Last week we began looking at the Capitalocene instead of the Anthropocene. This is prompted a look at how different countries economic growth may lead to difference in environmental performance. Continuing to inspect how capital may drive human influence on the environment I chose to look at urban growth and percent of land dedicated as forest. As I found last week Yale’s EPI did not correlate to the Kuznets curve. This suggests that the more wealthy and more industrialized the country or region, the better its environmental performances will be. I chose to examine the capitalocene through the view of deforestation and urban growth. I chose urban growth because I wanted to see if it may be an indicator of a country that may still be in the process of industrialization. Deforestation seemed to be a choice made to get an understanding of the countries resources and how they use them. Since you can see the forest area (in percent of land area), you can both see its possible shrink in size as well as how much a country or region may value that land differently. Perhaps a region has a religious value they place on the forest causing deforestation at a lower rate since there isn't as much of a capital lense put on the commodity. After importing the new data, I was able to merge the information to the previous sheet from last week’s lab. From here I moved the tables into a CSV file to upload the tubular data into ARCGIS. From here ARCGIS allows me to take the data and make it special data putting the data points on each country that they correspond to. This creates six maps, three for urban growth, and three for forest area. In each case there is a third graph with the percent change between the other two years of that variable. Underneath each data point is the world map separating the countries by income group, an indicator used in the previous lab. The regions that seemed to have the lowest income rates also had worst EPI ratings from our previous lab. These places also the highest percentage change of urban growth between 2008 and 2017 according to data from the World Bank repository. As seen in the story map attached, The areas with the largest change in urban growth also saw the highest changes in forest area. These areas decreased their forest cover between 2004 and 2015. In these areas I noticed a low income trend. Most of the largest circles fell in blue and purple low income countries. These countries would then also be likely affected by industrialization and an emphasis placed on commodities such as forest. The capitalocene influence humans hold is applied largely to nature in times that these areas are labeled as goods for the market rather than objects in the environment. Overall this data further supports my hypothesis from last weeks lab that lower income regions are more likely to be behind more industrialized countries in their environmental performance. This can be due to many things due to the capitalocene falling as one way humans influence our environment under a larger umbrella that is anthropocene. This data further points away from the Kuznets curve and instead suggests that countries more industrialized are more environmetally sustainable. Perhaps a possible solution may be to support less wealthy areas and by asisting them it may bring more constant environmental growth across the world.