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

  • JohnDClayOP
    11·
    8 months ago

    Giga tones co2 is pretty common from what I’ve seen in emissions documentation, I’ve never seen megagrams used for co2 before, so I thought that was reasonable.

    • TropicalDingdong
      30·
      8 months ago

      “carbon capture doesn’t make sense” lol

      I mean, I’ve been in the industry for 10 years. Sure, when you are talking at a global scale, gt is what you use. The standard unit for projects is megagrams of carbon.

      • JohnDClayOP
        11·
        8 months ago

        Okay, since this is referring to the global co2 emissions, global scale makes sense.

        • TropicalDingdong
          30·
          8 months ago

          But is it? Does it?

          No it doesn’t, not the way this is being presented. The axis need to be relabeled and rearranged to represent that. Just accept that this is a poor presentation of these data.

          • JohnDClayOP
            10·
            8 months ago

            The y axis is the global co2 emissions. Where are you getting that it isn’t?

            • TropicalDingdong
              20·
              8 months ago

              Lol.

              No it isnt.

              Average annual emissions are 10gt per year right now.

              Y here is ‘cumulative’ carbon offset capacity (which is a bit of a misnomer because in their method you ‘stop’ doing things that are ‘cheaper’ at lower cost per unit carbon, which is like, not a good assumption to make, but we’ll stick with it for just trudging through this disaster of a figure).

              This is why data presentation matters. People who don’t know what they are talking about or how to understand these things will make the wrong conclusions.

              • JohnDClayOP
                20·
                8 months ago8 months ago

                Hmm actually looks like this is only the US. The 5gt is from 2021 when it was published. Yeah that should have been more clear.

        • TropicalDingdong
          20·
          8 months ago

          But its not just that. Its x axis is in Mg/$.

          The figure and the thinking behind it need a complete rework. They would have been better off sticking with the original McKinsey presentation of this concept from 2007.

          They’ve made it worse.

          • JohnDClayOP
            10·
            8 months ago

            Looks to be like the x axis is $/ton? If the original figure is better, could you link it so I can replace the pic?

                • TropicalDingdong
                  20·
                  8 months ago

                  Yes. That’s the original MAC curve the travesty you posted is supposed to represent an improvement to. It comes from Mckinsey 2007.

                  Y is cost per ton (x in the figure you presented). X is the potential reduction capacity of a given activity. Think about it like this: If Y were the price a carbon tax in Mg, the value of a tax is where a given activity becomes break even. Once carbon is ‘priced’ at a given level on Y, the activities below it on X become cost neutral/ cost savings. Negative numbers on this figure represent a real savings right now, with effectively a negative price on carbon. We should do these things right away. Positive values have a ‘cost’ associated with them (afaik, this doesn’t account for the fact that fossil fuels are subsidized). If we ‘taxed’ or put a price on carbon, the values where that line intersects and below become cost-neutral or a savings can be realized.