Pope Fallible on Climate Change

Most people think pretty highly of Pope Francis, and I am one of them.  His concern for the poor is exemplary.  His tilt towards gay issues has been widely lauded.  But I am afraid he has been very poorly informed on climate change.

That would be of little consequence, except he is taking the issue very seriously.  Flying to the Philippines on Wednesday, he told reporters  that he will be releasing an encyclical on ecology this coming summer.  According to the AP,

He said he wanted it out in plenty of time to be read and absorbed before the next round of climate change negotiations in Paris in November after the last round in Lima, Peru, failed to reach an agreement.

While he’s definitely right about what happened in Lima, he also is clearly trying to influence the UN process. I guess that’s well and good, after all, the Vatican is a state.  But what is troubling, very troubling, is that poorly informed views on global warming can lead to a tremendously expensive agreement that will do nothing about the climate, while taking away needed resources and exacerbating poverty around the world.

Saturday, in the Philippines, he met with survivors from 2013’s Typhoon Haiyan (also known as Yolanda in the Islands), certainly one of the most powerful storms in recent history. Haiyan reportedly killed 6,000. On the aircraft, Francis said that human activity, meaning emissions of greenhouse gases, was involved. 

A Pope who wants to be as influential as Francis lends great credence to the belief that tropical cyclones (like Haiyan) are being made worse by global warming. These storms are as iconic as polar bears (whose populations are growing) when it comes to generating the political will for a new treaty in Paris. 

It is very easy to see whether global warming is strengthening tropical cyclones.  Dr. Ryan Maue, of Weatherbell Analytics, has examined every storm back to the beginning of global satellite coverage,  for their winds and their duration, which together yield the energy associated with them.  Here’s his result, updated through December 2014:

 

Figure 1. Accumulated Tropical Cyclone Energy, 1972-2014, by Dr. Ryan Maue.  There is simply no relationship between storm activity and global temperature.

The  only way major emissions reductions—of the kind ultimately envisioned by Pope Frances—can be accomplished is to make carbon dioxide-emitting energy so expensive that people will use less, much less.  There’s really no viable energy-dense alternative out there that doesn’t emit CO2. Nuclear fission, which would qualify, is anathema to the same people who want big emissions cuts. His policies will therefore keep the underdeveloped world poor, precisely what he wants to change.

Wealthy societies are much less affected by bad weather than poorer ones. Very strong typhoons regularly strike affluent Hong Kong, with few, if any fatalities.  By making energy unaffordable, the policies Francis wants will impede economic development, so that, decades from now, when a repeat of Haiyan barrels through the Islands, many more will die.

Judges Shouldn’t Tell Businesses Which Products to Make and Market

New York State is standing athwart medical progress yelling “STOP!” In a move straight from the pages of Atlas Shrugged, the state sued Forest Laboratories, the subsidiary of pharmaceutical giant Actavis that makes the Alzheimer’s drug Namenda IR, to force the company to continue making the drug, which was being phased out in favor of the new Namenda XR (which, among other improvements, need only be taken once a day rather than twice—a not insignificant plus when dealing with Alzheimer’s patients!).

Why would New York’s attorney general want to interfere with medical progress and the development of a better drug that would improve the lives of potentially millions of Americans? Perhaps to reduce state drug costs—maybe the state feels that the marginal benefit from switching to XR isn’t worth the marginal cost—or to provide a competitive advantage to the generic pharmaceutical industry (under New York law, when a patent expires—as IR’s will in a few months—the remaining prescriptions automatically switch to generics).

The state’s claim relies on some very dubious antitrust law and seeks to force Forest Labs to keep producing and offering IR under the same “terms and conditions” as before XR came out. Not only would this keep patients using an older, inferior drug, it would effectively compel Forest to support its competitors’ business strategy. The generics were already set to benefit from the hundreds of millions of R&D dollars Forest Labs spent developing IR, but now they get free advertising too.

Maybe the state doesn’t like the incentives created by the interplay of patent and antitrust law and FDA regulations—drug companies constantly develop and promote new drugs that monetize new patents—but no possible legal reason justifies the injunction that the state sought, which a federal district court recently granted! Even worse, the injunction is breathtakingly vague; in responding to Forest Labs’ motion for clarification, the judge acknowledged the vagueness but didn’t change his order, wishing the company “good luck”!

Setting aside the policy and ethical considerations underlying New York’s maneuver, the injunction order is a legal travesty. Cato has thus filed a brief supporting Forest Labs before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. We argue that the order is impermissibly vague, that the doctrine of constitutional avoidance requires interpreting the order as not actually compelling Forest Labs to engage in speech that is protected by the First Amendment, and that to construe the order as actually imposing speech obligations would render the order unconstitutional.

The First Amendment does more than just limit the government’s power to prevent people from speaking, after all: it also prohibits the government from telling people—including companies—what they must say. That is especially the case when, as here, the speech being compelled goes against the speaker’s self-interest and sincerely held beliefs on how best to treat Alzheimer’s. If the district court below actually believes the injunction passes jurisprudential muster, well, “good luck.”

The Second Circuit will hear argument in New York v. Actavis later this month.

Cato legal associate Julio Colomba contributed to this blogpost.

Did Supreme Court Telegraph Its Ultimate Ruling on Gay Marriage?

That’s the question I pose in my latest Forbes piece. Here’s a taste:

As any good lawyer knows, framing the question you ask a court is just as important — often more important — than providing a well-argued answer that helps your client. Well, when the Supreme Court, as expected, decided to take up gay marriage, it unexpectedly reframed the “questions presented” in the four cases it took up and consolidated for argument. Instead of accepting any of the formulations presented in the four petitions for review, it asked the parties to brief these two questions:

  1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
  2. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

This was unusual; typically the justices simply decide whether to take a case based on the petitioners’ articulation. That’s why first-year legal-writing classes spend so much time working on those “questions presented.”

So what does this mean? UC-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen found the first question “odd” because it focused on state powers and obligations rather than individual rights, which ”perhaps keeps the court from getting into questions about heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation discrimination.” Harvard law professor Larry Tribe suggested that the reframed questions “technically leave open a middle path along which the court would prevent states from discriminating against same-sex couples lawfully married in their home states without requiring any state to take the affirmative step of issuing its own marriage licenses to same-sex couples.” (In my initial reaction to the cert grant, I speculated on the same compromise possibility but ultimately concluded that this was less likely than a clean win for the challengers on both questions.)

Read the whole thing. And I also recorded a podcast reacting to the Court’s decision to take up these cases.

Dividing the Loot in Maryland

Anticipating the inauguration of a rare Republican governor in Maryland, the state’s big Democratic jurisdictions are getting worried about their access to the state treasury:

Montgomery and Prince George’s officials are trying to make sure their counties are not forgotten by Gov.-elect Larry Hogan.

The Anne Arundel County Republican, who will be sworn in Wednesday, has pledged to pay more attention to rural Maryland, which he says was neglected during the administration of outgoing Gov. Martin O’Malley (D). Those rural counties also voted for Hogan by overwhelming margins….

“The uncertainty of the new administration creates more of an impetus . . . for larger jurisdictions to come together,” said Prince George’s County Council Chair Mel Franklin (D-Upper Marlboro), who wants to form a “large-county caucus” to lobby in Annapolis.

They have nothing to worry about, right? Surely a governor wouldn’t direct taxpayer dollars on the basis of political favoritism? As it happens, I’ve been watching Maryland politics for many years, and this story reminded of one that appeared in the Washington Post 20 years ago this week, when Parris Glendening became governor:

In his first major act as Maryland governor, Parris N. Glendening unveiled a no-new-taxes budget today that unabashedly steers the biggest share of spending to the three areas that voted most strongly for him: Montgomery and Prince George’s counties and Baltimore.

Glendening proposed cuts in welfare and other state programs so he can build more schools, fight crime and create jobs, particularly in those three urban areas, the only ones where Glendening (D) won a majority of votes Nov. 8.

I thought that was such a perfect encapsulation of politics at its finest that I’ve quoted it numerous times, including in my forthcoming book The Libertarian Mind. I also like to quote this charming and honest description of politics in a letter written by Lord Bolingbroke, an English Tory leader in the eighteenth century:

I am afraid that we came to Court in the same dispositions as all parties have done; that the principal spring of our actions was to have the government of the state in our hands; that our principal views were the conservation of this power, great employments to ourselves, and great opportunities of rewarding those who had helped to raise us and of hurting those who stood in opposition to us.

I recall reading that Charlie Peters, the legendary editor of the Washington Monthly, used to say that state legislatures are just committees for dividing up the loot, though I can’t find it online. If he didn’t, he should have.

You Ought to Have a Look: Record Global Temperatures

You Ought to Have a Look is a feature from the Center for the Study of Science posted by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. (“Chip”) Knappenberger. While this section will feature all of the areas of interest that we are emphasizing, the prominence of the climate issue is driving a tremendous amount of web traffic. Here we post a few of the best in recent days, along with our color commentary.

A lot of buzz around the web was generated late this week with the announcement from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that 2014 topped their list as the warmest year since their records began in the late 1800s.

While most of the mainstream media coverage focused on the record-setting temperatures and breathlessly spoke of how this was further indication that humans are warming the climate, the blogosphere was full of articles throwing cold water on this overheated rhetoric by pointing out that despite the past year’s warm temperatures, 1) global warming continues to occur at only a snail’s pace, and 2) this pace is far beneath that projected by the world’s collection of climate models—models developed for the specific purpose of projecting  future climate changes. With each passing year, their performance becomes worse and worse. That is the big story about 2014’s temperatures.

Here are some sites that astutely picked up on that:

Over at Climate Etc., Judy Curry has her say in “‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that.” Her bottom line?

Berkeley Earth sums it up well with this statement:

That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little.

The key issue remains the growing discrepancy between the climate model projections and the observations: 2014 just made the discrepancy larger.

Speculation about ‘warmest year’ and end of ‘pause’ implies a near term prediction of surface temperatures—that they will be warmer. I’ve made my projection—global surface temperatures will remain mostly flat for at least another decade. However, I’m not willing to place much $$ on that bet, since I suspect that Mother Nature will manage to surprise us. (I will be particularly surprised if the rate of warming in the next decade is at the levels expected by the IPCC.)

Harvard Study of CBO Reports Says Nothing New or Interesting about King v. Burwell

Vox’s Sarah Kliff reports that Harvard University’s Theda Skocpol has produced a study purporting to show Congress intended for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to authorize health-insurance subsidies through exchanges established by the federal government—even though the statute expressly and repeatedly says those subsidies are available only “through an Exchange established by the State.” Whether the PPACA authorizes those subsidies in the 36 states with federal exchanges is the question presented in King v. Burwell. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King on March 4, with a ruling expected by June. Unfortunately for the administration and its supporters, Skocpol offers nothing either new or that supports the notion that Congress intended something other than what it expressly said in the statute.

What evidence does Skocpol claim to have found in support of her counter-textual interpretation of congressional intent? She combs through 68 analyses issued by the Congressional Budget Office during 2009 and 2010. She finds that in none of those reports did the CBO entertain the idea that the PPACA’s exchange subsidies might be available in some states but not others. She interprets this as both “excellent evidence” and “the best objective evidence we have that no one in Congress considered premium subsidies restricted to certain states to be either possible or desirable.”

Yeah, about that.

An alert Vox reader already informed Kliff that the claim that CBO never considered the possibility of exchange subsidies in some states but not others isn’t exactly true. The comprehensive health care bill approved by Democrats on the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee in 2009 (S. 1679) would have given states four years to establish exchanges themselves, after which point the federal government would establish an exchange. As my partner-in-crime-fighting Jonathan Adler and I write in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in King:

S. 1679 asked each state to adopt certain health insurance regulations, and either establish an Exchange itself or ask the federal government to establish one “in” the state… S. 1679 withheld Exchange subsidies, as well as many of its insurance regulations, for up to four years until the state complied.

The CBO scored S. 1679 assuming that some states would establish exchanges early and some would not. Thus the agency’s cost projections assumed that exchange subsidies would be available in some states but not in others. So we’ve already got a problem with Skocpol’s analysis.

Supreme Court Decrees That June Is a Good Month for Marriage

As widely expected—and widely requested in myriad legal filings—the Supreme Court has agreed to review state laws that deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as well as those that deny recognition of such marriages formed in sister states. While the high court ducked these issues in October, at that time there was not yet a “circuit split”: all federal appellate courts to have ruled on the issue had struck down the state laws. When the Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit went the other way in November, today’s “decision to decide” was assured.

Moreover, based on the firm briefing schedule that the court has established, it’s clear that the justices intend to hear argument this term—meaning that we can expect a final ruling the last week of June. (This puts paid to my prediction that the Court would grant the case but delay argument till the first week of next term, in October.)

So how will the Court rule? Assuming that Justice Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote—a pretty safe assumption—it’s hard to see him giving full victory to the states. It would be odd indeed if the author of the landmark gay-rights opinions in Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and United States v. Windsor (2013) suddenly shied from taking the final logical step in that direction. At the same time, it’s at least conceivable that a strong federalist like Kennedy, perhaps joined by Roberts, could find himself in the moderate (and therefore legally controlling) position of striking down the non-recognition of out-of-state marriages while not requiring the issuance of marriage licenses themselves. Maybe. The smart money is still on a 5-4 ruling establishing that this Fourth of July everyone throughout the land will be able to marry without regard to sexual orientation.

While the Supreme Court isn’t a political institution in the conventional sense, the justices don’t live in a vacuum and so are rarely caught too far ahead or behind popular opinion. As Americans’ views on same-sex marriage have shifted dramatically in the last decade, it quickly became just a matter time before the Court found itself with a case it had to take on an issue that can only be decided one way. This eventual ruling—hopefully on equal-protection grounds rather than some nebulous results-oriented hand-waving—will undoubtedly create not insignificant controversy, but the writing has long been on the wall.