The Problem of Illegitimacy in Climate Law

Welcome everyone to a very special ESS lecture this evening. My name is Deborah Ross. I'm the manager of outreach and communications at the College of Sustainability. It's great to see you all here and welcome to everyone online. It's an honor for us to sc to co-sponsor this event each year in honor of a dear friend of the college and Delhausy colleague Minehard Doell. We are still in the last week of Migma history month in Nova Scotia. a chance for us to celebrate Migma culture, language, and traditions, and to deepen our understanding of the history of the Migma as the original people of Migmagi and here in Shabuktuk. I'd also like to acknowledge the African Nova Scotian community who have shared these lands for over 400 years. So, a warm welcome. And finally, I'd like to introduce Dean Sarah Harding of the Shoulick School of Law at Delhauszy. Thanks so much. It's wonderful to see you all here. Um, this isn't my home turf. Um, given that I'm here in the business school as opposed to not in the law school. Um, but I nonetheless want to welcome you all here um to the conversation and to the lecture this evening. And in particular, I want to say a warm welcome to Minehart's family. Um I see Wendy um and and and um the um Doell family over there. So really lovely to see you again. Um so um the real introductions will follow um the introductions um uh of this lecture series um of Minehart's work and of um our speaker tonight. Um, but I do want to take this opportunity to just add a few thoughts of my own. Most of you probably won't know that Minard and I actually went to law school together. We graduated together in 1989. And all the way back then, he was already incredibly passionate about environmental law and policy. And that was at a time when there weren't a whole lot of people who were incredibly passionate within law schools in that field. So he was very much a pathbreaker at that time. Um I left the country after we graduated from law school. So I never had the opportunity to be Minhart's colleague. Um but I did see his work from afar. I um always knew what he was doing and was um was uh consistently um impressed by uh his work and the impact he had in environmental law and policy in climate change uh in work on decarbonization and the whole array of topics that he focused on environmental assessments. Um I know that um Sarah Sack will say a few more about uh a few more words about some of his impact uh as a scholar. Um but he also had an impact as a teacher and uh I learned about that impact um from the alumni I've met over the years uh the last couple years I've been dean. Um I've heard a lot of uh marvelous things about his impact on them as students uh and uh how difficult it was for them to uh lose him um at such a an early uh or young age. Um so uh for me it's always a really special thing to come and say a few words at the beginning of this lecture. Um Sarah asks me every year and I jump at the chance I say of course. Um I I find it's uh it has a very special connection um for me and uh always very happy to say a few words. Um and with that um I will um pass uh the microphone on to Sarah. Oh, I do want to say one more thing but but keep coming up. Um I also think it's particularly special that uh this evening um we have Ado who um is one of Minehart's students. So it's a very touching, very special, very full circle kind of moment um to have him here as our speaker for the evening. Sarah, thank you Sarah. So my name is uh Sarah Sack and I am the current director of the marine and environmental law institute and a professor here at the Shoulick School of Law and I was also a close colleague of mine's um over a number of years when I first started uh venturing into the teaching of environmental law. The first book that I used and still use is an edited uh case book that Minehard dedicated a lot of his life to developing. Um he had he published extensively books on impact assessment. Um an early book on climate change and international environmental law. Um and I had the pleasure of co-editing a book with him on climate change loss and damage which we completed shortly before he passed away. Um I also had the pleasure of um co-supervising and engaging with him in graduate supervision and um professor magical a bay who is now on faculty at the University of Alberta's faculty of law uh was one of those graduate students that we co-supervised um minehard made great contributions to teaching at the law school but was also very active at the college of sustainability. So um uh contributed widely in teaching in every capacity imaginable working on um government policy and um just someone we miss greatly. However, we are delighted to have the opportunity to welcome back um people who had studied with Minehard and this includes professor Adabi Magagical Lagay and I'm going to keep calling him professor magical a bay because even though he's graduated and is a professor he insists on writing emails to me where he says hi prof. So this is revenge. Professor Magic Lagnet is an assistant professor of law at the faculty of law University of Alberta. He previously served as an adjunct professor while a graduate student here um at the Shoulick School of Law um and has taught uh taught for us climate law among other things and and has taught climate law also at the University of Alberta um where he also teaches other courses like constitutional law, international business transactions and other and other things. Um his PhD thesis was actually the one that won um Delhauszy uh gold medal. I think they're called the gold medal. Um the best doctoral thesis in the uh social sciences. It focused on just transition and impact assessment in the context of climate change which is something that will have influenced the talk he's going to give um tonight. And this research was also featured in a showcase on uh Parliament Hill. Um, Professor Magical Agbay also had the opportunity to co-author a number of papers with uh Minehard which I think um is also special and um with that I welcome you to give our the lecture of the evening on the potential or the problem of illegitimacy in climate law. Thanks, Prof. Um, I forgot to include in the bio that I was once a teaching assistant at the college of sustainability. I was a TA in global environmental governance. Yes. Yeah. So, I've been around. Um, so it's an immense honor to be delivering today's lecture. My gratitude to Miller um the college of sustainability for this platform and um my invitation. Thank you, Professor Sack Prof. Um, it's great to be you. Um, a very special thanks to the Dwell family. Um, Wendy, Alita, Nicola, we just met um, close to the waterfront. It was fun. Donuts plant um, Clara Nadier. Um Wendy and Maynard very kindly opened up their home to a very broke PhD student in 2019 2020 and they allowed me to stay at their place at um below market rates while she and Mayard were away in Sweden. So um thanks Wendy. I hope I didn't break anything. Um, in 2016 when I was practicing law in Nigeria, I began to consider um, applying for grat studies here in Canada. I came across one of Mayan's videos on the 2015 Paris agreement and I reached out to him that morning. I applied. No, I reached out to him and I left for court that day. But by midday, Maynard had responded expressing interest in my work. Now I receive quite a number of similar emails from students across the world who want to pursue grad studies and I remember the speed with which Mayard responded to me and that is a judgment because I've not been able to match that. Mayard and I we were very different. We had different soccer teams. I support Chelsea. Is there any Chelsea fan here? Yay. Come on. I support Chelsea in the English Premier League. Minet support um or supported Beric Dortmund in the German Bundesliga. Um, another difference, I support Edmonton Oilers. We played tonight. Minard certainly didn't support Edmonton Oilers. And Minard had this very trademark eyebrow waggle. Whenever something mischievous happened, I don't have that waggle. like it goes. But more importantly, Mayard and I, we deferred in our emphasis on climate change law. Um, Minard emphasized effective policies. He wants effective climate policies, policies that work. I emphasized equitable climate policies, justice, just transition. But over time, after 5 years, we converged. We realized that for climate loss to be effective, they must be equitable and that ineffective climate policies will eventually be inequitable to present and future generations. And this convergence informed a work we did together in 2022 which was then published in 2023. And I I quote a part of what we wrote in that work. Meaningful participation in is particularly relevant to the integration of climate change into impact assessment as it is a site for respect and recognition of right and interest, transformative learning for all stakeholders, collective and cooperative action, legitimacy of interventions and adaptive management. Um central to that 20 23 publication was the problem and is the problem of illegitimacy in climate laws. Um an issue I will explore today. What I will do is I will give an overview of the current state of climate change and climate laws in Canada and globally. I will introduce a conceptual framework. How do you think about illegitimacy and what do we do about that? Um, earlier this month I had a community engagement event in rural Alberta. Um, I will draw anecdotal lessons from that community engagement on how to think about the issues of legitimacy and dealing with the problems of illegitimacy. So in January of 2025, the world witnessed the warmest January on record. It was 1.75 degrees, higher than what it should normally have been. And the last 3 years, 2023 to 2025, have been the hottest on record. I I know cuz I now have an air condition in my house. I shouldn't need that in Edmonton. But 1.75, I hate this stuff. Like 1.5° CC, what does that even mean? Um, the world should aim for 1.5 degrees Celsius average blah blah. What does that mean? It is more than a number. It means a drier climate. It means more severe drought and food insecurity in Africa. It means real people losing their history and their homes. It means very serious and severe hurricane like hurricane Melissa almost still ongoing in car in the Caribbean. Multiple countries affected. It means real people losing culture and history. It is more than a number. It means life-threatening heat waves in Africa. How about here in Canada? 1.5° Celsius or more. What does that mean for us? It means more destructive and uncontrollable wildfire seasons. And you've experienced it here in Nova Scotia. It means melting perafrost in northern Canada, catastrophic flooding year in the Atlantic. It means droughts in the prairie. It is more than a number. Serious serious life changing con consequences from climate change. Uh but if it's that serious, shouldn't we be treating it very seriously? But we literally continue to add fire fuel to the fire. Rather than meaningfully reducing the human causes of climate change, the world is doubling down. The projected and planned fossil fuel production till 2030 is 120%. 120% more than would or will be conducive or suitable for a safe world. 120% more plant production and global coal demand. There was a time we thought global coal demand was in decline and people aren't using coal anymore. But 2024, 2025 and it's projected that in 2026 the demand for coal would be the highest on record. like what are we doing? After the 2015 PIV agreement, there was this movement to enact climate legislation, climate laws. And this platform shows almost 2,000 almost 2,000 climate laws that have been enacted between 2018 and 2025. That's a lot of laws, right? A lot of laws. But what this suggests is that action is being taken to deal with climate change in the last few years. However, what we have witnessed is a worldwide reversal, a worldwide reversal and watering down and neutering of climate laws. So for example, European Union leaders are now including a revision clause in their climate commitment which would allow them the flexibility to review their climate targets for reasons including competitiveness. Another example, after a decade of negotiation, countries have failed to approve the international maritime organization net zero framework and that would have helped us reduce emissions from shipping. And if you're still not convinced, um, a while ago, Manny led the creation of what was called the net zero banking alliance, and this year that was shut down. Do you need another one? How about 48 hours ago, Bill Gates published an article basically saying, "Let us prioritize economic growth over climate change." There is a reversal in the little progress that the number of laws that have been made over the years would have indicated. There is a global backsliding. How about in in Canada? In Canada. And you would see that I used Canada the moonwalking lagard. If you are familiar with Michael Jackson, I I thought I should use a picture of Michael Jackson mode walking so you would have gotten the idea better. Typically, we've not done well in Canada as regards climate change. But even the little we've done, we are be we are reversing. Carbon tax gone. The zero ve mandate as good as gone. Pipelines making a comeback. And just recently the Cany government said, well, we don't believe in climate objectives anymore. We just want to emphasize competitiveness. Now we are backsliding in Canada. So what we've seen in Canada and other places in the world is that we are in an era of retrenchment. What I started with was that I showed you how important this subject is. It is consequential. It is lifechanging. I've shown you laws that appear from 2015 to date. It appeared to show that we were doing something about it. But I've now shown you multiple proofs of how across the world we are drawing back and backsliding. So the question you should ask yourself is why. And explanations you get for the question why range from Donald Trump Donald Trump and his anti-limate policies or you would hear the global farright or Russia's attack on Ukraine. That's the reason there is backsliding in climate actions or China's economic influence and we need to compete with China. That is a good enough reason to draw back on meaningful climate action. But but I I would agree that probably there is a sense in which those explanations perhaps play a role. But I think the more accurate narrative I would argue is simple. We don't need to over complicate things. Governments reverse policies that are not accepted or policies that are perceived as not accepted by the public as they do not want to risk their hold on power. Government reverse policies that are not accepted or perceived as not accepted by the public because they do not want to risk their hold on power. This is the problem of illegitimacy and that's what I'm speaking to today. And I wanted to pay attention to two concepts. I know I have quite a number of students in the audience and on another day I would have jumped into the crowd to engage with you but allow me to be professorial. I I want you to think of two concepts legality and legitimacy. And the point is that legality is not legitimacy. law just as law is not the answer to climate change. Shocker. The Supreme Court of Canada in the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act reference provided a useful articulation of the unique features of climate change. The Supreme Court mentioned three things. One, climate change has no boundary. Emissions have no boundary. Number two, the effects of climate change are not directly linked to the sources of GHG emissions. Number three, no province, territory or country can address climate change on its own. Okay. In in some if you can't remember the three points the Supreme Court said climate change is a global crisis. The the global nature of climate change compels and I think I went ahead of myself there. That's a fun one but I will come back to that. The global nature of climate change compels a global response. And I don't know how familiar you are with climate change. We've had the 1992 United Nations framework convention on climate change. We've had the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. We've had the 2015 Paris Agreement. All the conventions, international agreement then inform our national laws like the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act or the net zero emissions accountability act or it informs um provincial laws. So you've got this international conventions that shape domestic legislation. However, framing climate change as a global issue and approaching climate change or climate law making from its global perspective might be one of the most overlooked yet crucial limitations of effectively addressing climate change. I I would repeat that. Framing climate change as a primarily global problem might be one of the most serious consequential limitations of effective climate governance. Climate change is at once a global problem and a local reality. It requires that we we make we make radical choices, faring changes in the most basic areas of life. It requires that we rethink the food we eat, how we eat, the cars we drive, our transportation, the way we build our houses. It it requires that I consider should I do this on Zoom or should I travel it affects us at the most basic level. You don't legislate such a fine local level phenomenon from such a high level. You don't engage such a matter almost entirely as a global top-down concern. Put simply, and I will try to make this very simple. Until we put the local at the center of climate law making, the problem of illegitimacy will remain and perhaps worsen. So laws, greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, the Supreme Court in 2020 or 2021 affirmed the legality of the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act, but that law never attained legitimacy. So a couple of years after the Supreme Court affirmed the legality, a government had to come and gutted a central piece of that legislation because it didn't attain legitimacy. Legitimacy, not legality, guarantees the durability and long-term effectiveness of law. Legitimacy, not legality, guarantees the durability and long-term effectiveness of law. In my class, at this point, I will stop and say, did you get it? Do you understand? But I won't do that with you. Okay, let's move on. Let's talk about the problem of legitimacy. These were the best pictures I could get. Okay. So, in 1998 and I I Are there lost students? Yeah. Any law students? Yay. Constitutional law is fun, right? And you love the succession reference. >> Yeah. >> Yes. I won't tell your prof. So the Supreme Court in 1998 engaged with various questions in a case called the succession reference and what that is known for often unwritten constitutional principles but that's not what I'm talking about. Um there were parts of that decision where the Supreme Court gave us the definition of some of the main features of legitimacy. The Supreme Court said that beyond the need for adherance to the rule of law, legality, the Canadian political system must be capable of reflecting the aspirations of the people and that the political system must allow for the participation and accountability of the people. In other words, the court said, "Participation, if you're taking notes, I wonder if you will be examined on this cuz I can see like very serious note takers." Wow. Um, students in my school, sorry, I'm I'm just a very Oh, this is a formal setting. So, let me go back to type. So participation, accountability and a system aligned with the aspirations of the people those are the features of legitimacy according to the Supreme Court in the succession reference. Um the first Indian prof Indian national to become an American law professor Sawya Prakash Sinar made the point that legitimacy the legitimacy of a legal order is dependent upon how well that order accommodates the demands of liberty, community and social justice rather than helplessly succumbing to the police power of the state. The the flip side is true. Illegitimate legal orders do not accommodate or seem not to accommodate the demands of liberty, community and social justice. Such legal orders are bedeled by one or more of the following. And I tried to use this pictures to depict these three things. A single order, a a single value approach. nomative monopoly and the presumption of perfect communication. I call these three things the indicia or the indicators of illegitimacy. A single value approach, native monopoly and the presumption of perfect communication. The the the common denominator of those three indicia is what a legal theorist and sociologist Jen Griffith referred to as the neglect of the shop floor of social life. In those three things, you find the neglect of the shop floor of social life. Griffith argued that the social working oppression or even acceptance of law depends upon the mobilization of legal rules on the shop floor of social life. Um in the context of law, legal theorists have described something similar in the context of the expressive function of the law. So let's return to the three indicia of inner legitimacy and I will speak to the three indicity for this >> don't write a paper with it but it's good for this. Um so let's speak about what these three things are about. At the heart of the single value approach is the assumption of the right answer. It assumes that conflicting and diverse values and interest can be justified under one truth and diversity can be reduced into one approach. instead of being subjected to multiple assessments and judgments considering their contextual factors. Climate change is a global issue, but its impact and perceptions of measures to address it are shaped by distinct local realities. A single value approach conflicts with this feature of climate change. In Canada, as in many other jurisdictions, for example, carbon pricing is essentialized as the quintessential climate policy. And I would have referred you and I won't trouble you with this with the story of how we came to have the GGPA, the Greenhouse gas pollution pricing act. It began in 2016. I said I wouldn't bore you with it, but I will. It began in 2016 with the Vancouver declaration. The Vancouver declaration. Every province in Canada with the federal government signed up to that. and the Vancouver declaration had a lot of climate measures in it including carbon pricing. Then fast forward to the Vancouver declaration becoming the pancanadian framework on clean growth and climate change. At that point carbon pricing was made the essential most important um subset or most important measure in the panadian framework. So in the Vancouver declaration we had many measures in the panadian framework we had other measures except that carbon pricing was made as the must-have. So what then happened was that provinces that had subscribed to the Vancouver declaration kicked against the panCanadian framework and subsequently challenged the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act in court. Single value approaches such as the essententralization of carbon pricing are driven by single narratives. For example, putting a price on carbon must be achieved through explicit mechanisms like carbon tax and carpent trade. These narratives overlook the sentiments, experiences, and concerns that shape local resistance to transition policies. Let's let's talk about the second one, nominative monopoly. the the conventional positivistic approach to law represents the state the government as the sole mobilizer of individuals and individual actions. Normative monopoly overlooks the social context in which people live and assumes that behaviors are more influenced by legislation than norms derived from social relationships. That assumption forms the basis of state century clause. It promotes top down regulatory approach. A top down regulatory approach. The state creates the law. The people follow the law. Such laws often fail to acknowledge and consider the lived experiences of those being governed. John Griffith reminds us the behavior that a legislature seeks to regulate does not take place in a nomative and structural vacuum but in a specific social context overflowing with indigenous behav behavioral norms and social organization. Climate law in Canada has primarily stayed at the level of the state. This is not only in respect of the oversized role played by the federal government but also the loud opposition of provincial government or some provincial governments. The picture we get is one level of government puzzling with another level of government and both levels of government purports to represent the people. This is the myth. It's a myth of representation. So decoupling decoupling the macro arguments of states from the microargument of people and appreciating the limits of statebased representation is vital. So for example the macro reasoning of a state for a climate slot could be competitiveness but the micro reasoning of a local organiz a local community would be cultural sustainance or community sustainance. The failure to disagregate macro arguments from microarguments and engage stakeholders and right holders on the shop floor and to address local concerns constitutes a key barrier to the legitimacy of Canadian climate laws. I will go to the assumption of perfect communication. The assumption of perfect communication is that law gets to the local communities unmediated and that the laws as made by the legislature is as understood at the local level. In fact, there is a presumption in law and there is a statement in law that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But but the truth is understanding the law or even finding out the intentions of the legislature is very complex. Judges have an entire system to try to figure out the intention of the legislature and in many cases they get it wrong. But there is this assumption that those at the local level understood the laws just as passed by the legislature. I call that the presumption of perfect communication. So take the greenhouse gas pollution pricing act for example. It's a mammoth mammoth legislation over 300 sections about four parts in hundreds of pages. Then as though that wasn't complicated enough they added some regulations. How was that law perceived at the local level? It was simple. government is making our lives more expensive and it didn't matter that government had a rebate mechanism as part of that law. But the problem was that that law whether before it was made or after it was made, there was no meaningful engagement with people at the local level to really explain what the law was about. people at the local level were not engaged. A and that is one of the problems with the lawmaking venture in Canada. There is no requirement for public participation when laws are made in Canada. So if legislators make the law in Canada, they can or might not at their choosing engage with the public. But even if they did, there is a problem with laws just passed and assuming that people understood the law that has been passed. It is a problem of assuming perfect communication. So this is what I call the three indicia of illegitimacy. So how do we move away from this? How do we move away from this? The process of climate law making must become more devolved and participatory. Acceptance of and compliance with laws are best guaranteed through meaningful and inclusive participation. The most important debates are the debates on the shop floor, not on parliament. They are the debates in the small towns and small cities, not in Halifax or Edmonton or any other provincial capital. The behavioral and cultural shift required by climate change necessitates a shopf flooror alignment of legislative processes. For climate change, indirect representation must incorporate elements of direct representation and deliberative democracy. Elsewhere in the world, we are seeing a response to the clarion call to address the problem of illegitimacy. So we have multiple local level climate assemblies all through Europe. England, Scotland, they have they've constituted climate assemblies. Scotland in fact has included a mandatory requirement for a citizens assembly in its climate law. In France, after the 2018 yellow vest protest against the green energy policy of that country, the country France convened the French citizens convention on climate change. But this highlevel minis, the citizens assemblies, they are not enough. More importantly, what I argue is that we need what James Mansbridge, a political scientist, has referred to as deliberative systems. A dynamic complex system of interdependent parts where the labors of decision making are divided to reflect the factual contingencies, competing normative requirements, conflicting interests of a large swath, a large number of citizens. No singular part of a deliberative system will achieve the goals of the system but they can complement balance and contribute to the overall quality of the oil. So what does this mean for climate law making? At the most fundamental level it means that the participation of individuals must be made mandatory in the legislative process. a subsidiarity approach to lawmaking which allows for climate law making and implementation to occur at the most local level is most appropriate in the climate context. So um about a month ago about a month ago my research team took preliminary steps to begin experimenting with the deliberative systems approach. What we did was to bring together a number of right holders and stakeholders for an informal meeting in Kuso highlighted in yellow and these persons came from across surrounding towns I prairie slave lake swan eels and at first I I doubted that anybody would come because we had this event, this meeting. We had it in the heartland of Alberta where people are known for supposedly anti-climate sentiment. And indeed I sent an email to many counselors in this town and one of the counselors sent a response to me certainly not interested. um our partners, our our our local partners posted Facebook adverts and some of the comments we got were like, "You are climate scammers. You are sudo science climate terrorists." But but the persons who made this deplorable comments, they were in the minority. Many more people were sincerely inquisitive. Some asked us will the dialogue the pirate dialogue would it be fairly would it be a fairly open discussion? Some asked if climate change is an emergency why does it seem to last forever? Do emergencies last forever? At the dialogue we we had right holders from indigenous communities. We had a number of counselors from Kimoso and surrounding towns. We had farmers. We had the owner of an oil and gas sales company. We had members of NOS's, civil societies at the dialogue. So we asked people to in three different groups draw typical persons in their communities, describe the person's profile and give the person a name. So that is Gardner Sandi. They really took it seriously and did well. Gardner Sandi. Uh we have John the Walker Evitari and Joe the farmer. And the reason we used persons or representative personnel is to get relatively non-individualized picture of a typical person. But more importantly, it's to help participants engage freely without fear of adverse attribution. To keep engagement concrete and productive, we designed activities to tease out what are the values of the society, what do participants think bad climate policies entail, and what do they think a good climate policy for their areas would entail. So, three quick lessons that complement those things I've spoken about about the three indicia of illegitimacy and what to do about them. Number one, localism ruled the room, but it did so in a way that produced nuance rather than resistance among each group's personnel. None of the personnel said climate change is not real. Participants did not subject. They didn't suggest that their personnel rejected climate actions, but they pushed back against one sizefits all climate actions. Local also meant more to them than their geography. It encompassed their livelihood, seasonal realities, service access, and the decision making culture of their communities. What we learned when a policy feels local and cohoned their personnel seemed more open to the climate action. Number two, another lesson. There was a disconnect between the values held by their persons and the values emphasized by lawmakers whether federal or provincial. And I give you an example. Many of the personnels emphasized respect for indigenous rights. Many of them emphasized conservation efforts. But none of the personners mentioned efficiency. Now for those familiar with climate law making, efficiency is critical to the provincial or federal lawmaker. But none of them mentioned that. So we found a disconnect between the values emphasized at the local level and the values emphasized by our lawmakers. The third point, the dialogue revealed the complexity of climate change and community members perception of it. participants included indigenous including indigenous right holders stakeholders from um environmental organizations and I've mentioned this before but the differences in their opinions on what constitutes good and bad climate laws across various sectors was also evident but they managed their differences incredibly well none of them the groups did not agree on the oil and gas sector Surprise, surprise. But they agreed on the need to conserve and preserve nature in response to climate change. A place sensitive climate law, a place sensitive climate law for the slave lake region that focuses on nature-based solution might be more acceptable to the residents of the slave lake region than other policies. Now these are anecdotal findings. It is not from a formal organized study but they are pointers to some of the things we had discussed earlier on. So finally um there's no shortage of argument against top against bottom up legitimate laws. For one, such bottom-up laws are tough to craft, slow to develop, arguably costly, and potentially very susceptible to compromises required to resolve conflicts. But the alternative has failed. Topdown climate laws have failed. Climate legislation and litigation are essential, but we cannot legislate or litigate ourselves out of the climate crisis. The likelihood is that if Minard were here today, he would agree with some of the things I've shared. He would disagree with many of the things I've shared. For example, it would probably disagree with my position on carbon tax and carbon pricing. But I think he will agree with the central thesis of today's presentation. Our current political and legal systems do not align with the nature and demands of climate change. I I conclude with my 2018 reflections on what he describes as decades of climate policy failure in Canada. And he he noted in his characteristic straight talking and succinct style the lessons of the last 20 years go well beyond climate change. They demonstrate that the way we govern our society is not well suited to respond to change to deal quickly effectively and fairly with challenges or take advantage of opportunities ahead. This is troubling in a world of accelerated change. If we cannot respond effectively to a crisis as serious as climate change, we need to recognize that we likely have a fundamental and systemic problem. My presentation today highlights the systemic illegitimacy of climate law. I hope that the ideas I've shared will spark impactful conversations on how to address the problem of illegitimacy. Thank you. Thank you very much, Professor Magikalagbay for that very insightful um lecture. And I do have we had discussed me having some questions prepared for us to discuss. But in light of the time, I'm actually wondering if we should maybe start with seeing if there are any questions um from our student participants. Maybe you'll take the other mic. Okay. Um and then if we have time, I'll follow up with you on some of the questions um that I have. Um so Emma's right there. Okay. So any questions from the room to start us off? And Emma's got to run all the way. We're grateful to Emma Peekom for being here to help us out. Some mic running. Great. >> Um, I'm going to ask you a deeper question about the illegitimacy of the law. Um, we live in a colonial place called Canada. which I think is the root of the problem is colonial capitalist systems that are have not been respected nature since the beginning. And then if we go to Nigeria, it's also colonial creation with systems that are not respecting the the the lives of the indigenous people that are within the territories whether that territory be called Nigeria or that territory be called Canada. So my question really is about the legitimacy of colonial law and if we are pretending that a criminal enterprise called Canada is actually legitimate and if that is not actually the root of the problem. It's it's something I'm pondering about and I'm wondering what your reflections are both in the Canadian context and in the Nigerian context. Thank you. Uh well, we we've all been pondering on that for centuries. E um what I try to do and what I try to do is it's very easy to get lost in the wheat of in the wheat of um this very legitimate issues. But at times to very concretely deal with certain problems, it might be important to in a sense isolate the problem and then deal with the problem um um as as simply as you probably can. So what's the alternative? The world is burning. um do we do we forget the fact that the world is burning and we latch on to this fight that we've been in for centuries. So I think the answer and it's probably not even it's something you've been pondering about and many of us will continue to ponder on is um most as sincerely as we can with the with all the tools that we can summon even as we deal with the issues of colonial injustice. um we try to co-opt all the solutions we can get whether that is from indigenous ways of knowing, African ways of knowing, western ways of knowing. It's a human problem. It's a problem of all of us, whites and black. We need to find a way to co-opt all our ways of knowing to deal with this problem. And meanwhile, the issues you've raised about the colonial construct, the capitalist construct, those are most very subliminal and deep issues. But at once, how do we deal with this subliminal and deal and and deep issues, but at the same time recognize that first of all, we are all humans and there is a human problem we've been presented. How do we bring together the strength of all humans to deal with this distinctly human problem? So I I do not think it's that problem that we can engage with on with a divided front. I think it is a problem that we must find a way to bring together the humanity of all humans to deal with and confront. >> There is a question online which I think I'm going to paraphrase um in this way. Um the person online was wondering um if you could speak to the need to um address Canada's NDC's and provincial buyin. >> The problem of Canadian NDC's and provincial buying and for those who are not familiar with NDC's NDCs are a nationally determined contribution basically Canada's climate commitment on the world stage. Um, Canada has committed to I think 40 to 45% but we should be increasing that now. I think we're going around 65% reduction in emissions probably by 2040 or or thereabout. Um, but the buying of provinces is a political question and not a legal question. The reason for that is that in Canada there is no requirement of provinces or for provinces to implement international treaties or international commit or commitment under international treaties. Provinces for example Alberta does not have a mandatory um responsibility to also have for example 65% reduction by 2040 and 2045. So again that is a political question and then it now goes back to how do we go to each province factoring in the unique circumstances of provinces the capacity of provinces the historical responsibilities of provinces let us find a way to in the most fair way allocate responsibilities but factoring in their unique circumstances and I can't say that enough time would not permit me to go into the very the nuances and the complexities of of of differentiation. But um I think one of the mistakes we made in 2016 was that Canada did not approach burden sharing with a differentiation perspective or a differentiation ways of handling the issue of the distribution of climate responsibilities. But we need to co-opt it again. What does the peculiar circumstances of provinces, their capacities, their histoical responsibilities, what does it mean for what their responsibilities um as far as our commitment on the world stage goes. We need to figure that out. Good >> answer. Other questions? So there's quite a few. We'll take one, two, three, and then four in the back. Hi there. Um my question is about how you're talking about on the local level um how it could potentially be a solution. How but I think um it's easy to talk about uh that in a city like Halifax. But um from what I've seen, it's it's very difficult. Um I think the agency is lost in smaller communities, towns. How how do we instill that agency that uh you know towns like smaller communities believe that they actually have an impact? >> Great question. Um and I gave you the example of Kinuzo. Um when we got to Kinuso what I started out with was that as far as these engagement or that engagement was concerned I wasn't the know all expert I know about climate change but they knew more about their values their identities and their history. So what I went to Kinusa to learn, I went there to learn their values, their identities and their history and what that means for the climate change policy that will suit their values, their identities and their history. Now if that's the process then agencies built into it. It's built into it because this time around we are not starting with does this community believe in carbon pricing like many citizens assembly play out like come comment on a specific policy. No, you're starting from the point of what are the values of the community and that can then inform what are the best climate measures that suit the communities. >> I think there are two two down here. One, two, and then one in the back and then one in the middle again. Have I missed people on this side? >> I was hoping you could speak to um the feelings of hopelessness that come when we consider um how climate policy feels unchangeable on an individual level. Now that that's a massive question and I wish I could give you very clear answers, right? But let's try let let me give you at least bits and pieces of what could deal with hopelessness. I I was having a conversation today and it was the question was misinformation and disinformation and what that means for climate change and effective climate governance. And I I reckon that when we hear misinformation and disinformation, we think of anti-climate um anti-climate activists, people pushing against climate policies. But but it occurred to me and it's occurred to me for a while now that we have people engaged in misinformation and disinformation on both sides. We have people involved in misinformation and disinformation on the proclimate change side and it has been devastating. And I give you an example in in 2018 the special 1.5°C report was released by the impact intergovernmental panel on climate change. That's the foremost scientific body on climate change. And essentially they spelt out the projected different temperature rise level and the adverse impact of it. But how did the media um cover that report? The media covered it as the world will end in 12 years. And politicians also came out and told us the world will end in 12 years. So it's now 28 it's now 7 years in and people are asking the world is not ending but the reports didn't say so the scientists didn't say so the politicians said so and those pushing against climate policies now they start with saying you guys told us the world will end the world is not ending and Bill Gates in the publication he made in advocating for let's move off essentially move off climate change and focus on economic growth. What he started that video with he had a video and he had this publication. What he started it with is the world is not ending. Essentially that now how does all of this answer your question? As much as you can get the actual reports. Okay. And in the actual report, the impact of climate change are very consequential and devastating. But there is a world of difference between what is contained in the actual report and what um informs or feel um climate hopelessness like the world is ending. Okay. And then in the report you would also see um the measures that can be taken and perhaps you can find a place for yourself. They are very complicated reports but for example the IPCC assessment report has something called the summary for policy makers which is easier to read. So again and this applies to chat GPT and it applies to AI generally get past all of those get the actual thing yourself and think through the implications instead of you going by sensational renderings of of those wellought out and well researched reports. Does that help? >> Yeah. In the interest of time, we have just one other question and we have someone right in the middle here who is next in line and I apologize to the others. Um, but perhaps people can stick around afterwards and we can have more of a conversation. So, go please go ahead. Cool. Um, so one of the main parts of this lecture that struck me the most was kind of this like influx of um backsliding with regards to climate legislation. Um and so like in Canada, uh municipalities are like an order of government that fall outside of the constitution and in turn like our arms of the provinces. And if like local governments like you said are crucial in um like forming and negotiating um more legitimate climate policies that account for like the dramatic lifestyle changes that climate action like requires. Would a constitutional like entrenchment of municipal powers maybe like uh increased sovereignty um with regards to legislating climate action? Um would that be one appropriate and two like productive? >> Constitutional and great question. Constitutional entrenchment of anything helps nothing. Sorry. Okay. Yeah. Um, and but I I think you you hit a very important point there on the participation and the role of local units, what I call or what others have called the shop floor of social life. And don't confuse that to mean municipalities. They are not the same thing. I I I mean the labor unions. I mean the agricultural community. Um so I mean the baseball Oh, is Blue Jays are the Blue Jays playing today? I I mean I mean very basic very basic units at the at the at the at the at the local level. These units at the local level are the ones that mediate the communication of laws. They are the ones that inform what members of the local units think about laws. So what we are talking about is the bottom up the bottom up building of climate laws and why does this matter and let's see if I can close it with this and thanks for for queuing me like I planned this. Thanks for queuing me to to do this. What we are focused on here is the bottom up building of laws. And the reasoning is this. Politicians find it easier to do away with laws that are not culturally entrenched, laws that do not have roots in the culture at the lowest level. So what we are trying to build is a climate change sensitive culture and it would be community to community not municipality to municipality it would be community to community um semi autonomous bodies to semi-autonomous bodies you wonder what that means I mean the lo the labor unions I mean the ACT societies and we need to begin to have those conversations to deepen the roots of climate consciousness The more we deepen the rule of climate consciousness at the local level and we build up, the more it's difficult for politicians to exper to based on experience approach climate laws. Politicians fear the voting public. There is a reason Daniel Smith would not say I am anti-climate change because at the most basic level most people or many people believe in climate change. So what we are talking about and the work we've not done is to build from the local level the most basic units. We need to build the root of climate change consciousness and governance from the bottom up such that regardless what is in the constitution, government would be afraid to use its power to change laws at will. And on that note, thank you very much for coming and being our