IMHO, the author is mostly reacting negatively to the price impact of two compounding issues that Uber/Lyft faced last year: the first is the out-of-whack suppl

IMHO, the author is mostly reacting negatively to the price impact of two compounding issues that Uber/Lyft faced last year: the first is the out-of-whack supply/demand balance due to covid causing the current low supply of drivers (and a consequent increase in prices due to renewed demand), and the second is fallout of AB5/Prop22 (which netted an increased pay floor, which translated to higher prices in CA). A third factor is the companies' push towards profitability after their IPOs, which also undoubtedly makes a dent in the price calculations. The "planet" angle is IMHO grasping at straws to set a specific tone for the narrative, because frankly who thinks about that when taking a cab? If this wasn't just lip service and carbon emission/congestion actually mattered to her, there's public transit from LAX! I wrote in a comment downthread about an anecdote of a guy that had lost his job due to covid and had found an income safety net w/ Uber. You could argue that he contributes to carbon emissions/congestion by driving, but what exactly is the writer expecting the alternative to be? Sitting at home receiving free stimulus cheques? Working at McDonalds flipping infamously high CO2 producing beef patties? Working as... a cab driver for a cheaper fare for her exact use case, but still incurring roughly the same role in carbon footprint and congestion overall? Trying to twist "I want to have my cake (nice Uber experience) and eat it too (for cheap)" into "think of the environment" just seems like virtue signaling IMHO. She just saw two services that were functionally equivalent for her needs at different prices and took the cheaper one. Most of us would've probably done the same. This is a non-story.