Treehugger thinks that this chart means we’re all deluded. It shows the percentage of people surveyed who believe that global warming will harm the groups described.
I think the chart makes complete sense and shows people to be remarkably sensible. Read more
I quite like the approach to “reducing beer consumption” suggested here: tell people what type of food it is equivalent to scoffing down.
By doing this, we increase the information avaliable to the individual when they decide to drink. As many people seem to be interested in a “healthy diet” or “keeping weight down” telling people that a shot of vodka (or Jager) is like eatting a chocolate bar could have a big impact on their consumption decision.
Information, in conjunction with an appropriate externality tax, and combined with liquour sales mechanisms that allow appropriate pre-commitment by individuals, would lead to awesome outcomes. As a result, I am keen for this sort of information to be out there.
I’ve previously suggested that mandatory helmet laws are bad for the environment. Well new research suggests that they’re actually bad for health outcomes, too:
A model is developed which permits the quantitative evaluation of the benefit of bicycle helmet laws. The efficacy of the law is evaluated in terms of the percentage drop in bicycling, the percentage increase in the cost of an accident when not wearing a helmet, and a quantity here called the “bicycling beta.”
…
Empirical estimates using US data suggests the strictly health impact of a US wide helmet law would cost around $5 billion per annum. In the UK and The Netherlands the net health costs are estimated to be $0.4 and $1.9 billion, respectively.
That’s a LOT of money and that lot of money in net health costs could save a LOT of lives. If there’s a net social health cost to mandatory helmet laws then they’re hurting more people than they help. That’s a good reason not to have them if you care about saving lives, or minimising harm, or maximising welfare. Read more
Bank economists are saying that we should aim to keep “long-term” rates low – through the RBNZ committing to a future path of the OCR for the next 3-5 years at a low rate.
At first brush we could be cynical and say this appears to be in their interest – the OCR does determine their cost of borrowing from the RBNZ after all. But I am not that cynical about the bank economists. Ultimately when you look at their beliefs, the commitment to a low OCR makes sense. They believe:
So ultimately, the retail banks are saying that the RBNZ is too optimistic (as if they weren’t their implicit forecasts would commit a lower medium term set of rates). I guess we will see what the RBNZ does on Thursday and find out if they agree …
While searching for articles about fat taxes I came across this piece about fat and global warming:
Overweight people eat more than thin people and are more likely to travel by car, making excess body weight doubly bad for the environment, according to a study from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
They estimate 10% increased emissions from being overweight. Sadly I don’t have time to read the original articel right now, but at least the newspaper’s conclusion sounds shaky. For a start, do fat people eat any more than slim people of the same weight? Are the decisions to overeat and drive more both explained by unobserved cultural factors, rather then one explaining the other? Read more
Matt’s previously advocated a fat tax, but really he was talking about a tax on unhealthy food. Now United Airlines has decided to tax people for just being big: if you’re too big to fit in one seat then you’ll have to buy two. There are two reasons why they get large people to pay more:
I’m totally fine with people paying their way, but this seems a bit extreme. I have to side with William Saletan at Slate here in suggesting that they could have gone about their pricing scheme a little better. Basically, they’re missing out on revenue from all those people who are too big for one seat but unwilling to pay for two. They’re also likely to enrage a lot of people through their stance. Read more