Back in Signoff

When basic arithmetic falls through the cracks, David reports on it in a segment we call back in Signoff.

About a week ago there was a news story that McCain wants to reduce emissions by 60% by some date and Clinton/Obama want to reduce it by 80% by that same date. First off - super glad to hear that McCain is at least partially signed on to fighting climate change (not that he'll win, but still nice to hear).

What is the difference between an 80% reduction and a 60% reduction? Both sound significant. 80% sounds like a bit more - in politics terms it is a 20 point spread. Maybe it is just me, but read off in those terms - gut reaction - not a giant difference.

Let's say we are currently producing 10 units of CO2 per year. After a 60% reduction that's 4 units per year. After an 80% reduction that's 2 units per year. So McCain's proposal is 4 units, Clinton/Obama's is 2 units. That's a factor of 2! That's big. In fact if the Clinton/Obama proposal were 84% instead of 80% then it would be 1.6 units - which would be the same as saying do McCain's reduction, then do it again!

PS - if someone makes the mistake of actually paying attention to what I say - they might point out that in the past I said factors of 2 are no big deal. First off - I'll admit that previous post was pushing expectations a bit too far. But my main point there was hybrid cars make up a small portion of all cars and cars only make up a portion of total pollution. So if they want to make a significant impact they need a serious reduction (the front runner should be far better - wind is way more than 2X better than coal...). BUT the plans discussed above are the whole thing (for America). So a factor of 2, means a factor of 2.

Separate topic - last week or two I was more social than usual with people in the area and less social than usual with others. This weekend I'll start to make up for the second part (hopefully won't cause a corresponding drop in the first).