This is a very good analysis on the difficulties of domestically solving climate change and of negative/positive rights. I'm afraid we won't get better judicial clarity unless provincial AG's argue a better factual case.
BTW, not a constitutional consideration, but Canada is not going to persuade large emitters to do as we would want them to do. Our courts have no say in what they do and no Canadian "soft power," whatever it may be, is going to accomplish that.
I was surprised that the decision spend more time on the consequences - or lack thereof - of the target. As you say, the distinction between positive and negative rights can be fuzzy at the best of times. Without identifiable practical ramifications, the categorization exercise seems absurd.
Does anyone believe that the current Ontario government would enact substantially different policies if the target were 46% of 30%? I am skeptical.
This is a very good analysis on the difficulties of domestically solving climate change and of negative/positive rights. I'm afraid we won't get better judicial clarity unless provincial AG's argue a better factual case.
BTW, not a constitutional consideration, but Canada is not going to persuade large emitters to do as we would want them to do. Our courts have no say in what they do and no Canadian "soft power," whatever it may be, is going to accomplish that.
I was surprised that the decision spend more time on the consequences - or lack thereof - of the target. As you say, the distinction between positive and negative rights can be fuzzy at the best of times. Without identifiable practical ramifications, the categorization exercise seems absurd.
Does anyone believe that the current Ontario government would enact substantially different policies if the target were 46% of 30%? I am skeptical.