Water Marketing as an Adaptive Response to the Threat of Climate Change

Demographic changes and existing water use patterns have placed tremendous pressures upon water supplies, particularly in the West. Global climate change will exacerbate pressures on water resources. The gradual warming of the atmosphere is certain to change the distribution and availability of water supplies, with potentially severe consequences for freshwater supplies. While climate change will have a significant impact on water resources through changes in the timing and volume of precipitation, altered evaporation rates, and the like, the precise nature, magnitude, timing, and distribution of such climate-induced changes are unknown. This uncertainty complicates the task of water managers who are already faced with escalating demands. This article argues that climate change, and its projected effects on water use and supply, calls for a fundamental reexamination of water institutions. In particular, this article suggests that market-based institutions are well suited to address the additional pressures on water supplies due to climate change. Many aspects of water markets, including their flexibility, decentralized nature, and ability to create and harness economic incentives, make them particularly well suited to address the uncertain water forecast. A gradual shift toward water marketing and market pricing will improve the management of water supplies, ensure more efficient allocation of available water supplies and encourage cost-effective conservation measures

Gaussian processes, kinematic formulae and Poincar\'e's limit

We consider vector valued, unit variance Gaussian processes defined over stratified manifolds and the geometry of their excursion sets. In particular, we develop an explicit formula for the expectation of all the Lipschitz--Killing curvatures of these sets. Whereas our motivation is primarily probabilistic, with statistical applications in the background, this formula has also an interpretation as a version of the classic kinematic fundamental formula of integral geometry. All of these aspects are developed in the paper. Particularly novel is the method of proof, which is based on a an approximation to the canonical Gaussian process on the $n$-sphere. The $n\to\infty$ limit, which gives the final result, is handled via recent extensions of the classic Poincar\'e limit theorem.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/08-AOP439 the Annals of Probability (http://www.imstat.org/aop/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Arguing from Ignorance

Arguments from ignorance should be schematized: It has not been proven false that p. So it is possible that p. So, it is reasonable to believe p. Also, in opposition to standard views they should be distinguished from burden of proof and absence of evidence arguments. Much of the persuasiveness of such arguments can be located in the slippery uses of possible. Besides equivocations on possible the argument is a fallacy for two reasons. First, the possibility implied by the first premise does not yield the serious possibility that is needed for establishing the conclusion. Second, ignorance is never sufficient reason for belief, only adequate evidence

Anti-Disruption Statutory Construction

During his first ten years on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts has adopted a pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation that appears to place a higher priority on avoiding disruptive consequences than on any particular interpretive methodology. Prepared for the symposium, “Ten Years the Chief: Examining a Decade of John Roberts on the Supreme Court,” at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, this brief essay argues that the Chief Justice’s approach to statutory interpretation exhibits a “Burkean minimalism” that seeks to reduce seismic effect of the Court’s decisions. In particular, the Chief Justice is drawn toward statutory interpretations that avoid constitutional questions and preserve legislative enactments against constitutional challenge. Avoiding disruption is not an unyielding imperative, as the Chief Justice is sometimes willing to join broad judgments with significant effects. Nontheless, avoiding disruption appears to be a priority for the Chief Justice when deciding cases, and interpreting statutes in particular