4 Comments

    1. Why are we assuming this isn’t just another one of those – years next to the other + years? Seems like we’re still following the same typical cycle without enough data to show a trend break.

    2. Some suggestions: first, I think it might be worth labeling more years on the first graph; at least every 5, and definitely the current year. Second, I’m not a big fan of the second chart. Because of how percentages work, it ends up being highly misleading; if a good had a 1000% increase followed by three 70% decreases, you’d end up at around 30% of the original value, but the scale of the chart would be blown out by the 1000%. Which is sort of what’s happening here: the 60% decreases look insignificant because of the big spike at the start. I think it might work better with the second graph showing the difference in raw tons from year to year.

    Leave A Reply