![](https://img.semafor.com/257f107f16caf77ecfc16caa1585fefe44ae3807-1917x772.jpg?w=1140&h=459&q=95&auto=format) A long-awaited breakthrough Edward Jenner created the first vaccine, for smallpox, in 1796. The malaria parasite was identified in 1880. Why did it take another 141 years for those two breakthroughs to come together with a vaccine for malaria, despite the disease killing 600,000 people a year? The researchers Saloni Dattani, Rachel Glennerster, and Siddhartha Haria set out to answer that question in an epic piece on Works in Progress. The answers are sometimes scientific — malaria, caused by a parasite, is harder to vaccinate against than a bacterium or virus — and sometimes economic: It’s very hard to make vaccines profitable, and it’s only in recent years that the financial instruments to do so have become available. But those hurdles have been cleared now. “It may have taken us 141 years to get a malaria vaccine,” they write, “but it doesn’t have to take anywhere near as long for the next one. We can start making up for lost time.” Fake environmentalism Biofuels are often listed under “renewables,” and the vague implication is that they’re an environmentally friendly option. But are they? The environmental scientist Hannah Ritchie points out that the U.S. is the second-largest producer of cereals in the world, and nearly half of it goes to making biofuels. (Most of the rest goes to feeding animals.) But the biofuels are not carbon-neutral — if anything, they have increased rather than decreased emissions — and they need a lot of land. Growing those crops to make biofuels takes an area the size of Britain. If that land was dedicated to solar farms instead, it could provide three times the U.S.’s entire electricity demand. Rather than running gasoline cars off biofuels, says Ritchie, we could use solar power and EVs with a fraction of the land and environmental cost. License to thrill The U.S. may have its problems, but one thing it gets right is that you can, if you pay for it, have any license plate you want on your car. In the U.K. and many other countries, that’s not possible: They have to be valid combinations of numbers and letters, so, for instance, one plumbing company has vans with plates DRA1N and W4TER. “I propose that all countries should follow the Americans,” says the policy writer Tim Leunig, “and allow any 7 characters, so long as the result is not rude.” After all, the plates make people happy, but they also raise money for the government. In fact, why not go one step further? “Allow the heart emoji as well,” he says. “A heart is at least as memorable as any letter or number so it works in terms of vehicle recognition.” I ❤️ JESUS, I ❤️ ELON, I ❤️ TACOS: Someone somewhere will pay for all of these. |