Time to change the world, not change worlds!

We've all heard the warnings about how climate change is wreaking havoc on crop productivity, fisheries, forests, livestock, water resources and soils. We know as well that food and water are the most fundamental necessities for life, and lack of access is the flash-point that ignites civil unrest yet the UN insists on taking its cue from the very corporations who are responsible for degrading the planet, destroying lives and creating the crisis in the first place. With a handful of corporations owning and controlling most of the world's wealth, little can be funded and executed on a large scale without the funding, involvement and decision making of the handful of ultra wealthy. Which means ceding control to those corporate interests and doing their bidding. Money is the power within capitalism and so many “green” initiatives are beholden to corporate puppet masters. By endorsing the activities of the planet's worst climate offenders in agribusiness and industrial agriculture it will undermine the very objectives that environmentalists claim to aim for.

One such partnership was the  UN "Sustainable Energy For All" Initiative (SEFA) which sounds all very nice.  But behind this initiative are the very companies and institutions that have profited from  the highly destructive, climate damaging, livelihood undermining soil, water and diversity destroying, industrial model. Precisely what we need to get away from. Tellingly, the very first step toward establishing that initiative was to consult with an array of the world's worst fossil fuel industries. Using a title like “Sustainable Energy For All”“ leave most people who do not have time to research these initiatives in depth, and are not familiar with the twists and turns of word play, confused and misled. Biofuelwatch worked with others to uncover the green-wash pointing out in their briefing "Sustainable Energy For All or Sustained Profits For a Few" that the initiative was fundamentally flawed - relying on a handpicked set of corporate leaders, including those with deep interests in expansion of fossil fuels and infrastructure for its delivery. The SEFA Initiative provided no criteria whatsoever towards defining what is or is not to be supported. The term "sustainable" could thus be applied to anything, including expansion of gas, oil, nuclear power, mega-dams, industrial bio-fuels.

While SEFA proclaims its charitable intent to deliver energy access to those lacking it, their chief aim appears more directed toward increasing companies' ability to shape and direct public-sector energy policies and to create favorable investment climates. Delivering access to energy for those who lack it may be the Trojan horse for an underlying goal, far more profitable and less charitable. Hence constructing pipelines and grids down the spine of Africa (the goal of the related Africa Clean Energy Corridor Initiative) is likely as anything aimed at delivering electricity to enable the expansion of various energy intensive mining industries as it is to provide poor, rural women with opportunities to charge their cell phones.

SEFA lists among its "accomplishments" Obama's "Power Africa" initiative. In November 2013, a coalition of African groups did not mince words when they wrote: 
“When we read statements from the White House about "new discoveries of vast reserves of oil and gas," and that "The recent discoveries of oil and gas in sub-Saharan Africa will play a critical role in defining the region's prospects for economic growth and stability, as well as contributing to broader near-term global energy security" - our response is to say, "Leave the oil in the soil; leave the coal in the hole." It is simply impossible to continue to exploit fossil fuels if we want to avoid climate catastrophe.”

Another project listed under commitments is Eni SpA. Eni is one of the world's largest energy companies, largely Italian, which has been developing tar sands and palm oil in Republic of Congo. Never heard of it? Neither have most Congolese, because virtually nothing about Eni's agreements with the Congolese government has been disclosed. Given the track record on both tar sands and palm oil, is it not highly problematic that such projects should be sold to the public as "sustainable development for poverty alleviation?"

There seems to be no end to the nonsense that the business and industry community will offer up under the guise of providing solutions, both inside and outside the UN.  The CEO of Saudi gas company Aramco announced at the private sector luncheon a new "Oil and Gas Climate Initiative," which aims to explore what the industry is willing (voluntarily that is) to do to provide "solutions," including energy access, reduction of flaring and methane emissions, carbon capture and storage, and expansion of natural gas and renewables. It seems highly unlikely, to say the least, that the oil and gas industry is going to solve the climate crisis.

There are also many wishy-washy, nonsense calls by environmental activists ("100 percent renewable energy, now," "Go Vegan: Save the Planet," "electric cars," "biofuels" etc.) but some conclude that our only real chance for addressing the multipronged crises we face is to target the roots of the problem. Many are recognizing that all of the various issues, concerns and struggles that we contend with - from tar sands, to fracking, from nukes and uranium mining to biofuels, from oppression and incarceration to poverty, sexism, racism and a lack of basic rights - all stem from a common root cause namely capitalism. With  everything at stake, we can and must use our power in numbers to put an end to the utterly grotesque system that currently reigns and which has demonstrated that it is willing to go to any lengths - including destroying our only planet - in the name of endless profit-making and accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a tiny few. Only then can real solutions prevail as we figure out new ways to live in a post-capitalist world. We cannot expect solutions to come from those invested in endless growth and who talk of carbon off-sets.

Adapted from here