11am – 5pm
Saturday, December 12
Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch Promenade
(350 West Georgia St – map)

Join us at the Vancouver Public Library Central Branch for a full day of climate action including a panel discussion, a signature and photo wall, music, kids programming, speakers, theatre, a candle-light vigil, and more.

In Copenhagen, at the site of the negotiations, TckTckTck partners will represent this show of global solidarity using the photos, videos and pledges sent in from around the planet at a special vigil happening just outside the summit building.

Sign up for the event on Facebook or on Avaaz.org.  Click here for other events being planned outside of Vancouver and around the world.  Tell your friends.  Let’s show Harper we care about the climate – and he should too!

Other ways to take action this week

Can’t make it to the library on Saturday?  No problem.  Watch the events live online.

If you are a member of a faith group, please consider adding your name to the Joint Faith Leaders Declaration on Climate Change.

Send a message to your MP.

Join one of the many Fasts for Courage in Copenhagen being planned around the Lower  Mainland.

How can we help government become more open and responsive?

How do we as citizens organize to get better outcomes ourselves?

These questions form the basis of a conference called Vancouver ChangeCamp happening on June 20.  A few weeks ago I sat down with Reilly Yeo and Steve Williams, two of the organizers, to talk about the event and public engagement more generally.  I begin this episode with a short reflection on the recent STV referendum because, after all, voting is the predominant form of citizen engagement.

Listen to the interview

—–
Credits: This episode was made using Creative Commons media. Bumper: “Songs of Triumph” by scottaltham, Ocean waves crashing by Luftrum, Urban herring gulls by acclivity, Road construction by Heigh-hoo

Have you found yourself listening to a really good busker and wishing there was some way, more than just tossing a loonie, to show your appreciation?  Well Karen Fung has and it led her to conceive of Busker Idol.

“Busker Idol encourages crowds to participate, à la American Idol, to vote for the best buskers in a variety of categories.” What’s more, Karen envisions a highly interactive system that lets street performers share their creations and build a fan base directly. In this way, we, the public, gain a more direct role in promoting art in Vancouver.

Listen to the interview

—–
Credits: This episode was made using Creative Commons media. Bumper: “Songs of Triumph” by scottaltham, Ocean waves crashing by Luftrum, Urban herring gulls by acclivity, Road construction by Heigh-hoo, Episode: Market / busker sounds by vedas

—-

Creating a Culture of Prevention

The City of Vancouver’s Drug Policy Program (DPP) invites you to set aside March 25 for a day-long event focusing on prevention of harm from substance use.

The DPP is working with a broad-based coalition to initiate a movement towards creating a culture of prevention in Vancouver. The group is planning a day-long launch of this process on March 25.

The event will provide a platform to profile current prevention work in the community, facilitate discussion on current critical issues in prevention and offer a forum for dissemination of recent research and findings. The aim is to build public awareness and support for prevention in Vancouver.

Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson will open the March 25 event, followed by presentations from various leaders in the field of prevention. Confirmed presenters include:

• Dr. Anthony Hutchinson, CEO of the Brampton Neighbourhood Resource Centre in Ontario
• Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, Associate Professor in the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia
• Chris Kelly, Superintendent, Vancouver Board of Education
• Chelsea, a youth presenter
• Dr. Gabor Maté, staff physician at the Portland Hotel in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside.

The event will be held at the Segal Centre in downtown Vancouver.

Current partners in this initiative include the Centre for Addictions Research BC, the City of Vancouver’s Social Policy department and Drug Policy Program, the School Aged Children and Youth Substance Use Prevention Program (SACY), the University of British Columbia, the Urban Native Youth Association (UNYA), Vancouver Coastal Health, the Vancouver Police Department, the Vancouver Board of Education and Watari Research Association.

Please mark your calendar for March 25. We’ll send you a more detailed program later next month. For more information, please contact Zarina Mulla, Drug Policy Program, 604-871-6481, e-mail: zarina.mulla@vancouver.ca.

—

Link to Vancouver’s Four Pillar Drug Strategy webpage: http://vancouver.ca/fourpillars/

Assume that you have the power to change the manner in which nations deal with one another. Assume that the United Nations has hired you to propose a new order of international co-operation to reform “world governance” in all areas of international law and diplomacy. Assume that existing concepts of sovereignty and immunity do not exist.

Here is my answer. I would love to hear your thoughts.

Existing concepts of sovereignty and immunity are the result of a world organized into independent states – a structure which led to two world wars and which we inherited from an era of imperialism. The first priority of an independent unit is to look after itself, putting it in competition with every other independent unit and, thus, creating a system which will ultimately produce winners and losers; the winners reap the resources of the losers and the entire system tends towards convergence and a top-down hierarchy. Such is the history of man. The fundamental change I propose is that the new structure be built on a foundation of the interdependence of people. The organization of the world into discrete units, which we now call the nation-state, would not need to change; only how we view the interaction of those units would change. The first priority of an interdependent system is to protect and strengthen relationships making for a cooperative environment where resources are shared based on the needs of the whole system. Our end goal, then, is an international community made up of free-willed individuals (an unchangeable starting condition) but which operates as a single organism. Thus, our design must serve, above all else, to maximize the total health and life of the system.

Nature teaches us that the strongest systems are ones in which anomalies can be absorbed. Our system, then, must be flexible. Rules and regulations serve us well, but they must be able to bend if and when they do not serve. The system must be ready and able to adapt to new challenges, thus, the strategies employed today may not be the strategies needed tomorrow. Creativity and dialogue must be encouraged for these will undoubtedly serve us better than top-down planning. As much as possible, our system should mimic nature – it should act as an organism, not a machine.

Now let us turn to the details.

In keeping with the many-as-one model outlined above, I propose a new international governing body that we will call the International Assembly (IA). The powers of the IA will be broad, encompassing any aspect of life provided that it is directly relevant to international relations and the furtherance of its goals as spelled out in its constitution which may read in part:

The purpose of the International Assembly is to enhance the total quality of life for all current and future residents of Earth. The IA can assume authority in any area of international relations if it can demonstrate before the International Supreme Court that the authority it seeks has a specific and necessary purpose which cannot be achieved at a lower level of government, which does not contradict any existing purpose, and which interferes as little as possible with individual freedom.

The constitution would itself be a living document split into two parts. The first part, which contains primarily the piece described above, could only be changed pursuant to a strict amending formula. The second part would delineate the specific powers of the IA and the purposes for which those powers were created as per the formula in the first part. In other words, once the IA had successfully demonstrated that it required a specific power, that new power and the purpose for which it was created would be added to the second part of the constitution. Thus, the constitution would form a coherent and evolving document. The first part of the constitution would also include a formula for reviewing the second part and removing powers created for purposes no longer relevant.

Once a power is added to the constitution, a committee is struck to initiate the work required to fulfill the identified purpose. Every citizen of every state which is a member of the IA is legally required to make themselves available to serve on a committee as determined by random ballot and subject to a qualification assessment. Committee positions are all well and equally paid and carry significant prestige. Committee members serve for as long as necessary to fulfill the purpose for which they were called with the ultimate goal of devolving continued operations to lower levels of government, intergovernmental organizations, or non-governmental organizations.

The IA has three permanent organs: the international assembly, an executive, and a secretariat. The international assembly is the only body which can seek to add new powers and is composed of democratically elected representatives from anywhere in the world. Anybody may run except those already serving in governmental positions at any level. Elections are held every six years and voting is a two-stage process. The first vote, which we will call the nomination vote, merely qualifies candidates to enter the second round upon collection of a minimum number of nomination votes. There are strict limits to campaign financing during the first round and there is no limit to the number of candidates. Each candidate must pay a nomination fee directly to the IA. Second round campaigns are again subject to strict rules but this time the rules relate to the campaign methods with campaign funding provided equally to all nominees by only the IA. The executive is composed of a single representative from each state and is charged with overseeing the powers and purposes of the IA and its committees. In the role of executive, each person is held to the standard of a trustee. Finally, the secretariat carries out normal day to day operations of the IA. Funding for the IA comes from two sources: a very modest universal tax and a percentage of the gross domestic product of each member state.

So much for general governance. Now I will turn my attention to justice. Overall, I am very satisfied with the current structure of international law. The new international court would function much like the current International Court of Justice except that, where the ICJ is an organ of the UN, the new Court would be independent from the IA. It would consist of seven Justices, each appointed by a different country with appointments being rotated among all states, for staggered terms of seven years. The appointing state would pay the Justice’s salary plus an additional administration fee to cover the operating costs of the court. Sources of law would remain as they are now: custom, treaty, and flexible precedent. Like the ICJ, the new Court would only be available to hear disputes between member states. As much as possible, personal disputes should be handled by municipal courts. With regards to human rights, I would set up a universal declaration of human rights that was legally binding but subservient to similar municipal declarations that met the minimum standard. Other than that, I would not change a thing. I believe that disputes should be resolved at the lowest level possible.

In constructing this proposal, I am assuming that such institutions as the IMF and the WTO do not exist. As such, other aspects of the existing model such as currency convertibility, trade, and the regulation of business would fall under the administration of the IA if it was able to demonstrate the need to acquire such power. All other areas of policy and administration would fall to lower levels of government. Underlying this essay is the belief that the primary flaws in the current structure are: (1) A core philosophy which splits the world into independent units rather than interdependent units, and (2) the lack of a single governing organization. This second flaw requires clarification, however, since it may conjure up images of a one-world government. This is not what I propose, not only because it would be ineffective but also because it would be impossible to achieve democratically given the difficulties of obtaining consensus. Thus, my proposal is for a flexible international governance organization whose only starting point is a formula by which it can acquire further powers and a formula by which those powers can be again removed and devolved. It is by design that many of the other specifics are left out because to put too many in now would undermine the very philosophy which is at the core of this model; namely flexibility and evolution.

In the end, governance would continue as it does today with people retaining the right of self-determination. Indeed, this right is at the core of my proposal. Governance and dispute resolution would be left to the lowest level possible. Such a system would be flexible and highly resilient because it would tap into individual’s creative potential and it would balance people’s individual and social selves.

In August of this year, I will be getting married. A few years after that, I plan to have children. Some nights I lie awake and wonder what kind of world they will inherit. For this reason I am strongly in favor of action to reduce carbon emissions and halt the trend of human-induced climate destabilization.

I have followed the debate concerning which is the best strategy: carbon tax or cap and trade. They each have their strengths and weaknesses and, as always, the success of either will come down to the details of implementation. Time is short, we are told, and we must act now – our window is small. 80% by 2050 is the recommended target. Since a cap and trade system is the only option that gives us some certainty we can meet this ambitious timeline, it is my preferred strategy. A carbon tax would, perhaps, be simpler to implement, but there is no way to ensure reduction targets – that part would be left up to the market. Furthermore, taxes are not a permanent structure and are subject to changing politics. Mind you, a cap and trade system as implemented in the EU is an even worse option so let me outline what I believe to be the absolute requirements for an effective cap and trade system.

1) Carbon credits must not be given away free. This will only result in a windfall to the wealthiest and worst polluters. Auctioning credits would be better but care must be taken that this does not create a significant disadvantage for smaller industries and businesses.

2) Carbon offsets – money spent on reforestation or alternative energy research – must not be allowed to substitute for credits. Carbon offsets must be supplementary only or they will erode our efforts.

3) Safety valves that allow additional credits to be issued in times of distress must be disallowed or kept to a bare minimum for the same reason that offsets must be carefully controlled. Safety valves that open too easily will forever leak carbon. If any form of safety valve is used, I recommend a structured reduction in the availability of it over time.

4) For simplicity and maximum coverage, carbon should be capped where in enters the market, not where it is released into the atmosphere. This includes all GHG emissions, not just CO2.

5) Finally, the revenue generated by selling carbon credits must be returned directly to citizens, not added to general government revenue. This will mitigate the hit that low and middle income families will take as the price of energy rises. For this purpose, I recommend delegating, to a regional or national Trustee, the responsibility of setting and selling credits and recycling revenue. Every long-term resident is a beneficiary of the Trust which pays dividends, one share per person. This structure has several benefits:

a. It returns cash to people in the most equitable fashion, helps offset the inevitable carbon cost increase, and sets up a third form of income that will benefit low income families the most. It is, thus, fair and progressive.

b. It can be used to grant representation and rights to future generations, building inter-generational sustainability into the system;

c. It provides better protection for the atmosphere because Trustees are held to a much higher legal duty of care – their responsibilities are specific and dedicated;

d. Since the responsibilities of a Trustee are specific and dedicated, delegation of this most important task would dramatically speed up the transition.

This final point should also help in responding to one of the main arguments against a cap and trade system: namely that it is more complex than a tax and will take longer to implement. That being said, a tax on carbon remains the most expedient options for pricing pollution and is preferable to no action, so I strongly urge you to include it in your next budget. The same requirements apply, though. First, the tax must be revenue neutral. By that I mean that it must be returned to citizens in the form of tax credits. I do not consider spending the revenue on public works or “green projects” to be revenue neutral any more than spending property tax to maintain our roadways is revenue neutral. Second, the tax must be significant. An article on the Progressive Economics’ website titled Carbon Tax vs Cap and Trade suggests that in order to have any real effect, the tax must reach $100 per ton. Obviously this steep a tax cannot be introduced immediately without adverse effects but we must plan towards it. The common consensus is that $30 per ton ought to be the minimum starting point.

The ideas above are not mine. The Trust concept has been put forward by Peter Barnes in the books Who Owns the Sky and Capitalism 3.0, links to which can be found at http://www.onthecommons.org/.

At present, the cost associated with the use of the commons we call the atmosphere, is zero. This must change and I fully support any such action. In addition to immediate action in the upcoming budget, I urge you to adopt a near-term strategy that places management of our atmosphere in Trust for all citizens, present and future.

Sincerely,

Ashley Webster