Map projections, distortion and the politics of size: why the world may be moving from Mercator to Equal Earth

Understanding map projections

A map projection is a mathematical method used to transform locations on the Earth’s curved surface into positions on a flat map. Surveyors encounter this challenge constantly. Geographic coordinates are measured on a reference ellipsoid, yet engineers, navigators and planners often require grid coordinates on a flat surface. Projections provide the link between the two systems. Several properties can potentially be preserved:

• Area
• Shape
• Distance
• Direction
• Bearing

The problem is that preserving all of them simultaneously is impossible. This limitation arises from geometry itself. A sphere and a plane possess fundamentally different curvature. Mathematicians have demonstrated that a curved surface cannot be flattened without stretching, compressing or tearing. Since tearing would make a map unusable, projections rely on varying degrees of stretching and compression. Consequently, every map projection represents a deliberate choice regarding which distortions are acceptable. A useful analogy is peeling an orange. It is impossible to remove the peel and lay it perfectly flat on a table without breaking or stretching it. The Earth’s surface behaves similarly when transferred onto paper or a screen.

The Mercator projection: a triumph of navigation

The Mercator projection was introduced by Gerardus Mercator in 1569. Its purpose was not to show the true size of countries but to help sailors navigate across oceans. The genius of the Mercator projection lies in its preservation of direction. A straight line on a Mercator chart corresponds to a constant compass bearing. Mariners could therefore draw a course between two points and follow that bearing continuously. In the age of sail, this was revolutionary. For centuries, the projection became the standard tool for navigation, exploration and maritime trade. Even modern maritime charts continue to utilise Mercator-based approaches for specific applications because of these navigational advantages. Internal surveying and geodesy training documents similarly note that Mercator projections are widely used for maritime charts and preserve angles effectively. Yet these advantages come at a price. As latitude increases, the projection stretches space progressively more. Near the poles, distortion becomes extreme. Greenland, Canada, Scandinavia and Russia appear far larger relative to equatorial regions than they really are. Africa, South America and Indonesia appear considerably smaller than their actual land areas. From a navigational perspective, this distortion is acceptable. From an educational perspective, it may be misleading.

Why all map projections are distorted

The recent debate sometimes creates the impression that Mercator is uniquely flawed. In reality, all projections are distorted. The question is not whether distortion exists, but which distortion is chosen. Mercator preserves:

• Direction
• Local shape
• Angular relationships

Mercator distorts:

• Area
• Distance
• Relative size of land masses

Equal-area projections preserve:

• Relative area of countries

But distort:

• Shape
• Angles
• Direction

Conformal projections preserve:

• Shape

But distort:

• Area

Equidistant projections preserve:

• Certain distances

But distort:

• Other distances and areas

This is a fundamental cartographic truth. Surveyors encounter similar compromises in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projections. UTM provides useful local accuracy but distortion increases as one moves away from the central meridian. Consequently, projections must be chosen according to the intended purpose. No projection can simultaneously provide perfect area, shape, direction and distance because geometry simply does not allow it.

The Equal Earth projection

The Equal Earth projection was developed in 2018 by an international team of cartographers as an equal-area world map. Its primary objective is simple: countries and continents should appear in proportion to their actual area. Unlike Mercator, Equal Earth deliberately sacrifices some shape accuracy in order to preserve relative size. Africa, South America and other equatorial regions consequently appear much larger than they do on a Mercator map, while Greenland, northern Russia and northern Canada appear smaller. Supporters argue this creates a more truthful visual representation of the world’s geography. The Equal Earth map does not attempt to replace Mercator for navigation. Instead, proponents argue that global reference maps, classrooms, policy documents and educational materials should employ a projection that better reflects actual land area when size matters.

The UN debate and Africa’s true scale

The United Nations debate emerged largely from an African-led campaign known as #CorrectTheMap. Togo introduced the resolution with backing from the African Union. On 4 September 2026 it passed: 164 member states voted in favour, six abstained, and the United States alone voted against. The resolution does not ban the Mercator projection; it encourages governments, schools, international organisations and technology companies to use equal-area maps where relative size matters, and to teach the limits of any flat map. The campaign focuses particularly on Africa’s representation. Africa covers approximately 30 million square kilometres and is the world’s second-largest continent. Yet on Mercator maps it often appears only marginally larger than Greenland. In reality, Africa is roughly fourteen times larger. This discrepancy often surprises people because generations have grown accustomed to Mercator-based imagery. Advocates argue that such representations have subtly influenced how people perceive the relative importance, population, resources and geopolitical significance of different regions. Some commentators describe this phenomenon as “cartographic colonialism”, suggesting that colonial-era perspectives became embedded in global education through map design. Not everyone agrees with that interpretation. Many geographers emphasise that Mercator’s distortions arise from mathematics rather than political intent. Nevertheless, there is increasing recognition that visual representations can shape public understanding regardless of the original motives behind them.

Why country size matters

One might ask whether map size really matters at all. After all, national influence depends on economics, population, military capability and technology rather than geographic area alone. However, visual impressions matter enormously in human perception. When schoolchildren repeatedly see Europe appearing comparable to Africa, or Greenland appearing almost as large as an entire continent, they may develop unconscious assumptions about relative scale and significance. Consider several examples:

Natural resources

A better appreciation of Africa’s actual size highlights the scale of its agricultural land, mineral resources, energy potential and biodiversity.

Population

Africa is home to well over a billion people. Accurate spatial representation can help audiences better understand the continent’s demographic significance.

Geopolitics

Maps influence perceptions of strategic reach and regional importance. Visual underrepresentation can affect how regions are viewed by outsiders.

Education

Students learning geography benefit from understanding the true proportional relationship between continents and nations.

Global equity

Supporters of Equal Earth argue that accurate area representation encourages a more balanced understanding of the world and challenges long-standing misconceptions.

Does Equal Earth solve the problem?

Not entirely. Equal Earth resolves one type of distortion while introducing others. Countries maintain correct relative area, but their shapes become modified. Coastlines, directions and some spatial relationships are less intuitive than on Mercator. This is not a failure. It is simply another compromise. The critical point is that all projections involve trade-offs.

• Mercator is excellent for navigation.
• Transverse Mercator is excellent for local surveying.
• Polar stereographic projections are useful near the poles.
• Equal Earth is particularly useful when displaying the relative size of continents and countries.

Different applications require different projections. Indeed, modern GIS and surveying systems routinely switch between projections depending upon the task being performed. The future may therefore involve greater projection literacy rather than a complete replacement of one map by another.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding the proposed United Nations move from Mercator towards Equal Earth is about far more than geography. It highlights the tension between utility, accuracy and perception. Mercator became the dominant world map because it solved a practical navigational problem. For sailors and explorers, its preservation of compass direction was invaluable. Yet this achievement came with substantial distortions of area, particularly near the poles. As a result, continents such as Africa appear far smaller relative to northern regions than they really are. The Equal Earth projection represents an alternative philosophy. Rather than assisting navigation, it prioritises the faithful representation of land area. Supporters argue that this creates a more accurate understanding of the world’s geography and better reflects the true scale of countries and continents. However, Equal Earth is not a perfect map, because no perfect flat map can exist. Distortion is an unavoidable consequence of projecting a curved Earth onto a plane. The real issue is therefore not whether maps are distorted, but which distortions society is prepared to accept. For surveyors, geodesists and cartographers, this has always been understood. Every projection is a compromise. The recent UN debate simply brings that professional reality into public view. It reminds us that maps are not merely pictures of the world. They are interpretations of it, shaped by mathematics, purpose and human priorities. And perhaps the most important lesson is that the Earth itself remains unchanged. What is changing is our understanding of how best to represent it.