Globalization’s most important politicians will be mayors—not presidents
Saturday, June 12, 2010 at 12:06AM 
Increasingly, I view the globalized world as a network of interconnected coastal megacities. Get that network right in all its complexity and security, and you’ve covered much of the flows that define globalization (energy, people, money, security, food, etc.). Doing that in a sustainable environmental fashion and you’ve conquered so much more of the enduring challenges associated with globalization’s continued—and rapid—ramp up.
Here’s a Bloomberg BusinessWeek piece (and yes, the mag is a lot better with Bloomberg attached, I will say) that says major metros increasingly lead the way in the global fights against carbon emissions. As Toronto’s mayor puts it, “We’re not going to wait for national politicians.”
I think this is true the world over—and a good sign. Cities share new ideas more easily and faster than nation-states. Mayors, as a rule, are far more pragmatic than national pols.
Why this especially makes sense on the environment: major cities, over the past century, have already experienced temperature rises equivalent to what’s predicted for this century due to global warming. This has happened because of the heat-sink effect created by all those buildings, infrastructure, operations, etc. Cities are just unnaturally warmer than rural areas.
The variations here globally are profound: 70% of Tokyo residents make their way other than by car; in Houston it’s 95% the other way.
Let the experiments begin!
Reader Comments (2)
And, thus, the world as a whole (like the United States in your "Arizona: The Right Experiment To Run"), benefits from a diversity of approaches to dealing with various problems.
Does this logic (that freedom to experiment -- and many different experimenters = more and better solutions to problems) does this not suggest that the world as a whole might be better served by NOT being bound too closely or too strictly to any one political and/or economic model (for example: globalization, democracy or market capitalism)?
Thus, the benefit of such experiments/variations on the theme as "state capitalism" -- or even more abarrant, unusual or "experimental" government/economic models?
A "National" or federal government that sees all, governs all is no answer, not now, not ever . . Each locale has specific and diverse needs and capacities, with different requirements that something like our government (the last 200 years at least) cannot oversee or govern with any sort of efficency or fairness . .
It can be readily seen in any "National Disaster" which ends up with nothing achieved other than someone becoming a political whipping boy, because he's expected to know immediately, the needs and assistance anything that occurs might demand.
Localities know and understand their needs far greater than any bunch of centralized politicians, no matter how close the communications they say they maintain.