Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Um, What?

1

A lot of hard work went into that graph.

Posted by Mr. Poe | February 6, 2008 4:50 PM
2

Former President Bill Clinton told reporters earlier this week that he would spend any amount it took to get his wife elected to the White House.

Might be time to rethink your Hillary endorsement there ECB.

Posted by Cato | February 6, 2008 4:50 PM
3

Bad form @2.

Posted by Lou | February 6, 2008 4:59 PM
4

OK, I'll take a shot:

Each bar corresponds to some GHG reduction technique or plan (which you haven't given us the key to)

The bars on the right cost a lot to the economy per ton of GHG eliminated. The bars on the left actually save the economy money (e.g. CFL bulbs)

The "fatness" of each bar is how much GHG it saves.

So, an ideal item on this graph would be very tall (pointing downwards) and very fat. The worst possible item is tall (pointing up) and skinny.

That weird bar in the middle is stuff they didn't bother to quantify the cost of.

Posted by MHD | February 6, 2008 5:00 PM
5

So, if you cannot understand these graphics, then how are you qualified to speak at this event?

Posted by JD | February 6, 2008 5:00 PM
6

The one problem I have with what ECB said, was that you used the phrase "things that will happen if" we don't do something.

The cold hard reality is that a lot of it will happen. It's already too late for things that occur in the next 20 years, for example.

It's what will happen AFTER that which we can impact if we change NOW.

Bangladesh is probably doomed already, as is Vanaatu, and I wouldn't want to own land in most of Florida.

But we could at least keep it from getting even worse.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 6, 2008 5:30 PM
7

You DO own land in most of Florida, Will, or you will when the Feds bail everybody out again as they have so many times in the past. Our tax dollars are hard at work building shoddy McMansions on the beach to replace the ones that blew away last time, and the time before that.

Posted by Fnarf | February 6, 2008 5:42 PM
8

@4 is right, which I only know because I've seen graphics like this before. They're really cool graphs when they're actually labelled.

Posted by John | February 6, 2008 5:43 PM
9

The area of each bar reflects the total cost of each strategy. The width is the tons of reduction and the height is the cost of reduction per ton. Multiply them together and you get total cost.

The exceptions to this definition is the purple line floating above the center line, because they didn't determine what the cost would be.

Posted by K | February 6, 2008 6:05 PM
10

ECB, I'm glad you don't like the graph. Seems like extra qualification to me, that you're not a pointy headed dork who can't communicate ideas effectively.

Once one deciphers that the areas represent cost, there's still the problem of comparing areas of short, fat boxes to tall, skinny boxes. That's not something people do well at a glance. And are boxes with similar areas really equivalent? I think I'd get more out of a page of text than this graph.

Posted by poltroon | February 6, 2008 7:24 PM
11

Still bleeding sweetie pie?

Well, I am sure at least 2 birknstock wearing lesbos will show up to what will no doubt be a rivetting event, just to give you moral support. You know, power of the womyn and all.

Now, get back into the kitchen and get me a turkey pot pie.

Posted by ecce homo | February 7, 2008 2:02 AM
12

I like ecce homo.

Posted by sorealtarboy | February 7, 2008 7:53 AM
13

Meanwhile the Sierra Club is silent on a light rail vote in 2008. Guess they just fight climate change by saying no to rail.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | February 7, 2008 9:42 AM
14

It's understandable but you you have to think way too hard.

On this graph, width means C02 reduced, so wide is always good. Down is good (you save money while reducing C02) and up is bad (reducing C02 costs you money). Bars with a lot of area would save or cost you a lot of money ($/C02 x C02 = $).

A rational global warming denier -- an oxymoron-- would adopt every strategy on the left because they all save money. Incidentally, they would also help save the planet. A scientifically literate person would also start by doing things on the left, but would keep going past the middle, investing in strategies until enough C02 had been reduced. I don't know but am guessing that rightmost side of the graph is the point at which the Gov. says we have reduced enough C02.

You can eyeball the net cost to the rational person by comparing the left and right total areas. If they are about the same, then the rational person has saved the planet for free.

But unless my eyes are tricking me, the left side has greater area than the right, meaning that you can save the planet and make a profit!

The question is, can we stop at the rightmost point on this graph, or do we need to go further?

Posted by scotto | February 7, 2008 10:08 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).