A science policy analyst is evaluating two renewable energy proposals. Proposal A reduces emissions by 40% at a cost of $80 million. Proposal B reduces emissions by 35% at a cost of $60 million. Which proposal offers a lower cost per percentage point of emission reduction?

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 12:04:19 +0000

**Why A Science Policy Analyst Are Comparing Two Clean Energy Proposals—and What Their Cost Efficiency Reveals About Climate Investment** As renewable energy continues to shape the future of U.S. climate strategy, analysts are increasingly turning to data-driven comparisons to guide policy decisions. Recently, a science policy analyst evaluated two prominent proposals aimed at reducing carbon emissions: Proposal A offers a 40% emissions reduction at $80 million, while Proposal B delivers a 35% cut for just $60 million. Beyond emissions and budget, a key question emerges: which proposal delivers greater environmental impact per dollar invested? Understanding cost per percentage point of emission reduction reveals a clear metric for evaluating value in public and private climate finance. Proposal A demonstrates a cost of $2 million per one percent reduction, while Proposal B costs $1.71 million per percent reduction—a significant difference that influences scalability and resource allocation. This efficiency factor is critical as governments and investors seek every advantage to accelerate decarbonization. **Why This Comparison Matters in Today’s Energy Landscape**