THE CONVERSATION: New world map makes Africa look bigger – What’s the fuss about? Cartographers explain

A map projection is a method used by cartographers to transform the three-dimensional Earth onto a flat, two-dimensional surface, resulting in distortions of shape and area. The Mercator projection exaggerates landmasses near the poles, making regions like Africa appear smaller, whereas the Equal Earth projection minimizes these distortions, offering a more accurate representation of relative sizes for global scale use. While the Mercator projection remains useful for navigation because it maintains compass bearings, the Equal Earth projection is better suited for global world maps intended for educational, public communication, and policy comparison, as it supports a fairer understanding of continental size.
The movement to adopt the Equal Earth projection was supported by an endorsement from the United Nations, though its full adoption requires intentional revision across various media and databases. Resistance has arisen, notably from the United States, which objected to the projection's connection to colonial legacies, while other nations raised concerns regarding specific political demarcations displayed on the map, such as the Crimean Peninsula. The underlying argument for change stems from the concept of "cognitive justice," suggesting that accurate representation of geography can influence perceptions of a region's importance and relevance in global affairs.

* The Mercator projection exaggerates land towards the north and south poles.
* Countries near the poles can appear two to fourteen times their true size in the Mercator projection.
* The Equal Earth projection minimizes these distortions.
* Cartographers select map projections based on intended use, as no single projection is best for every use.
* The Equal Earth projection supports a more accurate geographic understanding of relative country and continent sizes.
* The Mercator projection is useful for navigational purposes because it maintains compass bearing accuracy.
* Online mapping platforms like Google Maps and Apple Maps rely on a variation of the Mercator projection for navigation.
* The United Nations endorsed the idea that Equal Earth is a fairer projection for displaying the true size of the Earth.
* Resistance to the Equal Earth projection included abstentions from the United Nations General Assembly vote.
* The United States voted against adopting the Equal Earth projection, citing it as a "radical and ideological project."
* African nations argued that the Equal Earth projection is a form of "cognitive justice" by reflecting actual continental prominence.

The shift in cartographic standards reveals a tension between practical utility and epistemic responsibility in how global reality is visually constructed. The continued reliance on the Mercator projection, despite its known distortions that disadvantage specific regions like Africa, demonstrates how established systems can persist based on functional inertia rather than objective accuracy. The persistence of navigation-focused applications using Mercator highlights a separation between navigational needs and geographical representation needs, suggesting that utility often trumps fairness in applied contexts.
The resistance encountered against the Equal Earth projection illuminates how geopolitical concerns intersect with symbolic representation. The dispute over specific territories, such as the Crimean Peninsula, shifts a debate about cartography from purely technical matters into the realm of contested political narratives. Furthermore, the US objection focused on ideological framing, suggesting that challenges to geographic representations are often leveraged as proxies for broader ideological conflicts regarding colonial history and current power structures.
The concept of "cognitive justice" suggests that changing how we map the world is not merely an aesthetic adjustment but a necessary act in altering collective understanding of power and value. The challenge lies in moving from acknowledging the technical merits of projections to institutionalizing a consensus on which representation serves broader human agency. If global influence is sought by nations, then correcting the "mental map" of geography becomes a strategy for amplifying relevance; however, this requires more than just a successful vote; it demands a fundamental willingness among powerful entities to prioritize equitable representation over established, functional norms, regardless of the perceived political cost.
Bridge Questions: What mechanisms are required to shift institutional defaults from established projections to those prioritizing cognitive justice? How can societies balance the utility of certain maps for specific functions (like navigation) with the imperative for accurate, equitable world views? What specific, measurable criteria could be developed to assess whether a map projection serves true global public good rather than functional convenience?