Orbital-use fees could more than quadruple the value of the space industry.

The space industry's rapid recent growth represents the latest tragedy of the commons. Satellites launched into orbit contribute to-and risk damage from-a growing buildup of space debris and other satellites. Collision risk from this orbital congestion is costly to satellite operators. Technological and managerial solutions-such as active debris removal or end-of-life satellite deorbit guidelines-are currently being explored by regulatory authorities. However, none of these approaches address the underlying incentive problem: satellite operators do not account for costs they impose on each other via collision risk. Here, we show that an internationally harmonized orbital-use fee can correct these incentives and substantially increase the value of the space industry. We construct and analyze a coupled physical-economic model of commercial launches and debris accumulation in low-Earth orbit. Similar to carbon taxes, our model projects an optimal fee that rises at a rate of 14% per year, equal to roughly $235,000 per satellite-year in 2040. The long-run value of the satellite industry would more than quadruple by 2040-increasing from around $600 billion under business as usual to around $3 trillion. In contrast, we project that purely technological solutions are unlikely to fully address the problem of orbital congestion. Indeed, we find debris removal sometimes worsens economic damages from congestion by increasing launch incentives. In other sectors, addressing the tragedy of the commons has often been a game of catch-up with substantial social costs. The infant space industry can avert these costs before they escalate.

Decline in Traffic Congestion Increased Crash Severity in the Wake of COVID-19.

Highway fatalities are a leading cause of death in the U.S. and other industrialized countries. Using highly detailed crash, speed, and flow data, we show highway travel and motor vehicle crashes fell substantially in California during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we also show the frequency of severe crashes increased owing to lower traffic congestion and higher highway speeds. This "speed effect" is largest in counties with high pre-existing levels of congestion, and we show it partially or completely offsets the "VMT effect" of reduced vehicle miles traveled on total fatalities. During the first eleven weeks of the COVID-19 response, highway driving decreased by approximately 22% and total crashes decreased by 49%. While average speeds increased by a modest 2 to 3 mph across the state, they increased between 10 and 15 mph in several counties. The proportion of severe crashes increased nearly 5 percentage points, or 25%. While fatalities decreased initially following restrictions, increased speeds mitigated the effect of lower vehicle miles traveled on fatalities, yielding little to no reduction in fatalities later in the COVID period.

Disease-economy trade-offs under alternative epidemic control strategies.

Public policy and academic debates regarding pandemic control strategies note disease-economy trade-offs, often prioritizing one outcome over the other. Using a calibrated, coupled epi-economic model of individual behavior embedded within the broader economy during a novel epidemic, we show that targeted isolation strategies can avert up to 91% of economic losses relative to voluntary isolation strategies. Unlike widely-used blanket lockdowns, economic savings of targeted isolation do not impose additional disease burdens, avoiding disease-economy trade-offs. Targeted isolation achieves this by addressing the fundamental coordination failure between infectious and susceptible individuals that drives the recession. Importantly, we show testing and compliance frictions can erode some of the gains from targeted isolation, but improving test quality unlocks the majority of the benefits of targeted isolation.