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

Data Is Beautiful

6909 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
 

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
[–] derphurr@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (2 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 4 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 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 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 1 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 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.

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

I wonder why forestation is not present in this chart, as it is a low-cost carbon capture with side benefits. Sure, it is hard to scale, but reducing current deforestation rates would be a big step.

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

It might be included in carbon capture and sequestration.