiar with geography of Asia, and a simple apology should do. I also appreciate the knoweldge that there is a serious environemental problem close to me living in Taichung, a cruel reminder that all of us should always look at the big picture, because you never know when it will hit you close to home.
r u guys crazy? do you have any commen sense of geography knowledge? that's part of China, not stupid south korea!!!!!!!!!! WTF~~~~~~~~~~
besides~~~ taiwan is part of china!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's called Taiwan Province!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not a country~
shame on you~~~~
O M G ~~~!!!!!!Jeff Tollefson, ni tai you cai le!!!~~~~in your opinion that i am a korean,but why don't i know ?!!!it is ridiculous!!! are you sure that your thought is normal or you have received the elementary education?I am sceptical to you. Nature,the author who employed by you are low standard , so that you are also an unorthodox magazine.
Well, i think the complaints are enough, and I belive Nature will come up an apoloy & explanation for the geographical mistake (or the intended activity as SD Highlander said). With largest population in the world, China is unavoidably having fairly high CO2-emitting power sectors. However just because we have over 1/5 of world's population, we Chinese should take appropriate responsibility, pay more attention to environmental protection, not only chasing for productivity, profit and GDP.
what a pity! I don't think one who doesn't have any common sense of geography knowledge can do this research on CO2 because the statistic are sorted by country. Does that you mark the South Korea inside China means that the amount of CO2 of China has included that of South Korea? And Taiwan is a part of China, you cannot change the fact though you can change you article. The author should apology for those mistakes and change them!
Thanks for pointing out our labelling error in this graphic. It has now been fixed.
Thanks for pointing out our labelling error in this graphic. It has now been fixed. Report this comment 16 Nov, 2007 Posted by: Gaia Vince ========================================== don't u guys think u need to apology?
We need an formal apology!!!!!!
Hey Editors, still have mistake in the PDF format!
Who was the editor for this article? Who did review this article? I think the editor should quit his/her job in Nature. I still can not believe Nature could make such stupid mistake. Nature should apology for having such stupid editor.
They made a mistake. It was stupid, but not malicious. Let's give them a few more days to fix the PDF and/or issue an apology before we start asking for people's heads/jobs.
I really hope that the majority of the individuals who posted here are not established scientists because the lack of maturity as evidenced by the comments really frightens me. From a sociological point, it's really interesting to note how the chinese posters on this forum have overblown a simple and easily fixable benign geographical mistake.
Amazing that ONE power station can emit that much CO2 in a year. My next thought was what proportion of Taiwan's energy needs does it fill?
I'm glad to see that the apparent mistake on this webpage has been taken care of. However I also noticed that the PDF file still got it wrong... Is it really hard to correct this "minor" mistake? For a "mature", "established" "scientist", shouldn't it be the first priority for him/her to make sure what he/she has said or published is "scientifically" right?
It is sad that this was not reveiwed before submited. If you go back to the sources of this article you will find that the map used from the Carbon Monitoring for Action website is wrong. So the original error was committed by that website.
It is surprising that the scientific community is more concerned about the geographical mistake than the alarming rates of CO2 emissions.
I think the lessons for the author and the NATURE editor should be how to avoid such a mistake in the future. It should not be taken lightly as it does distract from the main message of the article and loses the credibility of the information in front of the public on the most prestigious scientific forum. I am glad to see it is now finally being fixed (online, in pdf, as well as in a written statement in Nov. 22 issue on page 470).
Rising sea would blurr the Boundary.... So!! why fight on Geography????
In answer to Information Centre's question, the power plant in Taichung does not fill a whole lot of Taiwan's energy needs, most likely less than 10%. It was first planned to be built amid concerns over safety issue of nuclear power in the 80's (Taiwan has 4 nuke plants already). It is a sad but typical situation, with priority for economic development over environment, so it becomes a matter of which poison to choose from. The fear is our children will once day suffer and pay for it.
I agree with Ying-Hen. I am also a scientist from Taichung, Taiwan. The economical growth in Taiwan usually is associated with the increase of the emission level of CO2 and worsens air quality.The emission level in Taiwan is expected to increase in the coming 10 years. Nonetheless, recently we found that lung and Liver cancer mortalities in the downwind area of Taichung power plant also increase although we are not sure whether these mortalities are due to the built of Taichung power plant or not? China and other developing countries might want to learn a lesson from Taiwan.