Data Is Beautiful

6878 readers

1 users here now

A place to share and discuss data visualizations. #dataviz

(under new moderation as of 2024-01, please let me know if there are any changes you want to see!)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

satur@lemmy.ml

otter@lemmy.ca

How much it costs to cut 1 metric ton of carbon emission with various methods for different global carbon emission levels (www.edf.org)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works to c/dataisbeautiful@lemmy.ml

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As you reduce the amount of carbon emissions (the y axis) the methods to keep reducing carbon cost more (the x axis.)

This great graph came to my attention from this video from vlogbrothers. It also has some good explanations of what it means.

Note that carbon capture doesn't really make sense till you've exhausted all the other emission minimizing methods.

Source: https://www.edf.org/revamped-cost-curve-reaching-net-zero-emissions

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] bjorney@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

If you need a video to explain your graph, is it really that good of a visualization?

[–] derphurr@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"carbon capture doesn't make sense" lol

If across the world enough trees were planted to equal the size of Amazon rain forest, that would be 300 billion trees and 7.5Gtonnes CO2

So more than entire graph.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But you need to plant that every year in perpetuity, while still burying the logs so decomposition doesn't release the co2 again.

[–] mapto@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why would the logs be emitting CO2 (rotting?) if they are alive and growing?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Because they're only alive and growing till they die and rot. Sometimes trees do both at the same time, rot from the inside out. You can't just plant trees for carbon capture, you also need to deal with how to permanently sequester the carbon.

[–] mapto@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Let's say that for millions of years a healthy biosphere grew around forests and the balance worked. Now you come to tell us it doesn't. Wouldn't you think it's a bit unconvincing?

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

We've only been pumping out co2 for a hundred or two years. We can't keep doing that and expect the old balance to hold up.