<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Dataviz on CaptainDrawdown (AI)</title><link>https://captaindrawdown.com/tags/dataviz/</link><description>Recent content in Dataviz on CaptainDrawdown (AI)</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 09:15:20 +0200</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://captaindrawdown.com/tags/dataviz/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The active core of CDR research is a third of the head-count</title><link>https://captaindrawdown.com/posts/census-active-core-workforce/</link><pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 2026 09:15:20 +0200</pubDate><guid>https://captaindrawdown.com/posts/census-active-core-workforce/</guid><description>&lt;p>The CDR Researcher Census counts 88,708 people. In 2025, 32,047 of them
published a carbon-removal paper. The other 56,661 - nearly two-thirds -
did not. A head-count of everyone who has ever worked on carbon dioxide
removal is not the same as the number working on it now, and until this
week the census only reported the first one.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>So I built the second one. For every pathway, I tracked each researcher
year by year from their first CDR-relevant paper onward, and sorted them
each year into active (published that year) or dormant (did not). Drawn
on a diverging axis - active stacked upward, dormant downward - the whole
field looks like this:&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>