The Rise in Traffic Deaths

I must say it was refreshing to read this informative article in the New York Times about the dramatic rise in traffic deaths in the United States compared to the rest of the world. Please do read it carefully. It is pasted below.

On one level, it was refreshing that they didn’t blame it on climate change … at least not yet. No, what was so unusual was that they considered so many possible causes and offered interesting associative reasoning.

Perhaps this article should open our eyes to cast a broader net for explanations whenever we try to consider trends that we want to reverse. Haven’t we learned from history that banning things only tends to push them out of sight? Didn’t we learn anything from prohibition?

I remember the early days in the energy efficiency boom of the 1980s when pundits pointed out that standards were the key to everything. Just raise the efficiency standards for lighting, refrigeration, insulation, and the world would be a better place. They were right of course, but were they on the right track?

TVs are so much more efficient today than back then, but we now have many more of them … about one in every room if you count laptops and other screens. I remember when there was only one screen in the house, the TV, and it was a bit of a hassle to decide what we were going to watch … together … because we had to watch together.

The article in the NY Times offers many ideas worth consideration, and we should consider them.

But please note that we won’t have this dialogue. We no longer seem interested in really getting to the bottom of any issue and doing something productive about it. We seem prone to simply believe others will take care of things for us, so that we can stay focused on our self-absorbed obsessive behaviors. The handwriting seems to be clearly written on the wall and widely spaced for easy reading.

If you are not a subscriber to the New York Times, here is a transcript of the article:

What’s behind America’s unique problem with vehicle crashes? For most of the automobile’s first century of existence, it became safer. In the 1920s, the death toll from vehicle crashes was so high that gruesome photos of accidents were a staple of newspaper coverage. By 2010 — thanks to better design of roads and vehicles, the addition of seatbelts and greater awareness of drunken driving, among other things — the death rate from crashes had fallen almost 90 percent from its 1920s level.

But the progress ended about a decade ago, or at least it did in the United States. Even as vehicle deaths have continued falling in most counties, they have risen in this country.

Here’s a stark way of thinking about the problem: If the U.S. had made as much progress reducing vehicle crashes as other high-income countries had over the past two decades, about 25,000 fewer Americans would die every year. My colleagues Emily Badger, Ben Blatt and Josh Katz have published a story this morning that tries to solve one part of the mystery of this country’s outlier status. Emily, Ben and Josh focus on a specific part of the problem: Pedestrian deaths have surged at night.

The smartphone

Many of the potential explanations for the trend don’t seem to fit. Cars in this country are large, but they have become only slightly larger since the early 2000s. Drunken driving has not become more common, and roads have not become more dangerous.

But there has been one major change in driver behavior: the use of smartphones.

“Smartphones have become ubiquitous with remarkable speed, overlapping closely with the timeline of rising pedestrian deaths,” Emily, Ben and Josh write. “Apple’s iPhone was introduced in 2007. Within a few years, one-third of American adults said they owned a smartphone.”

Smartphones have also become ubiquitous in other countries, of course. But American drivers seem to be addicted to their phones in ways that drivers elsewhere are not. Surveys suggest Americans spend more time on their phones while driving than people do in other countries. In part, this phenomenon may reflect this country’s culture, which emphasizes professional success and immediate gratification.

It also partly reflects vehicle technology. Nearly all cars in the U.S. are automatic transmission, freeing drivers’ hands (or so they may think) to use phones. In Europe, almost 75 percent of cars still have gears that a driver must change manually.

“​​The adoption of smartphones for the past 15 years — where we are today, being addicted on social media and other apps — absolutely contributes to the increase in fatalities on our roads,” Matt Fiorentino, a vice president at Cambridge Mobile Telematics, which tracks dangerous driving for carmakers, insurers and regulators, told Emily.

Pot and sidewalks, too

Smartphones aren’t the only likely cause of the trend, Emily, Ben and Josh write. The spread of legal marijuana may also play a role, as may the rise in opioid addiction. In one recent federal study, half of the drivers involved in serious accidents tested positive for at least one active drug.

The continued growth of the population in the Sun Belt, where roads often lack sidewalks, crosswalks and bike lanes, may also be a factor, as may the recent increase in homelessness. People living on the streets are especially vulnerable to being hit by a car.

Some of these problems are difficult to solve. For others, however, there are promising solutions that state and local governments have simply chosen not to try. Building safe sidewalks, as Europe has done, is relatively cheap. Using traffic cameras to identify drivers who are texting — and imposing significant fines on them — would not be difficult, either.

Instead, the U.S. has chosen to accept a vehicle death rate that is almost three times higher than that of Canada, Australia or France, more than four times higher than that of Germany or Japan and more than five times higher than that of Scandinavia, Switzerland or Britain.

Among the recent victims of America’s uniquely high vehicle-death toll: A woman died after being hit by a vehicle while crossing a street in east Las Vegas on Friday and then being hit by a second car while she was on the ground. A person in Redmond, Wash., died on Wednesday night after being struck by a driver in a gray Nissan Pathfinder who then fled the scene. Another pedestrian died in a hit-and-run accident in Colorado Springs on Friday.

And on Thursday night, mourners gathered at a ShopRite parking lot in Stamford, Conn., to remember Marie Jean-Charles, a 74-year-old cashier who had worked at the supermarket for 25 years. She was killed by a speeding driver while she was crossing the street to go to work.

Carbon Removal: Today’s Indulgences?

I guess it was no surprise to see this post in the Greenbiz online newsletter as we start a new year:  Shopify: 3 lessons from investing $55 million in 27 carbon removal startups | GreenBiz

Why is there so much interest in carbon removal from the air?  Is it because it seems so big as a business potential?  Or is it that we can do it almost anywhere on the planet … so labor costs won’t matter?  Or is it because we have now given up on controlling the sources since that is so difficult to do?

Or, perhaps, is it because it is easier to ask people to pay for the forgiveness of their sins than to expect them to stop sinning?

The Catholic church called them indulgences and prospered in unseemly ways, but if you get past that extreme, you can clearly see the same root problem with why it is so attractive to have someone take the garbage we create and just make it disappear.  Or at least they can make it appear that they have.

Haven’t we learned anything from our efforts to recycle?  The news media has covered this of course and the results are anything but encouraging.  Why is that we think we can now recycle carbon dioxide?  Isn’t that problem even harder than our efforts to recycle cardboard and plastic?  We have landfill problems already and have for decades.

For example, here is another article in Greenbiz.  It will be very telling to see how Pepsi responds to this lawsuit:
Why it matters that New York state is suing PepsiCo over single-use plastic | GreenBiz

As we start a new year, wouldn’t it be better to remind everyone that the cumulative effects of our sinful extractive and unsafe energy demands on this planet require us to each look a bit more honestly at our personal wasteful tendencies?  Wouldn’t it help if each of us considered each day and in every way whether we really need to use or consume this or that and/or throw it away?

We are not walking gently on this planet, and the idea that we can pay for someone to take away our sins speaks volumes about our true attitudes toward consumption and our willingness to make a difference.

So you believe fossil fuels are going away anytime soon?

Perhaps you do know that the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference or Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC, more commonly referred to as COP28, just ended this week. The meeting was marred by some realistic talk from the fossil fuel industry about the likelihood that it was going to fade into the background anytime soon.

The graphic I have here was taken by me as I was just checking on my boat harbored in Mystic Connecticut. It always amazes me that you can see its position within about 20 feet in near real time due to its automatic positioning system (called AIS). Most vessels larger than 30 feet have one installed. And because of this tracking system, the Coast Guard rarely does Search & Rescue anymore. With AIS, they know where you are and perform rescue.

I took this screen shot as I was zooming out to check a course a friend was going to take and was once again astounded by the number of large boats crossing just about everywhere and/or fishing international waters. It is equally astounding to do this with commercial air traffic. And, I am flabbergasted by the number of trucks on the road.

The scale of worldwide commerce is just staggering. The idea that you are going to simply eradicate all these fossil-fueled vehicles in the near-term is ludicrous.  Here is a live shot of commercial planes in the air.

Yet the politicians proclaim solar, wind, hydrogen, ammonia, and whatnot will save the planet.

What will save the planet is a sober assessment of this question: Why are all these vehicles doing what they are doing and what should we consider changing for the future.

You don’t hear that question at all do you? Why don’t you? That is the more important question.

Another Existential Threat?

I fully understand why we are all now concerned about the future of our civilization and the planet.  That is refreshing, even if it is insincere in my opinion.  But, the more important and immediate question is when does business do more harm than good by being in business?  How do we solve international business existential problems: businesses that are profitable but not in the best interest of the planet?

It is pretty easy to criticize extractive businesses like mining that are unsustainable and are simply raping the planet.  Many of these put local poor people, especially children, in harms way as their desperate plight exposes them to unsafe and hazardous conditions.  You have heard me talk about EVs being the blood diamonds of this decade for this reason.

But there seems to be a more subtle and insidious practice of cultivating land for cash crops, and in doing so, opens up a whole new raft of corruption and abuse, no less environmental impacts.  Little did I know that avocados are creating the same situation in Mexico that the world decries with the destruction of the Amazon due to raising beef.  Take a closer look at the damage in Mexico here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/us/mexico-avocado-deforestation.html?searchResultPosition=2

We see countless rallies about carbon dioxide emissions, but the simple fact that China rapes the oceans to feed their masses and drives food stocks into extinction is well known but I never hear about it in our news press coverage of our relationship to China.  Why is AI, Taiwan, and industrial espionage take the spotlight, while the exploitation of the world’s food supply goes unnoticed?

Yes, of course there are lots of issues that need more consideration, but destroying the food stock of the planet seems to me to certainly deserve being in the list.  You do remember when China had a one child policy because they themselves realized that policy was not working.

This situation in Mexico is a litmus test for whether we can work together to solve these problems.  The article in the NY Times brings it into the light of day, but can we bring this to a logical conclusion?

Hopefully, we will learn more and act rather than just turn a blind eye to one more area of neglect.

Ecocide

Environmental disaster. Post apocalyptic survivor in gas mask

Yep, we now have a new word to describe the damage companies and governments have on the environment. The European Union just passed a law that criminalizes some of the most serious forms of environmental damage. Although the text of the law does not use the word “ecocide,” its preamble says that it intends to criminalize “cases comparable to ecocide.” The law is part of a growing global movement to formally ban polluting companies from harming our planet.

Now, before you go into a tizzy celebrating what could have been a major shift in environmental thinking, let’s consider the reality of any “cide” label. Let’s start with genocide. Has the world stopped any form of this abuse just because it declares it illegal? Do I need to rattle off all the recent cases of countries who are killing people en masse just because they deem them undesirable?

And let’s think about how the Chinese are destroying the fish populations all around the globe in their attempt to feed a nation. Tell me that you believe this new law will matter?

I do expect this term will gain traction because it is a good description of our situations, but unfortunately, I also believe it is simply one more label we can use to shorten our conversations. It is a great soundbite.

We need dialogue and sobering considerations about where we all are going on this journey. Perhaps that is the true key to it all: realizing we are all in this together whether we like it or not. We really do have only one planet earth, and we are extracting the elements of sustainable life here at a rate that is already unsustainable and will be even more difficult as the population of the planet increases.

Labels do little to promote this kind of thinking. They just seem to polarize us further.