With BRICS, and with other initiatives, Russia and China are leading a movement to overcome the hegemony of the US and its oligarch backers. They want a multi-polar world where the different powers remain independent and sovereign, and no one nation dominates. They want the UN to be the place where nations work out their differences, not a place that dictates to nations. Only if a nation goes rogue would this UN get into the business of using force.
The situation is very much like when the US was founded. According to the Constitution, each of the states was to be essentially sovereign, with very little power in Washington, mainly limited to foreign affairs. All powers not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution were “reserved to the states, and to the people respectively”.
This didn’t last, because once there is a center of power, elite groups seek to take control of that center and extend its power. The same thing happened with the EU, which was supposed to be based on the principle of subsidiarity. In the case of the US, the gradual centralization of power was not intended by the drafters of the Constitution. In the case of the EU, it was intended from the beginning. Subsidiarity was only a deceptive selling point, a campaign promise made when the Maastricht Treaty was being debated.
Need I say more, about the fate of an updated, well-intentioned UN, with the oligarchy being one of the parties helping to establish it?
As regards petroleum reserves and climate, I’m not sure how best to respond to you. My own research tells me that we’re not running out of petroleum reserves and that CO2 has no measurable effect on climate. We could talk about the science if you want to, but that would be a case of each of us trying to convince the other about beliefs, which I’ve already said I don't see as a productive way forward.
Let me respond instead in two different ways. First, it makes no difference what we believe about climate. We have no say in government policies. Polarization over climate beliefs serves only to divide us. It’s become a version of identity politics.
Second, we need to be aware of how the elite-sponsored fear of climate change is being used politically. If they really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, they’d need to do things like replacing the automobile as the world’s primary form of transportation, and replacing energy-intensive agriculture with old-fashioned farming methods. Instead, they are using the fear to justify introducing the micromanagement of our lives, with smart meters and the like. Climate activists are unknowingly playing right into their hands. We may be restricted to one shower a week, and only allowed to travel with government permission, but CO2 emissions will continue to rise.
_____