<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sightline InstituteNEW Math - Sightline Institute</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.sightline.org/2005/01/21/new_math/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.sightline.org/2005/01/21/new_math/</link>
	<description>News and Views for a Sustainable Northwest</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2024 15:54:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>daily</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3</generator>
	
		<item>
		<title>NEW Math</title>
		<link><![CDATA[https://www.sightline.org/2005/01/21/new_math/]]></link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:41:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[Miles-per-gallon math yields some surprising conclusions. | In yesterday&#8217;s post on car choices, I mentioned something that at least one reader found counterintuitive:&nbsp; that increasing automobile efficiency has diminishing returns.&nbsp; All else being equal, switching from a 15-mpg SUV to a 30-mpg car is twice as beneficial as switching from a 30 mpg car to a gas-sipping, 60-mpg hybrid. Here&#8217;s why.&nbsp; Let&#8217;s say you&#8217;re taking a trip that&#8217;s 60 miles long.&nbsp; The SUV burns 4 gallons of...]]></description>
					</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
