Hey Umair readers.

This article has too much truth to it. In the last decade, my home province of Alberta had two towns — Slave Lake with a population of 10,000 and Fort McMurray with a population of 80,000 — partially burn up due to encroaching forest fires. Two Alberta towns burning up in one decade when there were no Alberta towns burning up in the last century cannot be described as a coincidence.

Umair uses the example of Australian coal being sold to the Chinese. I would wager both sides thought the “bad” things from burning Australian coal in China would be exported somewhere other than Australia and China. Economics call it externalities — when someone else pays the real price. We could say that the Australians are getting their just deserts, but really, whatever climate change effects gave Australia’s big drought probably came from a lot of different sources.

What we have here is an international inability to manage the world economy. Why? Because this arrangement allows nations to believe they are exporting their problems elsewhere.

Should we want an effective version of international government?

If no, expect more Australia situations around the world, including — eventually — your home turf. All the Umair cavilings won’t stop the effects of climate change.

If yes, what kind of government? Russian democracy? That’s a joke. American democracy? Look at the two choices offered to American voters in 2016? Chinese oligarchy where the state can make sweeping reforms? Hmm, a lot of that Australian coal dust still hangs in their cities’ air. There really is no good example of a big country managing its own environment very well.

Maybe the government of the Nordic countries? They are much better in regards to the environment. But they still have political parties, and political parties can be hijacked by nefarious forces, especially at the international level.

How about Tiered Democratic Governance? Could this system be used to eventually form a world government? Give it a read and evaluate.