As leaders of the world’s biggest polluters meet in Glasgow, Scotland, many worry it may be too late to reverse global warming. We’re even told this may be the last chance we get to save the human species. This message of gloom and doom is usually transmitted by a depressing and ominous voice, followed by a television advertisement selling us a product that will likely add to carbon emission. Yet it’s Friday morning as I write this essay, and there doesn’t seem to be any panic or despair in the streets of Victoria, British Columbia. What does this tell us about human nature?
Basically, what it tells us is that people don’t take doomsayers seriously. What people expect, instead, is for their leaders to come up with positive and realistic solutions that won’t put a serious bent in their standard of living or compromise their children’s future. This is something leaders meeting at the COP26 climate conference don’t seem to understand.
As a member of the Quebec Bar since 1991 with a specialty in legal research, my interest lies in how we use the Rule of Law to deal with complex problems. I’m also interested in how the Rule of Law is communicated to the average citizen. People expect guidelines rather than apocalyptic premonitions, and unless politicians meeting in Glasgow come up with practical and legally binding solutions, the issue of global change will never be appropriately dealt with.
Proselytizing, attempts to make the average worker feel guilty about his or her level of consumption, and David Attenborough’s concern with some obscure insect most people don’t care about, will likely not get the average citizen to take global warming seriously. Nor will Greta Thunberg’s heart wrenching speeches get suburbanites to put down their leaf blowers and fight for meaningful change.
This is where the Rule of Law comes in. Leaders meeting in Scotland need to come up with a blueprint for passing environmentally friendly laws at all levels of government worldwide that are easily enforceable and binding. Such a mechanism would allow concerned citizens and organizations to have legal standing to sue where governments fail to meet their legal obligations. This would amount to world governance rather than the creation of some ominous world government. Countries would, in essence, come together to sign binding treaties and accords with clear and impartial rules with as few loopholes as possible.
So how would a system based on a global Rule of Law work? Ideally, there would be a harmonization of laws at all levels of government within countries and between countries. For example, the rule regarding greenhouse emissions for the state of California would be the same as in coal burning West Virginia, but in addition, the rule would also be the same with regard to the Netherlands and other foreign countries. The idea is simple: No one gains an advantage. And in case of non-compliance, the Dutch government would be able to sue either California or the United States government.
There are two issues: The first issue deals with what states can expect to realistically agree on, and what the enforcement mechanism will look like. My own preference is for an impartial court to be set up at the United Nations that would hear cases dealing exclusively with carbon emissions. It would be staffed by experts, and its sole role would be to examine conformity with regard to international treaties willingly signed by independent and sovereign countries. Human rights, gender equality, and trade would not be up for discussion.
Countries would agree to harmonize laws with regard to building codes, land use, pesticides, agriculture, forestry, transportation, manufacturing, energy, and urban sprawl. No two laws would be exactly the same. The building codes in China would no doubt be different than those in the EU or the United States, but at least there would be similar provisions for limiting harmful emissions.
The idea is simple: Applying the Rule of Law evenly throughout the world would force countries and regional governments to go beyond simply making pledges that may or may not be met. Citizens could point to specific national or regional laws passed pursuant to these international treaties, and force their respective governments to act responsibly, not because it’s the right thing to do, but because of a legal requirement to do so.
In sum, countries, companies, and citizens behave responsibly when the rules are clearly spelled out in legislation. Applying these rules fairly on a multitude of areas at a global level is merely an effective way of fighting climate change. Secondly, there’s the issue of legal standing. Namely, who would have legal standing to sue in case of nonconformity? Would it be a country? A concerned citizen? An organization? Ideally, countries would bring suit, but standing would also be given to organizations and citizens where countries fail to bring suit.
Fairness should no doubt be a primary objective. For instance, countries from the developed world might be required to provide substantial financial assistance to countries in the developing world, like India, for example, to ween them off coal as a primary source of energy. India would, of course, be given a realistic deadline for switching from fossil fuel to renewable energy during a certain period of years. This would then allow the international community to sue India before an international tribunal should India renege on reducing its coal consumption. The corollary of this is that India would have the right to sue the international community should it not receive the subsidies promised where in conformity.
The issue of global warming is no doubt complex. Everything from population growth, to transportation, manufacturing, construction, and agriculture will have to be examined and dealt with through international treaties. The goals have to be achievable and fair and clearly communicated to the public. Whether elected officials and autocratic rulers are willing or able to accomplish this through the Rule of Law will be the test for policymakers in the 21st century.
