An independent California isn�t that wacky of an Idea
With recent public opinion surveys indicating that a third of Californians support peacefully
seceding from the United States, it�s time for the media to stop dismissing the idea
as a zany left coast response to the newly elected Republican federal government. The
statistic equates to nearly 13 million people. That�s a lot of people. It�s worth considering
what would happen if this long shot became a reality. You know, kind of like our reality-TV
president who was never going to win the White House.
It may be logistically implausible now. However, if four or eight years of Trump continue to
jettison California values from the mainstream and represent long-term irreconcilable differences
for blue and red American states, secession could be a reality in our lifetime. We wouldn�t
be the first nation to revisit unresolved issues from a civil war.
There�s been plenty written on the infeasibility and public opinion numbers associated with
CalExit, as secession is colloquially known. Few have really gamed it out beyond casually
pontificating about constitutional amendments or military action. If you inhale political
news like oxygen, theorizing about the implications of California secession is a highly stimulating
line of inquiry. When you get into the weeds, you start discovering some fascinating probabilities
and strategic options. I highly recommend playing along at home.
Forget about assembling the coalition that leads to a successful outcome for a minute.
Here is a thorough article by Ed Kilgore at New York Magazine detailing the improbability
of that difficult endeavor. This argument isn�t about that.
Instead, think about what Californians would face imagining a new socio-political order.
In the context of the United States, California is a liberal stalwart, delivering 55 electoral
college votes, amassing millions in political donations, protecting civilians at enormous
military bases, exporting produce and natural resources like oil, facilitating legal and
illicit global trade in ports like Oakland and San Pedro, managing migration from the
southern border, dictating culture through Hollywood, and uprooting economic and social
structures from Silicon Valley. If this enormously diverse geography and people were to answer
to itself, this identity might mature or shift significantly.
Californians could expect to initiate advanced-level progress in racial justice that might dramatically
alter the state�s concentrations of power. Factions of privileged hippies and tech libertarians
would likely spar with anti-colonialists and both groups would take on the Central California
farmers. The use of natural resources would disrupt the transportation and agrarian infrastructures.
International trade with the United States and countries around the world could be renegotiated.
Secession might even force Trump to build a wall all the way to Canada if he doesn�t
want any bad hombres sneaking in through Las Vegas.
It would hardly be the progressive utopia with which the state is often associated,
but it could yield breakthroughs in traditionally stagnant political squabbles. To those who
argue that California is obligated to stay and fight for the country�s soul, perhaps
free of restriction an independent California could actually demonstrate the success of
progressive values in action and serve as a better model for the world than the United
States. If being one of the stars and stripes means that the populace will be denying climate
science and gerrymandering districts in the interests of preserving white nationalism
for a few decades, it�s not unreasonable to want to provide California�s 40 million
residents with a better life while we can.
First, Californians would have to consider the sustainability of resources.
Secession or not, California has a great deal of leverage in what the Washington Post recently
described as the state�s escalating war with Trump. The state is less dependent on
federal funds and boasts one of the largest economies in the world. However, the potential
scarcity of natural resources is a serious vulnerability in an independent California,
especially in the face of potential sanctions by a hostile U.S. government.
�If California were to become an independent country, doing so would probably force us
to develop new policies, revisit traditional water rights arrangements, and place particular
strain on our agricultural economy, which uses around 70 percent of the state�s water
but produces only around 2 percent of its economic output,� says Peter Alonga, an
Associate Professor of History, Geography & Environmental Studies at UC Santa Barbara.
Alonga was quick to tell Salon that he believes secession would be �unlikely and unwise,�
but he also described some of the ways an independent California might be forced to
account for weaknesses � specifically with respect to the drought and fossil fuel reliance.
California receives about 14 percent of its water from the Colorado River, and losing
access would put a strain on Southern California municipal and agricultural water districts
in places like the Imperial Valley. Alonga notes, however, that �California�s share
of the Colorado River�s runoff already has declined considerably in recent decades, and
is likely to decline further in the future regardless.�
On its own fighting the drought, California would have to continue to look for ways to
supply water to citizens and businesses. One of the most popular methods currently being
explored is desalination, but Alonga says that would only make a cost-effective impact
on residential water use and not solve for challenges in the agriculture sector.
�Desalination efforts, such as the recently opened Carlsbad facility and a new one coming
soon in Santa Barbara County, can help increase water supplies in some urban areas. They will
likely be part of a future balanced water portfolio for many California cities,� Alonga
says. �They are not, however, a panacea. This is because they are costly to operate,
they consume vast amounts of energy, and they produce brine sludge waste. More important,
on an average year more than 70 percent of the water consumed in California is used for
agriculture. Desalinated water is too expensive to use for almost all agricultural purposes.
Desalination thus only really applies to residential areas, which make up a small proportion of
the state�s total water consumption.�
The farm-to-table crowd would likely cheer the idea of locally-sourced produce and divestment
from the global supply chain, but that could be met with significant opposition.
In addition to the water supply, for logistical and security purposes California would need
to be concerned with fueling its famous sprawl. As even cities like Los Angeles, known for
their driving dependencies, are building rail lines and investing in public transit, it�s
hard to predict how a U.S. State Department led by the former CEO of ExxonMobil will alter
the global energy markets.
�California is the third largest oil producing state after Texas and North Dakota, but before
Alaska and Oklahoma,� Alonga says, �so I think we would have a strong position in
global markets were we to go it on our own. On the other hand, a state-level regulatory
regime for fossil fuel extraction in California would likely look pretty different than the
one we currently have at the national level. There would probably be enormous public pressure,
for example, to decommission offshore platforms.�
California is also a candyland to the fracking industry, which could potentially increase
if the state were to be cut off by sanctions or other means. Since fracking involves injecting
chemicals into the ground, it should certainly raise some eyebrows if coupled with a widespread
increase in desalination of groundwater.
No comments:
Post a Comment