Thread by @N_Chalifour

My top ten takeaways from today's SKCA decision upholding the federal carbon pricing law:

1. The Court recognized the gravity of the issue: “…climate change caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is one of the great existential issues of our time.” (para 4)

2. The Court acknowledged that the threat is global: “…climate change has emerged as a major threat, not just to Canada, but to the planet itself.” (para 144)

3. The Court agreed that climate change is an emergency: “Climate change is doubtless an emergency in the sense that it presents a genuine threat to Canada.” (para 202)

4. The Court accepted and relied upon the findings of the @IPCC, citing basic facts about climate change and its impacts from the last assessment report (para 16).

@IPCC 5. The Court recognized that #carbonpricing is an essential element of the global effort to limit GHG emissions, citing widespread international consensus & experts like @riversNic in support of carbon pricing as a necessary and effective GHG mitigation measure (para 147).

@IPCC @riversNic 6. The Court recognized transboundary nature of GHG emissions & need for nat'l approach: “... GHG emissions do not respect provincial boundaries. As a result, the failure of one province to take action in respect of such emissions will have impacts on other provinces.” (para 154)

@IPCC @riversNic 7. Court recognized Canada cannot meet Paris targets “if not all provincial jurisdictions are prepared to implement GHG emissions pricing regimes – regimes that, on the basis of the record before the Court, are an essential aspect of successful GHG mitigation plans.” (para 156)

@IPCC @riversNic 8. Const to be interpreted flexibly: “If it is necessary to apply established doctrine ... to ensure both levels of government have the tools essential for dealing with something as pressing as climate change, that would seem to be entirely appropriate.” (para 144)

@IPCC @riversNic 9. It is not a tax: “the levies imposed by the Act are regulatory charges, not taxes.” (para 9) “It is difficult to see how the Act, which is ultimately wholly disinterested in generating revenue, can... be seen as a law with a primary purpose of raising revenue....” (para 87)

@IPCC @riversNic 10. Last but not least, Court's decision is “in keeping with what the Supreme Court has said about the utility of, where possible, allowing both Parliament and the provincial legislatures jurisdictional room to act in relation to the environment.”(para 144)

@IPCC @riversNic In other words, there is ample jurisdictional space for climate policies at the federal and provincial levels. Time to get on with it, and stop fiddling while Rome burns (or Ottawa #floods).