See the french version.

A terrifying (and timely) presentation by Jeremy Jackson, a world expert in marine biodiversity and conservation from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. In this Ted Talk, Jackson shows how much marine environments, particularly coral reefs, have been drastically altered before his own eyes. He describes an environment in extreme decline that began two centuries ago but that continues to accelerate, principally because of overfishing, pollution and ocean warming. The most telling images are the photos of amateur fish catches today compared to those of 40 years ago. It’s grim, very grim — but he does hold out hope that it’s possible to reverse the trend if we succeed in changing our own habits. Then again, that would take laws that involve unprecendented international cooperation.

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an application for leave to appeal last year’s Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Friends of the Earth Canada v. Ministry of the Environment. Friends of the Earth (FOTE) had launched the suit to force Ottawa to comply with the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, which requires the federal government to take concrete action to meet its international commitments to fight climate change.

It’s hard to disagree with FOTE’s contention that the government is, in this case, disregarding the will of Parliament. But the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the law itself wasn’t justiciable – in other words, it has no adequate resolution to offer for the dispute.

A word about appeal applications before the Supreme Court: Only those which raise questions of national importance are granted. Admittedly, climate change seems as good a candidate as any in this regard. So why did the Court refuse to grant leave? It’s always a bit of a mystery. One of the top court’s privileges is that it need not give its reasons.

Now, it has sided with environmentalists in the past — not least of which was upholding right to launch environmental class action lawsuits — but one gets the feeling it was mindful to show deference to the executive branch of government (which, as it happens, has not always shown deference to the legislative branch). But at the end of the day, the Supreme Court likely drew the same conclusion as the the lower courts. The law simply isn’t enforceable, which means the law was poorly designed to begin with.

First-generation pollution control laws are hardly ideal for fighting climate change, but they do offer worthy tools in the absence of GHG-specific legislation. The Obama administration has been signaling for some time that the Environmental Protection Agency will use its Clean Air Act authority to regulate GHGs (though incredibly, the U.S. Senate will soon vote on a measure that would block the EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act to fight global warming).

Interestingly, the EPA is now considering using water law to fight ocean acidification — the other major climate change issue facing us. Following a law suit settlement reached with the plaintiff, the Center for Biological Diversity — that claimed the agency failed in recognizing the impacts of acidification on coastal waters — the EPA will consider how states can address ocean acidification under the Clean Water Act. Hopefully, the Clean Water Act’s water quality requirements could be applied in some sort of review of CO2 emissions sources to eventually find ways to reduce them.

Who thought this could happen, Bill Gates gives a stunning presentation on climate change. Famous for his cluttered slides and disorganized presentations, Gates has seriously improved his game. Soon, he might be toting an iPhone and wearing black turtlenecks.

Here is a rundown of the presentation by design gurus at Duarte. But just look at some of these slides, gorgeous.