WCI: Western Climate Initiative

[August1991]

The Western Climate Initiative is a collaboration which was launched in February 2007 by the Governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington to develop regional strategies to address climate change. WCI is identifying, evaluating and implementing collective and cooperative ways to reduce greenhouse gases in the region. In the spring of 2007, the Governor of Utah and the Premiers of British Columbia and Manitoba joined the Initiative. Montana joined in January, 2008 and Quebec moved from Observer to Partner status in April, 2008. Other US and Mexican states and Canadian provinces have joined as observers.

LINK

It even includes Quebec:

There is a new nation springing up in North America, one that will be dictating environmental policy to the entire continent.

Encompassing 71 million citizens, its borders are a bit irregular, running from California to British Columbia, then leapfrogging to Manitoba and Quebec. But this new nation has been busy at work this week, setting up a new trading bloc, complete with border tariffs.

For now, the nation goes by the bureaucratic moniker of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), the umbrella under which three provinces and seven U.S. states are negotiating the tenets of a continent-wide carbon cap-and-trade system. A little rebranding is in order for this newborn state -- all hail Carbonia!

G&M

How does the Green/Left/NDP/CBC feel about a North America union if it means protecting the environment? Where's the victim?

Edited May 25, 2008 by August1991

[Remiel]

Ummm... Where exactly do you see the great leap from limited institution to grand political scheme in this development? Do not be fooled by the fuzzy rhetoric of the writer. You know as well as I do that intergovernmental institutions are nothing new, so perhaps if you really want to talk about a North American Union evolving to protect the environment, you should give a little broader outline of what your thoughts are, rather than posting a news item and using that to pose a question that falls far outside the implications of what that news item is actually about.

[eyeball]

Sounds good to me. I definitely support the development of a single government with a global view. I think you really need to be more concerned about how the right wing feels though. In addition to being afraid of black helicopters I suspect ethanol-fuelled black helicopters will only serve to piss them off as well.

[Riverwind]

I definitely support the development of a single government with a global view.

Actually, you only support a single government because you naively assume it would create policies actually reflect your POV. You would change your tune pretty fast if that government started pushing policies that you disagreed with.

The GHG initiatives are pure opportunism on the part of politicians. Manitoba and Quebec think they can make money from the deal because they have hydro-electric power to exploit. BC needs to be part of it because it wants to be able to sell power to California.

All of these initiatives will go no where once people realize that it will be a lot of pain for absolutely no gain.

[eyeball]

Not assume, I'd only hope it would.

[Remiel]

In any case, the idea that a North American Union could protect the global environment is... erroneus. We are merely the the worst players in the global game. And even if it could, to suggest that harmonius environmental policy would somehow allow it to be victimless is also... erroneus. That would be like saying that having a harmonius foreign policy would somehow make domestic policy victimless.

Basically, basing the adoption of a North American Union on one issue is ridiculous.

In any case, North American power is too imbalanced for me to want a North American Union. However, if there were ever to be a North Atlantic Union, where Canada, the United States and Mexico were to merge with the European Union into another level of pre-World Government, I would be considerably more open. I am not opposed to the idea of a World Government, and I am not under the illusion that it would not be beset by almost as many problems as the current system (though, importantly, they would be different problems). But, as to exactly how it would function and in what areas it would have jurisdiction... Well, that is up for debate. I am not interested in unions that are merely masks for one national government being able to more ably dominate all of the others.

If I were to try and take a more neutral stance, I would say that the biggest problem of trying to formulate a North American Union is that the United States would be looking for fix the rules before the constitution was even in place so that their geographic area would be advantaged over the others. And they could probably pull that off.

How do you see the government of a North American Union being run? Would it be like the European Union, or would it supplant the national governments? What branches would it have, and what responsibilities would they be given?

[eyeball]

In any case, the idea that a North American Union could protect the global environment is... erroneus.

I agree. Rooting the protection of the global environment is linked to acting locally.

Basically, basing the adoption of a North American Union on one issue is ridiculous.

I disagree.

I think the one issue a single union could form around is the issue of governance itself. I picture a large continential area like North America being sub-divided into self-governing regions that correspond to their biogeoclimatic charcteristics - a bioregion in other words. Cascadia is an example of bioregionalism.

Bioregionalism is a fancy name for living a rooted life. Sometimes called "living in place," bioregionalism means you are aware of the ecology, economy and culture of the place where you live, and are committed to making choices that enhance them.

Large federal structures should be used to protect human rights and empower bioregional governments. The leap from continential to global along a similar philosophical outlook doesn't seem that great. You'd have to deliberately try to not be able to make it to...not actually make it.

I honestly think the only thing that would unite humanity at this point is the threat of an alien invasion. That said I have to wonder how suspiciously and negatively some of Earth's national governments would react if Earth were visited by benign friendly aliens?

[Remiel]

One other thing: While may people says that the conditions for World Government will not happen for hundreds of years... Remember that no one thought that the Soviet Union would be toast within a decade in 1981. Maybe they will not happen for hundreds of years, but maybe they will happen in the next fifty. Who really knows?

Edited May 25, 2008 by Remiel

[Riverwind]

I picture a large continential area like North America being sub-divided into self-governing regions that correspond to their biogeoclimatic charcteristics - a bioregion in other words.

Your picture ignores the reality of human culture and politics that does not give a damn about 'biogeoclimatic charcteristics'. Those facts will ensure that the existing administrative borders remain in tact for the foreseeable future.

[eyeball]

Your picture ignores the reality of human culture and politics that does not give a damn about 'biogeoclimatic charcteristics'. Those facts will ensure that the existing administrative borders remain in tact for the foreseeable future.

No, your blind spot ignores the reality that Earth really is composed of biogeoclimatic zones, things that multi-national corporate culture doesn't give a damn about. This is what will ensure that the existing administrative borders remain intact for the forseeable future.

[Riverwind]

No, your blind spot ignores the reality that Earth really is composed of biogeoclimatic zones

And what is your point? Human society depends on the global trade system and nothing will ever change that since we need the efficiencies that come with the specialization of production. i.e. people on the coast are better off importing wheat from the prairies are better off importing it even though they could grow it in BC because the land in BC can be put to better use growing vegetables or other high value crops that can be shipped back to the prairies. Similar arguments exist for virtually every other commodity or manufactured good.

[GostHacked]

Eyeball

I think the one issue a single union could form around is the issue of governance itself. I picture a large continential area like North America being sub-divided into self-governing regions that correspond to their biogeoclimatic charcteristics - a bioregion in other words. Cascadia is an example of bioregionalism.

So erase the borders we have now and make new ones?? Getting the US populace on board with the NAU, seems like a tough sell considering the US has a strong identity. You know the proud to be an american, that type of thing.

Remiel

One other thing: While may people says that the conditions for World Government will not happen for hundreds of years... Remember that no one thought that the Soviet Union would be toast within a decade in 1981. Maybe they will not happen for hundreds of years, but maybe they will happen in the next fifty. Who really knows?

It will happen within the next 10 top 15 years. We already have the European Union and African Union. Just around the corner is the NAU, the Asian Union, and then you could have one for Australia and area, then another one for South America.

What was divided up and set as country borders earlier this past century and being combined again to form massive economic unions. That is really all they are economic unions, and only those who control those unions will benefit ecomically.