JUNE 2, 2009

After my last post went up, I got a few e-mails from friends and family (yeah, I send people my blog posts) wondering how the government could possibly “do something” about the nation’s food problems without raising costs for American families. And, unfortunately, the short answer is that they can’t - any successful government effort to reform America’s diet will mean higher costs for consumers. The reason? Modern management and scientific techniques have made our food industry insanely productive, yet those same techniques have led to the ethical, environmental and health problems I mentioned in my last post. Fixing the problems mean losing some (but not all) of the benefits of a productive food industry, which means higher costs for food. You can see this divide in the higher prices you pay for vegetables at a farmer’s market vs. those at a supermarket.

But, I’d respond with the fact that a reformed food industry ultimately means lower environmental, ethical and health costs. Incidences of diabetes and obesity, for instance, would likely decline if high-fructose corn syrup were not used to the extent it is today. And those two diseases account for a variety of other complications that cause health costs to rise, a serious threat to family budgets as well as the continued solvency of Medicare. It’s the same with the scarcity of fresh foods in poor urban areas. So ultimately, we’re paying for our Pop-Tarts and Coco-Puffs, but in a much less transparent and predictable way.

Economists call this an “externality” - a cost of a product not reflected in its price. Consider, for example, a hypothetical widget plant in Widgetville, VA. The total market value of the widgets produced there is $10,000,000, but, in the manufacturing process, the widget plant causes $1,000,000 worth of damage to Widgetville in the form of pollution. Those costs, under a strictly free market, are borne by the residents of Widgetville; they are not reflected in the price of the widgets everyone else buys. Not fair, right?

There are four ways to fix externalities: 1) make the external cost illegal - in this case, simply outlaw pollution in Widgetville; 2) pass tort legislation to allow lawsuits against the producers of external costs - in other words, allow Widgetvillians to sue the factory; 3) government provision - in other words, having the government take over the widget industry and set prices itself, to compensate for the external cost; and 4) taxes - in this case, creating a widget tax whose proceeds go to compensate for the external cost.

You can probably imagine that there are downsides to all of these. Making widget pollution illegal means no more widget business. Encouraging lawsuits means huge and unpredictable costs on widget producers, which would discourage the production of widgets, not to mention that damages paid would be ex post facto, requiring Widgetvillians to live in a polluted town. Government control of the industry means a lack of competition, which means poorer-quality widgets. Of these, only taxation manages to capture the true cost of widget production while spreading that impact out among the entire widget market. Widget buyers have to cope with a little additional cost, sure - but Widgetvillians are happy and compensated for their loss and the widget producers are still in business and profitable.

To cope with the external costs of the modern food industry, we’ve tried banning pollution and we’ve tried tort law. There are always loopholes in any pollution law, and the tort system would require someone to actually be poisoned by food before external costs can be imposed. Our political culture precludes attempting long-term nationalization of almost all industries, and it’s not a great idea in any case. What we haven’t tried, however, is a small tax that incentivizes local, healthy ingredients over mass-produced “food“. And with modern technology, we can easily create much more precise taxes that get closer to the true cost of a good - for instance, charging a 1-cent tax for every 25 miles an ingredient travels from its source to its retail outlet, which would help account for greenhouse gases released in the transportation process, or a small tax indexed to grams of saturated fat or high-fructose corn syrup - funds that could be diverted to Medicare or tax rebates to save people money on medical care. That way, people still have the choice to eat unhealthy foods, but at least those who do eat healthy wouldn’t have to pay for it down the line.

So, the long answer to the question is that yes, food prices would increase. But there are two important advantages in changing tax law to incentivize healthier foods - first, we’d have a dedicated revenue source to deal with unpredictable external costs, and second, families could opt out of paying those costs by making smarter choices at the supermarket.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 28, 2009

Like a lot of kids, I grew up in a convenience-oriented culinary environment: Pop-Tarts for breakfast, PB&J for lunch and hot dogs, macaroni and cheese, and a hated, tiny portion of canned vegetables for dinner. My mom’s a good cook, but because my dad usually worked late when I was a kid, she was responsible for most of the after-school hours. Between shuttling me and my sister around to all of our activities, it was a rare night when she was able to invest any serious time in cooking dinner. And since I was a pretty lazy kid, all things considered, it’s not a mystery why, upon high school graduation, I weighed around 250 lbs. Now, I’m a pretty tall guy, so it’s not like that’s morbidly obese or anything, but it’s still significantly overweight.  And so, when I moved out, I started to rethink my relationship with food. I came to the conclusion that it was probably best to avoid foods that couldn’t be replicated in a standard kitchen. So - no more Wendy’s (I don’t have a deep fryer, nor a square mold for hamburgers), no more soda, no more hot dogs and no more Pop-Tarts. It’s not a perfect rule - most kitchens don’t have a pasta maker, for instance, and I do use protein supplements - but as a rule of thumb, it’s not too bad.

My decision came at about the same time writer Michael Pollan wrote this brilliant essay summarizing his dietary advice in seven words: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” The first clause, while seemingly the most banal, is actually the most revolutionary. Pollan does not consider many American staples as “food” as such, instead categorizing them as food-like substances, packed with exotic chemicals that do a lot to improve the efficiency of the supply chain but not much to improve our health. Not only that, he believes that many American diets are fraught with ethically-questionable foods, from beef (cows are a non-trivial source of greenhouse gases) to coffee (often grown under exploitative circumstances in developing countries).

There seems to be some evidence that people are agreeing with Pollan.  For example, stores like Whole Foods, which sells predominantly organic ingredients, are outperforming the recession, and Food Network’s viewership is way up, especially among young people. Anecdotally, the number of my friends interested in cooking serious meals at home has skyrocketed.

One wonders, though, when our government will catch up to this groundswell. We have two easily-fixable food problems in the United States: first, our existing food system is heavily biased towards corn, and subsidies provided by the federal government are what make things like high-fructose corn syrup - a calorie-dense sweetener added to thousands of foods - economically viable. And, as recounted in this great piece in The Washington Post, countless urban neighborhoods have no easy access to full-service grocery stores and are forced to eat the kinds of chemically-loaded “foods” Michael Pollan wrote about in his essay. Ultimately, we will pay for what we eat (and do not eat) in the form of increased medical costs and higher taxes to pay for healthcare - it’s time we addressed these kinds of problems head-on.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

MARCH 19, 2009

A couple of years ago, I went to The Green House exhibit when it was in town at the National Building Museum, and I walked away with so many new ideas about what I could do to help take care of our planet (besides tearing down our house). My husband and I recycle everything that we can – including our cardboard toilet paper holders - but the reality is that living in an old(er) house means things aren’t as green as I would like them to be. I’m always looking for new ways to educate myself and become more aware of ways to be “greener,” which is why I appreciated No. 10 on Time’s “Ten Ideas Changing the World Right Now” list: Ecological Intelligence (”EI”). Using the premise that “intention” is easier than “action” when becoming environmentally conscious, Time gives the following example about deciding to buy a 100% organic cotton tee:

[T]hat green label doesn’t tell the whole story — like the fact that even organic cotton requires more than 2,640 gal. (10,000 L) of water to grow enough fiber for one T shirt. Or the possibility that the T shirt may have been dyed using harsh industrial chemicals, which can pollute local groundwater. If you knew all that, would you still consider the T shirt green? Would you still buy it?

Time’s answer to the questions is that we are “ill equipped” to actually resolve this issue, because the debate over what is or isn’t green is difficult to answer because “our ability to make complex products with complex supply chains [outpaces] our ability to comprehend the consequences…[and] nothing in evolution has prepared us to understand the cumulative impact” of our choices on the planet.

The idea behind “EI” is that we need to think ecologically – considering not only our carbon footprints, but also our “social and biological footprints” so that we can understand “the global environmental consequences of our choices.” To help us along in this effort, Good Guide is an excellent website that provides us with a source for “health, environmental, and social impacts of products in your home.” Information on over 60,000 products is at your fingertips – through the website or via an iPhone app, you can discover exactly what Good Guide believes is the best “First Food” for your baby (a tie between Gerber’s carrots, green beans, and sweet potatoes, if you must know!) or what is really in that so-called green household cleaner that you’re using. In a world where information is in abundance, but analysis of that information is not, it’s hard not to get excited about sites like Good Guide that do the difficult work for you, allowing a better answer to (quite literally) come to mind.

If I had an iPhone, there’s no doubt I’d download the Good Guide application to enhance my ecological intelligence. What about you? Have you figured out what your EI is, and is Good Guide something that you would use in your daily life?

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

FEBRUARY 4, 2009

My Pittsburgh Steelers won Super Bowl XLIII on Sunday in quite thrilling fashion. While I usually split my time during the game evenly between nachos, beer, football, and advertisements, this year was special and I expended all my energy watching the game and hollering at the top of my lungs at the slightest of provocations. That means I didn’t get to spend as much time as I’d normally like mining the ads for every sliver of pop culture gold - I was too busy yelling terrible words I’d never ordinarily say at Cardinal wide receiver, Larry Fitzgerald, and defensive lineman, Darnell Docket.

So I spent some time yesterday perusing the ads at the office, and I quickly found my favorite of the night - the Hulu ad with Alec Baldwin as 30 Rock’s slimy executive Jack Donaghy. Check it out:

According to the tongue-in-cheek Baldwin, Hulu “beams TV directly to your portable computing device.”  Ah, Alec, if only it were that simple - there’s nothing “beaming” about the United States’ internet infrastructure.

In fact, United States broadband speeds lag behind almost every industrialized nation. According to a recent study done by the Communications Workers of America, U.S. broadband speeds rank 15th in the world, with the fastest speeds available only in major metro areas. Japan, for instance, enjoys broadband download speeds several orders of magnitude faster than those in the United States. Broadband speeds in much of America are such that many users likely cannot take full advantage of Hulu’s features, including streaming HD video.

We aren’t just talking about seemingly-frivolous things like streaming video here. Broadband is increasingly becoming a prerequisite for any serious brick-and-mortar business, and is also opening up new opportunities for online entrepreneurs. “Always-on” internet access is also quickly becoming a part of our emergency infrastructure, with the use of technologies like Twitter becoming a standard element in emergency response. And finally, the more things that can be done on a computer, the less that have to be done in a car, which means less carbon in the atmosphere.

Now, a lot of this discrepancy has to do with the geography of the United States. Any network, whether it’s a transportation system or communications infrastructure, is going to be less effective over long distances. That’s why, according to the speed map generated by the CWA study, rural Americans have dramatically less access to fast broadband than their suburban and city-dwelling counterparts. It also explains why places like Japan and South Korea, with very high population densities, can enjoy much faster internet - bits and bytes have to travel far less to get to their destination in those countries.

But it also speaks to our collective unwillingness to deal with the issue. There has been essentially no will on the part of the federal government to make meaningful changes to the way our broadband infrastructure is run. Broadband speeds have been an issue in the United States for quite some time - why hasn’t any concrete policy action been taken to correct the problem?

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

JANUARY 27, 2009

While scanning my daily blog newsfeeds, I came across a post on Treehugger reporting that Apple was petitioning against disclosing broader information about the eco-friendliness of its business and products.

At TMG we value transparency as an important New Persuasion business practice. It is a key ingredient for gaining consumer respect, and ultimately, patronage, so I was genuinely surprised to learn that such a popular and successful company would be opposed to requests for further information about its green policies and practices.

The Treehugger post highlights Apple’s reasons for opposing the request, among them being that a lot of information is already available on its corporate web site and that further explanation would be wasted time. After doing a little research, I quickly found out that, for me (a generally eco-uninformed customer), the information Apple provides on its site is overwhelmingly thorough. I wonder what more could be said by the company or, for that matter, understood by the consumer.

An article in the New York Times raises a good point about how making too much detail available about a product, specifically in regard to the carbon footprint, can leave consumers feeling more confused than informed. The article cites marketing efforts by PepsiCo surrounding Tropicana Orange Juice:

PepsiCo is among the first that will provide consumers with an absolute number for a product’s carbon footprint, which many expect to be a trend.  The information will be posted on Tropicana’s Web site.  The company has not yet decided if it will eventually put it on the package… Now, PepsiCo managers said they planned to work with their growers and with researchers at the University of Florida to find ways to grow oranges using less carbon.  And they are starting to grapple with ways to teach the public how to interpret the carbon footprint of a product.

It seems that at some point, transparency loses its effectiveness. When detail is so in-depth that it runs the risk of only confusing the consumer, it also loses any chance of acting as an effective marketing tool. It may be easier to see the competency and quality of a company and its service or product when we’re not bogged down with too many details.

Perhaps instead of trying to hide information, Apple is just trying to avoid confusion.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JANUARY 23, 2009

American journalist H.L. Mencken once wrote, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”  A cunning satirist and acerbic critic of American life and culture, Mencken is regarded as one of the most influential American writers of the first half of the 20th century.

If only Mencken were still around to read the 2008 edition of the “Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares,” published annually by the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).  I wonder: what would Mencken have to say about the “imaginary hobgoblins” – or unfounded health scares – that are menacing our population today?

Since its founding in 1978, the ACSH has been dedicated to separating real, proven health risks – such as smoking cigarettes – from unfounded health “scares” based on questionable, hypothetical, or even nonexistent scientific evidence.  In each case, the ACSH says its researchers review the charges made against a given product or substance, or even against an entire community.  They then discuss the basis for the charges, the reactions of the public and the media, and the actual facts relevant to what risk (if any) ever existed.

In its introduction to the “Top Ten Unfounded Health Scares of 2008,” the ACSH boldly asserts, “The following list of scares is meant to reassure Americans that our health and well-being, and that of our children, is not really under attack by insidious exposures to disease-causing chemicals.”

Although widespread public fears and concerns over matters of health and safety are not new to our time, many of them have curiously emerged in this era when Americans enjoy better health, an ever-increasing life span, a higher standard of living, and a greater scientific understanding of the causes of human death and disease than ever before.

To that end, in the article “10 Ways We Get the Odds Wrong,” Psychology Today’s Maia Szalavitz explains why our brains are “terrible at assessing modern risks.”  Among the reasons: risk and emotion are inseparable; fear skews risk analysis in predictable ways; we underestimate threats that creep up on us; and we prefer that which (we think) we can control.

But it’s not always our fault for misunderstanding modern risks.  Every day, we face a barrage of statistics, media coverage, and fear-mongering politicians, many of whom provide us with conflicting information.  What we need, argues the ACSH and others, is responsible, balanced, scientific reporting – a united effort to bridge the gap between journalism and science.  As a member of TMG Strategies’ New Persuasion and Risk Teams, I am proud to say that we joined this effort long ago!

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

Most of my posts are sparked by something I’ve read, and this week is no different.  This time, I was struck by a news article talking about IKEA’s $77 million commitment to clean-technology start-ups within the next five years.  Talk about putting your money where your mouth is. 

IKEA’s Green Tech fund  has been operating for eight months, and it could invest in up to 10 fledgling companies in the next few years, perhaps first in Europe, where most of IKEA’s business is centered.  It will then sell the resulting products in its stores - anything from solar panels to efficiency meters, lighting, and sustainable materials.   As the article mentions, this could change the furnishings industry.

It’s clear from this example that companies can meld their business success with societal goals and actually be an agent for change.  Companies don’t have to be followers.  They can be leaders.  What matters is their degree of commitment and ability to act early, before everyone else has already jumped on the bandwagon. 

Jimmy Rogers at Geeks are Sexy helps us to visualize the store of the future.  

Imagine, if you will, a possible ‘future IKEA.’  In any section of the store that includes electronics, there will be a bin full of solar cells.  A lamp could be charged up during the day by a panel with suction cups for a window.  They could even sell home kits for roof-mounting solar cells to offset some of your normal electricity needs.

As Rogers goes on to say, IKEA’s aim is to make a good profit.  I like the synergy that IKEA has found between doing good for the environment and doing well for its business. 

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 3, 2008

Because I used to ride the D.C. Metro every day, and a lot of my coworkers take advantage of riding the Metro (not all of us have Phuong’s love of commuting), I am always fascinated by news reports surrounding public transportation issues.

One article in particular, published in May in The Wall Street Journal, made me wonder: can public transportation handle the recent strain caused by budget-conscious people who are deciding not to drive?  I’m not so sure it can.  From the article:

After decades trying to gin up enthusiasm for their services, public transit agencies are now having trouble meeting rising demand as more commuters dodge high gasoline prices by hopping on a train or bus.

Under normal circumstances, the surge in ridership would be a boon to the agencies, which have long argued that public transit is one of the best ways to combat social ills such as traffic congestion and global warming.

But at the very moment they should be investing to expand their services, the same driver that is ballooning ridership is crippling transit budgets: steep fuel bills. As record numbers of people board buses and trains, higher costs are forcing public transit agencies to scale back on services, further straining capacity. Local transit agencies fret that the capacity problems may squander the opportunity to convert more Americans to public transportation.

The WSJ piece states that 66% of people would change their commute if gas prices rose to $5.00/gallon.

Although I am a big advocate of saving fuel and money, wherever possible, I am worried that commuters may pay a price for flocking to the stations all at the same time.  Hopefully the public transit industry will not sacrifice service because demand is so high that they think they can get away with anything (much like my enemy, the airline industry, has done).

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 1, 2008

I recently returned from a fun weekend visit to my favorite U.S.  tourist destination: Las Vegas.  Personally, I can’t think of a better place to spend a couple of days. It’s an adult playground, with so much to do: people-watching, sunbathing, shopping, eating, shows… not to mention gambling, which I adore. I’ve probably been to Vegas eight times in the last five years, and I always have a good time.

On this most recent visit, though, I came to a realization. My beloved Vegas is in the crosshairs of a whole range of pressures and trends that, I fear, are going to impact the city quite negatively in the coming months and years.  There’s a perfect storm brewing out there that we Vegas-lovers simply can’t ignore.

Consider this:

1. The economy. The economy’s tanking, if you hadn’t noticed. People are being laid off, disposable income is down, and discretionary spending is being cut. A weekend trip to Vegas - the ultimate frivolity - is going to top any list of household budget items that can be slashed.

2. Flights. Airfare increases will also dampen tourism to Vegas. Flights to Vegas have historically been inexpensive, so to increase profitability, airlines have already drastically cut the number of flights to Sin City. So people have less money to spend to get to Vegas, and yet there are fewer and more expensive flights to get there. I just don’t see that changing anytime soon.

3. Gas Prices.  The price of gas is clearly helping drive up airfare, but it’s also going to impact tourist life in Las Vegas. There is no public transportation to speak of in the main tourist area, just some monorails off the Strip that connect adjoining hotels. If you want to get, say, from Mandalay Bay to Caesar’s, as I did last Saturday night, your only option is to take a cab or walk, and it can be a long walk in 107 degree heat.  As a result, the city is full of idling taxis. They line up at the airport and at the casinos, and they sit in traffic on the Strip and on the highway that runs along the tourist area. All that gas, just to move people short distances that could be covered by a public light rail loop. Fares have to go up in order for these drivers to make money, and if fuel becomes scarce, I have to imagine that this set-up is going to come under fire.

4.  Water. Las Vegas is in the middle of the desert. However, it’s easy to forget that when you’re surrounded by lush greenery, fountains, wave beaches, man-made canals, and golf courses. Surprisingly, according to the BBC, the hotels and casinos in Vegas account for only 7% of the city’s water usage, and the casinos say that outdoor uses account for only 30% of hotel water use. Regardless, some environmentalists are predicting that water supplies in the Las Vegas area will run out in 50 years, and have pleaded for “massive reductions” in the amount of water consumption by the city’s residents.  Check out those beautiful Bellagio fountains when you can - who knows when they will be turned off.

5. Environmental Responsibility. So we know that Vegas uses up a lot of water and gas. But there’s another reason that it’s a disaster from a green perspective. Stand at a blackjack table for more than five minutes and a cocktail waitress will bring you a bottle of beer, or hydrate with a few bottles of water out by the pool when you’re sitting out in that desert sun. But try to find a recycling receptacle for your empties, and you’re out of luck. I couldn’t find a single place to recycle a bottle the whole time I was there. How long before Vegas comes under fire for the sheer waste of recyclable materials that are being tossed into the trash? And I haven’t even started in on the neon lights - everywhere, flashing, all night long. Yes, it’s part of the glitz of Vegas, and the skyline at night is breathtaking, but that’s a lot of energy being spent for no good reason, when it comes down to it.

6. Security. I hate even to write about this, but every time I go to Vegas I think about the lack of security screening in the casinos. Yes, there are cameras everywhere making sure I am not counting cards or stealing chips, but I have yet to pass through a metal detector or have my bag checked before entering one of the casinos. That city - perhaps the most obvious symbol of American consumerism - is frightfully vulnerable to attack. Maybe I am ultra-sensitive on this topic, living in DC, but I think about it all the time.

This post was definitely a downer. I hate to think of how any of these trends, taken alone, will impact Vegas in the coming years. Their combination scares me even more. Vegas, I hope you’re listening.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JUNE 9, 2008

This article in today’s BrandWeek made me wonder — are Americans pretending to care about the environment, or do they really care?  People seem to be talking the talk…but will they walk the walk when effort is required?

We love to divert blame when it comes to underlying reasons for things like global warming, environmental efforts, pollution, and practically everything else that has become a problem.  Younger generations blame the baby boomers for many of these issues they are forced to deal with, saying that the boomers are the ones that created a huge mess for us to solve.  Baby boomers, on the other hand, like to blame younger generations for the carefree attitudes they have about supporting causes that aren’t intrinsically selfish.  Either way, pointing fingers gets old, and it’s counter-productive.

The section of the article titled ”Looking for Earth Mothers” is fascinating.  I was especially intrigued by the argument that people are more concerned about the environment when they have children that will be impacted by environmental issues –parents are partly willing to sacrifice some convenience because they feel that their children are scrutinizing their actions.  So in actuality, it’s not the sake of the cause, it’s the desire to set an example because of underlying feelings of obligation.  To me, that just seems a bit backwards!

I think that we are all wrapped up in our own stressful lives and living the classic “American dream” we have grown up striving for.  Do I think we are selfish?  No.  I just think we are designed as humans to instinctively do what is easiest and best for our lives and time-line.  Although we are drawn to what’s new or trendy, the simple and routine seem to always overshadow anything that requires us to change our habits.  I don’t think we are doomed — but I do think we’ll be forced to adapt.  This whole environmental panic thing is new to us… we’ll get the hang of it eventually.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]