1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:10,160 --> 00:00:12,840 Speaker 1: Johnson and Johnson's use of fetal cells to make its 3 00:00:12,880 --> 00:00:17,640 Speaker 1: COVID nineteen vaccine recently drew concerns from some Catholic leaders. 4 00:00:18,000 --> 00:00:21,560 Speaker 1: Could this spark resistance to taking the shot? Joining me 5 00:00:21,640 --> 00:00:25,200 Speaker 1: is robert Iafola Bloomberg Law reporter, So tell us about 6 00:00:25,200 --> 00:00:28,880 Speaker 1: the J and J vaccine. Yeah, so, Unlike the other 7 00:00:28,960 --> 00:00:33,559 Speaker 1: two vaccines that have so far one approval from the FDA, 8 00:00:34,320 --> 00:00:37,640 Speaker 1: the J and J vaccine were, as part of the 9 00:00:37,640 --> 00:00:43,840 Speaker 1: production of the vaccine itself, used some fetal cells. These 10 00:00:43,840 --> 00:00:50,400 Speaker 1: are not cells from a fetus, but rather clones cells 11 00:00:50,400 --> 00:00:55,319 Speaker 1: from fetuses that were aborted in the nineties. I mean, 12 00:00:55,440 --> 00:00:57,920 Speaker 1: you get into a bit of a ship of THESEUS 13 00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:01,120 Speaker 1: questions as far as you know, at what point does 14 00:01:01,160 --> 00:01:03,720 Speaker 1: it stop being the cell of a fetus? You know, 15 00:01:03,840 --> 00:01:06,840 Speaker 1: it's cloned so many times. But that is both the 16 00:01:06,880 --> 00:01:12,000 Speaker 1: locus of the concern among some Catholics and the Maderna 17 00:01:12,080 --> 00:01:16,440 Speaker 1: and Visor vaccines did not use any clone cells from 18 00:01:16,440 --> 00:01:22,200 Speaker 1: a fetus show those two other vaccines used UM. In 19 00:01:22,240 --> 00:01:28,039 Speaker 1: the testing of the vaccine UM, there were fetle cells used, 20 00:01:28,120 --> 00:01:31,440 Speaker 1: but the difference there's with Jane J who were used 21 00:01:31,480 --> 00:01:35,120 Speaker 1: in the production of the actual vaccine. So now, what's 22 00:01:35,319 --> 00:01:40,120 Speaker 1: the position of the US Council of Bishops and that 23 00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:45,640 Speaker 1: of the Vatican show both of those um organizations, which 24 00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:49,600 Speaker 1: are of course massive leading organizations in the Roman Catholic faith. 25 00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:54,960 Speaker 1: He sort of gave a qualified um okay on using 26 00:01:55,040 --> 00:02:00,680 Speaker 1: the the Jane Ja shot where they recommended avoiding it 27 00:02:00,920 --> 00:02:04,800 Speaker 1: if possible, but basically said that, you know, it's morally 28 00:02:04,840 --> 00:02:09,400 Speaker 1: acceptable to take that vaccine. There is, you know, part 29 00:02:09,440 --> 00:02:12,600 Speaker 1: of the faith about looking out for other people. The 30 00:02:12,680 --> 00:02:17,760 Speaker 1: Pope did get vaccinated, right, both um, the current Pope 31 00:02:17,840 --> 00:02:22,720 Speaker 1: and the former Pope Benedict also got vaccinated. Are their 32 00:02:22,960 --> 00:02:28,639 Speaker 1: organizations or cardinals or archbishops in the US who are 33 00:02:29,240 --> 00:02:33,360 Speaker 1: telling Catholics not to take the J and J shot. 34 00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:38,560 Speaker 1: Some of these very large influential Catholic groups, like the 35 00:02:38,639 --> 00:02:42,960 Speaker 1: US Council of Bishops sort of um gave up qualified okay, 36 00:02:43,040 --> 00:02:46,639 Speaker 1: you know, recommended avoiding it as possible, but but said 37 00:02:46,639 --> 00:02:49,600 Speaker 1: it would be okay. There are a few church leaders 38 00:02:49,600 --> 00:02:53,520 Speaker 1: to avoid stronger opposition to the change shot. One example 39 00:02:53,600 --> 00:02:56,560 Speaker 1: is the Archdiocese of New Orleans. Yeah, they called the 40 00:02:56,639 --> 00:03:00,239 Speaker 1: vaccine morally compromised. I believe there's been a few other 41 00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:05,520 Speaker 1: U S leaders as well. So now, can workers refuse 42 00:03:05,720 --> 00:03:10,600 Speaker 1: the J and J vaccine on religious grounds? Yeah, the 43 00:03:10,639 --> 00:03:15,120 Speaker 1: answer is yes. There are a few recognized ways that 44 00:03:15,200 --> 00:03:18,639 Speaker 1: a worker can object to a workplace mandate, and one 45 00:03:18,639 --> 00:03:22,840 Speaker 1: of those is by raising a religious objection. There's a 46 00:03:22,880 --> 00:03:26,280 Speaker 1: civil rights law, if you know. It's titled seven, and 47 00:03:26,400 --> 00:03:30,240 Speaker 1: it prohibits discrimination in the workplace along a whole bunch 48 00:03:30,280 --> 00:03:33,680 Speaker 1: of different categories, erased sex, these sort of things. In 49 00:03:33,760 --> 00:03:36,760 Speaker 1: religion is one of them. And the e o C, 50 00:03:37,400 --> 00:03:41,400 Speaker 1: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces Title seven. They 51 00:03:41,400 --> 00:03:43,840 Speaker 1: have a very broad definition of religion. You know, it 52 00:03:43,880 --> 00:03:47,960 Speaker 1: doesn't need to be belief in a particular church or 53 00:03:47,600 --> 00:03:53,160 Speaker 1: a god, but any firmly insincerely held moral or ethical belief. 54 00:03:53,680 --> 00:03:56,960 Speaker 1: So in this instance, the Catholic Church has had a 55 00:03:56,960 --> 00:04:01,760 Speaker 1: pretty established opposition to abortion. You know, the church has 56 00:04:02,160 --> 00:04:05,440 Speaker 1: voice opposition to you know, some forms of stem cell 57 00:04:05,520 --> 00:04:09,120 Speaker 1: research because of the use of field cells tied to 58 00:04:09,240 --> 00:04:12,520 Speaker 1: its concern about abortion or opposition to abortion. So in 59 00:04:12,560 --> 00:04:15,680 Speaker 1: this instant, yes, Catholic workers would be able to raise 60 00:04:16,000 --> 00:04:21,400 Speaker 1: a religious objection. How do courts define religious beliefs or 61 00:04:21,440 --> 00:04:24,640 Speaker 1: how do they analyze religious beliefs? Does it have to 62 00:04:24,640 --> 00:04:30,560 Speaker 1: be sincere religious beliefs? Generally speaking, courts don't take uh 63 00:04:30,880 --> 00:04:37,440 Speaker 1: super deep look at of professed religious belief There are 64 00:04:37,520 --> 00:04:42,440 Speaker 1: some examples in history, like with the draft around the 65 00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:46,720 Speaker 1: Vietnam War, where courts were more skeptical. UM courts will 66 00:04:46,760 --> 00:04:51,640 Speaker 1: sometimes be skeptical when it comes to UM prisoners claiming 67 00:04:51,839 --> 00:04:55,640 Speaker 1: religious beliefs for a reason to have a certain privilege 68 00:04:55,800 --> 00:05:00,760 Speaker 1: or avoid a certain aspect of their condition are in jail. 69 00:05:00,880 --> 00:05:04,240 Speaker 1: But when it comes to a worker claiming a religious 70 00:05:04,240 --> 00:05:08,120 Speaker 1: objection to something like a shot um, you know, they 71 00:05:08,200 --> 00:05:12,120 Speaker 1: might look to see, you know, is this plausible. You know, 72 00:05:12,160 --> 00:05:15,760 Speaker 1: it's certainly plausible that a Catholic would have an opposition 73 00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:22,000 Speaker 1: to something that uses clone field cells, and yeah, if 74 00:05:22,000 --> 00:05:24,359 Speaker 1: they sincerely believe it. But again, of courts are not 75 00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:28,240 Speaker 1: in the business of dissecting a person's religious belief and 76 00:05:28,520 --> 00:05:31,480 Speaker 1: really drilling down in there, so that an employer just 77 00:05:31,560 --> 00:05:34,920 Speaker 1: has to take the employee's word. The employee says, I 78 00:05:34,960 --> 00:05:38,080 Speaker 1: have a religious objection to this, so the employer just 79 00:05:38,160 --> 00:05:41,920 Speaker 1: has to accept that. In general, yes, I mean, if 80 00:05:41,960 --> 00:05:48,039 Speaker 1: there's some reason, uh for the employer to doubt the worker. Um. 81 00:05:48,160 --> 00:05:53,520 Speaker 1: The e O se UM they recommend that employers, you know, 82 00:05:54,120 --> 00:05:59,240 Speaker 1: be deferential to claim about faith beliefs made by workers 83 00:05:59,279 --> 00:06:05,359 Speaker 1: because the Title seven coverage of religion and is very broad. Um. 84 00:06:05,360 --> 00:06:08,719 Speaker 1: And there may be religious practices that a worker is 85 00:06:09,240 --> 00:06:12,000 Speaker 1: referring to, our religious beliefs that a worker is referring 86 00:06:12,040 --> 00:06:15,039 Speaker 1: to that an employer just doesn't know about. You know, 87 00:06:15,160 --> 00:06:19,320 Speaker 1: if it's totally unbelievable, you know, applying spetty monster, that's 88 00:06:19,360 --> 00:06:22,360 Speaker 1: sort of a different a kettle of fish. But you know, 89 00:06:22,400 --> 00:06:26,719 Speaker 1: if it's a Catholic claiming opposition to a shot based 90 00:06:26,760 --> 00:06:31,000 Speaker 1: on the use of fetle cells in the vaccine. Um, Yeah, 91 00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:33,479 Speaker 1: that's the sort of thing, then employer will be advised 92 00:06:33,520 --> 00:06:36,240 Speaker 1: to just take the worker at their words. What's an 93 00:06:36,240 --> 00:06:42,039 Speaker 1: employer's defense? What kind of defenses can an employer raise? So, employers, 94 00:06:42,160 --> 00:06:45,360 Speaker 1: while they're generally expected to take workers at their words 95 00:06:45,400 --> 00:06:48,919 Speaker 1: when it comes to claims of religious beliefs, they do 96 00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:54,760 Speaker 1: have a very strong defense. And that's basically would providing 97 00:06:54,839 --> 00:06:58,720 Speaker 1: that accommodation in this case, allowing a worker not to 98 00:06:58,720 --> 00:07:03,240 Speaker 1: get the shot, would that cause an unduburn and the U. S. 99 00:07:03,240 --> 00:07:07,680 Speaker 1: Supreme Court in nine seven decisions came out with a 100 00:07:07,800 --> 00:07:10,800 Speaker 1: very very low bar for what it takes to show 101 00:07:10,800 --> 00:07:14,040 Speaker 1: that it's an undue burden. The Court used the words 102 00:07:14,080 --> 00:07:16,920 Speaker 1: days is a do minimus standard, which is a fancy 103 00:07:17,040 --> 00:07:21,160 Speaker 1: Latin way of saying basically, anything more than trivial is 104 00:07:21,200 --> 00:07:24,400 Speaker 1: going to be an undue burden. That's an extremely strong 105 00:07:24,440 --> 00:07:29,600 Speaker 1: defense for em players in this case. And that standard 106 00:07:29,640 --> 00:07:34,760 Speaker 1: has been criticized. Yes, yes, it's been criticized definitely by 107 00:07:34,760 --> 00:07:38,520 Speaker 1: a lot of religious groups. Of the Justice Department has 108 00:07:38,880 --> 00:07:42,720 Speaker 1: in a case last term. I believe they filed an 109 00:07:42,760 --> 00:07:47,960 Speaker 1: anarchist brief and a case that would have reviewed that standard. 110 00:07:48,080 --> 00:07:51,040 Speaker 1: The Court ended up not taking the case. Um, there's 111 00:07:51,080 --> 00:07:54,280 Speaker 1: no federal judges to have criticized the standard. Again, that 112 00:07:54,360 --> 00:07:57,680 Speaker 1: idea is the minimus of anything more than a trivial, 113 00:07:57,920 --> 00:08:01,840 Speaker 1: anything more than a trifling burden on an employer. Yeah, 114 00:08:01,840 --> 00:08:05,000 Speaker 1: that's something that has come under criticism, Um, in this 115 00:08:05,120 --> 00:08:10,240 Speaker 1: instance with the J and J vaccine. Um, since there 116 00:08:10,280 --> 00:08:14,000 Speaker 1: are two other vaccines that have not received the same 117 00:08:14,240 --> 00:08:18,800 Speaker 1: sort of criticism from some leaders in the Catholic Church. 118 00:08:19,720 --> 00:08:24,280 Speaker 1: When we're talking about an accommodation to an objection to 119 00:08:24,320 --> 00:08:26,800 Speaker 1: the J and J vaccine. What we're talking about is 120 00:08:27,320 --> 00:08:31,200 Speaker 1: waiting until that worker could get a different shot. Um 121 00:08:31,400 --> 00:08:35,600 Speaker 1: show whether that's nondue burden. It's probably going to depend 122 00:08:35,640 --> 00:08:38,800 Speaker 1: on the availability of the other shot. If they have 123 00:08:38,880 --> 00:08:42,440 Speaker 1: to wait weeks, um You know that that seems like 124 00:08:42,559 --> 00:08:45,040 Speaker 1: it would be a lot easier for an employer to 125 00:08:45,120 --> 00:08:48,120 Speaker 1: argue that's an undue burden, rather than if it's just 126 00:08:48,320 --> 00:08:50,360 Speaker 1: a day that they have to wait to let the 127 00:08:50,400 --> 00:08:53,959 Speaker 1: work or get a shot, that it doesn't conflict with 128 00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:59,440 Speaker 1: their face. The Supreme Court, particularly with Amy Coney barrett On, 129 00:08:59,520 --> 00:09:04,400 Speaker 1: it has been very protective of religious rights. Is there 130 00:09:04,400 --> 00:09:07,680 Speaker 1: a case before the Court that might take up this 131 00:09:07,760 --> 00:09:11,880 Speaker 1: issue the standard and change it? So the Court does 132 00:09:12,000 --> 00:09:17,000 Speaker 1: have at least one pending petition asking them to review 133 00:09:17,080 --> 00:09:20,520 Speaker 1: that question. That's not guaranteed that they'll take it up, 134 00:09:20,880 --> 00:09:22,680 Speaker 1: but as I mentioned, there has been a lot of 135 00:09:22,679 --> 00:09:28,120 Speaker 1: criticisms from different areas about that standards, So it seems 136 00:09:28,120 --> 00:09:31,800 Speaker 1: certainly plausible or that's something that could consider a review. 137 00:09:32,559 --> 00:09:36,400 Speaker 1: Just generally, do we know the number of Americans who 138 00:09:36,520 --> 00:09:39,680 Speaker 1: are who don't want to take a vaccine at all? 139 00:09:40,800 --> 00:09:44,400 Speaker 1: They certainly have been polls that are taken periodically. I 140 00:09:44,440 --> 00:09:48,800 Speaker 1: do know that there are certainly pockets of resistance. For example, 141 00:09:49,760 --> 00:09:53,439 Speaker 1: among nursing home employees. This is a work of population 142 00:09:53,480 --> 00:09:56,679 Speaker 1: that's been provided the opportunity to have shots, and the 143 00:09:56,720 --> 00:10:01,520 Speaker 1: refusal rate is approximately sixt So in some areas there 144 00:10:01,559 --> 00:10:05,600 Speaker 1: still continues to be reluctant to take the vaccine, and 145 00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:08,920 Speaker 1: again in some quarters that lauction seems to be growing. 146 00:10:09,640 --> 00:10:12,480 Speaker 1: If you know, have you heard of any lawsuits where 147 00:10:12,520 --> 00:10:17,559 Speaker 1: employers are being sued by employees because they want them 148 00:10:17,559 --> 00:10:19,520 Speaker 1: to take the vaccine or is it just in the 149 00:10:19,760 --> 00:10:23,439 Speaker 1: talking about stage right now? I know at least one 150 00:10:23,880 --> 00:10:29,720 Speaker 1: lawsuit that's been filed in federal court in which worker 151 00:10:30,400 --> 00:10:39,000 Speaker 1: objected to a workplace vaccine mandate. That worker raised concerns 152 00:10:39,040 --> 00:10:43,520 Speaker 1: about the fact that the vaccine was approved under the 153 00:10:43,640 --> 00:10:48,719 Speaker 1: FDA's Emergency Use Authorization, which is definitely different than its 154 00:10:48,760 --> 00:10:51,960 Speaker 1: normal process. As it sounds, it's used to get things 155 00:10:51,960 --> 00:10:55,200 Speaker 1: out when it's an emergency situation, and there is some 156 00:10:55,880 --> 00:11:01,040 Speaker 1: language and um some FDA law that it's quite unclear. 157 00:11:01,600 --> 00:11:05,240 Speaker 1: It does add some lack of clarity there that would 158 00:11:05,280 --> 00:11:07,240 Speaker 1: like to get sorted out in the courts. In this 159 00:11:07,600 --> 00:11:12,040 Speaker 1: lawsuit will probably be the first example of that. Thanks Robert. 160 00:11:12,280 --> 00:11:17,600 Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Law reporter Robert Iafola. New legal attack on 161 00:11:17,640 --> 00:11:22,000 Speaker 1: the Biden administration's climate agenda from twelve Republican attorneys general 162 00:11:22,480 --> 00:11:26,560 Speaker 1: challenges President Joe Biden's executive order addressing the social cost 163 00:11:26,600 --> 00:11:30,960 Speaker 1: of greenhouse gasses. The Trump administration slashed the values as 164 00:11:31,000 --> 00:11:34,800 Speaker 1: sannia lower cost to emissions, but an interagency working group 165 00:11:34,960 --> 00:11:39,760 Speaker 1: restored Obama era values last month responding to Biden's January 166 00:11:39,480 --> 00:11:43,360 Speaker 1: twenty executive order. The multi state lawsuit led by Missouri 167 00:11:43,720 --> 00:11:47,600 Speaker 1: says the move is an illegal expansion of federal regulatory power. 168 00:11:48,080 --> 00:11:50,920 Speaker 1: Joining me is Pat Parento, a professor of environmental law 169 00:11:50,960 --> 00:11:54,319 Speaker 1: at the Vermont Law School. Pat explain why these states 170 00:11:54,360 --> 00:11:58,600 Speaker 1: are suing. This is the one challenging Biden's executive order, 171 00:11:58,840 --> 00:12:03,120 Speaker 1: which includes the requirement to reinstate the analysis that the 172 00:12:03,200 --> 00:12:05,240 Speaker 1: social cost of carbon, which is of course a way 173 00:12:05,280 --> 00:12:08,280 Speaker 1: of measuring the impacts of climate change from tea level 174 00:12:08,360 --> 00:12:10,920 Speaker 1: rise and wildfires and other things. You know, it's a 175 00:12:11,000 --> 00:12:15,760 Speaker 1: standard practice, obviously for presidents to issue these executive orders. 176 00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:19,080 Speaker 1: They're not final agency actions within the meaning of the 177 00:12:19,080 --> 00:12:23,200 Speaker 1: administrative procedure acts, so the lawsuit is premature, and many 178 00:12:23,200 --> 00:12:26,240 Speaker 1: of my colleagues that legal Academy have pointed out the 179 00:12:26,280 --> 00:12:28,760 Speaker 1: case will be dismissed. It was more of a political 180 00:12:28,840 --> 00:12:32,640 Speaker 1: stunt than a serious lawsuit. None of these social cost 181 00:12:32,679 --> 00:12:36,199 Speaker 1: of carbon analyzes that they've even been done yet. They 182 00:12:36,200 --> 00:12:38,120 Speaker 1: will be coming. I mean, you know, there's gonna be 183 00:12:38,160 --> 00:12:39,920 Speaker 1: a lot of rules. There's going to be the power 184 00:12:39,960 --> 00:12:43,360 Speaker 1: plant rules, and the fuel economy rules, and the methane rules. 185 00:12:43,360 --> 00:12:45,839 Speaker 1: There's gonna be a lot of rulemaking coming up in 186 00:12:45,880 --> 00:12:50,280 Speaker 1: the Biden administration in which this new per Ton number 187 00:12:50,559 --> 00:12:53,800 Speaker 1: that Biden is ordering his agencies to use is going 188 00:12:53,840 --> 00:12:56,679 Speaker 1: to become a subject of litigation. I'm sure of that 189 00:12:56,800 --> 00:12:59,400 Speaker 1: down the road, but as of right now, there's no 190 00:12:59,440 --> 00:13:03,040 Speaker 1: basis for these lawsuits. Did the Trump administration also use 191 00:13:03,120 --> 00:13:06,400 Speaker 1: the social cost of carbon? Yes, it did. It lowered 192 00:13:06,440 --> 00:13:09,800 Speaker 1: it down to one dollar, which is ridiculous. And the Europeans, 193 00:13:09,840 --> 00:13:13,760 Speaker 1: for example, they use figures up in the eighty range. 194 00:13:14,360 --> 00:13:16,959 Speaker 1: And you know, these figures do change over time because 195 00:13:16,960 --> 00:13:21,880 Speaker 1: as the extreme events begin creating even more damaging storms 196 00:13:21,920 --> 00:13:26,719 Speaker 1: like we've seen. Last year was the most damaging hurricane 197 00:13:26,760 --> 00:13:29,160 Speaker 1: season on the Gulf Coast ever in the history of 198 00:13:29,200 --> 00:13:32,240 Speaker 1: the United States, and the wildfires in California the same thing, 199 00:13:32,280 --> 00:13:36,360 Speaker 1: the most destructive wildfires we've ever seen. So the cost 200 00:13:36,559 --> 00:13:40,640 Speaker 1: of climate change are increasing, and therefore that calculation that's 201 00:13:40,679 --> 00:13:44,319 Speaker 1: being done will also increase. But the point is that 202 00:13:44,600 --> 00:13:48,760 Speaker 1: there's another executive order that the conservatives love, and that's 203 00:13:48,800 --> 00:13:52,200 Speaker 1: the order that requires cost benefit analysis for all of 204 00:13:52,240 --> 00:13:56,199 Speaker 1: these rules. And so if you're going to require cost 205 00:13:56,240 --> 00:13:59,440 Speaker 1: benefit analysis for environmental regulations, then you've got to do 206 00:13:59,480 --> 00:14:03,720 Speaker 1: it right. And every economist would tell you that carbon 207 00:14:04,000 --> 00:14:07,520 Speaker 1: pollution has a cost, as does all other kinds of pollution, 208 00:14:08,040 --> 00:14:09,800 Speaker 1: and that you have to figure out a way to 209 00:14:09,880 --> 00:14:13,240 Speaker 1: quantify that cost and included in your analysis. Otherwise your 210 00:14:13,280 --> 00:14:16,880 Speaker 1: analysis is no good. It's not accurate, it doesn't follow 211 00:14:17,120 --> 00:14:20,800 Speaker 1: good sound economic analysis. So you need some kind of 212 00:14:20,800 --> 00:14:24,920 Speaker 1: a model to develop that you can quantify these costs 213 00:14:24,920 --> 00:14:28,480 Speaker 1: from carbon pollution. And that's what the Biden administration is doing. 214 00:14:29,000 --> 00:14:34,600 Speaker 1: I'm struggling to understand what the lawsuit is objecting to 215 00:14:34,920 --> 00:14:38,440 Speaker 1: if the social cost of carbon was used by Trump 216 00:14:38,880 --> 00:14:42,040 Speaker 1: and the Biden administration has just changed the numbers, But 217 00:14:42,320 --> 00:14:45,440 Speaker 1: I have read the actual details of the complaints. They 218 00:14:45,480 --> 00:14:49,600 Speaker 1: are probably arguing that the number is arbitrary, that there 219 00:14:49,720 --> 00:14:54,360 Speaker 1: wasn't an opportunity yet for any kind of public input 220 00:14:54,640 --> 00:14:58,120 Speaker 1: or vetting of the new analysis. And you know, those 221 00:14:58,160 --> 00:15:00,840 Speaker 1: are the kinds of arguments that at the right time, 222 00:15:00,880 --> 00:15:03,080 Speaker 1: in the right case, could be raised. And you know, 223 00:15:03,120 --> 00:15:05,600 Speaker 1: the Biden administration will have to defend the number that 224 00:15:05,680 --> 00:15:07,320 Speaker 1: they've come up with. I don't think they're going to 225 00:15:07,400 --> 00:15:09,920 Speaker 1: have much trouble defending it, but but they will have 226 00:15:10,000 --> 00:15:11,720 Speaker 1: to defend it. They will have to say, well, this 227 00:15:11,800 --> 00:15:15,120 Speaker 1: is what we included in the model as the assumptions 228 00:15:15,200 --> 00:15:18,160 Speaker 1: for what kinds of damages we're trying to calculate. Here, 229 00:15:18,200 --> 00:15:20,920 Speaker 1: we're looking at the past extreme weather events, and we 230 00:15:21,000 --> 00:15:24,520 Speaker 1: do have actual numbers and calculations for those, and we 231 00:15:24,600 --> 00:15:26,920 Speaker 1: put those into the model. And then we put the 232 00:15:27,000 --> 00:15:29,880 Speaker 1: science of what's happening with climate change into the model. 233 00:15:30,120 --> 00:15:33,080 Speaker 1: How much sea level rise are we actually seeing and 234 00:15:33,120 --> 00:15:36,000 Speaker 1: the answer is we're seeing a lot more than the 235 00:15:36,120 --> 00:15:40,360 Speaker 1: models were originally projecting. And how much flooding are we 236 00:15:40,440 --> 00:15:43,760 Speaker 1: seeing in Miami, well just about every day and so forth. 237 00:15:43,800 --> 00:15:47,400 Speaker 1: So Biden administration will have to have a record that 238 00:15:47,520 --> 00:15:50,800 Speaker 1: demonstrates that the number they chose is reasonable. You know, 239 00:15:50,840 --> 00:15:53,480 Speaker 1: the courts aren't going to dictate what the number should be, 240 00:15:53,640 --> 00:15:56,840 Speaker 1: but they're going to demand that the administration justified the 241 00:15:56,920 --> 00:16:00,440 Speaker 1: number that it picks. There's also a constitutional claim based 242 00:16:00,440 --> 00:16:04,640 Speaker 1: on separation of powers. Yeah, this is what's called the 243 00:16:04,680 --> 00:16:08,680 Speaker 1: non delegation doctrine. And this is a real reach because 244 00:16:08,800 --> 00:16:14,640 Speaker 1: usually that's a claim against the statutes, the Congress and acts. 245 00:16:14,640 --> 00:16:17,920 Speaker 1: And the most famous case, uh and the opinion by 246 00:16:17,920 --> 00:16:22,240 Speaker 1: the late Justice Scalia none other is the American Trucking 247 00:16:22,240 --> 00:16:26,360 Speaker 1: Association case, in which Scalia wrote an opinion for unanimous 248 00:16:26,360 --> 00:16:30,600 Speaker 1: Supreme Court upholding e p AS authority to set air 249 00:16:30,680 --> 00:16:35,720 Speaker 1: quality standards based only on public health, regardless of costs. 250 00:16:36,520 --> 00:16:40,320 Speaker 1: And the question was, when Congress delegates to e p 251 00:16:40,520 --> 00:16:45,880 Speaker 1: A that kind of, you know, incredibly powerful sweeping authority, 252 00:16:45,920 --> 00:16:48,760 Speaker 1: is that actually giving e p A too much authority? 253 00:16:48,880 --> 00:16:51,760 Speaker 1: That's what the non delegation doctrine is all about, where 254 00:16:51,800 --> 00:16:57,880 Speaker 1: Congress is abdicating its responsibility to set more defined policy 255 00:16:57,920 --> 00:17:00,960 Speaker 1: guidance for the agency. But as I say, the Court 256 00:17:01,080 --> 00:17:05,280 Speaker 1: voted unanimously in American Trucking and saying the delegation of 257 00:17:05,320 --> 00:17:08,160 Speaker 1: authority the e p A to quote protect the public 258 00:17:08,359 --> 00:17:12,320 Speaker 1: health and welfare. That language was enough to authorize e 259 00:17:12,440 --> 00:17:15,520 Speaker 1: PA to say, we are going to base air quality 260 00:17:15,640 --> 00:17:19,520 Speaker 1: standards on public health data and you know, the advice 261 00:17:19,560 --> 00:17:23,080 Speaker 1: of the medical profession and so forth in setting these numbers, 262 00:17:23,160 --> 00:17:25,320 Speaker 1: and we're not going to take into account how much 263 00:17:25,359 --> 00:17:28,400 Speaker 1: is it gonna cost to protect the public health. So 264 00:17:28,880 --> 00:17:32,199 Speaker 1: the idea that now, uh, these states that have challenged 265 00:17:32,240 --> 00:17:36,600 Speaker 1: Biden's executive order, that's not even legislation, that's just Biden 266 00:17:36,720 --> 00:17:39,280 Speaker 1: telling his agencies this is the way in which I 267 00:17:39,320 --> 00:17:42,679 Speaker 1: would I want you to calculate these costs. So it 268 00:17:42,800 --> 00:17:47,399 Speaker 1: isn't even a delegation of authority from Congress. It's Biden saying, 269 00:17:47,760 --> 00:17:51,000 Speaker 1: this is how I want my administration to conduct the 270 00:17:51,080 --> 00:17:54,959 Speaker 1: proper economic analysis of the rules that were adopting. So 271 00:17:55,359 --> 00:17:58,840 Speaker 1: I don't think this non delegation doctrine has any legs 272 00:17:58,880 --> 00:18:02,760 Speaker 1: at all In challenge Biden's order. Former President Trump was 273 00:18:02,800 --> 00:18:07,399 Speaker 1: the king of executive orders. How did challenges against his 274 00:18:07,600 --> 00:18:11,760 Speaker 1: orders his executive orders fair and court? Well, the one 275 00:18:11,840 --> 00:18:14,360 Speaker 1: that did break through was the travel band, But that 276 00:18:14,400 --> 00:18:17,600 Speaker 1: one actually had immediate impacts on people. If you remember, 277 00:18:17,880 --> 00:18:20,720 Speaker 1: people were stuck in airports all over the world, some 278 00:18:20,920 --> 00:18:23,479 Speaker 1: even even in some cases Americans. They may have been 279 00:18:23,520 --> 00:18:27,000 Speaker 1: of multiple you know, multi ethnic origin, but they were 280 00:18:27,040 --> 00:18:30,119 Speaker 1: American citizens couldn't even get back to the country. So 281 00:18:30,160 --> 00:18:33,080 Speaker 1: in those cases, the courts are saying, we're an executive 282 00:18:33,160 --> 00:18:38,520 Speaker 1: order like that has immediate impact injury. The individuals who 283 00:18:38,560 --> 00:18:41,200 Speaker 1: can come to court and swear under oath of course 284 00:18:41,600 --> 00:18:44,040 Speaker 1: that they are being impacted by this order. That's a 285 00:18:44,119 --> 00:18:48,119 Speaker 1: different case altogether. But in the other kinds of executive orders, 286 00:18:48,119 --> 00:18:51,600 Speaker 1: where there wasn't that kind of immediate injury or impact 287 00:18:51,680 --> 00:18:55,320 Speaker 1: from the order, the courts would routinely reject challenges to 288 00:18:55,359 --> 00:18:59,080 Speaker 1: those kinds of orders. The government's defense, the go to defense, 289 00:18:59,240 --> 00:19:02,359 Speaker 1: is the boiler plate language in the executive order at 290 00:19:02,400 --> 00:19:07,160 Speaker 1: the bottom. Yeah, these modern executive orders all included provision 291 00:19:07,240 --> 00:19:11,320 Speaker 1: saying there are no rights or responsibilities created by this order. 292 00:19:11,640 --> 00:19:14,880 Speaker 1: It is not enforceable in court. And the courts by 293 00:19:14,920 --> 00:19:18,320 Speaker 1: and large have accepted that and basically said that's right. 294 00:19:18,359 --> 00:19:22,840 Speaker 1: These orders. The courts view them as housekeeping orders. You know, 295 00:19:23,119 --> 00:19:27,080 Speaker 1: as the president of the executive branch, these are instructions 296 00:19:27,119 --> 00:19:31,800 Speaker 1: to his cabinet officers for how he wants his administration 297 00:19:31,840 --> 00:19:35,080 Speaker 1: to conduct business. And you'll notice in this executive order, 298 00:19:35,119 --> 00:19:38,879 Speaker 1: and in other orders, there's always a line that says this, 299 00:19:39,320 --> 00:19:43,480 Speaker 1: the direction is always consistent with statutory authority. In other words, 300 00:19:43,760 --> 00:19:48,439 Speaker 1: executive orders can't amend legislation and they can't contradict, you know, 301 00:19:48,520 --> 00:19:52,600 Speaker 1: the direction from Congress. But because Congress always gives agencies 302 00:19:52,640 --> 00:19:56,920 Speaker 1: an awful lot of discretion, and these statutes contain very broad, 303 00:19:57,160 --> 00:20:00,879 Speaker 1: general and and oftentimes ambiguous language, there's a lot of 304 00:20:00,920 --> 00:20:04,840 Speaker 1: interpretation that has to happen. And these executive orders are 305 00:20:04,920 --> 00:20:09,119 Speaker 1: directions to the agencies as to how they should exercise 306 00:20:09,200 --> 00:20:13,680 Speaker 1: their discretion consistent with the statutory authority. So the orders 307 00:20:13,720 --> 00:20:16,959 Speaker 1: themselves aren't making new law, they aren't creating new rules. 308 00:20:17,280 --> 00:20:20,440 Speaker 1: They're telling the agencies these are the kinds of policies, 309 00:20:20,520 --> 00:20:23,560 Speaker 1: of course I want you to consider and incorporate. And 310 00:20:23,640 --> 00:20:26,960 Speaker 1: also in the case of social cost of carbon, this 311 00:20:27,040 --> 00:20:30,360 Speaker 1: is the procedure, this is the process that I want 312 00:20:30,400 --> 00:20:33,959 Speaker 1: you to follow. And this social cost of carbon model 313 00:20:34,080 --> 00:20:38,320 Speaker 1: that they used was developed by seventeen agencies, So it's 314 00:20:38,359 --> 00:20:41,560 Speaker 1: a it's a large inter agency working group comprised of 315 00:20:41,600 --> 00:20:45,720 Speaker 1: economists and technical people, so it isn't even just the 316 00:20:45,800 --> 00:20:50,000 Speaker 1: White House dictating this particular number it's the White House 317 00:20:50,000 --> 00:20:54,159 Speaker 1: saying this agency inter agency working group should be re 318 00:20:54,480 --> 00:20:58,680 Speaker 1: established trumpet abolished, it should be re established, and it 319 00:20:58,760 --> 00:21:01,199 Speaker 1: should be the one to go to to look for 320 00:21:01,240 --> 00:21:04,720 Speaker 1: guidance on how to do this. Since everyone seems to 321 00:21:04,720 --> 00:21:07,320 Speaker 1: agree that this is not this lawsuit is not going 322 00:21:07,359 --> 00:21:11,720 Speaker 1: to survive, is it then a publicity stunt? Sort of? Yeah, 323 00:21:11,720 --> 00:21:14,280 Speaker 1: I would call it a publicity stunt. It's not all 324 00:21:14,280 --> 00:21:17,840 Speaker 1: of the states that we're attacking the Obama administration's environmental 325 00:21:17,880 --> 00:21:20,040 Speaker 1: rules and climate rules, but it's a lot of the 326 00:21:20,119 --> 00:21:24,119 Speaker 1: same states. They're all Republicans controlled state attorneys general that 327 00:21:24,160 --> 00:21:27,000 Speaker 1: are suing, and I mean, I guess they just want 328 00:21:27,119 --> 00:21:30,359 Speaker 1: some some publicity and some attention, and and it's a 329 00:21:30,359 --> 00:21:33,520 Speaker 1: warning shot, you know as well. I mean, they probably 330 00:21:33,560 --> 00:21:36,240 Speaker 1: realized in their heart of hearts that this case isn't 331 00:21:36,280 --> 00:21:38,760 Speaker 1: going to survive. But it's a warning shot to the 332 00:21:38,760 --> 00:21:42,000 Speaker 1: Adviten administration of what's going to be coming. So that's fine. 333 00:21:42,080 --> 00:21:44,480 Speaker 1: That seems to be the era we're in where it's 334 00:21:44,520 --> 00:21:49,040 Speaker 1: partisan warfare, you know, not conducting the public's business necessarily 335 00:21:49,080 --> 00:21:52,119 Speaker 1: in a very rational way. But it is what it is. 336 00:21:52,280 --> 00:21:55,119 Speaker 1: That's the kind of world we're living. In I was 337 00:21:55,280 --> 00:21:58,440 Speaker 1: very surprised because Texas was the first state to sue 338 00:21:58,480 --> 00:22:02,040 Speaker 1: the Body administration. Tex has led so many of the 339 00:22:02,119 --> 00:22:05,840 Speaker 1: lawsuits against the Obama administration, and Texas is nowhere to 340 00:22:05,840 --> 00:22:09,240 Speaker 1: be found in this lawsuit. Yeah, neither is West Virginia, 341 00:22:09,240 --> 00:22:12,159 Speaker 1: which surprised a lot of people because Patrick Morrissey, the 342 00:22:12,160 --> 00:22:14,760 Speaker 1: Attorney General of West Virginia, led the charge. He and 343 00:22:14,800 --> 00:22:18,479 Speaker 1: Scott Threwitt, of course from Oklahoma, led the charge against 344 00:22:18,480 --> 00:22:20,960 Speaker 1: the Obama rules and they didn't join. And that might 345 00:22:21,240 --> 00:22:23,840 Speaker 1: that might actually reflect that they looked at this case 346 00:22:23,880 --> 00:22:26,359 Speaker 1: and said, this is not a good case. We don't 347 00:22:26,400 --> 00:22:28,439 Speaker 1: need to be jumping the gun here. We're gonna have 348 00:22:28,520 --> 00:22:32,040 Speaker 1: plenty of opportunities to sue Biden. Let's pick our target 349 00:22:32,720 --> 00:22:35,639 Speaker 1: for cases that have a better chance. Turning to another 350 00:22:35,720 --> 00:22:40,399 Speaker 1: environmental issue, I think most environmentalists breathed a sigh of 351 00:22:40,440 --> 00:22:45,440 Speaker 1: relief when Joe Biden became president because of his environmental concerns. 352 00:22:45,800 --> 00:22:49,280 Speaker 1: But now the Biden administration is throwing its legal weight 353 00:22:49,520 --> 00:22:53,080 Speaker 1: behind the Penny's pipeline in a high stake Supreme Court 354 00:22:53,119 --> 00:22:57,240 Speaker 1: case that could affect natural gas projects across the US. 355 00:22:57,520 --> 00:23:00,840 Speaker 1: The Justice Department is urging the High Court to overturn 356 00:23:00,880 --> 00:23:04,720 Speaker 1: a ruling that had blocked Pennies from using federal eminent 357 00:23:04,760 --> 00:23:08,760 Speaker 1: domain authority to take New Jersey land along the one 358 00:23:08,800 --> 00:23:13,000 Speaker 1: billion dollar project's route. So this came as a surprise 359 00:23:13,160 --> 00:23:16,480 Speaker 1: to a lot of people, especially because one of Biden's 360 00:23:16,560 --> 00:23:21,280 Speaker 1: first moves was to stop the Keystone Excel pipeline. So 361 00:23:21,359 --> 00:23:24,360 Speaker 1: why do you think the administration is backing the Pennies 362 00:23:24,520 --> 00:23:28,280 Speaker 1: pipeline at the Supreme Court. Oh yeah, that's an interesting one, 363 00:23:28,359 --> 00:23:31,119 Speaker 1: isn't it. So you know, eminent domain authority can be 364 00:23:31,240 --> 00:23:33,199 Speaker 1: used for good or bad. I guess from from an 365 00:23:33,280 --> 00:23:36,920 Speaker 1: environmental standpoint, I think one of the concerns the administration 366 00:23:37,000 --> 00:23:40,600 Speaker 1: has is what if we wanted to approve a solar array, 367 00:23:41,400 --> 00:23:45,320 Speaker 1: or a wind farm or an offshore wind project, you 368 00:23:45,359 --> 00:23:48,840 Speaker 1: know the states we're trying to oppose that that Maybe 369 00:23:48,920 --> 00:23:51,119 Speaker 1: some of the concern here is that they want the 370 00:23:51,160 --> 00:23:54,639 Speaker 1: authority to be able to install the infrastructure for the 371 00:23:54,680 --> 00:23:58,000 Speaker 1: clean energy economy they want to build. If that's the case, 372 00:23:58,080 --> 00:24:02,960 Speaker 1: if that's the thinking behind biden administration support for condemning 373 00:24:03,000 --> 00:24:06,920 Speaker 1: State Land to build an interstate pipeline, what I would 374 00:24:06,960 --> 00:24:10,719 Speaker 1: say is a better approach would be to you know, 375 00:24:10,800 --> 00:24:12,960 Speaker 1: get you'd have to get legislation to do this, but 376 00:24:13,040 --> 00:24:17,199 Speaker 1: they have a statute that authorizes the use of eminent 377 00:24:17,240 --> 00:24:20,440 Speaker 1: domain but put limits on it. And frankly, you could 378 00:24:20,440 --> 00:24:23,600 Speaker 1: make an argument now, and of course, consistent with the 379 00:24:23,600 --> 00:24:28,199 Speaker 1: Biden administration's statements that we're in a climate crisis, you 380 00:24:28,200 --> 00:24:31,000 Speaker 1: could make an argument that eminent domain should not be 381 00:24:31,200 --> 00:24:35,680 Speaker 1: used to construct further fossil fuel infrastructure because we can't 382 00:24:35,800 --> 00:24:38,119 Speaker 1: use it all. The science is telling us you're not 383 00:24:38,160 --> 00:24:41,520 Speaker 1: going to be able to be using interstate gas pipelines 384 00:24:41,880 --> 00:24:44,800 Speaker 1: for the next thirty or forty or fifty years, which 385 00:24:44,840 --> 00:24:48,840 Speaker 1: is what they require to repay the tremendous capital costs 386 00:24:48,840 --> 00:24:52,639 Speaker 1: to build them. These are multibillion dollar projects we're talking about. 387 00:24:52,920 --> 00:24:55,639 Speaker 1: You don't build those things and then operate them, you know, 388 00:24:55,760 --> 00:24:58,760 Speaker 1: for five or ten years, And the science is telling 389 00:24:58,840 --> 00:25:01,960 Speaker 1: us that's all we've got basically to get serious about 390 00:25:02,000 --> 00:25:07,000 Speaker 1: decarbonizing the energy sector, the transportation sector, and other sectors. 391 00:25:07,040 --> 00:25:13,400 Speaker 1: So you could deploy eminent domain more strategically to advantage 392 00:25:13,520 --> 00:25:17,359 Speaker 1: clean energy and not dirty energy, but that's not what 393 00:25:17,480 --> 00:25:21,160 Speaker 1: we have right now. The Natural Gas Act doesn't distinguish, 394 00:25:21,200 --> 00:25:24,800 Speaker 1: of course, between you know, good projects and bad projects. 395 00:25:25,080 --> 00:25:29,280 Speaker 1: It authorizes eminent domain for all gas pipeline projects. So 396 00:25:29,520 --> 00:25:33,800 Speaker 1: the Biden administration is sticking with the current status of 397 00:25:33,840 --> 00:25:37,080 Speaker 1: the law of eminent domain because I think it wants 398 00:25:37,119 --> 00:25:39,200 Speaker 1: to use it. For example, that they've got a big 399 00:25:39,240 --> 00:25:43,320 Speaker 1: push to electrify the transportation system, you know, to build 400 00:25:43,320 --> 00:25:46,480 Speaker 1: the kind of clean energy system we need. For example, 401 00:25:46,520 --> 00:25:49,040 Speaker 1: for electric vehicles, you need a lot of charging stations 402 00:25:49,080 --> 00:25:52,159 Speaker 1: all over the country deployed in the strategic locations so 403 00:25:52,160 --> 00:25:55,280 Speaker 1: that people can quickly recharge their cars wherever they are. 404 00:25:55,640 --> 00:26:00,320 Speaker 1: And that's a massive, almost like interstate highway system requirement. 405 00:26:00,440 --> 00:26:03,760 Speaker 1: The same thing with with the grid, the electricity grids. 406 00:26:03,800 --> 00:26:07,720 Speaker 1: We saw what happened in Texas. Obviously lots of reasons 407 00:26:07,760 --> 00:26:11,240 Speaker 1: for that, but the lesson is that our grid system 408 00:26:11,320 --> 00:26:13,919 Speaker 1: is too vulnerable to extreme weather. It needs to be 409 00:26:14,040 --> 00:26:18,639 Speaker 1: weather rized. We need more micro grids, more distributed energy, 410 00:26:18,720 --> 00:26:22,520 Speaker 1: so we're not reliant on you know, single grid systems 411 00:26:22,560 --> 00:26:25,560 Speaker 1: that can go down in extreme weather events, whether they 412 00:26:25,680 --> 00:26:29,480 Speaker 1: be heat or rain or storms or whatever whatever the 413 00:26:29,520 --> 00:26:33,280 Speaker 1: extreme weather is. And again, you know that's going to 414 00:26:33,400 --> 00:26:37,800 Speaker 1: mean having to build new structures infrastructure for this clean 415 00:26:37,920 --> 00:26:42,120 Speaker 1: energy economy and it's going to mean having to overcome opposition, 416 00:26:42,480 --> 00:26:46,200 Speaker 1: you know, not in my backyard, opposition, opposition from states. 417 00:26:46,760 --> 00:26:51,080 Speaker 1: You might have to actually condemn state owned land in 418 00:26:51,240 --> 00:26:54,600 Speaker 1: order to build some of these energy systems. So that's 419 00:26:54,600 --> 00:26:57,760 Speaker 1: what's in the background here with eminent domain, as they say, 420 00:26:58,000 --> 00:27:00,840 Speaker 1: it can be used to promote clean energy or to 421 00:27:01,040 --> 00:27:04,880 Speaker 1: promote fossil fuel energy, and the question is how are 422 00:27:04,920 --> 00:27:08,439 Speaker 1: we going to decide which forms of energy we really 423 00:27:08,440 --> 00:27:12,680 Speaker 1: want to prioritize. What is the Biden administration doing as 424 00:27:12,680 --> 00:27:17,320 Speaker 1: far as endangered species? For endangered species, they're setting about 425 00:27:17,400 --> 00:27:21,520 Speaker 1: reversing Trump's rules, which revise all of the protections for 426 00:27:21,640 --> 00:27:26,520 Speaker 1: endangered species, including things like not protecting species that are 427 00:27:26,560 --> 00:27:29,040 Speaker 1: threatened from what it's called take, which is any kind 428 00:27:29,040 --> 00:27:32,719 Speaker 1: of form of harm, killing, or injuring. There's a rulemaking 429 00:27:32,800 --> 00:27:36,080 Speaker 1: underway to reverse the Trump rules and replace them with 430 00:27:36,359 --> 00:27:40,680 Speaker 1: more protective rules for endangered species. And the Biden administration 431 00:27:40,720 --> 00:27:45,639 Speaker 1: has also revoked the rule that the Trump administration adopted 432 00:27:45,880 --> 00:27:49,520 Speaker 1: under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which basically said unless 433 00:27:49,520 --> 00:27:53,400 Speaker 1: you can prove that someone intentionally is killing birds, there's 434 00:27:53,440 --> 00:27:56,080 Speaker 1: no violation of that Act. And the problem with that 435 00:27:56,280 --> 00:27:58,919 Speaker 1: is a lot of the death to migratory birds occur 436 00:27:59,040 --> 00:28:01,560 Speaker 1: from things like boil pits in the oil and gas 437 00:28:01,680 --> 00:28:05,080 Speaker 1: industry around the country, and these birds are attracted, of 438 00:28:05,160 --> 00:28:08,200 Speaker 1: course to what looks like water, but it's toxic to them, 439 00:28:08,520 --> 00:28:10,439 Speaker 1: and believe it or not, there are millions of birds 440 00:28:10,520 --> 00:28:13,960 Speaker 1: killed every year from contact with with that kind of 441 00:28:14,119 --> 00:28:19,639 Speaker 1: industrial operation. So restoring protection for migratory birds is important 442 00:28:19,720 --> 00:28:22,400 Speaker 1: because that will prevent a lot of these birds from 443 00:28:22,440 --> 00:28:27,760 Speaker 1: becoming endangered. And that's the real strategy with wildlife conservation obviously, 444 00:28:27,880 --> 00:28:30,760 Speaker 1: is to protect the species that are still viable and 445 00:28:30,960 --> 00:28:34,800 Speaker 1: relatively healthy so that they don't become endangered. Thanks Pat, 446 00:28:34,960 --> 00:28:38,120 Speaker 1: that's Professor Pat Parento off the Vermont Law School. I'm 447 00:28:38,200 --> 00:28:40,400 Speaker 1: June Gralso and you're listening to Bloomberg.