While I agree that manipulating scale and units is the common starting place for countless statistical deceptions, I think the core message of this graph depends on neither units or scale and that these can therefore be honourably (and for the sake of clarity) omitted. That message is a reminder that the scale of human impact is (still) growing exponentially on a finite Earth.

What additional information would adding in all the units provide? I would argue that the timespan (which is supplied) is much more important in a graph of this type. Changes could be downplayed by selecting only the past 30 years, or exaggerated by including 20 years’-worth of extrapolation.

Also, you may be correct that virtually all the displayed changes are being driven by population growth. That the changes are easy to explain doesn’t make them any less terrifying!

Just because I agree with the politics doesn’t mean I’ll ignore their methodology. I think even some nominal gestures towards scale or units would assuage me.

I personally think it’s ok, in a relatively mainstream publication, to include a graph which is somewhat vague, yet easy to understand, as an introduction to more comprehensive graphs that do a better job of telling the story.

Lastly, as obvious as the data might be to some, it’s the sort of big-picture report which we unfortunately don’t see in the media as often as I’d like. The chart helps to clearly communicate the idea that this sort of growth is not sustainable.

The second link (which is also used in the New Scientist piece) is far more informative and honest (but way less sexy).