'e miss ions

"Representative John B. Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, has circulated a draft bill that would impose “a per-unit tax on the carbon-dioxide content of fossil fuels, beginning at a rate of $15 per metric ton of CO2 and increasing by $10 each year.” The bill sets a goal, rather than a cap, on emissions at 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050" (from nytimes.com).

Does he mean 80% of 2005 levels or does he mean to subtract 80% of 2005 levels from 100% of them, so that the bill would reduce carbon emissions to 20% of 2005 levels? If he means the former, then emissions would still be 4,710.4 million metric tons per year, which is still too much. (2005 levels were 5,888 million metric tons). If he means the latter--which is probably what he does mean--then carbon emissions will be reduced to 1,177.6 million metric tons per year. Is this acceptable? The School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in England's Carbon Reduction Project (CRed) calls for a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for developed countries by 2025. Worldwide carbon emissions in 2005 were close to 8,000 million metric tons per year (the data I found had figures only for fossil fuel emissions, although the above data for the US is also mainly based on fossil fuel emissions--ScienceDaily.com says US carbon-dioxide fossil fuel emissions for 2005 were actually closer to 6,000 MMTs). Apparently, 60% reduction in global emissions (by developed countries, at least) is the generally agreed-upon minimum for curbing climate change. (My data is probably old: I just did a cursory search on Google to find all of it, so work with me, people). If there were a 60% reduction by 2025, then there would be only 3200 million metric tons of global (fossil fuel) emissions to be dealt with, rather than if the plan incorporated Rep. Larson's strategy, which amounts to around a less-than 40% cut in carbon-dioxide based emissions by 2025. (At this point, I'm arguing about principles; I'm not working with compatible data schemes (US vs. Global) to make any kind of substantial comparison or contrast at the moment).

Anyways, what the hell I'm trying to say in my ramble is that Larson's strategy for reducing carbon emissions is too little. I've heard of calls for 90% below 1990 levels by 2050 or earlier, which would amount to a cut of about 5,500 MMTs (from 2007 levels) to a meager 500 MMTs per year. I hardly think it's a matter of what is the least we can do to mitigate climate change by reducing carbon emissions. Rather, it's a matter of what is the most we can do. ramble ramble ramble...