31
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works to c/dataisbeautiful@lemmy.ml

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

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 1 points 9 months ago

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 3 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.

this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2024
31 points (73.8% liked)

Data Is Beautiful

9 readers
2 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