Cato Daily Dispatch for December 16, 2005
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via PDA (AvantGo)
(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)
2005: One Hot YearTrade Talks in Trouble
Court Butts Out Cigarette Ruling
2005: One Hot Year
"This year has been one of the hottest on record, scientists in the United States and Britain reported yesterday, a finding that puts eight of the past 10 years at the top of the charts in terms of high temperatures," The Washington Post reports.
"Three studies released yesterday differ slightly, but they all indicate the Earth is rapidly warming. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies has concluded 2005 was the warmest year in recorded history, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Meteorological Office call it the second hottest, after 1998. All three groups agree that 2005 is the hottest year on record for the Northern Hemisphere, at roughly 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above the historical average."
In "Will 2005 Set a Record For Warmth? Does It Matter?," Patrick J. Michaels, a Cato senior fellow in environmental studies, writes, "So, what else is new? We already know that the world is warming and that it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future (with or without any greenhouse gas emission controls). Record temperatures will continue to be set every couple of years or so. In fact, if it weren't for the 1998 El Niņo, a new record high global average temperature would have been established in 4 of the last 5 years (including 2005). The big news is that 2005 will further establish that the rate at which temperatures have been rising during the past 30 years or so has been remarkably constant with a value of about 0.17ēC per decade, and it shows no sign of speeding up. Climate models share this constancy of warming; they just predict different rates. Unless that behavior is wrong, the additional warming until 2100 will be about 1.6°C, near the low end of projections made by our friends at the United Nations, and, frankly, too small to worry about, given that the energy structure of our society is likely to change dramatically in 100 years' time. We'll bet that no one points that out in December, when the warmth-of-2005 stories will proliferate like Santas."
Trade Talks in Trouble
"The European Union trade chief on Friday warned that global trade talks were 'going backwards,' as developing nations threatened to reject any World Trade Organization deal that fails to protect their cotton, banana and sugar farmers," according to the Associated Press. "The talks have barely made any progress on how much to cut trade barriers in any of the three main areas WTO members were expected to address: agriculture, manufactured goods and services. Since the 149-nation WTO operates by consensus, the impasse could undermine the outcome of the meeting that wraps up Sunday."
In "Trade Talk Keys in Hong Kong," by Daniel T. Griswold, director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies, argues that protected farm markets are a glaring exception to the free-trade rhetoric and generally open policies pursued by the United States and other developed countries. "For its own benefit as well as the success of the WTO negotiations, the U.S. should aggressively pursue deep cuts in global farm subsidies and trade barriers, beginning with our own failed farm policies. Without real agriculture reform, the WTO talks will be a colossal waste of time," Griswold writes.
Court Butts Out Cigarette Ruling
"The Illinois Supreme Court's reversal of a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris USA on Thursday delivered a major blow to tobacco foes and may further weaken state consumer-protection laws," reports The Chicago Tribune. "In one of the most anticipated legal decisions of the year, the high court ruled 4-2 that the company that makes Marlboros and other brands is not liable in a class-action lawsuit accusing it of defrauding smokers in the marketing of 'light' cigarettes."
The article continues: "The suit was a milestone for anti-tobacco plaintiffs who claimed that the company's practices harmed their pocketbooks, not their health, like most lawsuits against the tobacco industry. Smokers wanted their money back because they were misled into thinking they were buying a healthier cigarette, they alleged."
In "Tobacco, Smoking, and Insider Trading," Cato senior fellow Robert A. Levy writes, "The purpose of cigarette ads, like automobile ads, is to encourage consumers to switch brands. Ads are not the cause of the problem.
"That said, if the plaintiffs in a tobacco suit can prove that they were defrauded, that they became addicted prior to age 18 by the industry's deception, and if tobacco indeed caused their illness, then they may have a decent legal argument. But if they're not addicted by age 18, at that point they're adults. They're the same adults who are allowed to go to war and kill people, allowed to vote and decide who is going to run the country, to get married, to get divorced, to have an abortion, and those decisions are no less weighty than the decision to smoke cigarettes."
Levy concludes, "If an adult can choose to stop and he doesn't, then he assumes the risk. And we can't hold the tobacco companies responsible, least of all on a retroactive basis."
Holiday Dmitri, editor, hdmitri@cato.org