BBC Sounds, Music, Radio, Podcasts

Hello and welcome to More or Less, the program that examines the numbers all around us

in the news and in life. We'll be looking at some fresh statistical claims along with

a few of December's offerings thinly sliced and served cold with plenty of mustard.

For example, an election mystery if Labour Party supporters really switched to the conservatives

in large numbers, how come the conservative vote share only rose by about one percentage

point? The government says carbon dioxide emissions have fallen 40% since 1990, impressive,

if true and if true, how and why. And it's been 10 years since people last argued about

whether this is or is not the beginning of a new decade, more on that crucial controversy

later. But first, world news has been dominated by the bushfires occurring across Australia.

And one statistic that has grabbed the headlines is about the number of animals that have

died. Just get close. Nearly 500 million animals

feared dead in Australia. As the fire spread, those figures rose.

Bushfires have now killed more than a billion Australian animals, more than double what

experts first feared. Shocking numbers, but are they accurate? Many of you have written

in to ask us and we will do our best to answer. The figure comes from ecologist Professor

Chris Dickman of the University of Sydney. In 2007, he was asked by WWF Australia to conduct

an impact report on bush clearing in New South Wales, specifically how it would affect

the animals who lived in the area. The researchers used various population density surveys to

estimate the number of mammals, birds and reptiles in the area, and estimated that per hectare

that's 100 metres by 100 metres, there were about 18 mammals, 21 birds and 130 reptiles.

As the fires started burning this season, they went back to that work and scaled up those

...