Sui generis is the best approach for new green tech

Another way to look at this is to consider these future challenges as the new Law of the Horse to the most pressing issue facing western civilization - climate change. The modification of our environment for purposes useful for us, including the use and promotion of the automobile, has had a profound effect on our civilization, demanding a political and legal response. The transportation sector, and our use of automobiles, is one of of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Canada.

After reviewing the debate of cyberlaw, Ruhl & Salzman make the case in the in 2013 for a new, sui generis area of law of climate change law, distinct even from environmental law. Doing so can provide a forceful political statement that develops its own authoritative texts and foster new laws and policies, and improve efficiency by encouraging highly technical and deep knowledge into a new field of specialized knowledge.

Pointing to the development of environmental law and health law, a new paradigm allows for the law to be more responsive to contemporary challenges.Ruhl & Salzman suggest there are two possible ways to develop an area of climate change law. The first, which would correspond with Cockfield's liberal approach, would develop discrete areas of law to create increasingly tight interconnections around climate change challenges. This would help to foster legal doctrines and institutions to coalesce into a distinct and coherent field of law, which would maintain its own principles.

The alternative would be to combine different fields that intersect with climate change, specifically to find focused solutions, but would fail to create any overarching principles or policies, disparagingly "forming nothing more coherent than a Law of the Horse."

In repeating calls by others to develop new ways of thinking about the law in relation to climate change, and to formulate new legal frameworks to deal with the radical changes that will impact our society, Ruhl & Salzman emphasize the limitations with the more conservative approaches towards responding to these challenges,

Given the daunting challenges of this uncertain future, decisionmakers are increasingly concerned about the “adaptation deficit” in climate change law and policy that has amassed over time. Until very recently, the focus on climate change mitigation, particularly reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, has held center stage. Debates over mitigation—how much and how fast to reduce causes of climate change—largely crowded out considerations of adaptation—how best to manage the impacts of climate change...It stands to reason that the demands of climate change adaptation will present new kinds of challenges and conflicts for public and private legal institutions. It is no surprise, therefore, that a flood of recent scholarship has focused on the implications of climate change adaptation for the law––exploring how law will adapt in fields as varied as insurance, environmental, immigration, water supply, torts, energy, and property, to name just a few––while crosscutting issues such as federalism and human rights are also receiving careful attention.