Steven Guilbeault, Canada’s environment minister, said the government was “strongly considering” an appeal of the federal court’s ruling.

By Vjosa Isai • New York Times

  • Nik282000
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Justice Angela Furlanetto of the Federal Court ruled on Thursday that the government’s classification was a stretch, calling the designated items “too broad to be listed” as toxic substances.

    She has a masters in fucking biochemistry! There is no way that she does not understand how important it is to restrict the absolutely frivolous use of plastic in disposable products. I don’t know if this is corruption or just the ultimate in stubborn pedantry.

    Manufacturing plastic involves toxic precursor chemicals, waste gasses and waste particulates. End of life plastics erode into micro and nano particles that can now be found in a significant portion of human’s blood! But no, in the form in which it is sold, not every plastic product can be considered toxic so I guess she’s right, we should all go back to plastic straws and bags.

    • Pyr_Pressure
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      7 months ago

      You can agree with the premise from a biological and chemistry standpoint while disagreeing with a policy from a legal one.

      The feds will simply need to redraft the legislation and word it better.

      • zaphod
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Or pass new legislation. The government tried to use existing environment legislation to ban single use plastics by listing them among other toxic substances. That that didn’t pass judicial review isn’t actually that surprising (depending on how the original law was drafted).

        The alternative is just to amend that law to add additional powers to ban bioaccumulating and/or biomagnifying substances, of which microplastics are just one example.

        It’s just more work, obviously, than using an existing legislative tool.

      • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Hopefully. The trick is that waste management is traditionally provincial jurisdiction, and there would be a fight if they try to change that.

    • CanadaPlus@futurology.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      or just the ultimate in stubborn pedantry.

      More like legalism. It sounds like the registry is for things that can directly poison you, which finished plastics cannot, so (IANAL) it was legal fuckery to introduce federal authority that way. What happens when it’s being manufactured or after it’s processed as waste is beyond the purview of this specific instrument.

  • Yardy Sardley
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Alberta wins again”

    Danielle Smith is fully embracing the eco-villain role. She probably cackled right after saying that.

  • Swordgeek
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    Bah.

    If there are three brain cells in the decision-making part of any company, they’ll realize that the government overstepped or misworded their authority, but also that it’s going to come back in an altered form.

    No major company is going to say “oh, plastic bags are good again. Let’s do that.” It’s not altruism, it’s just economics - they KNOW that they’ll get burnt on that road.

    So aside from fuckwits like Smith and Ford, nobody is going to pay any attention to this declaration.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    But just as businesses and consumers were adapting, a court ruling upended the policy, a key part of Canada’s effort to be among the “world leaders in fighting plastic pollution.”

    But Justice Angela Furlanetto of the Federal Court ruled on Thursday that the government’s classification was a stretch, calling the designated items “too broad to be listed” as toxic substances.

    The government “acted outside their authority” and the decision to add the plastic items to the toxic substances list “was not supported by the evidence” that it had on hand, Justice Furlanetto wrote.

    The previous two setbacks Professor Winfield mentioned came in October, when the Supreme Court ruled that several sections of a law covering environmental impact assessments, a process largely used to consider how infrastructure projects could affect the environment, were unconstitutional.

    Later that month, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also announced that the government would temporarily lift the carbon tax for home heating oil to address the high cost of living, in a move some environmentalist denounced as backsliding on its climate goals and environmental agenda.

    In her new and long-awaited memoir, Barbra Streisand writes that she found Pierre Trudeau, the former prime minister of Canada, “very dapper, intelligent, intense … kind of a combination of Albert Einstein and Napoleon (only taller).


    The original article contains 902 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • whoisearth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      I find it hilarious that Barbra Streisands memoire is relevant to this.

      Anyways… kudos to shooting ourselves in the foot because the government was found to overstep. I look forward to companies not caring about single use plastics again. /s