Anna Arunashvili – Consumer Choice Center

EU’s green agenda and PFAS ban are incompatible

June 7, 2022
By Anna Arunashvili
In One size doesn't fit all, Recent Media
3 comments

As part of the climate agenda, the European Union and member states have advocated the phasing out of gas-powered vehicles by 2035. The goal is to have at least 30 million electric vehicles on European roads by 2030, which would be a 2900% increase from the current amount. With demand for electric vehicles soaring in the EU, domestic industries are looking for innovative ways to establish supply chains for batteries and other components.

On the one hand, the EU seeks to boost the market for electric vehicles to achieve its climate targets. On the other hand, the proposed blanket PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) ban, pledged by the European Commission, will make it impossible to manufacture EVs in the EU.

PFAS are key to the production of EVs. However, instead of considering the spillover effects of banning over 4000 chemicals that carry individual risks, the EU decided to take the same approach as the US move towards banning all of them. In the US, the PFAS Action Act which would heavily restrict all these substances is awaiting the final decision in the Senate. Both the EU and US are on the verge of making the same policy mistake that will achieve nothing except make consumer products more expensive and hinder innovation.

PFAS are used to produce life-saving medical equipment and are vital for contamination-resistant gowns, implantable medical devices, heart patches, etc. These chemicals are also widely used in green technology production. In particular, solar panels, wind turbines, and lithium-ion batteries.

Fluoropolymers (one specific class of PFAS) are an essential part of green technology. Fluoropolymers are used to produce lithium batteries, the power source behind electric vehicles. They are durable, heat and chemical resistant, and have superior dielectric properties, all of these qualities make it hard for other chemicals to compete. If PFAS are banned as a class, the green ambitions of switching to electric vehicles would be extremely difficult to turn into policy. The blanket PFAS ban would cause further disruptions in the EV supply chain, increasing costs for consumers and ultimately making them less attractive as an alternative to gasoline vehicles.

Fluoropolymers are also used in coating and sealing solar panels and wind turbines that protect against harsh weather conditions. Fluoropolymers provide safety by preventing leaks and environmental releases in a range of renewable energy applications. The unique characteristics of PFAS such as water, acid, and oil resistance make these substances hard to replace.

Unless damaged, solar panels continue to produce energy beyond their lifeline. Fluoropolymers are what make solar panels durable. Going solar requires significant investments and without fluoropolymers, the risk of producing and installing them will increase, and production shortages will follow. This is exactly what is currently happening in Europe with microchips, which rely on PFAS in the production process. The closing of a plant in Belgium has left semiconductor manufacturers on the verge of serious production delays.

That is not to say that PFAS are risk-free. A 2021 study by Australian National University confirms that the PFAS exposure does carry some risk, but that most exposure comes from contaminated water. If EU regulators really want to make a difference, their legislation should focus on regulating PFAS from a clean water approach, as opposed to a full ban that comes with a long list of externalities.

The proposed ban is also problematic because fundamentally it won’t drive down demand for PFAS. Banning will shift production to countries like China, where environmental considerations are nearly non-existent. As a result, European regulators will be giving China the upper hand for both EV battery production, solar panels, and semiconductors. Not to mention, banning a substance that is key to so many production processes will magnify the damage caused by inflation. For European EV and solar panels producers, the PFAS ban will be a huge hurdle that is extremely difficult to overcome.

If the European Union is really as determined to pursue a transition to EVs as they suggest, the PFAS blanket ban should be called off. Instead, PFAS should be assessed individually and where poor production processes result in water contamination, the government should intervene.

Originally published here

Democrats Can’t Have Both PFAS Ban and EV Transition: Choose One

May 24, 2022
By Anna Arunashvili
In Blog, Environment, One size doesn't fit all
1 comment

As part of the climate agenda, Democrats have advocated the phasing out of motor vehicles. The goal is to ensure that electric vehicles make up half of all new vehicles sold by 2030. To accomplish this task, tax credits of up to $12,500 could be offered.

Democrats have put electric vehicles at the heart of their climate ambitions. While that all sounds great on paper, the reality is more complex. The extensively demonised PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances)–known as forever chemicals–which Democrats want to ban are key to the production of EVs. Either Democrats call off the prospect of a full PFAS ban, or their EV agenda will never be realised.

PFAS are the latest target of regulators in the United States. They are a group of over 4000 chemicals that carry individual risks; benefits and availability of substitutes vary as well. Turning a blind eye to the complexity of these substances, Democrats introduced the PFAS Action Act in April 2021. The Act is now with the Senate’s Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Fluoropolymers (one specific class of PFAS) are an essential part of green technology. Fluoropolymers are used to produce lithium batteries, the power source behind electric vehicles. They are durable, heat and chemical resistant, and have superior dielectric properties, all of these qualities make it hard for other chemicals to compete. If PFAS are banned as a class, the green ambitions of switching to electric vehicles would be extremely difficult to turn into policy. The PFAS Action Act would cause further disruptions in the EV supply chain, increasing costs for consumers and ultimately making them less attractive as an alternative to gasoline vehicles.

Unless damaged, solar panels continue to produce energy beyond their lifeline. Fluoropolymers are what make solar panels durable. Going solar requires significant investments and without fluoropolymers, the risk of producing and installing them will increase. It is already expensive to build solar panels in the U.S., and the blanket PFAS will exacerbate it. In fact, this is exactly what is happening in Europe with microchips, which rely on PFAS in the production process, where the closing of a plant in Belgium is on the verge of causing serious production delays.

That is not to say that PFAS are risk-free. A 2021 study by Australian National University confirms that the PFAS exposure comes entirely from water. If Democrats really want to make a difference, their legislation should focus on processes that are harmful instead of single handedly banning all PFAS.

The proposed ban is also problematic because fundamentally it won’t drive down demand for PFAS. Banning will shift production to countries like China, where environmental considerations are nearly non-existent. As a result, American regulators will be giving China the upper hand for both EV battery production, solar panels, and semiconductors. Not to mention, that banning a substance that is key to so many production processes will magnify the damage caused by inflation. For American EV and solar panels producers, the PFAS ban will be a huge hurdle that is extremely difficult to overcome.

If Democrats are really as determined to pursue a transition to EVs as they suggest, the PFAS blanket ban should be called off. Instead, PFAS should be assessed individually and where poor production processes result in water contamination, the government should intervene.

The new Pandemic Resilience Index is out, what has changed since 2021?

February 16, 2022
By Anna Arunashvili
In Blog, Pandemic Resilience Index, Public Health
0 comments

Covid-19 pandemic took the world by storm. Most countries’ healthcare systems proved to be entirely unprepared for a health crisis of this scale. Some countries were able to react and adapt more swiftly than others. Pandemic Resilience Index (PRI), presented by the Consumer Choice Center back in 2021, ranked countries based on their resilience to Covid-19 and other similar crises.

The PRI examined 40 countries by several factors: vaccination approval, its drive, and time lags that have put brakes on it, critical care bed capacity, and mass testing. Israel came in first, followed by UAE, while Australia, New Zealand, and Ukraine ended up at the very bottom.

Recently, we updated the PRI. Compared to the initial results, the change in the ranking is primarily due to the booster vaccine rollout delays.

This year, the UAE found itself at the top of the ranking, closely followed by Cyprus. UAE was a pioneer in booster rollout, having given booster shots to about 42% of its 10 million population. Unfortunately, not all countries were quick to react to new variants and the subsequent need for additional doses. Countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Ukraine took five months longer than the UAE – the first country to start the programme – to get booster rollout up and running.

Ukraine and India are the only countries that hadn’t rolled out the booster programme by November 30, 2021 (The PRI 2022 uses November 30 2021 as a cutoff date). According to the Ukrainian first deputy health minister, they wanted to reach the target of having at least 50% of the population fully vaccinated, before allowing for boosters shot to be administered, a goal that is yet to be reached. At the moment, both countries have acknowledged the need for booster shots and rolled it out at the beginning of this year.

Israel, ranked number one in the PRI 2021, was demoted to 5th place, mainly due to its delay with vaccine rollout, which started 75 days after the UAE. The UAE started administering booster shots to its residents back in May 2021, while on average other countries lagged 3 months behind.

Cyprus reached the second place mainly due to its high testing rates. The daily covid test average per capita 128 times higher than in Brazil, for example.

Greece had the most significant percentage change in terms of daily testing. Most countries saw an increase in this aspect, except for Luxembourg and Sweden, where the change was negative. Ukraine, with the second-lowest number of daily covid tests, remains at the bottom.

When it comes to vaccination rates, Brazil has seen the most impressive improvement in vaccination numbers since the Pandemic Resilience Index 2021 was published. The number of vaccinated people in Brazil increased from 2.4% to 63% by the end of November 2021.

Availability of booster shots is especially important as not only does it provide better protection, but more and more countries are putting expiration dates on vaccines. For example, to visit France, if it’s been more than nine months since your last vaccine shot, you have first to get a booster shot. Despite delays, all of the studied countries (except for Ukraine and India) had already started offering booster shots to their population before the emergence of the new Omicron variant.

Despite the initial one-year-long shock that everyone experienced, with restrictions getting lifted, scrapping of vaccine passports in some countries and border reopenings, it seems we are finally getting back to everyday lives. While we hope we never have to deal with a pandemic of such size ever again, countries worldwide must learn a lesson from this horrid experience and have their healthcare systems better prepared for any upcoming threats.

Colombia’s Uber ban is protectionist and ignores consumers

While Europe is arguing over the employment status of drivers and delivery workers employed in the platform economy sector, Colombia faces an entirely different type of problem.

After having operated in the country for six years in a legal gray area, Uber was forced out of the Colombian market against the backdrop of repeated resistance from the taxi companies and drivers. As of 2020, Uber had 2.3 million users around the country.

Because of Uber’s popularity, Colombian taxi drivers, who have to pay extremely high fees for acquiring operating licenses, felt they were put at a disadvantage. They filed a lawsuit targeting Uber. According to an attorney leading the case, other ride-hailing apps present on the market, such as Didi, Beat, Cabify were to be sued next. Scapegoating Uber for its success doesn’t help anyone–but, above all, it hurts consumers.

The court decided that Uber had indeed violated competition rules and was ordered to cease its operations across the country.

Sharing economy platforms are innovative and adaptable – their entrepreneurial spirit is outstanding. Uber found a loophole in the court’s ruling that quickly helped them get back in the market. Renting cars is entirely legal, and Uber came up with a new business model that allowed users to rent a vehicle with a driver. The court decision was soon overturned, but Uber remains illegal. Its drivers ask passengers to take the front seat to avoid unwanted attention from the police, which could result in fines and/or having their vehicles confiscated.

The availability of ride-hailing apps such as Uber on the Colombian market provides an alternative to traditional taxis. However, both are equally important. Both services have their target audience. Governments should not intervene by banning or creating unfavourable conditions, so drivers fear getting stopped by police and receiving significant fines. Consumers should choose to use their smartphones to arrange a ride or hail a taxi in the street.

Uber solves many problems in the Colombian market which are concerning to consumers. First, it’s safety. In Colombia, taxis have a reputation of generally being unsafe. In 2018, for example, “15% of robberies were perpetrated when the victim was using a transportation service“. Uber and its main competitor in Colombia, Didi, offering additional security features, provide an innovative solution to this problem.

A dedicated safety support team allows you to get help or report an incident and provides a great overall customer support system. During the ride, the app enables you to share your ride details with trusted people, which adds more to the feeling of security.

Second, Uber is transparent. When you use Uber, you are aware of the approximate charge before even ordering the ride, and if you have any doubts, the history of each ride is recorded and easily accessible. On the other hand, you don’t have the same transparency when using taxi services. Drivers could take a longer route, pretend not to have any change or round up the fee and ask for more than the meter is showing for the sole reason that “it’s Sunday” like it happened to me on one occasion in Colombia.

The availability of Uber and other sharing economy services is an important part of Colombia’s attractiveness as a digital nomad hub. Location-independent remote workers who use technology to perform their job rely on sharing economy platforms for their accommodation and transportation needs. As an internationally trusted company, Uber is the preferred mode of transportation because of the aforementioned reasons. Dealing with taxis could be much more complicated for people who don’t speak the local language, but with Uber, you drive with certainty and security. Even if Uber can be more expensive during the rush hours, paying a little extra is worth it for other digital nomads based in Colombia and me.

Consumers’ lives have changed with the emergence of ride-hailing. Banning a preferred service by millions of consumers in the country sets a wrong precedent and puts the future of already established or currently emerging innovative services in jeopardy. Colombia should embrace innovation, encourage the entrepreneurial spirit and facilitate entry barriers for more sharing economy services.

The EU is after gig economy: what does this mean?

Recently, the European Commission published draft legislation, planning to regulate the employment status of gig workers across the bloc. There have been multiple attempts of defining worker rights and status at the country level, with contradicting court decisions, and it seems like the EU commission wants to take matters into its own hands.

Sharing economy is a platform-based type of exchange that allows individuals and groups to share their services peer-to-peer. Platforms only act as intermediaries and facilitators, instantly connecting the supply with demand, but not everyone sees sharing economy platforms in this way. Ride-hailing and delivery services have come under fire for treating drivers and delivery workers as contractors. The EU Commission and a few member states such as The Netherlands say that they should be given the employers’ rights.

This EU initiative has received different reactions. While unions found a reason for celebration, ride-hailing and delivery platforms rally against it. Uber and Delivery Platforms Europe, the group of food delivery platforms, voiced their concerns about the impact this initiative will have on consumer choice and the thousands of jobs it threatens. Changing the business model may not be feasible for all the companies, as it could force them out of some EU markets. According to a recent study, up to 250,000 couriers could quit if legislation reduces flexibility around working hours and schedules. This has already happened with Deliveroo and Spain. After a new Spanish “Rider Law” entered into the force in August, the company had to cease all operations and 8,000 couriers ended up losing their jobs.

The contractor status gives drivers flexibility and the chance to choose their working hours. In our fast-changing world, that is especially appealing. Furthermore, with the increased risk of getting laid off as a result of another lockdown, engaging in the gig economy lets Europeans diversify their income sources. They can work for different ride-hailing apps simultaneously, which would be impossible in the case of full employee status. It also allows those drivers to mix various engagements and find which one works best for them. A 2018 study of Uber drivers in London demonstrated that flexible schedule, along with autonomy was the main benefit for them, while another study found that being an independent contractor is associated with “greater enjoyment of daily activities, a decrease in psychological strain”.

Delivery drivers are no different, two-thirds of respondents of a study by Copenhagen Economics name flexibility as the main reason for working as a courier and over 70% of them wouldn’t be willing to switch to fixed-schedule work.

For workers, the draft legislation would mean a loss of flexibility to decide their working hours and the ability to work for several platforms simultaneously. For European consumers, these changes would mean a hike in sharing economy services prices, which they have been relying heavily on during the pandemic. This can lead to decreased demand for food delivery services, and in the light of current lockdowns and restrictions, the restaurant business also ends with the short end of the stick.

One size doesn’t fit all: some prefer using traditional taxi services, others are more comfortable with ride-hailing apps. Just because taxi drivers are faced with substantial licensing fees that drive up the cost of the service, doesn’t mean we should overburden ride-hailing platforms with the same regulations and restrictions. If European governments want to create a level playing field, they should make things easier for taxi drivers and gig workers, as happened in the case of Estonia. The Estonian government legalized the sharing economy “at a time when a large part of the world is finding protectionist reasons to prohibit the sharing economy” and lessened previous regulatory burden on taxis. The Estonian government didn’t try to cover employment status and rightly so, as according to recent polls 76.4% of platform workers in Estonia use the gig economy to supplement their income.

Consumer habits have changed and even after the pandemic is finally over, it is likely that we will keep ordering food from the comfort of our own homes. These platforms provide unique value to millions of consumers around Europe. If we transfer the exact rules and regulations traditional services are faced with —as the EU Commission intends to do—we risk losing everything that makes the sharing economy unique and attractive. Consumers are the ones who will have to bear the burden of restricted choice and increased prices.

End the War on Nicotine

Reducing the number of smokers remains public health priority for governments around the world. However, the war against nicotine prevents further progress.

The bad reputation of nicotine is getting in the way of providing smokers with a safer alternative to traditional tobacco cigarettes. A new paper, published by the Consumer Choice Center, aims to debunk myths associated with nicotine and provide some more clarity around what nicotine actually is.

Smoking rates have been steadily declining but it is not thanks to tools applied by the governments, but rather the innovative alternatives to smoking such as e-cigarettes, snus, etc. Unfortunately, rather than promote an alternative that is far less harmful and gives people a chance to live healthier and longer lives, public officials are waging a war on nicotine. This limits access to those life-saving alternatives.

Contrary to popular belief, the harm from smoking comes from the thousands of other chemicals in tobacco smoke, many of which are toxic. And while nicotine is an addictive substance, it is relatively harmless and doesn’t increase the risk of serious illnesses (heart attack, stroke) or mortality.

Unlike vaping, conventional nicotine replacement therapies, such as patches, nasal sprays, gums are endorsed by public health bodies. Going against vape and snus just because it is a different way of consuming nicotine is inconsistent, to say the least. NRTs work for some people, but others prefer vaping, and it should be up to consumers to choose their preferred harm-reduction tool. Instead of limiting their choices, we should use all tools at our disposal to help smokers switch.

Nicotine has been demonised for so long that the health benefits of nicotine consumption have been completely ignored. Research since the 1960’s has demonstrated that smokers show lower rates of Parkinson’s disease, and recently a study suggested the reason for this is nicotine. Another study suggests that nicotine has an appetite suppressing effect and therefore acts as a weight suppressant, and could be used to fight obesity Studies also suggest that nicotine can improve exercise endurance and strength. This explains why many professional athletes use nicotine to improve their performance.

Distorted perceptions about nicotine stand in the way of more smokers switching to less harmful ways of consuming nicotine. Many physicians falsely believe that nicotine is the substance causing cancer in patients. Public health advocates and health experts need to get educated on the topic and encourage smokers to switch to alternatives, such as vaping which is 95% less harmful than traditional cigarettes.

Prohibition doesn’t work, as demonstrated by the American prohibition era and numerous other examples. Instead, it pushes consumers towards the black market where providing high quality products is not a priority.

Innovative nicotine products have the potential to save millions of lives around the world, and we should not allow misconceptions get in the way of the fight against smoking-induced diseases.

Read our new paper “Six reasons to stop the war on nicotine” to find out more on the topic

Electric or motor vehicle? Let consumers decide

Emissions from the transportation sector account for 25% of all EU emissions. In an effort to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55%, the European commission announced its plan to ban the sales of new cars that produce carbon emissions by 2035. Enabling this sales ban would require approval from all member states, and it could take up to 2 years to obtain it. The EU has set an ambitious goal of becoming the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, and achieving this goal requires equally ambitious changes to be made.

Massive adoption of electric cars is thought to be a good strategy to fight climate change. Green groups, like Greenpeace, are advocating for financial incentives for EVs while disincentivizing the sale of diesel and petrol cars. But there are many aspects that have to be taken into consideration before EVs are dubbed as environmentally friendly.

EVs have a lot of advantages: they are low maintenance, don’t run on fuel, therefore produce no emissions, fully charging them is a lot cheaper than filling up a tank of a motor vehicle. But they come with downsides too. EVs require electricity to be charged and if the electricity itself does not come from clean sources such as hydro, solar or nuclear power and is instead produced by burning fossil fuels, would they make any difference? Adopting electric vehicles only makes sense if countries rely on low-carbon energy supply sources and have the ability to store renewable energy. As of today, it is a big challenge for many European countries, not to mention developing countries.

Another problem with electric vehicles is the lack of infrastructure. Currently, most EU countries lack charging stations, and it would require 1.8 billion investment to deploy the target number of charging points. Recently, auditors have also dubbed the deployment of electric vehicle charging stations as too slow.

However, while it is important to discuss how exactly our transition to EVs is going to work, there is a greater issue at play. Banning the sales of motor vehicles reinforces the dangerous precedent of the government picking winners and losers. Drivers of the internal combustion engine cars are already some of the most heavily taxed consumers. They face various taxes and charges that account for most of their mobility costs. Price of petrol and diesel is excessively high and the average government share of fuel price across the EU varies between 44-59%. (Read our recent paper to find out more on this topic)

Arguments can be made for and against both electric and internal combustion engine vehicles. The main issue is that rather than leaving it up to consumers to choose their desired technology, the government is making the final call for us. Automobile companies are already working towards making internal combustion engines more fuel efficient and according to EEA “carbon intensity of newly-registered gasoline-powered cars in Europe fell an average of 25% between 2006 and 2016”.

Transition to EVs should happen naturally and not forced upon us by government bodies. Many companies are voluntarily shifting their manufacturing process towards the EVs and European consumers are quite open to the idea of purchasing electric cars. And all of this is happening without government mandates! The European Union should adhere to technology neutrality to preserve consumer choice and foster innovation.

Innovation in Agriculture Will Help Combat the Climate Change

The world population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050. As natural resources are limited, and in order to meet the needs of an ever-growing world population, we need to increase our food production. However, a more pressing problem is to ensure that is not done at the expense of the environment. The agricultural sector is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, both through direct activities and land changes.

European policymakers are betting on organic farming and through their “Farm to Fork” strategy. They want to reach a 25 percent organic production target. Even though organic agriculture has become interchangeable with sustainable agriculture, it might not be the most viable solution for our planet and our population. Organic farming has low yields and without the use of pesticides, farmers are bound to lose 30 to 40 percent of their crops. If we were to rely on organic farming alone, we would need to set aside more land for agricultural production which can only be achieved through deforestation.

Deforestation is already a pressing issue and one of the causes of climate change. It would make zero sense to cut down trees to free up the land for farming. In 2017, researchers at the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland estimated that if the world chose to fully convert to organic agriculture, we would need between 16 and 81% more land to feed the planet. Attendees at the UN’s COP26 have already promised to end deforestation by 2030, but putting more effort into the development of organic food production would be incongruous to their pledge.

The answers to these problems, therefore, must be innovation.

The European Union is lagging behind on this front. Current GMO legislation, which was established back in 2001, strictly regulates the introduction of DNA from other species into animals and plants. Unfortunately, very promising gene-editing tools, such as CRISPR-Cas9, are not exempted from the regulations, even though the technique does not entail inserting foreign DNA, as is often mistakenly claimed.

Such outdated legislation prevents European scientists from participating in the gene revolution and European farmers from taking advantage of all benefits this innovative sector has to offer. CRISPR could produce climate-resilient crops with higher yields. It can also add or remove features that would make crops more adaptable, think of gluten-free wheat that would make gluten-free products just as affordable as the gluten-based ones (at the moment it is 183% more expensive)

Gene-editing allows for the creation of disease-resistant crops. CRISPR technology can be used to build resistance to all plant pathogens, bacteria, viruses, and fungi, eliminating the need to use pesticides and fertilizers.

The solution is right in front of us, and we should not allow perceived threats, especially those that are not backed by substantial evidence, to stop us from adopting technologies that can benefit farmers, consumers and our planet equally.

If you want to know more about the topic, we recommend reading our papers Sustainable Agriculture and It’s in Our Genes

COP26: Lots of costly promise but no feasible solutions

This week, leaders from across the world are gathering in Glasgow to attend the Conference of the Parties, 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference, hosted by the UK in partnership with Italy. This is the biggest meeting on climate after Paris back in 2015, which resulted in participating countries signing an agreement aiming to keep global warming at below 2 degrees celsius. In Glasgow, countries will present their action plans for carbon reduction for 2030 and some developing countries will secure large sums of money to help them move away from fossil fuels. Hopes are big, promises even bigger, but are their methods of fighting climate change the right way to approach the problem?

The goal itself is commendable and important to achieve, but we should not sacrifice consumer choice and freedom to it. Every policy should be examined through the lens of consumer choice, and it should be at the centre of every climate strategy.

Unfortunately, governments have opted for the combination of restrictions, taxes and bans to tackle climate change. This is quite a costly strategy, and consumers will have to carry the burden of it. For example, to cut carbon emissions, the EU is planning to ban motor vehicle sales from 2030. Motor vehicle drivers are already some of the most heavily taxed consumers. Fuel, ownership, registration and CO2 based taxes are just a few examples of what motorist vehicle drivers have to deal with and now the EU is taking on an even more radical approach.

Arguably, one of the most disputed parts of the EU’s Green plan is the creation of a sustainable food system, with little to no reliance on pesticides and incentivising organic farming. Green activists demonise pesticides branding them as” dangerous”. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), without them, the farmers would lose 30 to 40 percent of their crops. Organic farming has low yields, whereas to feed the ever-growing population we need to increase our food production. However, in the case of organic farming, we would have to put more land for agricultural production, which can only be achieved through deforestation which naturally hurts the planet, and which is also what COP26 attendees commit to end. These climate strategies are inconsistent and chase their own tail.

Electricity and heat production account for around 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Policymakers are pushing for alternative renewable energy sources, like solar and wind powers, but continue to dismiss the many advantages of nuclear energy. Nuclear power has been pushed to the background because of its bad reputation and accidents such as the Chernobyl nuclear explosion (which was the result of poor management and not nuclear per se). Multiple studies have shown that risks associated with nuclear plants are low and keep declining.

Strategies that policymakers have elaborated entail many false assumptions. Instead of practicing losing combinations of restrictions, bans and taxes, embracing innovation in the above-mentioned sectors would be the right thing to do. Giving innovative technologies a chance is the only way to combat climate change and not leave consumers on the losing end.

In the next blog posts, we will dive into the agricultural, mobility and energy sectors and lay out the Consumer Choice Center’s recommendations on how innovation should drive us forward as we look for the best solution to the climate change dilemma.

October 2021

This October the CCC team has been hard at work, fighting for consumer choice all across the world. Here are some of the highlights from the past month we’d like to share with you

That’s a wrap for October! Be sure to follow us on our social media channels for all of the latest updates in our global fight for #consumerchoice! We’ll see you next month!

Sharing Economy Index and its results – SHARING ECONOMY SERIES, PART 4

October 15, 2021
By Anna Arunashvili
In Blog, Sharing Economy, Sharing Economy Index
0 comments

Welcome to the CCC’s sharing economy series. In this series of short blog posts, I elaborate on what the sharing economy is, present the main findings of the Sharing Economy Index, and look at potential future regulations surrounding these services.

The Consumer Choice Center recently published the Global Sharing Economy Index 2021, which evaluates 50 cities around the world based on the availability and accessibility of sharing economy services. The index is a one-of-its-kind compilation of applications you can use to improve your city experience and analyses how regulated these services are in each city (whether you need a special permit to operate an Airbnb business or if there are additional taxes levied on the guests).

In the early years of Uber, to become a driver you only needed a car, driving license, and simple registration on their website. As driving Uber did not require special permits or taxi licensing, which can be quite expensive to acquire in certain countries, it allowed Uber to offer the same services at a much lower cost.

However, according to the index results, as of today, out of 50 cities, there are only a few ones left that don’t require a special permit. In France for example, in order to operate Uber, you have to get a VTC card first (VTC is a French acronym for private chauffeur services that are different from taxis), and registration for the exam will cost you around 200 euros. Becoming an Uber driver might be more complicated now, but it remains a lucrative business and a big competition to traditional taxi services. Which, as we already saw in the previous blog post, isn’t something that taxi drivers are very happy about.

Another shared service discussed in the index, e-scooter, is an affordable and quite fun means of transportation, available in 43 out of 50 cities. Recently, most cities have been trying to regulate e-scooters by banning them from sidewalks, setting speed limits, or introducing a fine system for parking at the wrong locations, as in the case of Norway. Some cities, like Athens, went as far as permanently banning e-scooters altogether, only allowing private ownership of electric scooters.

Interestingly enough, Eastern European countries enjoy more freedom when it comes to sharing economy services. First place in the ranking was shared by post-soviet cities Tallinn and Tbilisi, where not only all the discussed services are available, but they are also less regulated. On the other hand, Western and Central European countries seem to have taken more restrictive approaches, therefore limiting consumer choice. For example, as if covid wasn’t already destructive enough to sharing economy services, Amsterdam decided to ban Airbnb in its historical centre, a decision that was fortunately overturned by the court.

Even in the light of current efforts from governments to regulate this sector, we can say that the sharing economy is here to stay. People have come to appreciate and get used to the comfort and convenience these services bring to our everyday lives. So no matter what new restrictions the governments around the world come up with, we can leave it to the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of this industry to fight back and readjust.

The EU mandated harmonisation of charging ports will negatively impact innovation

Last month, the European Commission unveiled its plan to harmonise charging ports for electronic devices. With the new legislation, USB-C will be the required standard port for all smartphones, cameras, tablets, headphones, portable speakers, and video consoles. When the EU first proposed a common charger in 2009, they believed it would be the micro-USB standard.

The EU claims that this approach is needed to solve ‘consumer inconvenience’ and tackle the e-waste problem, but that logic falls short of making sense. This regulation will have a negative impact on innovation, do nothing to help the environment, and consumers will end up being the ones who have to foot the bill. The best thing the EU can do to help consumers and not impede innovation is to stay technology neutral.

Even though USB-C seems like the most efficient charger at the moment, we can’t predict how this technology will develop in the future. For example, in 2009, when the European Union first proposed a common charger, micro-USB was considered the standard Had this common charger been passed then, would European consumers have lost out on the now more-popular USB-C devices that are the new standard? Time has shown us that there are always better and more efficient technologies waiting in the wings. By legislating one common charger, the EU will be responsible for delaying innovation that will deprive consumers of choice not only now, but in the future. Adopting this proposal by the European Parliament and the Council could take many more months, by which time many companies may even find better solutions than what is currently proposed.

With fast-developing technology, there’s no guarantee that USB-C will still be considered the most efficient charging technology even months from now. Plus, as more and more companies are experimenting with wireless chargers it is very likely that charging cables will become obsolete. If this proposal is accepted, companies will be forced to provide the plug anyway.

When Apple decided to drop the headphone port for iPhones in 2016, many were skeptical about the move. But consumers eventually came to appreciate wireless technology and not having to deal with wires that always mystically entangle the moment you put it in the pocket. Had the EU or any other government body tried to intervene and fix the “inconvenience”, we probably wouldn’t have been able to enjoy the benefits of them.

More disturbingly, this decision specifically targets Apple, the only company that uses a unique lightning cable for its products. Considering how many iPhone users exist in Europe, this proposal would have an immediate impact, forcing users to trash their existing wires and have to purchase new ones. It is hard not to be skeptical about this move. Innovators will keep innovating and we have new and improved versions of the products that pop up in the market almost daily. What we need is more competition, which is the main driving force behind innovation. Common charger mandates will do nothing but infringe on this entrepreneurial spirit, and mandate technology that will likely soon be obsolete.

With this proposal, the EU is choosing favourites and endorsing a specific technology, when in reality it should be practicing technology neutrality. Rather than force companies to adopt a commission-favoured solution, the EU should simply issue general recommendations, leaving it up to the companies and consumers to make the ultimate choice of which charging wire they want to use.

Author: Anna Arunashvili

EU’s green agenda and PFAS ban are incompatible

Democrats Can’t Have Both PFAS Ban and EV Transition: Choose One

The new Pandemic Resilience Index is out, what has changed since 2021?

End the War on Nicotine

Electric or motor vehicle? Let consumers decide

Innovation in Agriculture Will Help Combat the Climate Change

COP26: Lots of costly promise but no feasible solutions

The EU mandated harmonisation of charging ports will negatively impact innovation

Follow us

WASHINGTON

BRUSSELS

LONDON

KUALA LUMPUR

OTTAWA