COP27 failed. So why continue with these UN climate summits?:

Climate change is an existential threat to human civilization and planetary ecosystems.
Yet despite 27 UN Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings that have
taken place so far, the international community has been unable to ward
off imminent disaster.

A number of expert commentators have already declared COP27 — the recent UN climate summit in Egypt — to be a failure. The talks stalled on key issues and failed to secure commitments to stop greenhouse gas emissions from rising beyond thresholds that will lead to dangerous global warming.

Other critical voices are concerned that the whole process is becoming too business-friendly, to the detriment of other perspectives and voices. These yearly big climate conferences have also been criticized as a waste of time and resources.

Given these problems and repeated failures, why continue with the COP
meetings? As researchers who study social movements and environmental
and climate change politics and policy, we believe that continuing with
these climate conferences can still lead to positive outcomes.

The most unconstitutional bill in Canada’s modern history: Yes. I’m calling it the most unconstitutional bill in Canada’s modern history. (Note: Econ Prof Trevor Tombe pointed to legislation under Bill Aberhart to disagree, but modern history in the constitutional context means post-WWII, if not 1982).

Yesterday
the Alberta government under Danielle Smith unveiled Bill 1, the
Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act. This is the ‘Sovereignty
Act’ Smith had long talked about and it is every bit the assault on the
constitutional division of powers, rule of law, and democracy her
initial descriptions foretold. But for an added surprise it includes an
additional assault on responsible government and the separation of
powers in the form of provisions that would allow the government to
unilaterally amend legislation – any legislation – in the legislature’s
stead.

Rather than go through Bill 1 line-by-line, I want to get to
the core issues. Bill 1 purports to allow the Alberta legislature to
determine whether a federal law violates the constitution or to
declare whether it “causes or is anticipated to cause harm to
Albertans” as a prelude to allowing the government to amend legislation
to combat, revoke, or address the allegedly dangerous federal law(s)
however it sees fit. This can happen only after a resolution to this
effect passes the legislature. But upon the passing of such a
resolution, Bill 1 gives a free hand to the government to change any law
on the books and to order “provincial entities” – which include any
provincial agencies or institutions (municipalities, universities and
even the police!) – to ignore or violate federal law, even criminal law.

I want you to read that last sentence again.

If you want to follow me on Mastodon, here is where to find me Follow me on Mastodon

‘Ungovernable’: Mendicino says it was near-impossible to enforce law amid convoy – National | Globalnews.ca:

It became “virtually impossible” to enforce the law in downtown
Ottawa during the “Freedom Convoy” protests, Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino says.

This was part of what fuelled the government’s decision to invoke the
controversial Emergencies Act in order to clear out the protesters
earlier this year, Mendicino told the inquiry tasked with probing that
decision on Tuesday.

“In ultimately forming the opinion that we
needed to invoke the Emergencies Act, one of my main concerns was the
inability to enforce the law adjacent to critical infrastructure. That
would have included Parliament,” he said.

“The situation on the ground…it was on the brink of being completely ungovernable, if not already.”