11/4: Lil more food for thought on traffic:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1191295205187686400
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Traffic in the city
I've posted many times about ride-sharing, but another under-appreciated factor that is contributing more and more to gridlock is package delivery. It's still more efficient than driving your car however far to pick up one (or a few) items, but the logistical difficulties are starting to pile up. Food for thought....
11/4: Lil more food for thought on traffic:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1191295205187686400
11/4: Lil more food for thought on traffic:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1191295205187686400
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Health and taxes
No one is excited about taxes and fees, but the good news is that they can do a lot of good. For example in London, where kids breathe in high levels of particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, new traffic taxes (AKA congestion pricing) are making a difference, reducing pollution by as much as a third. New York City is poised to join the ranks of cities participating by 2021, when a new fee will hopefully curb pollution as well as raising over a billion dollars for transportation infrastructure.
Another positive tax is a tax on soda. In Mexico, an approximately 10% tax on soda decreased soda consumption by about 6%, an impact that is estimated to potentially prevent almost 200,000 cases of diabetes. Wow.
Three of these four were from the Global Health Now newsletter; you can subscribe at https://www.globalhealthnow.org/subscribe
Another positive tax is a tax on soda. In Mexico, an approximately 10% tax on soda decreased soda consumption by about 6%, an impact that is estimated to potentially prevent almost 200,000 cases of diabetes. Wow.
Three of these four were from the Global Health Now newsletter; you can subscribe at https://www.globalhealthnow.org/subscribe
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Chicken economics
You've probably had or at least seen Costco's famous $5 rotisserie chicken, but you probably haven't thought about it in this much depth before. From the importance of the size of the chicken through the vital role that Nebraska corn is playing in taking on basically a new agro-industrial undertaking, there's a lot here. Take a look!
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
New York Times on Climate Change
A couple of articles in the NYT on the effects of climate change. First, one on the oceans: "If fossil-fuel emissions continue to rise rapidly, for instance, the maximum amount of fish in the ocean that can be sustainably caught could decrease by as much as a quarter by century’s end. That would have sweeping implications for global food security: Fish and seafood provide about 17 percent of the world’s animal protein, and millions of people worldwide depend on fishing economies for their livelihoods."
Second, one on agriculture and food production more generally: "Meat and dairy, particularly from cows, have an outsize impact, with livestock accounting for around 14.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases each year....Consuming less red meat and dairy will typically have the biggest impact for most people in wealthy countries. That doesn’t necessarily mean going vegan. You might just eat less of the foods with the biggest climate footprints, like beef, lamb and cheese....plant-based foods like beans, pulses, grains and soy tend to be the most climate-friendly options of all."
Second, one on agriculture and food production more generally: "Meat and dairy, particularly from cows, have an outsize impact, with livestock accounting for around 14.5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases each year....Consuming less red meat and dairy will typically have the biggest impact for most people in wealthy countries. That doesn’t necessarily mean going vegan. You might just eat less of the foods with the biggest climate footprints, like beef, lamb and cheese....plant-based foods like beans, pulses, grains and soy tend to be the most climate-friendly options of all."
Friday, September 20, 2019
Offshore Wind... cheaper than coal?
That is the screaming headline of this Bloomberg piece, and if true that's really amazing. I guess I need to read up more on how exactly that is supposed to happen: this short piece doesn't have a lot of details....
Update October 7: one of the reasons is economies of scale, and another reason is improvements in technology such that they turn in even really low wind. I know very little about this technology, but I am curious about how it stands up to extreme conditions. I'm sure the engineers have thought of that, but can they really?
Update October 25: Another recent report has highlighted the vast potential of offshore wind. Unfortunately this doesn't say why costs are dropping so drastically, but they say that as much as $1 trillion could be invested in projects by 2040. That would be... a lot!
Update October 7: one of the reasons is economies of scale, and another reason is improvements in technology such that they turn in even really low wind. I know very little about this technology, but I am curious about how it stands up to extreme conditions. I'm sure the engineers have thought of that, but can they really?
Update October 25: Another recent report has highlighted the vast potential of offshore wind. Unfortunately this doesn't say why costs are dropping so drastically, but they say that as much as $1 trillion could be invested in projects by 2040. That would be... a lot!
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Uber is great!
A great observation this morning by Benjamin Golub:
Regularly, I'm stunned by how much social surplus Uber created by inventing its basic platform. One of the most striking things for my immigrant family about the US in the 90s was how, even in the inner suburbs, having no car really limited how much of a person you could be.So if you were e.g. a young adult of modest means or a woman in a bad marriage, lacking control of a car crippled and constrained you. Cabs existed but were basically out of the question given how bad and expensive they were outside approximately three cities. Those use cases for vulnerable populations are crowd-pleasers. But in zillions of other cases, more mundane convenience makes a day much better; now add that up across hundreds of millions of people. One reason among many that people mock the company is that it bleeds money. But at an Econ 101 level all that means is that they're (for now) keeping very little of the enormous value they created. Other companies followed, but pioneering the platform and getting it to work in real life was... a big deal. So this is just an ill-advisedly earnest appreciation of the beauty of economic growth—new new ways of mutually beneficial exchange. We have justified concerns about lacking good (or sometimes even decent) urban planning and public transit. And justified criticisms of asshat CEOs and whatever else. But it's easy to forget how big of a difference it made for folks to have better choices, given our actual world.
To paraphrase, the company isn't making money right now, but that just means that it's a large consumer benefit: basically the company is subsidizing riders, and that's good for consumers! There are secondary issues such as traffic that are important, so getting the taxes right is important (and that will make it harder for Uber to get into the black) but this is a good reminder of the importance of straight up consumer benefits!
Regularly, I'm stunned by how much social surplus Uber created by inventing its basic platform. One of the most striking things for my immigrant family about the US in the 90s was how, even in the inner suburbs, having no car really limited how much of a person you could be.So if you were e.g. a young adult of modest means or a woman in a bad marriage, lacking control of a car crippled and constrained you. Cabs existed but were basically out of the question given how bad and expensive they were outside approximately three cities. Those use cases for vulnerable populations are crowd-pleasers. But in zillions of other cases, more mundane convenience makes a day much better; now add that up across hundreds of millions of people. One reason among many that people mock the company is that it bleeds money. But at an Econ 101 level all that means is that they're (for now) keeping very little of the enormous value they created. Other companies followed, but pioneering the platform and getting it to work in real life was... a big deal. So this is just an ill-advisedly earnest appreciation of the beauty of economic growth—new new ways of mutually beneficial exchange. We have justified concerns about lacking good (or sometimes even decent) urban planning and public transit. And justified criticisms of asshat CEOs and whatever else. But it's easy to forget how big of a difference it made for folks to have better choices, given our actual world.
To paraphrase, the company isn't making money right now, but that just means that it's a large consumer benefit: basically the company is subsidizing riders, and that's good for consumers! There are secondary issues such as traffic that are important, so getting the taxes right is important (and that will make it harder for Uber to get into the black) but this is a good reminder of the importance of straight up consumer benefits!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)