You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast counts Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Lisa Matteo. This week a conversation with Lisa Jarvis about Moderna's tough road ahead, Claudia Sam with a look at why so many Americans are downbeat about the economy, and insight into what the future holds for the farming industry with Laura Williams. But first, Justin Fox joins us with a look into the homicide
rate of Black Americans. The title of your opinion piece, where It's most Dangerous to Be Black in America, That itself is eye catching, but the stat that you give right off the top really hits home. I'm going to say it for you. Black Americans make up thirteen point six percent of the US population in twenty twenty two and fifty four point one percent of the victims of
murder and homicide. Now you check with data from the CDC explains what this works out to as far as homicide rate, for Black Americans and just the scope.
Of it, I mean, the homicide rate for Black Americans in twenty twenty two. And this data isn't totally completely final yet, but I've been checking it for a while and it isn't changing much. And this is all on the CDC's online Wonder database that anybody can look into, although it takes a while to get up to speed on it, which I did sadly early in the pandemic. Anyway, the homicide rate for Black Americans last year was about
thirty per one hundred thousand people. For everybody else in the country it was about four and four is still pretty high by the standards of like other rich countries in Europe and East Asia and such. I mean, in Japan, it's just zero point two per hundred thousand, but it's you know, thirty per hundred thousand is similar to even higher than in places like Brazil, Colombia, Mexico that are
kind of known as being very, very violent. And it's also a lot higher than the rate was before the pandemic, and especially around twenty fifteen twenty fourteen.
Right, and you mentioned when the homicide rady goes up, black Americans suffer disproportionately.
Yeah, Like when you look at the increase in homicides, especially from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty. I mean, as we've said, a little over half of all homicide victims in the US are black, but the increase was about sixty five percent Black Americans, So it's clear that, Yeah, when there's a wave of violence, it's it's Black Americans
who suffer the most. And when that wave recedes, as this one is now doing, it's you know, down a bit in the CDC data for last year, and in crime statistics from New York, Los Angeles everywhere else, it's down a lot so far this year too, So at least that news is good. But wow, it went up a lot, especially during the pandemic, but there'd also been something of a rise in a couple of years before then.
All Right, and you mentioned when the racial definitions have changed recently, you talk about that as more government agencies classify Americans as multiracial. So how does this change things when you were going through the article.
I mean, it doesn't change it much. It just makes it a pain because basically, in all the data from twenty eighteen and earlier, the CDC uses the old racial definitions, which are basically sort of are you mostly black, are you mostly white? Whatever? With the twenty twenty census, and they started doing before then, they're much more open to no, I'm multiple, I'm lots of things, which I think in a lot of ways is great and very healthy development
for our country. But it's a pain when you're trying to look at developments in long run statistics by race. It doesn't make that big a difference on a national level in these numbers. The more recent statistics, who were for people who identify as Black or African American only, but you know in the census and all the people who identify themselves as more than one race are sort of in this no man's land. It couldn't get great
per capita statistics on them. With some of the cities I looked at, it made a difference, but not enough to really change the trajectory in a big way.
Yeah, and that's what I want to get to. Some of those numbers. So the black homicide rates far lower in some parts of the country than in other parts. And you really broke down that twenty twenty two rates for the country's most populous metro areas. So talk about who topped the list, who came out at the bottom. What did you find out?
This is among the thirty largest metro areas. And the kind of interesting thing with the CDC data is you can basically ask it to give really detailed stuff like how many people were murdered in some small county in Texas in twenty thirteen, and for that it won't tell you because it basically won't disclose data if they're fewer than ten people involved, because the idea is that that would make it possible, and it doesn't really with murder,
it doesn't really matter, but with other causes of death, it would invade people's privacy. It's really helpful to do big groups. The CDCED used to publish a lot of this data by metropolitan area. You could just click I want everything sorted by metropolitinaria. For some reason, they don't do that anymore. But you can go in and pick all the counties in a metropolitan area and ask it to combine all of which is a long excuse for
why I only did thirty metropolitan areas rather than anymore. Anyway, So these thirty biggest metropolitan areas, the worst is Saint Louis, which is a bunch of counties in both Missouri and across the river in Illinois, and Baltimore is not far behind. And then the best are basically New York, San Diego, and best of all, Boston. And that's for overall homicide right now.
Did anything surprise you about the results that came out from that?
I mean, this kind of started. I wrote a piece a year ago looking at CDC data just to it was sort of at the moment when crime in New York was really top of mind and lots of people around the world seem in the country seemed to think New York was just such a dangerous place. And I looked at homicides, it's not bad in New York. You throw in accident data in New York is like one of the safest places in the country. So that didn't surprise me. But it's still kind of funny to see
it down at the bottom here. It kind of remarkable how low Boston is. I mean, it's not that surprising when you think about it, but it's like another big step lower than in New York or it's only two per hundred thousand overall, and the nationwide for everybody is something like five point seven five point eight, so it's a lot lower in Boston. In New York, it's three
point seven per hundred thousand. Saint Louis, the overall homicide rate is fifteen point seven per hundred thousand, But then you break it down by race, and it's just it's an even bigger gap in some cases.
Well, I'm glad you mentioned that gap. And you also found some regional patterns to this data too.
Yeah.
I mean, the worst places, at least in this thirty biggest metro area list in both the worstplaces in overall homicide rates are pretty much all kind of rust Belt or russ I guess Baltimore is not officially in the rust Belt, but it kind of feels like it. And you know, Saint Louis, Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and then Atlanta's
pretty high too. When you break it down, what you get is really this these old Saint Louis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia stand out, and then this bizarre newcomer Portland, Oregon, which wouldn't have been high on this list at all five years ago but is just awfully high now. It's more dangerous to be black in Portland last year than in Detroit or Baltimore or Chicago.
That's crazy.
Let's talk about those incidents of police violence that go viral a spark protests. We've seen it. They can tend to be followed by local increased is in violent crime. So talk more about how this affects those homicide rates.
Obviously, police violence, I mean sometimes it's inevitable. A lot of times it's not. People have lots of reasons to protest against it and be mad about it and try to fix it. At the same time, it's you know, black people killed by police officers. It's around two hundred and fifty a year as opposed to more than thirteen thousand black victims of homicide overall. And it's so it's pretty clear that, you know, if the focus is that black lives matter, and it should be that it's getting
down crime rates is the most important thing. And having effective policing, which generally means police departments that aren't abusing their citizens, but at the same time means police departments that are arresting people and fighting crime, is really important to save people's.
Now, justin I think it's important to note that you did all of this intense, intense research for this story, and you are not black. What motivated you to take this on?
I mean, the initial thing is just as as mentioned, I got familiar with these CDC databases early in the pandemic and was like looking at all the things that were more or less likely to kill you than COVID. And one of the things that starts coming out when you're looking at younger people is that you know, it's mostly not diseases did kill young people. It's accidents, it's suicides,
it's homicides. And then you start storing it by race and especially by gender, and like it's for black young men, it's homicide is the number one cause of death most of the time. It might not be in twenty twenty two for the awful reason that the opioid epidemic is sort of moved from rural areas where that are mostly white, into cities. And so I mean that's the initial thing. It's just this is this thing that I don't think
it's enough attention. And then I I do think it was this frustration with especially the mainstream media coverage of police violence and the black Lives Matter movement that I just think has underplayed this sort of underlying reality that the biggest threat to young men's black lives is not police, it's violence in their own communities, and police can make that better, can make that worse. But it's just it just feels like the focus of the discussion has been
way too much in one place. And I think it's mainly because the mainstream media is full of white journalists like me who feel uncomfortable writing about these things. So I don't know, I mean, I don't have good answers. Here are good explanations of why this problem persists, but it does seem really important to note that it was much better a few years ago, and it's much better in some cities than others. This is not some inevitable thing.
Bloomberg Opinion columnist justin Fox. Coming up, we'll speak with columnist Lisa Jarvist about moderna and vaccine development. This is Bloomberg Opinion.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion Podcast Contest Saturdays at one and seven pm Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app, and the Bloomberg Business App, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Lisa Matteo. Let's bring an opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis to get her thoughts on where Moderna stands among the competition as it expands into other infectious diseases. Moderna has had a tough road ahead of it. That's the feel from this opinion piece that you put together. Now, you mentioned that the company's biggest challenge has shifted from proving that it's mrina vaccines and products work to convincing the world that they offer something
better than what's out there. I mean, how tough is that a sell?
I think it's definitely a tougher sell than when they had this captive market which just you know, a vac seen from them and from Advisor, and everyone was feeling very motivated to take it. But the products that they have coming up next, and you know, I'll to say it's impressive. They have four things that are likely to be on the market by twenty twenty five. You know, if we're talking about a different biotech company, that might
feel really impressive. But all of those things already have existing products and so so far, what they've shown is what they can offer is something that's about the same as what's already out there. So they'll have an RSV vaccine, a flu vaccine, a vaccine that combines covid and flu, you know, to note that is novel, and then they'll have a next generation covid vaccine. So you know, RSV and flu are really competitive markets. And so the question is,
you know, are they offering something better? Are the side effects worse for their vaccine? You know, how do they convince people that they should choose their mRNA vaccine over you know what already? You know we're all familiar with.
Right and you spoke with Maderna's CEO. I mean, does he like the progress that he's seeing?
He definitely does. And you know, I think what they're trying to pitch to investors right now is that they're really transforming, you know, and you know that they have a very full pipeline and that they're not going to be just a one product company. In fact, they have a platform that is delivering. Each of their phase threes has been successful, so I have to give them credit
for that. And they are going to be active in three areas infectious diseases, cancer, and then rare diseases, which you know that's a little further in the distance when we'll start to see products coming out of that. So, you know, I think he's basically trying to convince everyone to be patient to you know, that it's going to cost them some money to get these things to market,
you know. I think just the question is, you know, how they adjust to a different reality than they faced during COVID when it comes to marketing their products and showing that they have something that is better.
Now, let's get in to that money. So as MODERNA moves into other infectious diseases that you were just talking about, it's facing a lot of competition, right, and they've been putting a lot of money into late stage clinical studies. Can the payoff of its transformation justify the cost?
That really is the key question that they need to answer. I mean they think yes, obviously, I think they're going to be putting They said twenty five billion dollars in R and D between twenty twenty four and twenty twenty eight. That that puts them in the same league, just below Gilead Sciences, which obviously has been around for a lot longer and has a lot more successful products on the market.
And so you know, I think what they need to prove is that they can be the kind of marketing powerhouse that they're going to need to be to get these products out there and convince people that they're worthwhile. You know, that there really is going to be demand for say, a vaccine that combines covid and flu. To me, that's the most unique thing that they've got going for them. And then I think last is their cancer vaccine that could be potentially be on the market by twenty twenty five.
There's a lot of excitement around that. The you know, kind of other issue they have is that right now, it's very expensive to make these products, and so they need to get down you know, that cost so that yeah, that even if they are making you know a lot of money off of these vaccines, that you know, there's actually a profit there.
All right, Let's get to the funding, because it really depends on the continuing sales of the vaccine. I mean, is is the demand strong enough for the vaccine.
They have no choice but to rely on Americans wanting Americans and people around the world wanting to roll up their sleeves for this new booster that you know, has recently become available. This updated shot to XBB. You know, we know that last year only seventeen percent of people in the US opted to get that that shot, and so I think their hope is this is the first year that we're in a actual commercial market. They're the ones who are trying to get out there and get
the word out that they've got this vaccine. It's not the government that's providing it. So it's going to be interesting to see what happens. I think there's some skepticism that, you know, their projections for how many people are willing to get their shot, you know, will be matched with the reality of some of the hesitancy that's out there around you know, whether people feel like they need a COVID vaccine or not.
Okay, now you mentioned some of these, but let's kind of break it down a little bit talk about the other vaccines in development. Let's start with Moderna's RSV vaccine.
Yeah, so that vaccine, you know, it's a good product. It's a year behind. This is their problem. It's a year behind vaccines that recently became available from Pfizer and Glaxo Smith Cleent. So you know, I think, you know, they need to play catch up. What they're trying to sell is being differentiated is that they're offering the vaccine in a pre loaded pen, so the other two products come into vile and the pharmacist has to mix it.
And they're arguing like, well, in a busy pharmacy environment where we know everybody you know is experiencing shortages of you know, healthcare workers, having this pre loaded pen is going to be attractive. Their flu vaccine, you know, had been struggling a little bit. They came out this was the other big news. They came out with you know, good phase three data on that last week. The question is,
you know, the side effect profile. All of us who've gotten a COVID shop you know, an mRNA shot know that the side effects can be a little rough. You know, Will people decide that something that's as good as what's
there is enough? And I think what they need to prove is that what they have is something better like that, you know, it does better, performs better than the other flu vaccines that are out there right now, we only have antibody data on that, but having some actual like outcomes data, you know, do people do more people live? You know, do fewer people get the flu? Or have a severe case that would be really helpful for them. And then they have this vaccine that they're working on
where they're going to combine covid in the flu. That vaccine incorporates a next generation covid vaccine they've been working on that they hope, well, they'll be able to give people a smaller dose of and it'll work better than what we have now. So you know, again, I think the question is what does demand look like in a year or two or three years, because we don't really know how the pandemic or you know, the kind of virus will start to you know, affect people if in
coming years. So those are their main products. And then, as I mentioned, this cancer vaccine is the other one that everyone's really excited about.
Yeah, and what about those ambitions? I mean, what does the CEO say it's going to take to get FDA approval?
This has been the question on investors' mind. I mean so many people have been just clamoring for information. When are they going to file for approval? I think they had really good data that came out on this cancer vaccine showing that it could reduce the risk of skin cancer as certain kind of skin cancer from returning or from people dying by forty four percent, you know, and so a lot of investors think, well, that should be enough for you to file for approval. The CEO, you know,
says three things need to happen, you know. One, they have to start a phase retrial, which they've done, you know. Two, they are going to have some data later this year that will kind of show over a longer time horizon whether those numbers hold up or if maybe they even get a little better in terms of how well that vaccine performs. And then three, these are highly personalized products.
They take, They use of patient's own tumor cells to create the vaccine, and so that's very complicated from a manufacturing perspective, and they're trying to get all of that in place because I do think legitimately his pushback on filing for approval now is like, well, we could do that, but we couldn't actually treat everybody who's going to want the product.
Right, And the company recently said it's well on the way to becoming a big biotech contender. What's your take.
If they can move their technology a little beyond where COVID was. I mean, they showed that mRNA works, if they can show works as a therapeutic, if this cancer vaccine, you know, continues to progress in the way we'd like to see it progress and help people. That will you know, certainly show that it's not just like as good as the existing technology that's out there, and that it could be really transformative. But you know, they've got some work
on that. We have to be patient and see what happened.
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Lisa Jarvis there. The Federal Reserve was in focus this week when FED Chair J Powell held rates unchanged but signaled they'll be higher for longer.
We're prepared to raise rates further if appropriate, and we intend to hold policy at a restrictive level until we're confident that inflation is moving down sustainably toward our objective.
In addition to bringing down inflation, he clearly laid out the Fed's objective.
Soft lending is a primary objective, and I did not say otherwise.
I mean, that's that's what we've been trying to achieve.
Powell's had success in bringing down inflation this year, and the stock markets had a strong twenty twenty three, but many Americans are downbeat about the economy. Economist Claudia sam joins us to explain why inflation rates falling back toward more normal levels. We have the labor market, it's strong. It sounds like a good reason to be optimistic about the economy, right, But you're saying Americans are still gloomy. This is what you put in your opinion piece. Now,
how bad is sentiment? Put it into perspective for us?
Well, first of all, it is absolutely appropriate and understandable that people are gloomy.
Right.
Inflation is high. Yes, the labor market is good, but inflation has been high and it's been high too long. So then the question is in some of the measures that we normally use to gauge overall sentiment across all people across the country, these have been really low, like lower than you would historically have happened, even if you take inflation into account. Right, So this isn't saying people are overreacting to inflation. It's just saying their reaction to inflation.
And then there's more And what's particularly notable about this, I mean these are these sentiment go back to the nineteen four eight right, So this is a long period of time to watch how people. Their views about the economy change over time. And what's notable and what I write about is the fact that this gap, this unexpected gloom extra gloom, it showed up about the same time the pandemic did. So we've had this for multiple years now and we haven't made up that lost ground.
Now. Dig into these consumer confidence surveys that we hear about. What do they ask people.
There's a few different surveys, and they ask you know, the questions very a little bit, but in general they're asking people, how are you doing? Often the survey that I look at comes out of the University of Michigan's it's like, how are you doing relative to a year ago? Is it a good time to go buy? And then forward looking questions, how are your finances going to do
in the next year, get better, get worse? And then how do you think more the economy as a whole, how businesses are going to do in the next year, the next five years. So it's it's a wide range of views about the economy and and not surprisingly, every single one of these measures plummeted in the COVID recession.
That's what they do in recessions. What has happened is though they have recovered as economic conditions have improved, Inflation is coming down, the labor market has been good, there's still this gap and it's one that going back decades and decades, we don't we don't see this right. And so that's where it raises the question of and And to me, what's important as an when I do my work as an economist is not to say, oh, well
you people cheer up. It's to figure out, well, what is I havep heer to do that that you try to here out what are people trying to tell us? Because when you have a pattern that's so at odds with what you've seen in the past, there's a reason there are lots of different possible explanations. So I don't pretend that I know the answer. And yet I know, having worked with these data for well over a decade at the Federal Reserve, these can be very useful in helping us gauge the economy.
All right, so let's dig into why this sentiment has really failed to rebound. Now, you say, the less talked about but more likely explanation is COVID.
The timing, first of all, is somewhat obvious on some level. But when I say COVID, it's it's not just the virus itself, people who passed away from the virus to have long COVID. It's also thinking about the way our daily life was upended, the way our institutions changed. And at this point it's it's you know, no one wants to remember back to March of twenty twenty, we shut the US economy down. We sent everyone home. To a large extent, that was a huge change in people's lives
and a huge change in how in their livelihoods. And one thing that I argue in the is that you know, we're just now seeing the you know, the supply chains start to get back on track, right like, And these were also very disrupted in twenty twenty we are in twenty twenty three, but they're just kind of get people take a long time to get back on track too, right.
So the idea that we still have something that we're holding with us, even if it's not on our mind every day, that's really impacted our lives, to me, that's a very plausible explanation that we're just carrying along extra effects of the pandemic. And there were some places in the same survey where we like income expectations, I mean not in this main measure that showed some after effects of the Great Recession for a few years and then it popped back up. So this big events can have
effects like this. Of course, it's hard to prove that definitively right.
And then there's also politics can play a role in this. I mean, we're coming up on an election year.
One of the fascinating and maybe not surprising aspects in the survey they have for some time now, not all the way back, but for some time ask people about their political affiliation, and what you can see in the data are these views about the economy, owned finances future. They are very much tied with is the is your
party in the White House? And then when you'll see this big divide right now, you know Democrats are much more upbeat about you know, they have much higher sentiment than Republicans, but under President Trump that was reversed and in the last two election cycles, these are big gaps now for the overall sentiment. That's what I'm looking at, and I argue why this is unlikely to be an
explanation is they're about the same size and magnitude. They're just flipping around and the split in the population is pretty similar. So it's unlikely to tell us why we have this extra gap. Now, it is informative in thinking about how divergent the views are that we have at any one point in time about the economy.
Right and then on top of that, we have negative economic news story the things people here, you know, as they're listening and watching TV and doing all that. What seems that actually seems to be reversing a little bit, but it still has an impact.
Correct the survey, and I think this is really helpful. You can do a lot of let's measure the media, let's put it on some kind of positive negative scale, and yet you don't really like what are people listening to?
Right?
Like that That's where what kind of gets in gets in the head. So the survey ask people about the economy, what economic news have you heard lately? And they will
is this positive? Is this negative? They ask about specifically what is this and it again, just like with sentiment overall, we would expect it to be negative, you know, more negative than before COVID, just because inflation is high and there are problems in the economy that weren't with us before COVID, but the news media, this balance between positive news and negative news has rebounded more. It's not back to before COVID levels, and it's also moved a lot
more with the economic conditions. So it's a little harder to gauge with this one. But when you look at these responses from households about what they're hearing, it doesn't line up in the same way as when you ask them what do you think about the economy in terms of the gloominess. So there could be a piece of it, but it's not. It's not that it noted like, there's not a sign of a clear bias in what people say they have heard. That's setting aside what's out there in the news.
Got it now? Based on all that we've talked about, Is the data still useful?
Yes, we have to There are many relationships that in terms of the economy, in terms of the kind of data that economists look to, that have broken down in this pandemic. So sentiment does not stand out in that regard.
I there is an argument that has been made that's like, well, if you look, you know, we ask people and they're very gloomy, But if you look at consumers, they're spending, they're out there, and we should just look at their behavior, and you know, who knows why they're saying what they're saying. I disagree with that. I think, you know, again, people can tell us something that the regular data can't, and we don't have complete data on what they're spending and
all of that. So I think there's an important trying to figure out what people are telling us. And it has been the case in the past, and this is difficult given the break in the series or how the data has been acting. But the sentiment data in the past have been helpful in seeing a little bit around the corner in terms of a recession coming or a contraction, so potentially we can still get some signs from that.
Claudia Sam thanks for joining us. Coming up why most corn grown doesn't end up on our plates. Bloomberg's Laura Williams has a look into farming's climate friendly future. And don't forget We're available at It's a podcast on Apple, Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. This is Bloomberg Opinion.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Opinion podcast. Count us Saturdays at one and seven pm. Eastern on Bloomberg dot Com, the iHeartRadio app and the Bloomberg Business app, or listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts.
You're listening to Bloomberg Opinion. I'm Lisa Matteo. What lies ahead for the future of farming Bloomberg Opinions. Lara Williams joined in to talk about a problem with our global food systems. Lara, thank you for joining me. You start off your Bloomberg Opinion piece about farming's climate friendly future by really setting the scene. Now, you say how our global food systems have become incredibly dysfunctional. What exactly do you mean by that?
So what I mean is that's loads of really healthy produce. Is that saying diverted away from people plates? So if you imagine a big American corn field, I naively thought that lots of that food would end up on people's plates, but actually thirty nine percent ends up being fed to livestock, thirty seven percent is used to produce ethanol for fuel, fourteen percent is exported, and then it's just ten percent of the porn which is eaten. And then half of
that is a sweetener, so like highst corn syrup. So that's not a healthy way of eating. And it's also so this isn't this isn't working for us. More than eight hundred and twenty million people lack sufficient food. Unhealthy diets now pose a greater risk of morbidity and mortality than unsafe sets, alcohol, dread, and tobacco used combined. So it's not good for human health, but it's also not good for the for the planet. Food production contributes about
a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. It's the way that we use pesticides and fertilizer and change the use of the lands of facilitated tatastrophic declines and biodiversity. It really draws on fresh water, like use the seventy percent of the fresh waters available worldwide. And you know, as the global population grows, it just at the moment seems like it's only going to get worse.
So let's dig into this new study was published in the scientific journal plast Climate. Now, this looks into several elements that can combine to help reduce emissions, diet shift, waste reduction, those are really a big focus of this.
Yeah, exactly, And so I think the important thing to take away from this is the study was really about how to pull all the levers. We have to create
something that works much better. And actually, you know, food production is one of the only industries where we get to negative emission, so it's drawing down more carbon dioxide than it's emitting into the atmosphere, and that's a that could be a really really powerful thing moving forward, and you know, helping offset other polluting industries and kind of you know, cleaning up the mess that we made up there.
Okay, there's the importance also production efficiency and technology to.
Yeah, so basically if you take a look at the non tech interventions, and that's so that sunds like adopting a healthier flexitarian diet where you eat mainly plant based foods and you can have still a little meat and reducing food waste. That actually half global food emissions. But that'll be a massive progress. But it can't actually tat used to net zero because if we're producing food, we're
producing emissions at the moment. So if we improve production efficiency and so that is reducing the gap between what agricultural areas can deliver and what's produced. If we close that adapt all our fields are as productive as they can be. Then also use these novel technologies, and so that can be things like you know, helping reduce emissions. Further By, there's food additives you can give to cows to stop them burpinged up methane. There's also technology to
use to help farmland absorb AMOSPHERICIO two. And if you use all four of these things together, you can reach negative emissions. But the trick is the second to using those novel technologies will really help us take it to the negative and net zero zone.
Easier said than done. What challenges still exist for this?
One important factor is that lots of these novel technologies are novel, they're really new, and so there's lots of knowledge aapps we need to address. We need to know about how much these things are doing a cost, We need to know if they work at the huge scale
that they'll need to. There's also obviously going to be you know, challenges in actually even you know, convincing Pete enough people to adopt more flagetarian diet, because there's lots of personal and cultural reasons behind diet choices people make. There's challenges in every kind of zone, which is why we kind of need to use each of the four kind of methods to remove carbon from the food production, because we'll get the match benefits without putting all our edits in one bastiff.
Bloomberg Opinion, Lara Williams, there does it. For this week's Opinion, we're produced by Eric Molow. Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now.