Conclusion

• Author: Jamie Benidickson
• Profession: Faculty of Law University of Ottawa
• Pages: 326-328

326

CONCLUSION

Not long ago, the agility of such pre-robotic and pre-mutant cartoon

characters as rabbits and road-runners was always being tested at the

brink of disaster, notably in proximity to terrifying cliffs. As they

approached the edge of a daunting precipice, some of these colourful

creatures would attempt — often with limited success — to screech to

a halt; others seemed capable of launching themselves into the air and

then, with an incredible reversal of spinning feet, defying gravity to

return to the safety of the ledge. An assessment of the adequacy and

prospects for the contemporary environmental protection regime is

likely to be influenced by metaphor: do we still have a little traction to

work with on the ledge, or have we already gone over the brink?

Accordingly, to contemplate a future for environmental law —

even in general terms — is something of a cause for celebration. It is

also to acknowledge defeat. This paradox derives from sharply diver-

gent perceptions of the efficacy of law as a response to environmental

problems. For those who anticipated ecological apocalypse, mere sur-

vival must constitute something of a success, while from the perspec-

tive of those who have championed one legal innovation after another

as the magic answer, the continuation of struggle against environmen-

tal degradation will be something of a setback. But so it will be, a future

much like the past in which a wide range of instruments will be

employed against an equally wide range of multifaceted problems in a

complicated and dynamic context.

The first of the contextual elements is the continuation of envi-

ronmental crises and resource depletion. Despite significant advances