BrianSchmidt’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The court may be wrong but it's also clear

  "Why would the statute that does give authority to put forth additional regulations not allow removal or devaluing of permits?"

  I agree that's strained reasoning that may get overturned on rehearing en banc or on appeal (unless Pres. Obama decides to junk the whole rule and start over).

  "Obviously permits must be seen as having some property like right."

  No - the court clearly says on page 44 of the pdf that EPA's problem is not a prohibition against removing permits but a lack of authorization to do so.

  Finally, if you're going to call this "takings" which you shouldn't, at least call it "takings-analogous" or "pseudotakings" or anything that clearly distinguishes it from a standard takings issue, which is a constitutional issue.

  (And it's great that you put the pdf link in a comment, but would be better in the main post.)On Clean Air Interstate rule struck down because it devalues sulfur trading permits posted 1 year, 3 months ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Not a takings or a fairness argument

  I agree with most of the comments that the court didn't make a takings-style argument.  Pseudo-trackback below:

  http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2008/07/gristmill-sam ...On Clean Air Interstate rule struck down because it devalues sulfur trading permits posted 1 year, 3 months ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  context

  It would take centuries for our machines to reach a habitable exoplanet, and longer for human bodies to get there.  I wouldn't be too worried.

  And if there's anyone out there intelligent enough to talk to, the odds are that they're far more advanced than we are and that we're the ones who should be concerned about the effect of cultural contact.

  For real, space environmental issues, consider Earth-orbiting space junk; control and use of potentially-limited water ice resources on the moon; and the appropriate level of effort to avoid contaminating Mars and other potential habitable sites in our solar system.  These are issues we need to think about in the same time context as our efforts on climate change (and space junk may be an even more immediate threat).On Do humans deserve to find life on other planets? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 14 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Results-based rules aren't enough

  Gar writes, "Regulations don't have to specify technology. They can specify results."

  That doesn't fix the issue naturescene identified.  A result-based regulation that says, "emit no more than X tons of carbon" doesn't reward innovation that would cost a little more but significantly reduce emissions below the minimum required to get to X.

  A carbon tax does help in this regard, but trading rewards innovation even more.On Carbon offsetting is not the best way for the global north to subsidize the global south posted 1 year, 8 months ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mallaby has a history of problems

  He attempts to be contrarian, even when the evidence doesn't allow it.  I see resemblances to John Tierney.

  I caught him doing something similar while praising Bush Administration AIDS policies:

  http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2006/05/giving-too-mu ...On The Washington Post lamely attacks Obama's climate ideas posted 1 year, 8 months ago 12 Responses