Cool graph on balancing carbon budgets


http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/strategic-options-for-climate-change-mitigation-global-cost-curve-for-greenhouse-gas-abatement-measu

This image is a cool way to visualize strategies to balance carbon budgets. My advisor uses it a lot in presentations to put into perspective where soil carbon sequestration costs fit relative to ‘negative cost’ options & other options such as carbon capture and storage (CCS).

I think soils are on here twice to represent different soil sequestration options: some are cheap (no-till) some are more expensive (rangeland sequestration).

I think that it’s worth speculating why these negative cost options are underutilized.

Insulation improvement are often required after sale. Builders externalize these costs by selling houses & office buildings with rather basic insulation. Cost comparison by buyers end up costing the builder if they try to include energy efficient costs.

Similar is also true for commercial/consumer vehicle manufacturers: buyers don’t behave entirely rationally. They never build up ‘perfect information’ to make informed decisions. I believe Stiglitz talked about this?

There might be better versions available. I think I saw one where there was a large green bar representing clinker substitution in cement manufacturing that could save $50/tonne CO2 offset. Can’t find the citation and it’s late though…

So, that’s all for now. Enjoy the figure.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s