Conclusion

• Author: Jamie Benidickson
• Pages: 433-436

433

CONCLUSION

The OECD in a major report — Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Con-

sequences of Inaction —projected signif‌icant population and economic

growth to the mid–twenty-f‌irst century, giving rise to severe environ-

mental threats in terms of water availability, adverse public health

impacts, disr uptive climate change, and biodiversity loss. In the OECD’s

assessment, “progress on an incremental, piecemeal, business-as-usual

basis in the coming decades will not be enough.”1 That prediction is

underscored by more recent studies documenting dr amatic global losses

of wilderness and biodiversity or conf‌irming the urgency of vigorous

engagement with climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.

In these circumstances, to contemplate a future for environmental

law — even in general ter ms — is something of a cau se for celebrat ion. 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 some time

ago, mere survival must constitute something of a success, while from

the perspective of those who have championed one legal innovation

after another as the magic answer, the continuation of struggle against

environmental degrad ation will be something of a setback. But so it will

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

1 OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Conse quences of Inaction (OE CD Pu b-

lishing, 2012) at 19, online: www.oecd.org/env/indicators-modelling-outlooks/

oecd-environmental-outlook-1999155x.htm.