Here are some highlights from my reading for the week.
- Jacob Grier, “It’s Not a Cigarette. It’s Not a Vape. And It’s Big in Japan,” Reason, January 9, 2024.
Grier is one of my favorite authors on tobacco. It’s not because I like tobacco; I dislike it intensely.
Excerpt:
The first time I saw an IQOS, the innovative tobacco product on which Philip Morris International is betting billions of dollars to replace cigarettes, was at a wedding in 2016. A friend had excitedly pulled me outside to try this new device that had enabled him to finally kick his smoking habit. Not quite a cigarette because it didn’t ignite, not quite a vape because it used actual tobacco, supposedly less toxic than conventional cigarettes but satisfying enough to compete with them, it seemed that this heated tobacco might be the future of nicotine.
Neither the device nor the specially treated tobacco was yet available in the U.S., so my friend sourced his supply via discreet shipments from a connection in Europe. Seven years later, despite its availability in more than 60 other countries, the technology is still on hold in the United States. First regulation by the Food and Drug Administration slowed its arrival, then the rollout of IQOS was cut short by a patent dispute with R. J. Reynolds that culminated in a ban on imports.
2. Severin Borenstein, “Our Carbon Footprint,” Energy Institute Blog, January 8, 2024.
A numerate analysis by one of the leading economists who worries way more than I do about carbon footprints.
Excerpt:
This year, I did some calculations about our household’s GHG footprint. I got to thinking about the subject while writing a paper on “energy hogs”, which I discussed in two blog posts in August. After analyzing our utility bills, odometer readings, and air travel, what I found made me rethink the best steps to reduce our contributions to climate change. (I considered using one of the many online carbon calculators, but they are so opaque and embed so many simplifying assumptions that I decided to do some calculations myself.)
3. Elizabeth Nolan Brown, “The Big Flaws In That Study Suggesting That China Manipulates TikTok Topics,” Reason, January 8, 2024.
Excerpt:
Take, for instance, the finding that there were vastly more Instagram hashtags related to Tibet or the Dalai Lama than there were on TikTok (37.7 on Instagram for every one on TikTok). The NCRI reads this as evidence that TikTok hid posts related to these subjects. But Instagram had seven additional years to rack up posts related to Tibet. And those were years in which Western interest in Tibet was generally higher than in more recent years. (“A quick peek at Google trends data show that public discourse about Tibet in the US has been in a general decline throughout the 2000s and 2010s, albeit punctuated by exponential spikes…in April 2008 and December 2016,” noted Matzko.) It’s only natural that there would be many more Tibet-related posts on Instagram than on the more recently-launched TikTok.
4. Romina Boccia and Dominik Lett, “Curbing Federal Emergency Spending,” Policy Analysis No. 966, Cato Institute, January 9, 2024
Amazing excerpt:
Congress has designated $12 trillion in spending for emergencies over the past 30 years. Poorly designed emergency spending rules allow Congress to routinely designate non‐emergency line items as emergencies, increasing wasteful and excessive spending. High deficits, an escalating federal debt, and the insolvency of major entitlement programs mean that Congress is facing several budgetary challenges that will only grow in importance. It’s time for Congress to rein in emergency spending and its abuse.
This paper provides the first comprehensive estimates of emergency spending, with data going back to 1992. According to our estimates, Congress designated 8 percent of federal budget authority as emergency spending during that time. Emergency spending is roughly equal to the amount that Congress has spent on Medicaid and veterans’ programs combined.
5. Gary Leff, “Exposed: The Fierce Battle Over Cockpit Privacy–Unveiling Pilot Union Resistance to Key Safety Reforms,” View From the Wing,” January 8, 2024.
Excerpt:
Last January an American Airlines crew headed to London taxied on the wrong runway as a Delta 737 began its take off roll. This was nearly a disaster of epic proportions, as the American jet crossed right in front of Delta, and the Delta plane hit the brakes.
The Delta flight stopped less than 1000 feet from where it would have intersected with American’s plane. The transatlantic 777 didn’t follow air traffic control instructions.
The incident wasn’t immediately reported to the airline. The pilots decided to continue flying to London, despite being almost certainly shaken by what had (almost) happened. And we’ll never really know what was going on in the cockpit, because the pilots continued flying and the voice recording was written over. In fact there is speculation that the pilots decided to continue to London so that the recording of what happened would be written over.
Leff goes on to examine ways that the pilots’ union represents special interest lobbying as concern for public safety.
READER COMMENTS
steve
Jan 15 2024 at 11:45am
#4- I think this was pretty predictable since it looks like most of the efforts to supposedly cut spending look like theater rather than a serious attempt to cut spending. First, if you really want to cut spending you need to address entitlements. They all carefully avoid that since it would risk losing votes. Then their efforts on discretionary spending are aimed at providing a number that looks good but ignores the actual results. They advertise a number that shows they have cut spending by some percent or kept to the same amount of spending last year, but the loopholes are ignored and certainly not made public.
So they get to pretend they cut spending, making some voters happy, while still being able to use “emergency” money to spend unaccounted for money keeping other voters happy. This is very good electoral politics, and is part and parcel of what is being done long term. Cut taxes and you get votes. Avoid cutting spending because that could lose votes. It wins elections but it’s not serious budget management.
Steve
David Henderson
Jan 15 2024 at 3:50pm
Yup on all of your points. I was just surprised at the magnitude of it.
Robert Seber
Jan 15 2024 at 4:36pm
#2
I teach a class on energy transition at a law school. I gave the class the assignment to estimate the carbon footprint of the law school building and then the cost of carbon credits to offset the carbon footprint. The lowest and highest carbon footprint figures were off by a factor of 1000(!). I asked the students how they had arrived at their estimates, and they all had legitimate answer. The lowest number came from a certificate the university was required to submit to the city, and the highest number came from an online carbon calculator of an environmental organization.
David Henderson
Jan 15 2024 at 5:31pm
Interesting. Thanks.
For what it’s worth, I’m guessing that Borenstein did a better job than either of those sources you mention. But it is a guess on my part.
Dylan
Jan 15 2024 at 9:06pm
Thanks for the Borenstein link, new one to me. And, while that piece was interesting, there was a link to a study on household greenhouse emissions based on location. What I loved about this study, they acknowledged that the preferences of people living in different parts of the country are different and that leads to different ghg emissions independent on the city they live in. But, they still find that location plays a big difference. Not a perfect study, but probably the first time I’ve seen this particular point addressed.
https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2021/12/06/are-your-greenhouse-gas-emissions-all-about-location-location-location/
Comments are closed.