vox--2020-11-20--How affluent people can end their mindless overconsumption

If 2020 teaches us anything , it ’ s that the next crisis we could have prevented is probably right around the corner , and it will be painful .
A pandemic that scientists warned was very likely to occur arrived and has already killed well over 250,000 people in the US .
Dozens of predicted , large wildfires — the latest evidence of the climate emergency — recentlu torched the American West , their smoke more damaging to health than almost any fire season on record .
But it ’ s not too late to intervene and limit climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Communications clarifies whose actions in this moment are “ central to any future prospect of retreating to safer environmental conditions.
” Yes , government and industry leaders are on the hook to decarbonize operations and infrastructure .
But it ’ s also the affluent who use far more resources than the poor — more energy and more material goods per capita than the planet can sustain .
“ Highly affluent consumers drive biophysical resource use ( a ) directly through high consumption , ( b ) as members of powerful factions of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driving consumption norms across the population , ” the authors write .
The rich or merely affluent , it turns out , are actually the ones blowing through the world ’ s carbon budget — the maximum amount of cumulative emissions that can be added to the atmosphere to hit the Paris agreement ’ s 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming goal .
According to a September report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute , the richest 10 percent of the world ’ s population — those who earned $ 38,000 per year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for 52 percent of cumulative carbon emissions and ate up 31 percent of the world ’ s carbon budget from 1990 to 2015 .
Meanwhile , the richest 1 percent of people — who made $ 109,000 or more per year in 2015 — alone were responsible for 15 percent of cumulative emissions , and used 9 percent of the carbon budget .
The rapidly accelerating growth in total emissions worldwide isn ’ t mainly about an improvement in quality of life for the poorer half of the world ’ s population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds , “ nearly half the growth has merely allowed the already wealthy top 10 percent to augment their consumption and enlarge their carbon footprints.
” Another recent study found that affluent frequent fliers who make up just 1 percent of the global population are responsible for 50 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from commercial aviation .
In sum , as Tim Gore , head of climate policy at Oxfam , said in a statement , “ The over-consumption of a wealthy minority is fueling the climate crisis yet it is poor communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ price.
” Somehow , in all the campaigns to inspire climate action , the onus on well-off people to take the lead on sustainable consumption has been lost .
But the Covid-19 pandemic may turn out to be the best opportunity — especially for the affluent among us — to shift consumption habits .
Here ’ s why : When we cut back on energy-intensive travel and shopping in the spring , it was easier to see the mindlessness , and even lack of satisfaction , in these patterns .
For some people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that maybe we can do things differently , that a simpler life can be more fulfilling and provide more happiness , ” says Tommy Wiedmann , a professor of sustainability research at UNSW Sydney and a co-author of the Nature Communications paper .
Permanently reducing air travel , driving , home energy use , food waste , and shopping to protect our kids and grandkids from climate chaos need not lead to any reduction in quality of life .
In fact , it may even go a long way toward improving it ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox ’ s Sigal Samuel reported in June , the top change readers she surveyed said they wanted to maintain after quarantine was “ reducing consumerism.
” “ A long period of being shut in and not spending as much has led to the realization that so much of our consumer behavior is about instant gratification , not lasting happiness , ” she writes .
We can also use lessons from our new Covid-constrained life for further economic reforms tailored to the climate emergency reality we find ourselves in .
As Pope Francis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change , “ The current economic system is unsustainable .
We are faced with a moral imperative ... to rethink many things , ” including means of production , consumerism , waste , indifference to the poor , and harmful energy sources , according to Reuters .
In particular , degrowth is a promising framework for meeting basic needs and improving well-being while staying within the carbon budget and planetary boundaries .
While individual contributions to climate change may be dwarfed by the contributions of fossil fuel companies and heavy industry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavioral contagion , ” social tipping points , and positive feedback loops .
Here we ’ ll lay out some of the key opportunities for fellow fortunates who have the economic freedom to choose how and what they consume .
Individual , grassroots changes are essential to a bigger systemic change ; personal growth and flourishing can happen through resource degrowth .
Yes , individual choices matter , especially if you ’ re affluent From a global perspective , middle-class Americans are in the top 10 percent income-wise .
“ A $ 59,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buying power to put you in the 91st percentile globally for per-person income , ” according to the Washington Post .
And beyond that , our fellow fortunates all have “ optional consumption ” that we engage in , often unreflectively .
Given that leverage , every energy reduction we can make is a gift to future humans , and all life on Earth .
And we should be on guard for excuses to avoid changing individual consumption behaviors ; they ’ re often based on logical , arithmetic , and moral errors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue that their consumption choices don ’ t matter because they ’ re just one person on a planet of more than 7 billion .
But consider the physics of tipping points using an analogy from a 2019 piece we wrote , “ 12 excuses for climate inaction and how to refute , ” which helps explain why our decisions today are so much more critical than they were a decade ago — or even this time last year .
A useful image here is a pile of sand on one side of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tipping point , it ’ s easy to see that every tiny grain of sand contributes to when that side of the scale ultimately falls .
Your seemingly tiny contribution — the optional flight , the round-the-clock air conditioning , the thrice-weekly portion of beef — can , arithmetically , add up to make a critical difference .
And “ the bigger your carbon footprint , the bigger your moral duty , ” Greta Thunberg said in her widely cited 2019 speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos , Switzerland .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there isn ’ t just one tipping point or one single outcome , but rather a spectrum .
The fewer greenhouse gases we emit , the nearer to the safer end of the spectrum we can stay , and the less climate chaos we will create .
We usually have options where we can choose to have more or less climate impact .
Every time we choose more and not less , we ’ re imposing compounding burdens on others and on our descendants .
Our choices will determine whether the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apocalyptic , ” as New York ’ s David Wallace-Wells writes in his book The Uninhabitable Earth .
Restrained consumption is also a way to prevent the deepening of racial and economic injustice and inequality — low-income people and people of color are among the first to lose the most in climate disasters .
Working toward justice means being a resource-responsible consumer .
“ I think it is important for people to say that they will not do certain types of consumption anymore , ” Julia Steinberger , a professor of ecological economics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-author of the Nature Communications paper , tells Vox .
“ It ’ s about making this way of life more visibly unacceptable .
The rich could show their status and prestige with other things than lots of cars and huge houses and lots of material wealth.
” With all this in mind , here are five potential resource-responsible actions to commit to , in no particular order : • Drive and fly less , since the top 10 percent uses around 45 percent of land transport energy and 75 percent of air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Steinberger in Nature Energy .
• Retrofit your house and purchase clean energy , since roughly 20 percent of US energy-related greenhouse gas emissions come from heating , cooling , and powering households .
• Buy food mindfully ( less meat and dairy , don ’ t waste what you buy ) , since meat and dairy account for around 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions , according to the UN ’ s Food and Agricultural Organization .
• Shop less , since the fashion industry generates at least 5 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SUVs , since SUVs were the second-largest source of the global rise in emissions over the past decade , eclipsing all shipping , aviation , heavy industry , and even trucks .
The pleasures of much of our consumption are fast forgotten , but the costs are slow and will be felt by generations for centuries to come Despite what consumption enthusiasts and their enablers ( marketers , economists , etc . )
preach , the benefits and pleasures of much of our consumption are fleeting .
Many of us have an inkling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but we ’ re trapped on the treadmill of unthinking hedonic habits .
That enduring lack of true satisfaction is confirmed by much ancient wisdom : Enlightenment , or Nirvana , is the “ the absence of greed , absence of dislike , and absence of egoism , ” as the Buddhist writer and scholar Stephen Batchelor notes in an interview with On Being ’ s Krista Tippett .
And one of the most robust findings in social science , according to economist Robert Frank at Cornell , is the research on how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an annual ( individual ) income of $ 75,000 .
Some of our least effective consumption occurs in the form of self-soothing habits .
When we ’ re feeling bad , or anxious , or bored , we often seek relief in impulsive shopping , a.k.a .
retail therapy .
What longer-lasting reliefs beat fleeting fun ?
You may have experienced part of the answer in these Covid-constrained conditions .
For many , an activity as simple as a walk has been their day ’ s treat .
That ’ s especially true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your walk , where you notice things interesting enough to achieve what Iris Murdoch called “ unselfing ” — taking you out of your self-centered anxieties , even if only temporarily .
( Here ’ s some background on this idea from Maria Popova . )
These spirit-supporting pleasures typically take more effort than reaching for “ junk ” treats ( like a quick online purchase ) .
But , in addition to being more satisfying , they often lack negative knock-on effects , like putting more carbon into the atmosphere .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you — it is our collective legacy to our children and all future humans .
Hopefully , Covid-19 can teach us to pay attention to planetary boundaries and other collective threats we ’ ve long ignored .
On climate , we should wake up to the intergenerational zero-sum game we are playing , where the carbon-generating and resource-depleting consumption we indulge in now compromises the safety of future humans .
Every physical resource is limited , or is renewable within certain limits .
And this logic means there is no “ green growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the approach known as “ degrowth.
” Even before Covid-19 , a fundamental restructuring of the economy was very clearly needed to right the gaping inequities , the shockingly lopsided accumulation — nay , hoarding — of wealth .
The factors that led to that are only being exacerbated by Covid-19 .
But as we recover from the pandemic , richer countries and citizens have a tremendous opportunity to remold under another paradigm .
Degrowth , as the economic anthropologist Jason Hickel puts it , is about rich countries “ actively scaling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On a recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast , he clarified : “ When people hear ‘ degrowth , ’ they think that sounds like a recession .
But here ’ s the thing ... a recession is what happens when a growth-oriented economy stops growing .
It ’ s a disaster .
People lose their jobs .
They lose their houses .
Poverty rates rise , etc .
‘ Degrowth ’ is calling for a shift to a fundamentally different kind of economy altogether.
” As Wiedmann , Steinberger , and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ downscaled steady-state economic system that is socially just and in balance with ecological limits.
” Taking advantage of this opportunity also requires going beyond a focus on carbon emissions .
Clean energy , for example , won ’ t deliver a sustainable economy by itself .
It ’ s about our resource use more broadly .
( Even preexisting sweeping proposals like the Green New Deal often don ’ t address material limits . )
As Hickel wrote in June in Foreign Policy : The outer limit works out to be about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The current US average is 35 metric tons , with those toward the top of the income scale consuming vastly more .
This means there is no avoiding the urgent need for deep cuts in energy and material use in rich nations , especially among those countries ’ richest citizens .
Since we may not be able to remove much of the carbon that has already been emitted , or return the materials that have already been extracted , it ’ s best now to adopt a forward-looking redemption stance .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on out , rather than prosecuting past “ sins , ” often committed unwittingly , or by rich-mimicking rather than explicit choice .
And that means choosing not to mindlessly add more grains of sand to the scale .
There are green shoots visible of the vast changes needed .
China committed Tuesday to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and peak its emissions by 2030 .
Night trains are coming back in Europe partially in response to people demanding low-carbon alternatives to flying .
A group of European central bankers wrote in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offers a unique chance to green the global economy ” and is mobilizing businesses , investors , banks , and governments “ to ensure climate risks are effectively managed in the financial system.
” You , too , can bank on bettering your personal economy by creating a new normal of mindful consumption and making it visible to others in the affluent class , as Steinberger advises .
You ’ ll be a better , and probably happier , person .
And other humans , including your kids , will thank you .

If 2020 teaches us anything, it’s that the next crisis we could have prevented is probably right around the corner, and it will be painful. A pandemic that scientists warned was very likely to occur arrived and has already killed well over 250,000 people in the US. Dozens of predicted, large wildfires — the latest evidence of the climate emergency — recentlu torched the American West, their smoke more damaging to health than almost any fire season on record.
But it’s not too late to intervene and limit climate chaos.
A June paper in Nature Communications clarifies whose actions in this moment are “central to any future prospect of retreating to safer environmental conditions.” Yes, government and industry leaders are on the hook to decarbonize operations and infrastructure. But it’s also the affluent who use far more resources than the poor — more energy and more material goods per capita than the planet can sustain.
“Highly affluent consumers drive biophysical resource use (a) directly through high consumption, (b) as members of powerful factions of the capitalist class and (c) through driving consumption norms across the population,” the authors write.
The rich or merely affluent, it turns out, are actually the ones blowing through the world’s carbon budget — the maximum amount of cumulative emissions that can be added to the atmosphere to hit the Paris agreement’s 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming goal.
According to a September report from Oxfam and the Stockholm Environment Institute, the richest 10 percent of the world’s population — those who earned $38,000 per year or more as of 2015 — were responsible for 52 percent of cumulative carbon emissions and ate up 31 percent of the world’s carbon budget from 1990 to 2015.
Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent of people — who made $109,000 or more per year in 2015 — alone were responsible for 15 percent of cumulative emissions, and used 9 percent of the carbon budget.
The rapidly accelerating growth in total emissions worldwide isn’t mainly about an improvement in quality of life for the poorer half of the world’s population, either. Instead, the report finds, “nearly half the growth has merely allowed the already wealthy top 10 percent to augment their consumption and enlarge their carbon footprints.” Another recent study found that affluent frequent fliers who make up just 1 percent of the global population are responsible for 50 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from commercial aviation.
In sum, as Tim Gore, head of climate policy at Oxfam, said in a statement, “The over-consumption of a wealthy minority is fueling the climate crisis yet it is poor communities and young people who are paying the price.”
Related Why rich people use so much more energy
Somehow, in all the campaigns to inspire climate action, the onus on well-off people to take the lead on sustainable consumption has been lost. But the Covid-19 pandemic may turn out to be the best opportunity — especially for the affluent among us — to shift consumption habits.
Here’s why: When we cut back on energy-intensive travel and shopping in the spring, it was easier to see the mindlessness, and even lack of satisfaction, in these patterns. For some people, “the Covid-19 crisis has shown that maybe we can do things differently, that a simpler life can be more fulfilling and provide more happiness,” says Tommy Wiedmann, a professor of sustainability research at UNSW Sydney and a co-author of the Nature Communications paper.
Permanently reducing air travel, driving, home energy use, food waste, and shopping to protect our kids and grandkids from climate chaos need not lead to any reduction in quality of life. In fact, it may even go a long way toward improving it (for ourselves and others). As Vox’s Sigal Samuel reported in June, the top change readers she surveyed said they wanted to maintain after quarantine was “reducing consumerism.” “A long period of being shut in and not spending as much has led to the realization that so much of our consumer behavior is about instant gratification, not lasting happiness,” she writes.
We can also use lessons from our new Covid-constrained life for further economic reforms tailored to the climate emergency reality we find ourselves in. As Pope Francis put it in a Saturday speech on climate change, “The current economic system is unsustainable. We are faced with a moral imperative ... to rethink many things,” including means of production, consumerism, waste, indifference to the poor, and harmful energy sources, according to Reuters.
In particular, degrowth is a promising framework for meeting basic needs and improving well-being while staying within the carbon budget and planetary boundaries.
While individual contributions to climate change may be dwarfed by the contributions of fossil fuel companies and heavy industry, individual changes can also spread by “behavioral contagion,” social tipping points, and positive feedback loops.
Here we’ll lay out some of the key opportunities for fellow fortunates who have the economic freedom to choose how and what they consume. Individual, grassroots changes are essential to a bigger systemic change; personal growth and flourishing can happen through resource degrowth.
Yes, individual choices matter, especially if you’re affluent
From a global perspective, middle-class Americans are in the top 10 percent income-wise. “A $59,000 income in the United States has enough buying power to put you in the 91st percentile globally for per-person income,” according to the Washington Post. And beyond that, our fellow fortunates all have “optional consumption” that we engage in, often unreflectively.
Given that leverage, every energy reduction we can make is a gift to future humans, and all life on Earth. And we should be on guard for excuses to avoid changing individual consumption behaviors; they’re often based on logical, arithmetic, and moral errors.
For instance, affluent people sometimes argue that their consumption choices don’t matter because they’re just one person on a planet of more than 7 billion. But consider the physics of tipping points using an analogy from a 2019 piece we wrote, “12 excuses for climate inaction and how to refute,” which helps explain why our decisions today are so much more critical than they were a decade ago — or even this time last year.
A useful image here is a pile of sand on one side of a weighing scale; at or near the tipping point, it’s easy to see that every tiny grain of sand contributes to when that side of the scale ultimately falls. Your seemingly tiny contribution — the optional flight, the round-the-clock air conditioning, the thrice-weekly portion of beef — can, arithmetically, add up to make a critical difference. And “the bigger your carbon footprint, the bigger your moral duty,” Greta Thunberg said in her widely cited 2019 speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Where the weighing scale image fails is that there isn’t just one tipping point or one single outcome, but rather a spectrum. The fewer greenhouse gases we emit, the nearer to the safer end of the spectrum we can stay, and the less climate chaos we will create.
We usually have options where we can choose to have more or less climate impact. Every time we choose more and not less, we’re imposing compounding burdens on others and on our descendants. Our choices will determine whether the future is “merely grim, rather than apocalyptic,” as New York’s David Wallace-Wells writes in his book The Uninhabitable Earth.
Restrained consumption is also a way to prevent the deepening of racial and economic injustice and inequality — low-income people and people of color are among the first to lose the most in climate disasters. Working toward justice means being a resource-responsible consumer.
“I think it is important for people to say that they will not do certain types of consumption anymore,” Julia Steinberger, a professor of ecological economics at the University of Leeds and a co-author of the Nature Communications paper, tells Vox. “It’s about making this way of life more visibly unacceptable. The rich could show their status and prestige with other things than lots of cars and huge houses and lots of material wealth.”
With all this in mind, here are five potential resource-responsible actions to commit to, in no particular order:
Drive and fly less, since the top 10 percent uses around 45 percent of land transport energy and 75 percent of air transport energy, per a 2020 paper by Steinberger in Nature Energy. Retrofit your house and purchase clean energy, since roughly 20 percent of US energy-related greenhouse gas emissions come from heating, cooling, and powering households. Buy food mindfully (less meat and dairy, don’t waste what you buy), since meat and dairy account for around 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization. Shop less, since the fashion industry generates at least 5 percent of global emissions. Ditch status-signaling SUVs, since SUVs were the second-largest source of the global rise in emissions over the past decade, eclipsing all shipping, aviation, heavy industry, and even trucks.
The pleasures of much of our consumption are fast forgotten, but the costs are slow and will be felt by generations for centuries to come
Despite what consumption enthusiasts and their enablers (marketers, economists, etc.) preach, the benefits and pleasures of much of our consumption are fleeting. Many of us have an inkling of this from our own experience, but we’re trapped on the treadmill of unthinking hedonic habits.
That enduring lack of true satisfaction is confirmed by much ancient wisdom: Enlightenment, or Nirvana, is the “ the absence of greed, absence of dislike, and absence of egoism,” as the Buddhist writer and scholar Stephen Batchelor notes in an interview with On Being’s Krista Tippett. And one of the most robust findings in social science, according to economist Robert Frank at Cornell, is the research on how emotional well-being doesn’t improve above an annual (individual) income of $75,000.
Things that don’t matter right now:
- Clothes
- Shoes
- Watches
- Jewelry
- Cars
What’s the new status symbol during a lockdown? — Andrew Wilkinson (@awilkinson) April 3, 2020
Some of our least effective consumption occurs in the form of self-soothing habits. When we’re feeling bad, or anxious, or bored, we often seek relief in impulsive shopping, a.k.a. retail therapy.
What longer-lasting reliefs beat fleeting fun? You may have experienced part of the answer in these Covid-constrained conditions. For many, an activity as simple as a walk has been their day’s treat.
That’s especially true if you find beauty or curiosity on your walk, where you notice things interesting enough to achieve what Iris Murdoch called “unselfing” — taking you out of your self-centered anxieties, even if only temporarily. (Here’s some background on this idea from Maria Popova.)
These spirit-supporting pleasures typically take more effort than reaching for “junk” treats (like a quick online purchase). But, in addition to being more satisfying, they often lack negative knock-on effects, like putting more carbon into the atmosphere. This carbon cost isn’t just about you — it is our collective legacy to our children and all future humans.
Hopefully, Covid-19 can teach us to pay attention to planetary boundaries and other collective threats we’ve long ignored. On climate, we should wake up to the intergenerational zero-sum game we are playing, where the carbon-generating and resource-depleting consumption we indulge in now compromises the safety of future humans.
Every physical resource is limited, or is renewable within certain limits. And this logic means there is no “green growth” solution here unless we reduce consumption: the approach known as “degrowth.”
Degrowth, explained
Even before Covid-19, a fundamental restructuring of the economy was very clearly needed to right the gaping inequities, the shockingly lopsided accumulation — nay, hoarding — of wealth. The factors that led to that are only being exacerbated by Covid-19. But as we recover from the pandemic, richer countries and citizens have a tremendous opportunity to remold under another paradigm.
Degrowth, as the economic anthropologist Jason Hickel puts it, is about rich countries “actively scaling down resource use and energy use.”
On a recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast, he clarified: “When people hear ‘degrowth,’ they think that sounds like a recession. But here’s the thing ... a recession is what happens when a growth-oriented economy stops growing. It’s a disaster. People lose their jobs. They lose their houses. Poverty rates rise, etc. ‘Degrowth’ is calling for a shift to a fundamentally different kind of economy altogether.”
As Wiedmann, Steinberger, and their co-authors describe it, degrowth is a “downscaled steady-state economic system that is socially just and in balance with ecological limits.”
Taking advantage of this opportunity also requires going beyond a focus on carbon emissions. Clean energy, for example, won’t deliver a sustainable economy by itself. It’s about our resource use more broadly. (Even preexisting sweeping proposals like the Green New Deal often don’t address material limits.)
As Hickel wrote in June in Foreign Policy:
Ecologists say that the planet can handle maximum annual resource use of about 50 billion metric tons per year. We crossed that planetary boundary in the late 1990s, and today we’re overshooting it by more than 90 percent. This is what’s driving ecological breakdown: Every additional ton of material extraction has an impact on the planet’s ecosystems.
The outer limit works out to be about 6 metric tons per human per year. The current US average is 35 metric tons, with those toward the top of the income scale consuming vastly more. This means there is no avoiding the urgent need for deep cuts in energy and material use in rich nations, especially among those countries’ richest citizens.
Since we may not be able to remove much of the carbon that has already been emitted, or return the materials that have already been extracted, it’s best now to adopt a forward-looking redemption stance. What matters most is reducing impacts from here on out, rather than prosecuting past “sins,” often committed unwittingly, or by rich-mimicking rather than explicit choice. And that means choosing not to mindlessly add more grains of sand to the scale.
Related Social tipping points are the only hope for the climate
There are green shoots visible of the vast changes needed. China committed Tuesday to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and peak its emissions by 2030. Night trains are coming back in Europe partially in response to people demanding low-carbon alternatives to flying. A group of European central bankers wrote in the Guardian in June that “the pandemic offers a unique chance to green the global economy” and is mobilizing businesses, investors, banks, and governments “to ensure climate risks are effectively managed in the financial system.”
You, too, can bank on bettering your personal economy by creating a new normal of mindful consumption and making it visible to others in the affluent class, as Steinberger advises. You’ll be a better, and probably happier, person. And other humans, including your kids, will thank you.


vox--2020-11-20--Pfizer and BioNTech have applied for emergency approval for their Covid-19 vaccine

Just last week , Pfizer and BioNTech revealed that their experimental Covid-19 vaccine , called BNT162b2 , was at least 90 percent effective in an early analysis .
On Wednesday , the pharmaceutical and biotech companies reported that their vaccine was even more effective after it cleared more clinical trial benchmarks for safety and efficacy .
And on Friday , they said they are requesting an emergency use authorization ( EUA ) from the Food and Drug Administration .
If granted an EUA , the BNT162b2 vaccine could be administered to certain high-risk groups in the United States — most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-December .
Pfizer and BioNTech are filing for similar approvals in other countries as well .
“ Filing for Emergency Use Authorization in the US is a critical step in making our vaccine candidate available to the global population as quickly as possible , ” said Ugur Sahin , CEO and cofounder of BioNTech , in a statement .
The companies are confident in their vaccine after showing strong results from their phase 3 clinical trial : Out of 170 Covid-19 cases , eight people that received the vaccine got Covid-19 versus 162 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 95 percent .
They also say there are no “ serious safety concerns related to the vaccine.
” A competitor , the vaccine developer Moderna , also recently reported that its vaccine was 94.5 percent effective in an early analysis .
It ’ s worth pausing to reflect on where we are : At the one-year anniversary of the first detection in China of the SARS-CoV-2 virus , the pathogen that causes Covid-19 , there are now two highly effective vaccine candidates developed at a record pace , both using mRNA , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before been approved for use in humans .
The announcements are a breathtaking feat of science , international collaboration , and public investment .
“ The study results mark an important step in this historic eight-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic , ” said Albert Bourla , Pfizer chair and CEO , in a statement .
But there are concerns as well .
Pfizer and BioNTech ’ s announcement of its efficacy results came , for the second time , in a press release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the companies revealed far more about the demographics of their clinical trial than in their first report .
BNT162b2 also has some of the most stringent cold storage requirements of any vaccine , demanding temperatures of minus 70 degrees Celsius ( minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit ) or lower , which may make widespread distribution challenging .
The vaccine is also administered in two doses spaced several weeks apart .
That adds a huge logistical burden to rolling it out .
That the clinical trial racked up so many Covid-19 cases among its volunteers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of just how fast the disease is spreading right now .
And it will likely take months before any Covid-19 vaccine gets full FDA approval , which would allow the general public to have access to it .
Even then , immunizing millions of people in the US against Covid-19 would be an endeavor unprecedented in its speed and scale .
So getting an EUA is just one step toward ending the pandemic .
Pfizer and BioNTech say their Covid-19 vaccine was safe and effective across a diverse pool of volunteers Pfizer and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far is still preliminary , but it likely received validation from its Data Safety Monitoring Board ( DSMB ) .
This is an independent group of scientists that serves as an intermediary between the pharmaceutical companies and the clinical trial participants to ensure that there is no meddling in the trial .
The DSMB meets with the companies at regular intervals to go over their observations of the trial .
The fact that Pfizer and BioNTech were able to make this announcement likely means the committee reported this information to them during an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Data Monitoring Committee for the study has not reported any serious safety concerns related to the vaccine , ” the companies reported in their press release .
In a separate trial of 8,000 participants , Pfizer and BioNTech reported that the only severe side effects they found that occurred in more than 2 percent of volunteers were fatigue , observed in 3.8 percent of participants , and headache , observed in 2 percent .
Surprisingly , the companies found that older adults reported fewer and milder side effects .
The trial also recruited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how well the vaccine would work among different populations .
About 30 percent of US trial participants came from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds , and 45 percent were between the ages of 56 and 85 .
“ Efficacy was consistent across age , gender , race and ethnicity demographics , ” the companies reported .
What emergency use authorization means for a Covid-19 vaccine During a public health crisis , the FDA can grant an EUA to allow unapproved medical products to treat or prevent serious diseases when there are no adequate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an EUA is lower than it is for full approval of licensure .
In general , the treatment in question has to have a likely benefit , whereas approval demands evidence of a proven benefit .
However , it ’ s not just about efficacy .
A vaccine has the additional hurdle of a much higher bar for safety than conventional drugs .
Since a vaccine has to be distributed to millions of people , including those who are healthy and those who have preexisting conditions , the rate of complications has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approval and an EUA .
“ The thing people need to keep in mind is the safety data .
Do we have enough data on safety at this point that we can go forward with the EUA ?
” said Jose Romero , chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices ( ACIP ) , an independent group of health experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines .
“ I think the FDA , ACIP , and all of the pharmaceutical companies have said over and over again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward with full licensure or an EUA for vaccines.
” The burden of approving a Covid-19 vaccine isn ’ t just on the companies .
The FDA also has to be transparent about how it is making decisions .
This is especially important given that public mistrust of a vaccine could be a major hurdle in the effort to contain the Covid-19 pandemic in the US .
Some experts are worried that the FDA damaged its credibility this year with its decisions to grant EUAs to treatments like hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been driven by political pressure from the White House .
Some researchers have also criticized the FDA ’ s full approval of the antiviral drug remdesivir .
These decisions have sown doubt about the FDA ’ s decision-making , and the agency will have to go out of its way to rebuild fragile trust with the public to roll out a vaccine .
How do we decide who gets a Covid-19 vaccine first ?
Once an EUA is granted , the Covid-19 vaccine can start to be administered to people outside of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nurses , first responders , medical cleaning staff — are the top priority .
“ They ’ re certainly high on the list , ” Romero said .
Then the vaccine would be targeted at people who are likely to suffer severe complications from Covid-19 , such as people over the age of 65 with other underlying health conditions .
However , there are 18 million health workers in the US alone .
There are almost 50 million Americans over the age of 65 .
More than 10 million Americans are immunocompromised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adults have diabetes or prediabetes .
Pfizer and BioNTech said they only expect to have 50 million vaccine doses around the world by the end of the year .
And remember , this is a two-dose vaccine , so 50 million doses will only protect 25 million people .
That means there won ’ t be enough to go around , even for people at high risk .
The companies do expect to have 1.3 billion doses ready in 2021 .
ACIP is now putting together its recommendations for how to prioritize people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they will also have to consider that there will likely be multiple vaccines on the market shortly .
A dozen Covid-19 vaccine candidates are already in phase 3 trials , each with their own unique traits and caveats .
“ It ’ s a little silly to think that all vaccines are going to be ranked the same , because they ’ ll have different characteristics , ” Romero said .
“ Some vaccines may be better in younger populations ; some may be better in older populations.
” The advisory committee will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the minus 70 degree Celsius storage requirements of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine .
“ Those are going to be very important and impact significantly the logistics of getting these vaccines out and into the arms of recipients , ” Romero said .
“ It ’ s hard to imagine how you ’ re going to set up a system to deliver a vaccine that requires storage at minus 70 [ Celsius ] into the widespread community.
” It ’ s likely , then , that the BNT162b2 vaccine will be reserved at the outset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in and around facilities that have the ultra-cold storage systems for this vaccine , or those who are near facilities that are equipped to distribute it .
For those in far-flung regions or people who don ’ t have sophisticated $ 10,000 freezers nearby , a vaccine with easier storage requirements may be recommended .
Moderna ’ s vaccine , for example , only needs long-term storage at minus 20 degrees Celsius ( minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit ) and is stable for 30 days between 2°C and 8°C ( 36°F to 46°F ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a solution for getting their vaccine to places without ultra-cold freezers .
“ The companies have developed specially designed , temperature-controlled thermal shippers utilizing dry ice to maintain temperature conditions of -70°C±10°C , ” according to their press release .
“ They can be used be as temporary storage units for 15 days by refilling with dry ice .
Each shipper contains a GPS-enabled thermal sensor to track the location and temperature of each vaccine shipment across their pre-set routes leveraging Pfizer ’ s broad distribution network.
” However , even with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assembly lines cranking out millions of vaccine vials , developers like Pfizer and BioNTech will still have to keep an eye on the people who received the vaccine to ensure there aren ’ t any super-rare complications that could arise .
“ I think it ’ s important for the public to understand that the process doesn ’ t end with approval , ” Romero said .
For their part , Pfizer and BioNTech said they will continue monitoring their clinical trial participants for two years .
As these vaccines gradually roll out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up measures to limit the spread of the virus : wearing masks , maintaining social distance , keeping up good hygiene .
Until there is widespread vaccination , Covid-19 will remain dangerous and deadly , and the steps taken to mitigate it now will ensure a smoother and more effective campaign to halt the pandemic .

Just last week, Pfizer and BioNTech revealed that their experimental Covid-19 vaccine, called BNT162b2, was at least 90 percent effective in an early analysis. On Wednesday, the pharmaceutical and biotech companies reported that their vaccine was even more effective after it cleared more clinical trial benchmarks for safety and efficacy. And on Friday, they said they are requesting an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration.
If granted an EUA, the BNT162b2 vaccine could be administered to certain high-risk groups in the United States — most likely health workers — as soon as mid-December. Pfizer and BioNTech are filing for similar approvals in other countries as well.
“Filing for Emergency Use Authorization in the US is a critical step in making our vaccine candidate available to the global population as quickly as possible,” said Ugur Sahin, CEO and cofounder of BioNTech, in a statement.
The companies are confident in their vaccine after showing strong results from their phase 3 clinical trial: Out of 170 Covid-19 cases, eight people that received the vaccine got Covid-19 versus 162 in the placebo group, an efficacy of 95 percent. They also say there are no “serious safety concerns related to the vaccine.”
Game change. This is a great day for patients as Pfizer (where I serve on the BoD) announces final top line results from the phase 3 trial with its Covid-19 vaccine. We should now have two vaccines that could effectively end the U.S. epidemic next year if everything goes right. https://t.co/ieQwYywD97 — Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) November 18, 2020
A competitor, the vaccine developer Moderna, also recently reported that its vaccine was 94.5 percent effective in an early analysis.
It’s worth pausing to reflect on where we are: At the one-year anniversary of the first detection in China of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the pathogen that causes Covid-19, there are now two highly effective vaccine candidates developed at a record pace, both using mRNA, a new vaccine technology that has never before been approved for use in humans.
The announcements are a breathtaking feat of science, international collaboration, and public investment. “The study results mark an important step in this historic eight-month journey to bring forward a vaccine capable of helping to end this devastating pandemic,” said Albert Bourla, Pfizer chair and CEO, in a statement.
But there are concerns as well. Pfizer and BioNTech’s announcement of its efficacy results came, for the second time, in a press release instead of a peer-reviewed paper, although the companies revealed far more about the demographics of their clinical trial than in their first report. BNT162b2 also has some of the most stringent cold storage requirements of any vaccine, demanding temperatures of minus 70 degrees Celsius (minus 94 degrees Fahrenheit) or lower, which may make widespread distribution challenging. The vaccine is also administered in two doses spaced several weeks apart. That adds a huge logistical burden to rolling it out.
That the clinical trial racked up so many Covid-19 cases among its volunteers so quickly is also a grim reminder of just how fast the disease is spreading right now.
And it will likely take months before any Covid-19 vaccine gets full FDA approval, which would allow the general public to have access to it. Even then, immunizing millions of people in the US against Covid-19 would be an endeavor unprecedented in its speed and scale. So getting an EUA is just one step toward ending the pandemic.
Pfizer and BioNTech say their Covid-19 vaccine was safe and effective across a diverse pool of volunteers
Pfizer and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccine data so far is still preliminary, but it likely received validation from its Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). This is an independent group of scientists that serves as an intermediary between the pharmaceutical companies and the clinical trial participants to ensure that there is no meddling in the trial. The DSMB meets with the companies at regular intervals to go over their observations of the trial. The fact that Pfizer and BioNTech were able to make this announcement likely means the committee reported this information to them during an analysis.
“To date, the Data Monitoring Committee for the study has not reported any serious safety concerns related to the vaccine,” the companies reported in their press release. In a separate trial of 8,000 participants, Pfizer and BioNTech reported that the only severe side effects they found that occurred in more than 2 percent of volunteers were fatigue, observed in 3.8 percent of participants, and headache, observed in 2 percent. Surprisingly, the companies found that older adults reported fewer and milder side effects.
The trial also recruited a diverse pool of volunteers to see how well the vaccine would work among different populations. About 30 percent of US trial participants came from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, and 45 percent were between the ages of 56 and 85. “Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics,” the companies reported.
What emergency use authorization means for a Covid-19 vaccine
During a public health crisis, the FDA can grant an EUA to allow unapproved medical products to treat or prevent serious diseases when there are no adequate alternatives on the market.
The benchmark for an EUA is lower than it is for full approval of licensure. In general, the treatment in question has to have a likely benefit, whereas approval demands evidence of a proven benefit.
However, it’s not just about efficacy. A vaccine has the additional hurdle of a much higher bar for safety than conventional drugs. Since a vaccine has to be distributed to millions of people, including those who are healthy and those who have preexisting conditions, the rate of complications has to be extremely low for both full approval and an EUA.
“The thing people need to keep in mind is the safety data. Do we have enough data on safety at this point that we can go forward with the EUA?” said Jose Romero, chair of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), an independent group of health experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines. “I think the FDA, ACIP, and all of the pharmaceutical companies have said over and over again that safety is paramount as they move forward with full licensure or an EUA for vaccines.”
The burden of approving a Covid-19 vaccine isn’t just on the companies. The FDA also has to be transparent about how it is making decisions. This is especially important given that public mistrust of a vaccine could be a major hurdle in the effort to contain the Covid-19 pandemic in the US.
Some experts are worried that the FDA damaged its credibility this year with its decisions to grant EUAs to treatments like hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma based on weak data, which may have been driven by political pressure from the White House. Some researchers have also criticized the FDA’s full approval of the antiviral drug remdesivir. These decisions have sown doubt about the FDA’s decision-making, and the agency will have to go out of its way to rebuild fragile trust with the public to roll out a vaccine.
How do we decide who gets a Covid-19 vaccine first?
Once an EUA is granted, the Covid-19 vaccine can start to be administered to people outside of the clinical trial. Health workers — doctors, nurses, first responders, medical cleaning staff — are the top priority. “They’re certainly high on the list,” Romero said.
Then the vaccine would be targeted at people who are likely to suffer severe complications from Covid-19, such as people over the age of 65 with other underlying health conditions.
However, there are 18 million health workers in the US alone. There are almost 50 million Americans over the age of 65. More than 10 million Americans are immunocompromised, and more than 100 million US adults have diabetes or prediabetes.
Pfizer and BioNTech said they only expect to have 50 million vaccine doses around the world by the end of the year. And remember, this is a two-dose vaccine, so 50 million doses will only protect 25 million people. That means there won’t be enough to go around, even for people at high risk. The companies do expect to have 1.3 billion doses ready in 2021.
ACIP is now putting together its recommendations for how to prioritize people for Covid-19 vaccination. But Romero explained they will also have to consider that there will likely be multiple vaccines on the market shortly. A dozen Covid-19 vaccine candidates are already in phase 3 trials, each with their own unique traits and caveats.
“It’s a little silly to think that all vaccines are going to be ranked the same, because they’ll have different characteristics,” Romero said. “Some vaccines may be better in younger populations; some may be better in older populations.”
The advisory committee will also have to weigh practicality, including the minus 70 degree Celsius storage requirements of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. “Those are going to be very important and impact significantly the logistics of getting these vaccines out and into the arms of recipients,” Romero said. “It’s hard to imagine how you’re going to set up a system to deliver a vaccine that requires storage at minus 70 [Celsius] into the widespread community.”
It’s likely, then, that the BNT162b2 vaccine will be reserved at the outset for health workers who are already working in and around facilities that have the ultra-cold storage systems for this vaccine, or those who are near facilities that are equipped to distribute it. For those in far-flung regions or people who don’t have sophisticated $10,000 freezers nearby, a vaccine with easier storage requirements may be recommended. Moderna’s vaccine, for example, only needs long-term storage at minus 20 degrees Celsius (minus 4 degrees Fahrenheit) and is stable for 30 days between 2°C and 8°C (36°F to 46°F).
Pfizer and BioNTech say they do have a solution for getting their vaccine to places without ultra-cold freezers. “The companies have developed specially designed, temperature-controlled thermal shippers utilizing dry ice to maintain temperature conditions of -70°C±10°C,” according to their press release. “They can be used be as temporary storage units for 15 days by refilling with dry ice. Each shipper contains a GPS-enabled thermal sensor to track the location and temperature of each vaccine shipment across their pre-set routes leveraging Pfizer’s broad distribution network.”
However, even with a green light from the FDA and assembly lines cranking out millions of vaccine vials, developers like Pfizer and BioNTech will still have to keep an eye on the people who received the vaccine to ensure there aren’t any super-rare complications that could arise. “I think it’s important for the public to understand that the process doesn’t end with approval,” Romero said.
For their part, Pfizer and BioNTech said they will continue monitoring their clinical trial participants for two years.
As these vaccines gradually roll out, people will still have to keep up measures to limit the spread of the virus: wearing masks, maintaining social distance, keeping up good hygiene. Until there is widespread vaccination, Covid-19 will remain dangerous and deadly, and the steps taken to mitigate it now will ensure a smoother and more effective campaign to halt the pandemic.


vox--2020-11-19--BuzzFeed’s Jonah Peretti on why he bought HuffPost and why the New York Times can’t be “the paper of

BuzzFeed’s Jonah Peretti on why he bought HuffPost and why the New York Times can’t be “the paper of record”

Jonah Peretti co-founded the Huffington Post , then left to start BuzzFeed .
Now he ’ s running both companies : BuzzFeed is picking up HuffPost from Verizon , the phone company that thought it wanted to be in the media business and then changed its mind .
I talked to Peretti about the rationale for the deal ( scale , scale , scale ) , whether he can guarantee that all HuffPost employees will keep their jobs ( no ) , how much Verizon paid him to take HuffPost off its hands ( he won ’ t say ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more stuff ( yes , probably ) .
You can hear all of that in our Recode Media podcast .
But I was struck by something we talked about at the end of our chat when I asked him about the success of the New York Times , which has been thriving over the last few years , while BuzzFeed , like many digital media companies , has had to retrench .
The irony , as Peretti is well aware , is that in 2014 , the Times ’ s leadership was terrified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surpassed by the likes of ... BuzzFeed and HuffPost .
The paper created a 96-page “ innovation report ” to help it fight back .
The Times , Peretti allowed , has since refined a very good subscription business model , which has allowed it to make better journalism by hiring more and better talent .
This is not a controversial opinion .
But the next part may be : The New York Times , Peretti argued , can ’ t really be called “ the paper of record ” anymore — because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A subscription business model leads towards being a paper for a particular group and a particular audience and not for the broadest public , ” Peretti said .
He ’ s alluding , in part , to the theory that the Times ’ s subscriber base wants to read a certain kind of news and opinion — middle/left of center , critical of Donald Trump , etc .
— and that straying from that can cost it subscribers .
But he ’ s also simply arguing that the act of requiring readers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a big audience .
Peretti ’ s solution to that problem , it turns out , sounds a whole lot like a combined BuzzFeed/HuffPost — publications that are widely distributed , supported by advertising , and free* : “ Will a subscription newspaper that is read by a subset of society have as big an impact as it could on voters , on the broad public , on young people , on the more diverse rising generation of millennials and Gen Z ?
” he argued .
“ I think there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumers .
And not all of them are going to be subscribers to any publication.
” I can ’ t argue with Peretti on one front : The Times , with 7 million subscribers and an ambition to get to 10 million , soon , certainly isn ’ t reaching everyone .
And there ’ s a dangerous gap between the people with the time , money , and inclination to inform themselves with the Times and everyone else .
And if he wants to fill it with free news from his newly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
He most certainly won ’ t fix the problem alone .
But if along the way he makes more good journalism available to more people , I ’ ll applaud it .
* Both publications do invite their readers to support them with donations ( as does Vox.com ) but don ’ t require payment to read or consume any of the work they produce .

Jonah Peretti co-founded the Huffington Post, then left to start BuzzFeed. Now he’s running both companies: BuzzFeed is picking up HuffPost from Verizon, the phone company that thought it wanted to be in the media business and then changed its mind.
I talked to Peretti about the rationale for the deal (scale, scale, scale), whether he can guarantee that all HuffPost employees will keep their jobs (no), how much Verizon paid him to take HuffPost off its hands (he won’t say), and whether he wants to buy more stuff (yes, probably). You can hear all of that in our Recode Media podcast.
But I was struck by something we talked about at the end of our chat when I asked him about the success of the New York Times, which has been thriving over the last few years, while BuzzFeed, like many digital media companies, has had to retrench.
The irony, as Peretti is well aware, is that in 2014, the Times’s leadership was terrified that the paper was about to be surpassed by the likes of ... BuzzFeed and HuffPost. The paper created a 96-page “innovation report” to help it fight back.
The Times, Peretti allowed, has since refined a very good subscription business model, which has allowed it to make better journalism by hiring more and better talent. This is not a controversial opinion.
But the next part may be: The New York Times, Peretti argued, can’t really be called “the paper of record” anymore — because of that same subscription model.
“A subscription business model leads towards being a paper for a particular group and a particular audience and not for the broadest public,” Peretti said. He’s alluding, in part, to the theory that the Times’s subscriber base wants to read a certain kind of news and opinion — middle/left of center, critical of Donald Trump, etc. — and that straying from that can cost it subscribers. But he’s also simply arguing that the act of requiring readers to pay to read cuts the Times off from a big audience.
Peretti’s solution to that problem, it turns out, sounds a whole lot like a combined BuzzFeed/HuffPost — publications that are widely distributed, supported by advertising, and free*:
“Will a subscription newspaper that is read by a subset of society have as big an impact as it could on voters, on the broad public, on young people, on the more diverse rising generation of millennials and Gen Z?” he argued. “I think there’s a huge opportunity to serve those consumers. And not all of them are going to be subscribers to any publication.”
I can’t argue with Peretti on one front: The Times, with 7 million subscribers and an ambition to get to 10 million, soon, certainly isn’t reaching everyone. And there’s a dangerous gap between the people with the time, money, and inclination to inform themselves with the Times and everyone else. And if he wants to fill it with free news from his newly augmented media empire, I wish him well. He most certainly won’t fix the problem alone. But if along the way he makes more good journalism available to more people, I’ll applaud it.
* Both publications do invite their readers to support them with donations (as does Vox.com) but don’t require payment to read or consume any of the work they produce.


vox--2020-11-19--Alaska voters adopt ranked-choice voting in ballot initiative

In a tight vote that came down to about 4,000 ballots , Alaskans approved a measure to join Maine in conducting their elections using ranked-choice voting by approving the ballot initiative Measure 2 .
Measure 2 makes sweeping changes to how Alaska administers elections .
Instead of two primaries , in which each political party nominates a candidate for the general election in November , the state will hold one open primary from which the top four candidates , regardless of party affiliation , proceed to the general election .
Ranked-choice voting lets voters list the candidates in order of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all Alaskans regardless of their political leaning , ” Shea Siegert , manager of the Yes on 2 for Better Elections campaign , said in a statement Wednesday .
“ We now have an electoral system that lives up to Alaska ’ s independent streak by saying ‘ to hell with politics let ’ s do what is right for Alaska.
’ ” Alaska ’ s outcome was a victory for voting reform campaigners , who have argued that changing how we vote might address hyperpartisanship and polarization while giving third-party candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Opponents have warned it could be a logistical headache , though so far the cities and states that have adopted ranked-choice voting have conducted their elections without major problems .
Massachusetts considered a similar law this November but rejected it .
Ranked-choice voting works like this : Instead of just picking one of the candidates on the ballot , you rank them from most preferred to least preferred .
While it is new in the United States , it has been successfully used for a century in Australia and in Ireland .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose their favorite possible candidate .
Most of the United States has what ’ s called a first-past-the-post electoral system , where the candidate who receives the most votes becomes president .
First-past-the-post systems incentivize strategic voting ( voting not for your favorite candidate but for your preferred candidate with a real shot at victory ) , and they have driven the rise of a two-party system like the one in the US .
And while first-past-the-post voting systems are not the only factor that has led to the two-party system or to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve certainly contributed .
First-past-the-post systems mean third-party candidates rarely win , even if many voters prefer them ; each voter expects that voting for a third party constitutes “ throwing away ” their vote .
Imagine a person were deciding between President Donald Trump , Democratic candidate Joe Biden , Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins , and Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen .
Our hypothetical voter likes both Hawkins and Jorgensen better than Biden but would prefer Biden win than Trump .
Under first-past-the-post voting — the voting system most Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter might feel forced to vote for Biden .
Under ranked-choice voting , they would list ( for example ) Hawkins first , Jorgensen second , Biden third , and Trump fourth .
When ballots are counted , the ballot counters will eliminate the candidate with the fewest first-place votes and “ move ” their vote to their second-place candidate .
You can see how it works on this ballot from Maine , which conducted the first-ever general statewide election with ranked-choice voting this November .
As a result , third-party candidates get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel like they ’ re throwing their vote away by supporting them .
And the process generally favors candidates whom lots of voters find acceptable over polarizing candidates whom many voters hate .
“ Ranked-choice voting rewards candidates who can appeal most broadly because candidates compete to be voters ’ second and third choices as well as their first , ” voting reform expert Lee Drutman wrote for Vox in 2019 .
Studies find that in areas with ranked-choice voting , campaigns are more civil .
Ranked-choice voting might also increase representation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit when the electoral conditions encourage coalition building .
That ’ s a particularly big deal in Alaska , where independents account for 57 percent of registered voters but hold only three seats in the state legislature .
Another implication of Ballot Measure 2 is that Alaska ’ s moderate Republican senator , Lisa Murkowski , is in less danger of being primaried from the right — which is what happened in 2010 , when a more conservative Republican won the party ’ s nomination , forcing Murkowski to run an unprecedented successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a ranked-choice voting system , Murkowski only needs to be one of the top four candidates in the primary to advance to the general election .
A growing conversation about how we vote Ranked-choice voting is used all over the world , but until two decades ago — when San Francisco adopted it — it was rarely used or discussed in the US .
US election experts , concerned about growing polarization and voter disenchantment , began encouraging other cities and states to adopt it .
It did nicely in San Francisco @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eventually , the movement hit the national stage : In 2018 , Maine became the first state to adopt ranked-choice voting .
In 2019 , New York City signed on as well .
In the 2020 election cycle , presidential candidates Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bennet endorsed it .
These early adopters allow us a window into some important questions about ranked-choice voting .
In particular , critics have worried it will be harder for the election office to tabulate and that it will confuse voters or lead to more spoiled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this year ’ s ranked-choice primaries , and ranked-choice voting works fine in many other countries .
But Maine ’ s high statewide turnout in the 2020 general election represented the system ’ s first time in the spotlight for most Americans .
With both Maine and Alaska now using ranked-choice voting , this method of conducting elections will have a chance to prove that it works — or that it doesn ’ t — in combating the rising tide of polarization .

In a tight vote that came down to about 4,000 ballots, Alaskans approved a measure to join Maine in conducting their elections using ranked-choice voting by approving the ballot initiative Measure 2.
Measure 2 makes sweeping changes to how Alaska administers elections. Instead of two primaries, in which each political party nominates a candidate for the general election in November, the state will hold one open primary from which the top four candidates, regardless of party affiliation, proceed to the general election.
Ranked-choice voting lets voters list the candidates in order of preference.
“This is a victory for all Alaskans regardless of their political leaning,” Shea Siegert, manager of the Yes on 2 for Better Elections campaign, said in a statement Wednesday. “We now have an electoral system that lives up to Alaska’s independent streak by saying ‘to hell with politics let’s do what is right for Alaska.’”
Alaska’s outcome was a victory for voting reform campaigners, who have argued that changing how we vote might address hyperpartisanship and polarization while giving third-party candidates a better chance at elected office. Opponents have warned it could be a logistical headache, though so far the cities and states that have adopted ranked-choice voting have conducted their elections without major problems. Massachusetts considered a similar law this November but rejected it.
Ranked-choice voting works like this: Instead of just picking one of the candidates on the ballot, you rank them from most preferred to least preferred. While it is new in the United States, it has been successfully used for a century in Australia and in Ireland.
The idea is that this allows voters to choose their favorite possible candidate. Most of the United States has what’s called a first-past-the-post electoral system, where the candidate who receives the most votes becomes president. First-past-the-post systems incentivize strategic voting (voting not for your favorite candidate but for your preferred candidate with a real shot at victory), and they have driven the rise of a two-party system like the one in the US.
And while first-past-the-post voting systems are not the only factor that has led to the two-party system or to the increasing polarization of America, they’ve certainly contributed. First-past-the-post systems mean third-party candidates rarely win, even if many voters prefer them; each voter expects that voting for a third party constitutes “throwing away” their vote.
Imagine a person were deciding between President Donald Trump, Democratic candidate Joe Biden, Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, and Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen. Our hypothetical voter likes both Hawkins and Jorgensen better than Biden but would prefer Biden win than Trump.
Under first-past-the-post voting — the voting system most Americans voted with this election — our hypothetical voter might feel forced to vote for Biden. Under ranked-choice voting, they would list (for example) Hawkins first, Jorgensen second, Biden third, and Trump fourth. When ballots are counted, the ballot counters will eliminate the candidate with the fewest first-place votes and “move” their vote to their second-place candidate.
You can see how it works on this ballot from Maine, which conducted the first-ever general statewide election with ranked-choice voting this November.
As a result, third-party candidates get more votes because voters don’t feel like they’re throwing their vote away by supporting them. And the process generally favors candidates whom lots of voters find acceptable over polarizing candidates whom many voters hate.
“Ranked-choice voting rewards candidates who can appeal most broadly because candidates compete to be voters’ second and third choices as well as their first,” voting reform expert Lee Drutman wrote for Vox in 2019. Studies find that in areas with ranked-choice voting, campaigns are more civil. Ranked-choice voting might also increase representation of women and minorities, who seem to benefit when the electoral conditions encourage coalition building.
That’s a particularly big deal in Alaska, where independents account for 57 percent of registered voters but hold only three seats in the state legislature.
Another implication of Ballot Measure 2 is that Alaska’s moderate Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, is in less danger of being primaried from the right — which is what happened in 2010, when a more conservative Republican won the party’s nomination, forcing Murkowski to run an unprecedented successful write-in campaign to keep her seat. In a ranked-choice voting system, Murkowski only needs to be one of the top four candidates in the primary to advance to the general election.
A growing conversation about how we vote
Ranked-choice voting is used all over the world, but until two decades ago — when San Francisco adopted it — it was rarely used or discussed in the US.
US election experts, concerned about growing polarization and voter disenchantment, began encouraging other cities and states to adopt it. It did nicely in San Francisco, and other cities signed on. Eventually, the movement hit the national stage: In 2018, Maine became the first state to adopt ranked-choice voting. In 2019, New York City signed on as well. In the 2020 election cycle, presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bennet endorsed it.
These early adopters allow us a window into some important questions about ranked-choice voting. In particular, critics have worried it will be harder for the election office to tabulate and that it will confuse voters or lead to more spoiled ballots.
No such problems were reported in this year’s ranked-choice primaries, and ranked-choice voting works fine in many other countries. But Maine’s high statewide turnout in the 2020 general election represented the system’s first time in the spotlight for most Americans. With both Maine and Alaska now using ranked-choice voting, this method of conducting elections will have a chance to prove that it works — or that it doesn’t — in combating the rising tide of polarization.