What Canada’s carbon pricing ruling says about the global struggle against climate change
clock On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal carbon pricing backstop, designed to ensure a price on pollution in provinces that do not adopt their own scheme, is constitutional. The 6-3 ruling in a reference case brought to the court by Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, cited the countrys peace, order, and good government (POGG) clause that enables the federal government to make policy in areas of national concern. Moreover, the court wrote, federal jurisdiction should be found to exist only where the evidence established provincial inability to deal with the matter, suggesting that not only is the matter one of national interest, it is also one that requires national, cooperative action. This is welcome news. The case was a major test of Canadas capacity to deal with the significant threat of climate change. The overview of Thursdays judgment includes a few lines that were immediately widely repeated in the press and on social media . Climate change is real. It is caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities, and it poses a grave threat to humanitys future. The only way to address the threat of climate change is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By now, this is rightly accepted as fact, though the new climate change denialism takes a more insidious form of qualifying, temporizing and inaction. In Canada, this denialism is manifest in, among other forms, doing too little, too late to reduce carbon pollution while squabbling over jurisdiction. In a complex federation marked by times of competition, times of cooperation and times of everything in between, action on climate change even something as necessary but insufficient as a carbon price is difficult. Jurisdictions vary in their commitment to fighting for the future of humankind in general and Canadians in particular. Standards vary, too. But greenhouse gasses neither recognize nor adapt to borders. Likewise, the effects of climate change do not respect lines on a map. Thus, what happens in one jurisdiction matters to the next and is very much its business. A national framework for battling climate change is necessary, including the standards and expectations it sets. As Chief Justice Richard Wagner wrote in the decision, In summary, the evidence clearly shows that establishing minimum national standards of GHG price stringency to reduce GHG emissions is of concern for Canada as a whole. This matter is critical to our response to an existential threat to human life. One of the central concerns expressed by those who oppose the carbon pricing backstop, including one dissenting member of the Court Justice Russell Brown is that this decision will allow federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, thus undermining the federation. Thats the slippery slope argument. I dont buy it. Never mind that provinces are typically happy to take federal money to run programs such as health insurance while meeting national standards, federal engagement in critical areas of national concern is what POGG is for, and when facing existential threats that transcend borders, failure to meet the challenge will do far more damage to provinces than a one-off, extraordinary engagement across jurisdictional lines. Call me when this is the rule and not the exception. Canadas struggle to adopt standards across provincial lines mirrors the global struggle to get every country pulling adequately in the same direction. Climate action is rife with problems from free riders to dissenting ideology to science denialism to domineering capital interests and beyond. Yet, Canadas approach, inadequate as it is thus far, models one way ahead: national minimum standards alongside respect for the autonomy of jurisdiction, such that subnational governments can make policy as they please within certain boundaries. In the face of a fast-moving problem to which weve responded slowly and behind time, this is more than a reasonable compromise. Indeed, it may be too much of a compromise insofar as the price of carbon is lower than it might be. Still, its a good model and here to stay, even if the policy contained within it needs to be much more ambitious. Even after the Supreme Court decision, provinces will continue to fight with Ottawa about carbon pricing, as Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister has indicated . In the long run, theyll lose. Good. Unfortunately, the effort, time and resources that losing fight will require could be better spent as we face climate change, and the pandemic. But its nonetheless welcome news that proponents of a national backstop on carbon pricing have won a major battle. Its just too bad they had to fight it in the first place. Read more: J.J. McCullough: U.S. politics has too many Canadian pundits Michael Taube: Cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline starts Biden and Canada on the wrong foot David Moscrop: Trump was exhausting for Canada. Biden will be a more welcome challenge. Nora Loreto: Canadas covid-19 crisis needs a targeted response. When will its leaders learn?