Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases coming from new cars and trucks.
Erm. This could put a crimp in our automotive lifestyle. I don't know about the other gases, but CO2 is practically impossible to scrub out of exhaust meaning that this is pretty much another avenue to impose mileage requirements on cars.
This is really quite amazing, because Carbon Dioxide is not actually a pollutant, as such. We breath vast amounts of it in and out every day. In fact, it is the fourth most common gas composing our atmosphere after Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon. It is not poisonous.
Interesting is that the court begins it's opinion citing current thinking on global warming, a matter of still substantial debate. Man made CO2 caused global warming is absolutely not settled science. One wonders, if the opinions shift and, for instance, solar flux turns out to be the real cause of temperature variation does that automatically invalidate the courts ruling? Of course not.
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SCOTUS. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
March 27 - All for the low, low price... not anymore.
The Supreme Court is currently considering a case that would permit manufacturers to set a minimum price that retailers may charge for an item. This is previously settled case law for nearly a hundred years.
This leaves me befuddled as to what is the capitalist approach. On the one hand, a retailer and a manufacturer may have a contract that they have freely entered into and that may include such prices floors. On the other there is an issue of natural rights of ownership that says the retailer ought to be able to do whatever they see fit with their property to do business. From the consumer point of view price floors seem anticompetitive.
The rub comes in when the product fails to sell at the floor price. Is the retailer required to store the product forever? They can't throw or give it away because that would constitute selling it for a lower price. No more Filene's Basement type sales.
If the SCOTUS overturns this one, there are going to be some people caught in some very painful contracts in the coming years.
This leaves me befuddled as to what is the capitalist approach. On the one hand, a retailer and a manufacturer may have a contract that they have freely entered into and that may include such prices floors. On the other there is an issue of natural rights of ownership that says the retailer ought to be able to do whatever they see fit with their property to do business. From the consumer point of view price floors seem anticompetitive.
The rub comes in when the product fails to sell at the floor price. Is the retailer required to store the product forever? They can't throw or give it away because that would constitute selling it for a lower price. No more Filene's Basement type sales.
If the SCOTUS overturns this one, there are going to be some people caught in some very painful contracts in the coming years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
