Category: Law

Posts about law-making, the courts, and legal concepts in general

Failures in fish identification

Making an ethical decision about what kind of seafood to eat is very challenging. Considerations include environmental sustainability, the problems with different forms of fishing gear, and the maintenance of ecosystems and viable fish stocks. As this Vancouver Sun article points out, actually making good choices may be impossible for consumers in many cases because they are being lied to about what sort of fish they are buying.

In some cases, the guidelines for what you can call a fish are so loose as to be almost meaningless. In other cases, people simply lie. According to a study cited in the article, DNA tests of 91 seafood samples purchased in Toronto and New York revealed that 23 (25%) were mislabelled. In other cases, fish from depleted waters are labelled as originating in fisheries that are being more sustainably managed.

All this poses a big problem to the school of thought that suggests that educating consumers to make their own ethical choices is the best way forward. Even for those willing to put in the effort to investigate the state of various fisheries, as well as willing to pay more in time and money to find ethical fish, the failure to properly label products may make their efforts fruitless or counterproductive.

As with many other problems in food integrity, the solution may be a shorter chain from source to consumer, coupled with more stringent regulations and enforcement.

The article, along with several others in its series, was linked and discussed on Jennifer Jacquet’s blog.

Hard Choices

Edited by Harold Coward and Andrew Weaver, Hard Choices: Climate Change in Canada is a mixed bag. The chapters vary considerably in their usefulness, as well as their contemporary relevance. Clearly, a lot has changed since the book was published in 2004. Topics covered include climatic science, projected impacts in Canada, carbon sinks, technology, economics, adaptation, legal issues, the Kyoto Protocol, and the ethics of climate change. Of those, the science section has probably held up best.

The most problematic chapters are those on technology and economics. The technology chapter criticizes renewables, boosts nuclear, and promotes the ‘hydrogen economy’ without a great deal of strong analysis or argumentation. For instance, it argues that the costs of nuclear power are almost fully internalized: a very strange position to take given the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of subsidies, loan guarantees, and liability restrictions granted to nuclear operators around the world. The chapter also singularly fails to address the many problems with hydrogen as a fuel. Finally, the assertion that crippling the world economy would be “as deadly as any climate change scenario” underscores the degree to which this volume fails in general to consider the real but unknown probability of a catastrophic outcome that threatens civilization itself.

The economics chapter basically asserts that since the Kyoto Protocol would cost money and not stop climate change in and of itself, we should simply focus on adaptation. It ignores both the fact that international action on problems like climate change (ozone, acid raid, etc) needs to be built up progressively, starting with instruments not capable of single-handedly addressing the problem. Having the international community jump instantly from no legal constraints on greenhouse gas emissions to a regime that controls all emissions in an effective way is asking far too much. The chapter also fails to take seriously the possibility of catastrophic outcomes from unchecked warming. Not all levels of change can be adapted to.

The chapter on ethics is very strange. After a brief secular portion focused on which entities are owed moral duties, it becomes a survey of world religions, arguing that each one sees selfishness as wrong. From this, it is concluded that Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc all yield an ethical obligation to fight climate change. A more practical and serious consideration of who owes what to who on account of climate change would have been a lot more useful. Even in terms of comparative religion, the chapter feels rather sloppy. Just because you can point to a few statements about selflessness in the doctrine of many different faiths does not mean they would all come to the same moral position on climate change. All kinds of real moral questions persist: from how much risk it is allowable to impose on future generations, to who should pay the costs of adapting to the additional warming already locked into the climatic system. The chapter fails to shed light on issues of this type.

In the end, I don’t think there is anything in Hard Choices that isn’t said in a better or more up-to-date way somewhere else. For those seeking to educate themselves on climate change, this book is not a good investment of time.

Canada: asbestos booster

Chrysotile asbestos is the only version of the material that is still sold. Nonetheless, it has been judged to post major risks to human health and the environment. As such, it is especially shameful that Canada has been trying to prevent its international restriction, apparently in deference to a few companies in Quebec that still produce it.

The other states seeking to block its inclusion in the Rotterdam Convention are India, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Peru and Ukraine. All its inclusion would mandate is the “prior informed consent” of both exporting and importing states, before the substance is traded internationally. In practical terms, that means the material must be properly labelled and include instructions for safe handling. It also requires that importers be informed of any known restrictions or bans on the use of the material. The Canadian Medical Association has accused Canada of participating in a “death-dealing charade.”

Hopefully, the Canadian government can be shamed into changing its position. The fact that Parliament has spent more than a decade laboriously removing asbestos from its own buildings is a clear sign that they understand the danger.

Massive anti-terror database contemplated in the UK

British Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon has been saying some worrisome things about terrorism, security, and civil liberties. He is backing a plan to create a massive database of mobile and internet communications, for purposes of fighting terrorism. One worrisome aspect is the suggestion that it would be used to deal with “terrorists or criminals.” Technologies initially justified as an extreme measure necessary to fight terrorism will always spread to more banal uses, with a greater scope for abuses.

Indeed, that is the biggest issue that needs to be weighed against the possible terror-fighting capacity of such databases. They will inevitably be abused. Furthermore, governments are far more dangerous than terrorists, both when they are acting in malicious ways and when they are trying to be benign. Modern history certainly demonstrates that, while the power of terrorists to inflict harm is considerable, the ability of states to do so is extreme.

Previously:

Cyclists running red lights

A few minutes ago, while I was cycling east on Somerset in search of groceries, I came up behind another cyclist heading in the same direction. She was dressed in all black, wearing earmuffs, and not using any lights or reflectors. As we approached an intersection near the Umi Cafe, the light went red. She carried on for 1/3 of a block, went right through it, and carried on beyond there.

When I caught up with her in the next block, I stated bluntly that riding right through a red light is a crime, and that doing so when it is nearly completely dark, you aren’t illuminated, and when others may be about to make left turns is fairly dangerous as well. As cyclists, we cannot expect drivers to expect invisible, illegal moves on our part. We definitely bear primary responsibility for any accidents that result.

This being Somerset Street, I found myself stuck at the next red light, engaging in a very awkward (though not hostile) back-and forth-about the importance of illumination and following traffic rules. Less expectably, but more awkwardly, I ran into her again at the Herb & Spice checkout: she buying organic cranberries, me buying sun-dried tomatoes, red peppers, and hot sauce. To her credit, she was very courteous about the whole thing, and seemed to take my commenting as well-intentioned scolding rather than a maliciously motivated personal attack.

I do believe it’s very important for cyclists to make themselves visible and behave legally and predictably in traffic. A lot of drivers who are generally sympathetic to cyclists seem to consider the violation of traffic rules as the most objectionable thing about bikes. It is also sensible and efficient to require cyclists to follow minimum standards in terms of conduct and visibility: taking responsibility for those elements of their own safety they can actually control.

Despite her tactful responses, I hope I don’t run into her at a future dinner party, Ottawa event, etc.

Gore on coal and civil disobedience

Al Gore has called on young people to resist the construction of new coal-fired power plants through civil disobedience. Certainly, this is not a time where we should be viewing coal as an acceptable option for electrical generation, and there have been well justified civil disobedience efforts in response to far less pressing issues than climate change. Nonetheless, it would send a rather more powerful message if Gore was willing to personally get his hands dirty on the matter. He may be reasoning that actually participating in some kind of direct action would reduce his influence, by making him easier to label as an extremist. Nonetheless, there is more than a touch of hypocrisy on calling on young people to do something that you think is right, but are unwilling to do yourself.

In any case, actions that expose just how climatically destructive coal is – as well as the simple fact that states like Britain are still planning to build more such plants – would probably be a useful element in our overall response to the climate challenge.

Carbon emissions worse than criminal damage

In a fairly surprising precedent, a jury in the United Kingdom aquitted six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage to a coal plant. In their defence, they argued that their scaling of the smokestack and attempt to paint “Gordon [Brown], bin it” on the side was justified because of the greenhouse gas emissions being produced by the plant:

Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a “lawful excuse” to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of “lawful excuse” under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.

The not-guilty verdict, delivered after two days and greeted with cheers in the courtroom, raises the stakes for the most pressing issue on Britain’s green agenda and could encourage further direct action.

NASA climatic scientist James Hansen testified in defence of the activists.

It is virtually certain that the Crown will appeal the decision, and highly likely that the appeal will succeed. That being said, the situation may be indicative of the British public gaining an appreciation for the gravity of the threat posed by climate change, and the intolerability of coal power in a forward-looking, carbon-reducing economy. The fact that the UK is mulling the approval of new coal plants is definitely a major blot on its record as a fairly progressive state, where climate change is concerned.

May being excluded from leaders’ debates

I think it’s a shame that Green Party leader Elizabeth May is being excluded from the leaders’ debates for this election. The longstanding isolation of the Green Party is largely the product of Canada’s first-past-the-post system and, given that they are so severely hampered by the technicalities of Canada’s electoral system, it seems fair that meeting the technicality of having a sitting Member of Parliament is sufficient procedural justification for their inclusion.

More substantively, there is major focus on the environment in this campaign. As such, having a candidate present whose party is focused explicitly on environmental issues would probably add to the caliber and intelligence of the discussions that result.

Two American cap-and-trade plans

While both John McCain and Barack Obama have endorsed a national cap-and-trade system as the centerpiece of their climate policies, the two proposals differ on several highly important grounds. The most important by far is the mechanism of permit allocation. Under the McCain system, permits to emit carbon would be granted for free to those with existing records of emissions; under the Obama system, all those wishing to emit will be required to buy permits at auction. The practical differences between the approaches are massive. Under the auction system, those who wish to pollute are made to pay. Under the free allocation system, those who have polluted in the past are granted valuable credits that they can either use to pollute or sell for cash.

As described before, consumers experience price rises in either scenario. What differs is where the windfall accrues. Under an auctioning system, it ends up in the hands of government, which can use it to fund low-carbon investments or refund it to the population as a hole (as in a cap-and-dividend system). Under a free allocation system, it simply goes into the coffers of the biggest polluters.

Even with a Democratically-controlled Congress and Senate, getting a plan based on 100% auctioning approved would be very challenging. Democrats from areas where extractive industries and automobile manufacture are economically important and politically powerful will resist policies that will be costly to dirty industries. That being said, it is arguably wiser to start with a policy position that is stronger than can probably be enacted and then compromise, rather than starting with a position that is weaker than necessary to get the job done.

India and the Nuclear Suppliers Group

Today, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group decided to approve a nuclear deal between the United States and India (which is not part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and which tested bombs between 1974 and 1998). The decision is one about which I feel ambivalent. One the one hand, it might promote the relatively responsible use of nuclear technologies in India. Despite how we could probably do better by spending our money in other ways, more nuclear power is a likely consequence of concerns about both energy security and climate change. On the other hand, the deal demonstrates that it is possible states can test bombs, remain outside the NPT, and still get access to internationally-provided nuclear fuels and technologies. The lesson to other states may be that the best long-term course of action is to ignore international efforts aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Thinking about how many states are likely to have reactors and bombs by the end of the next century is pretty worrisome.

More comprehensive reporting on the decision: